NationStates Jolt Archive

Who is better?

For me, it is Clark without question. If anyone doubts me, read "Without Remorse." You see a very human man named John Kelly become John Clark and what is possibly the greatest novel of this genre. It is absolutely amazing to see the story behind the legend.

JAMES BOND PWNS EVERYTHING....He just rules/ the guns the cars/ and contantly he is having sex LOL :p

I blame media saturation!

I go for James Bond. Partly because he kicks ass, partly because I've never heard of the other guy.

Care to spend 5 minutes enlightening a broke student?

Clark is highly interesting...and very well written...and I love Clancy...

But James Bond is the best. Always has been...always will be. He'd kick Clark's ass and steal his girlfriend at the same time. Clark almost seems like a good villian in the Bond universe.

The difference is...Clark is supposed to seem somewhat realistic. Bond isn't. As I said, Bond is the best, and he was written that way.

JAMES BOND PWNS EVERYTHING....He just rules/ the guns the cars/ and contantly he is having sex LOL :p
Yeah, but he is a moron who should be dead a million times over. Clark would kill Bond easily. He would sneak up and put a nice .22 diameter hole in his head with his .45-.22 pistol with a silencer he made himself. THat or he'll get him with his Ka-Bar knife.

Clark is highly interesting...and very well written...and I love Clancy...

But James Bond is the best. Always has been...always will be. He'd kick Clark's ass and steal his girlfriend at the same time. Clark almost seems like a good villian in the Bond universe.

The difference is...Clark is supposed to seem somewhat realistic. Bond isn't. As I said, Bond is the best, and he was written that way.
Bond lives because everyone captures him, but kills him slowly. Clark would capture Bond like all of the others, but instead of spending hours delaying with some laser that will cut him in half he will shoot him immediately.

Besides, Bond ought to be dead a million times over and lives due to dumb enemies. If he doesn't die from that I think he'd have AIDS by now.

Anyone who has read "Without Remorse" ought to vote Clark.

FUCK YEAH & thats John Terrence Kelly biznatch remember it!

Who will ever forget the Compression Chamber? That is the best scene ever if you want to talk about nice sadistic torture and interrogations.

I also love it when Clark is going out on the streets of Baltimore as a street wino to sneak up and kill silently with a nice .45-.22 conversion pistol with a silencer. I love how he uses the Ka-Bar on Rick, right through between the ribs cutting the heart in half.

Clark, for several of the above reasons. Bond's never had an enemy that really tested him.

Clark and Bond really don't compare. They are different characters in different genres. The James Bond of the original books (let's stay away from the movies because, as enjoyable as many of them are, with the possible exception of the first two movies <Dr. No and From Russia With Love> it isn't the James Bond of the books) is the action-hero. While his trade is that of 'spy', he is not a spy hero. He is meant to exemplify all the manly virtues of the 50s and early 60s, when his books were written. He is the gambler, the womanizer, the fighter. He also exemplifies many of the virtues of the British gentleman, as seen from the point of view of the British gentleman who created him. A man who believes in a certain amount of sporting fairplay, but who plays the game ruthlessly and to win never the less. James Bond has more in common with the pulp heroes who preceded him and the 'men's adventure' heroes who followed him (especially Matt Helm and Remo Williams) than he does with the heroes of more psychological spy fiction. Of the latter, the best example of the spy hero is the nameless, bespectacled Englishman of the Len Deighton novels that begin with 'The Ipcress File' (if you like a reasonable amount of action) or George Smiley of John Le Carre fame (if you prefer psychological action rather than physical action).

John Clark is the 'good soldier' of military fiction. Clancy writes technothrillers, a very different genre from either true spy fiction or the pulp-style action-adventure fiction of the James Bond novels. There is an emphasis on pseudo-realism that is not made in the Bond novels. The words 'pseudo-realism' are important because Clancy's depictions are not truly realistic, they are highly idealized. They are meant, however, to feel as if they were accurate and realistic. Clark behaves as we feel a real covert operative should behave, with the result being that we believe in him.

So as to which is 'better', it depends on your literary tastes. They live in different worlds and operate by different rules, so they impartial and equal comparison of the two is not a realistic excercise.

Exactly realism is a factor too. Do you really think James Bond would live as long as he has, no hes to showy no real spy would expose himself like that. Clark on the other hand is a genuine shadow warrior. I recommend Without Remorse along with everybody elsewhose read it. I read it once a year just to get that shiver down my spine when justice is finally served.

Rainbow Six 3 pwned. So John Clark it is :D

Clark and Bond really don't compare. They are different characters in different genres. The James Bond of the original books (let's stay away from the movies because, as enjoyable as many of them are, with the possible exception of the first two movies <Dr. No and From Russia With Love> it isn't the James Bond of the books) is the action-hero. While his trade is that of 'spy', he is not a spy hero. He is meant to exemplify all the manly virtues of the 50s and early 60s, when his books were written. He is the gambler, the womanizer, the fighter. He also exemplifies many of the virtues of the British gentleman, as seen from the point of view of the British gentleman who created him. A man who believes in a certain amount of sporting fairplay, but who plays the game ruthlessly and to win never the less. James Bond has more in common with the pulp heroes who preceded him and the 'men's adventure' heroes who followed him (especially Matt Helm and Remo Williams) than he does with the heroes of more psychological spy fiction. Of the latter, the best example of the spy hero is the nameless, bespectacled Englishman of the Len Deighton novels that begin with 'The Ipcress File' (if you like a reasonable amount of action) or George Smiley of John Le Carre fame (if you prefer psychological action rather than physical action).

John Clark is the 'good soldier' of military fiction. Clancy writes technothrillers, a very different genre from either true spy fiction or the pulp-style action-adventure fiction of the James Bond novels. There is an emphasis on pseudo-realism that is not made in the Bond novels. The words 'pseudo-realism' are important because Clancy's depictions are not truly realistic, they are highly idealized. They are meant, however, to feel as if they were accurate and realistic. Clark behaves as we feel a real covert operative should behave, with the result being that we believe in him.

So as to which is 'better', it depends on your literary tastes. They live in different worlds and operate by different rules, so they impartial and equal comparison of the two is not a realistic excercise.

I disagree. Though they are definitely of different sub-genres, the nature of the question at hand makes it answerable. If the question was, "Who is the best in this sub-genre?" it couldn't be answered. However, the question was simply "Who's cooler?" which is not specific to any genre. Therefore, the quetion is completely answerable. Heck, it could even be comparing Darth Vader to a care bear (of which we all know Vader wins, which only further proves the point if you think about it).

I have endless respect for seperating the genres appropriately, don't get me wrong. I fancy myself a writer, for the matter. But yes, the question is valid. However, is it necessary? We all know that James Bond is cooler. Let's face it.

THere is one fact, if Bond faced Clark, Bond would die. He always gets captured and is allowed to escape by dumb adversaries. Clark would just shoot him.

Spike Spiegel.

I voted Bond, but as long as John Barry does the music, I'm on board.

bump

Clark, for several of the above reasons. Bond's never had an enemy that really tested him.

006 was probably the best bond enemy in my opinion.

006 was probably the best bond enemy in my opinion.
But he was a moron who left Bond in the chopper with an ejection possible. Clark would screw the theatrics and just shoot Bond in the head and end it there. If Clark was a Bond enemy, Bond would be dead.

But he was a moron who left Bond in the chopper with an ejection possible. Clark would screw the theatrics and just shoot Bond in the head and end it there. If Clark was a Bond enemy, Bond would be dead.

But where would the movie be if bond died, or if alec didn't reveal his true self, or if they didn't have the chopper stunt, or if bond and natalya didn't meet, etc.?

John Clark/Kelly > the original James Bond as written by Fleming > Sean Connery's James Bond in the movies > James Bond as written by Raymond Benson > all other James Bonds

Clark is realistic. Fleming's Bond was fun and moderately realistic, as was Connery's. The rest is comic book silly. Especially the stupid Roger Moore period - bad comic book silly. (And don't even mention Moonraker! :::shudders:::)

bond sucks
clark rules
i mean after what he did with that decomp. chamber that was f*cking sweet

Yeah, but he is a moron who should be dead a million times over. Clark would kill Bond easily. He would sneak up and put a nice .22 diameter hole in his head with his .45-.22 pistol with a silencer he made himself. THat or he'll get him with his Ka-Bar knife.

No he couldn't, because Bond doesn't die. I mean come ON - he's been a superspy for over 40 years and he hasn't gotten kiiled ONCE.

I guess you don't watch the bond films, or you'd know just how silly your supposition sounds. Bond would've heard Clark 'sneak up' on him and a ladyfriend, and confronted, tussled with, and dispatched the hapless Clark before his conquest-of-the-evening was done freshening up in the toilet.

Extra points for managing to do it without messing up his hair.

But he was a moron who left Bond in the chopper with an ejection possible. Clark would screw the theatrics and just shoot Bond in the head and end it there. If Clark was a Bond enemy, Bond would be dead.

No, because Bond doesn't get killed that way. Bond appears in Bond Movies. Not in Clark movies. And James Bond doesn't get killed in James Bond movies, though guys named 'Clark' certainly might. Because they're not James Bond. Who doesn't get killed. Especially not by guys named Clark armed simply with pistols.