Am höchsten bewertete kritische Rezension
9 Personen fanden diese Informationen hilfreich
am 17. Juni 2000
When I began reading Tom Clancy's books I was enthralled with the author's exciting plots- my summers were usually devoted to reading and re-reading his books as I'd imagine myself in the thick of the action. Since Clancy wrote 1991's "The Sum Of All Fears", his books have become longer, duller and less interesting. I found "Executive Orders" to be his worst work to date. The slow meandering plot is pretty hard to follow- not because it's so complicated. It's not. The problem is that the plot takes so much time getting going that you lose interest as Clancy positions the pieces one-by-one. The actual plot is pretty derivative of all of Clancy's other books, so the ending isn't much of a surprise. The most basic problem with Clancy's work is in his characters. Clancy obviously envisions Ryan to be a blue-collar everyman, just one that slipped into the White House through extraordinary circumstances. Much is made by the author of his hero's status as an "independent". It's too bad that Ryan comes across, consistently, as a doctrinaire, by-the-numbers, straight out of the pages of The National Review, conservative. Clancy, who has always been injecting his right-of-center politics into his books (though more obviously and stridently of late), puts his politics out in front here. "Executive Orders" is more politics than policy. Clancy is on his soapbox and the plot too often gets shuffled to the back for President Ryan to give some loopy tirade about liberal "special interests" (and there aren't conservative ones?). First clue that non-conservatives won't be given equal time: the book is dedicated to Ronald Reagan, who "won the Cold War" according to Clancy. Give me a break. Too bad Clancy couldn't have made his case without his hero's preachy speeches. After hearing Ryan's 1,314th speech informing another character he "is not a politician!" the reader will want to yell back: "Then shut up already!" The character of Jack Ryan has always been a difficult one to judge- heroic by far in Clancy's other novels, Ryan makes the transition from preachy, sanctimonious hero to preachy, sanctimonious jerk in this novel. A Tom Clancy novel hits you hard and fast and the action takes your breath away, but when the plot slows down and we try to get character moments they sometimes seem painfully forced. Clancy characters are written like post-it notes: this is the Good Guy who is a conservative/soldier/CIA analyst, etc. This is the Bad Guy/Girl who is a liberal/Russian spy/terrorist/feminist, etc. Can you really tell me how much different the characters of Jack Ryan and John Clark are from one another, aside from their names and character histories? Not a whole heck of a lot. I'm sure Clancy thinks he's giving America the kind of leader (read: conservative) they want in this book, but Ryan comes across as a breezy, "I'm-doing-the-right-thing and people will see that" conservative whose politics and style bear a striking resemblance to Newt Gingrich. The old Goldwater-for-President slogan "In your heart you know he's right", is a favorite dream of conservatives and Clancy relies on it here. Why does the subplot with the "mountain men" militia group fizzle out so spectacularly? Probably because Clancy can't bring himself to make people whose political viewpoint he sympathizes with the bad guys. In the end the reader will sigh with relief when he or she finishes this monstrosity. I did. My advice to you, don't even pick this one up.