Post #3870922
2026-07-16 22:52 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@vampiress@eigenmagic.net 2026-07-16 22:55
- The last third is SO steeped in pro-Capitalist / pro-American propaganda, it's the part of the book that's aged the most poorly. It's basically Clancy jacking off while thinking of Reagan and Country. - I was mildly entertained to identify a few technical inaccuracies in the novel wrt some of the submarine stuff. Not a criticism of Clancy's research, more than certain things weren't KNOWN at the time he wrote it (notably about the Alfa-class boat's reactors, lead-bismuth cooled beasts). - Clancy's quick and free shifting between various POV characters, wherever he needed to go to tell his story, is good. I like that style. It gives a broad feeling to the story. - Clancy is famously for obscenely detailed technical research, but to his credit the characters are often quite well written. I mean, none have complex character arcs, but they feel alive enough to make you believe everyone from the SOSUS operators to the CNO have interior and exterior lives. - It's fascinating reading it again now and comparing the believably messy operation it depicts to the streamlined version in the movie. A case study in good adaptation IMO - takes the core of the story and strips it back to its major beats. - I forgot that if anything the film version cut BACK some of the action sequences - Red October actually RAMS Tupolev's Alfa to destroy it in the book, believable given Typhoons are designed to be ice-breakers.
-
@itgrrl@infosec.exchange 2026-07-24 02:48
@vampiress@eigenmagic.net as someone who has seen (and enjoyed) the film maybe once in its entirety, hasn’t read any Clancy, & knows approximately SFA about subs, I found this thread Quite Interesting™ & have shared it with a friend who was^ a submariner & SIGINT-er 🙃 ^ hmm, can you ever really be an ex- submariner or SIGINT-er…? 🤔