Talk:The Teeth of the Tiger

TotT not the best Clancy book ever
Sorry, I just couldn't sit there & allow TotT to be characterized as the best Clancy book evah! Look at the amazon ratings - 2/5 stars in a rating system that don't allow zero: Not many people think this book is a gem. Amongst the Clancy faithful (a.b.t-c, for example) the prevailing veiw seems to be that the best that can be said about the book is that hopefully, it opens doors for better followups. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.134.108 (talk • contribs) September 13, 2005 00:08 (UCT).


 * Come to think of it (replying to myself here) This book is so bad, it needs a proper "Criticisms" section. Quite a lengthy one, at that... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.134.108 (talk • contribs) September 13, 2005 04:08 (UCT).

Criticism section leads to too much POV
I don't agree with a criticism section because more often than not it becomes to much of a POV from the writer. But if it has sites to back up what is being said than i guess i can't really do anything about it.--Hasty5o 05:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * lol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.169.28.191 (talk • contribs) April 26, 2006 14:56 (UCT).

The 'Conflicts with previous Clancy works' section is written in a highly inappropriate style - "our discussion"? Mind you, none of the Tom Clancy articles are exactly well written. Perhaps not entirely inappropriately.

Anyway, this analysis belongs somewhere more general - Ryaniverse, Jack Ryan (Tom Clancy), Tom Clancy?

-- Tom Anderson 2006-11-10 02:06 +0000

Have just read the book...
Have just read the book. Fortunately I only paid $5.95 for hardcover at Goodwill. Clancy maintains his style at the very least. Of interest is the fact that most of the 'surveillance' techniques he describes are no doubt described in greater detail than the recent NY Times revelations that have garnered such criticism, and I believe Clancy probably has it down to the nat's ass on detail. So where is the outrage and uproar by the Conservative press on this one?

Truth is, that Clancy didn't damage homeland security any more than the NY Times and LA Times have.

Pabobfin 02:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, there has to be something to get worked up over first and, I kind of hate to say it, but Clancy hasn't been in top form a long time; especially with this kind of story he wants to be taken seriously (being in the Ryanverse and all), but it's really different from any number of pulp action movies. Tom Clancy doesn't have the backdrop of the Cold War to write about anymore, and he's already done the predictable wars in the Middle East and between Russia/China; not much else he could as sweeping as those. Shadowrun 04:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Brain of the Tiger? Where is it?
The end of Teeth of the Tiger ends with "Now they met the teeth. Next they would meet the brain." So I was expecting the sequel to be Brain of the Tiger. But the sequel is starting to be overdue. If the sequel is another 1000 page monster like previous entries in the series, I can understand the delay. But Teeth is only 1/3 of that length. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ryaniverse Divergeance
The whole thing about Ryaniverse divergeance from "reality" should be in the Ryaniverse article, not here! -- Kschang77 08:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * somewhat agree. At least put how this book diverges and a direct link to that section of the ryanverse article. I mean wiki's not paper. having it in both isn't hurting anyone. And its info to the world of the book.--Xiahou 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tom Clancy - The Teeth of the Tiger cover.jpg
Image:Tom Clancy - The Teeth of the Tiger cover.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of the verb "murder" to describe the assassinations—POV?
While the killings by the Campus can be argued to be "murder," there isn't a reliable source that uses this term. The book itself is our best reliable source for the plot of the book. The book does depict its characters wrestling with the morality and justification for the assassinations, but the characters do not come to the conclusion that the killings are "murder"; the book doesn't definitively come to a conclusion about what to call the killings. A neutral word would be "assassination" or just "killing" where it fits the context. "Murder" makes a POV judgment about the killings. Again, it can be argued that the killings are murder, but it can also be argued that they are not, and the book does not come to either conclusion—if anything, the book leans strongly toward the idea that they are not murder. They are killings conducted by assassins who are operating under the orders of a (quasi-)government agency. They have at least the color of legitimacy, though that legitimacy is certainly ambiguous and highly suspect as to its nature (that's what the whole book is about). I'll wait for inputs before making any changes. Holy (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)