Talk:The Bear and the Dragon

Criticism

Changed minor to large. And who removed the entire criticism section???

This was one of the more controversal Tom clancy's novels I dont think the entire section on criticisms of should have been removed.

cool book bad idea.

I think that there should be a responce to the criticism in the article to make it less point of view. However the statement " which Clancy used only as a means of making the characters belivable and not to slur Asians." ignores the main criticism, which is not only does Clancy makes his characters use racist terms, he also characterices Asians in an extremely negative light through their characterisations and actions. If someone has a source link perhaps we could put a modified version of the statement back in.--Gary123 02:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was a little suprised to see that the criticism section was all 'external' - the world's reaction to the book, with little or no commentary on the internal logic of the story. If nothing else, Chester Nomura's technical scheme should raise at least two questions; instead, people only seem to care that he got laid. Wyvern 10:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I decaps-locked the title of this section. Dappled Sage 22:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Needs Rewriting

The whole section on criticisms needs rewriting. It's hardly encyclopedic at this juncture, more of an informal commentary with no sources cited or rebuttals included. We need reviews that discuss each of these criticisms, statements from those Asian-American groups that were offended, and sources for other material in the criticism section, or it's just a rant and not true criticism.
Furthermore, the writing isn't very clear. One sentence in particular reads that "Moderates and liberals were made uneasy by the intense amount of right wing influence in the novel including condemnation of abortion, a flat tax, and a negative portrayal of liberals."
We need reviews and sources for this grand sweeping statement (I'm a moderate-to-liberal and I wasn't "made uneasy" by any of that), but it also needs serious rewriting. The way it reads now, the novel condemns abortion, a flat tax, and negative portrayal of liberals. That doesn't make any sense. Someone needs to do some serious work on this - I'll put it on my list. -Xinoph 21:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Simply look at 1) the book itself 2) the reasons given for negative reviews at amazon 3) abd several of the links and I think and objective person would see a clear antiasian and conservative bias. But I agree that perhaps the criticisms should be better worder and perhaps qualified. --Gary123 02:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Reviews on Amazon are no more authoritative than crap you run across on any blog. Just because it shows up on the web doesn't make it a credible source. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you should specify that most of the racial slurs in the book were used against the Chinese specifically. Also citiations are needed for the military inaccuracies.

All the references to "Asians" being slurred are inaccurate. The hero-spy is Japanese, for instance. And soldiers always refer to their enemies in vitriolic terms. When there is a war on, it would be utterly unrealistic to depict fighters who did not gleefully demonize the enemy. Depicting a probable action in a book does not equal an endorsement. Only books where the author is suspected of conservatism receive this ridiculous pillorying--unless the author is running for the senate, anyway. Preston McConkie 11:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all the references to "'Asians'" being slurred are blatantly inaccurate. In fact, it is specifically the Chinese who are being slurred. Preston, you contradict yourself by acknowledging the fact that soldiers refer to their wartime enemies in vitriolic (corrosive; even harsher than a slur) terms. That the protagonist is of Japanese descent means nothing, since (a.) he is of Japanese (not Chinese) descent, (b.) his first name is Chet (not Shota, Taro, or Shotaro), (c.) he is an American agent, and (d.) according to the author, he has a small penis ("Godzilla"/"Japanese sausage," anyone?). Your selective amnesia has caused you to forget the well-known fact that the average Caucasian male is "better equipped" for lovemaking than the average Japanese, in Tom Clancy's own endearing words. Depicting a probable action may not equal an endorsement, but neither does the casting of a member of an enemy race (in this case a faux pas, as he is not even Chinese) as a protagonist. It is doubtful the author of Debt of Honor would be at all amicably disposed toward the Japanese. Even his understanding of the Koreans, minor protagonists in Debt of Honor, is comically inaccurate. They do not "share the same genetic identity" with the Japanese, nor are they all ready to avenge themselves upon their neighbors for subjugating them in the past. In conclusion, The Bear and the Dragon deserves to be pilloried, stocked, tarred and feathered, to serve as an example to all who are oblivious to the most dangerous kind of literary racism--that which is latent and (supposedly) unintentional, and so propagates itself like a virus, infecting the minds of hapless readers. For the record, I do not suspect Tom Clancy of anything other than ignorance, though I would posit that any controversial book is unfortunately subject to premature scrutiny. In the case of The Bear and the Dragon, however, the author's willing ignorance is inexcusable. To the anonymous lout who could care less, I salute you for your saintly sympathy. That you could care less means you care enough to vouch for us Asians. I am moved to tears by your goodwill and compassion, whilst shedding tears of ironic laughter at your illiteracy. I hope you become at least proficient in your own language, so that you may not suffer humiliation at the tongues and pens of non-native English speakers. As for me, I am quite fond of Japanese fish sausage, having grown up on it. Slicing into thin medallions and panfrying yields the best result. Jkim585 07:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Jkim, I'm not sure what you're criticizing when you accuse me of misusing language; you agree from the start with my first point, which is that Chinese do not equal Asians, since "Asian" is an encompassing term meant to replace the use of "Oriental" to describe persons of Mongoloid appearance. As for my second point, the hero-spy being of North American birth does not change his ancestry. If his birthplace is the issue, then you need to argue that Clancey is a xenophobe, not a racist.

Further, you raise points I never touched on, but in doing so you seem to duplicate the same errors I was contending against. I said it would be unrealistic to depict soldiers who don't vilify their enemies, yet you claim it's a result of Clancey's ignorance. As a veteran who served 2 years in Korea and fought in the first Gulf War, I can say that much of my interest in Clancey comes from him being the least ignorant military writer I've encountered.

Since you insist on raising the issue of penis sizes, I must say that the truth is a defense, both in literature and libel. I thought the sex discussions and scenes in The Bear and the Dragon were unnecessarily detailed; one of my original attractions to Clancey's work was the absence of this kind of luridness. In this respect, TB&TD is the worst offender of all Clancey's books that I've read. But I remain very favorably disposed toward Koreans despite the fact that, as a soldier stationed near the DMZ whose unit was made up of 20 percent Korean soldiers and probably 50 percent black soldiers (I don't say African-Americans because a significant number of these black soldiers were of Central American, Puerto Rican and even Caribbean descent), where 100 men shared a bay shower, I learned that the tales about the differences in penis size among the races are accurate (with individual variations, of course).

In fact, at Camp Pelham where I served, next to the exit-door at the compound's guardhouse were three boxes of condoms for soldiers to fortify themselves with before venturing into the prostitute-infested town of Son Ya Ri. The boxes were labeled large, medium and small. I used to joke that they should read Negroid, Caucasoid and Oriental.

Yet I remember being annoyed when, one night as I headed to the 'ville, the (black) sergeant at the guard shack noticed that I bypassed the condoms (I never took any, since I didn't need them) and said, "Wait, McConkie," and reached into the small box to pull out a handful for me. I really don't know which size might have fit best, but I thought his choice was offensively presumptive. So I understand from experience that no guy likes having the mass of his manhood called into question.

Yes, it was in poor taste for Clancey to write even jokingly about the size of various races' dongs, but you can't accuse him of ignorance and I don't think you can accuse him of even latent bigotry; there seems no evidence for it, unless you adopt the school of thought that Caucasians must pretend there are no differences between races except the ones that are flattering to non-whites. I don't think you will find Clancey ignoring the first fact which anyone acquainted with East Asians already knows: that their average IQs are the highest among any major racial group.

Interestingly, there seems to be an inverse relationship between average IQ and average dong size [with variations among individuals, of course--hence it is likely a correlative, not a causal, relationship]. Now, you might claim THAT statement is obnoxious and politically incorrect, but you can't argue that it's ignorant. And when the truth backs up a statement, you can then only argue about the writer's motives for making it.

In Clancey's case, where detailed accuracy and verisimilitude are the hallmarks that have made him a phenomenal bestseller, it's far more likely that he's simply following his habit of being precise and realistic, than it is that he's trying to spread racial hatred or derision. If you haven't noticed the lengths he goes to make African-American and Latinos into heroes, and how he defends Muslims and Arabs as decent people, then we cannot conclude that Clancey is a bigot or racist. And I think it is not coincidental that he has an Asian spy hero in the very book where there's a war against an Asian nation.

I am not arguing that Clancey doesn't have a beef against China or Japan. Certainly, the plots in both his books "The Bear and the Dragon" and "Debt of Honor" are based on the idea that there is both present and potential tension between the U.S. and those nations, though the war with Japan in "Debt of Honor" is based on a group of Japanese industrialists seizing the government (leftists should love that part, since they blame industrialists for suborning government and opposing liberal policies). And please note, that in the book that comes between these two novels, "Executive Orders," Jack Ryan carries out Clancey's conservative fanatsies--which include returning recognition to the government of Taiwan, scrapping the "one China" policy, and standing up militarily for an ethnic Chinese nation. In the same book, he begins with a warm rapprochement between Japan and the U.S. by the legitimate Japanese government.

Fare more significant, though, is the actual end to TB&TD, where Chinese students overthrow the evil regime with the help of a principled insider and set China on a new path. Clancey clearly takes pains to show that it is the governing personalities of China who were the problem, not the Chinese people themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prestonmcconkie (talk • contribs) 05:01, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

So please don't call Clancey or his books racist when the body of his work, and even your own best arguments, don't support that notion. Preston McConkie 23:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Military Buffs

I added more critisisms of the book based on the inaccuracies on the PLA, can be verified here: www.sinodefence.com and www.sinodefenceforum.com

toping the ny times best seller list? I don't think so. And Clancy isnt exactly a liberty spreading humanitarian.--Gary123 00:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It might be true, but I hardly think you would qualify as an unbiased judge of his work. Mentor397 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary

The section starts off good, but about halfway through suddenly takes a nosedive. It needs some work. BioTube 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary also contains an error. Golovkov's car isn't destroyed in the assassination attempt, nor is the attempt foiled by his bodyguard. The assassin(s) target the wrong car; one that is same build and colour and owned by the former head of the KGB's "sparrow school".

Fair use rationale for Image:TomClancy TheBearAndTheDragon.jpg

Image:TomClancy TheBearAndTheDragon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

World order

Considering the current world order, this story is just ridiculous. The criticism section should be re-established. --2.245.156.122 (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)