HF Clarification requested on Preface comments directed at "The Killer Angels"

[Bee]

I just finished "The Killer Angels", and I have now picked up "The Passing of the Armies". I was surprised to read in the preface by John S. Peterson, a reference to "The Killer Angels" :

" In 1974, Michael Shaara Published The Killer Angels, his Pulitzer Prize winning novel of the Battle of Gettysburg. Written in the wake of the turmoil of the 60's, this book greatly mirrored the disillusionment of the era. Its pessimism was most evident in its "rcvisionist" treatment of Lee, Longstreet and the decision to launch Pickett's disastrous charge."

As I am new to the study of the ACW, I would greatly appreciate some comment, clarification, etc., on this statement. I can speculate that maybe Peterson did not like the fictional "humanizing" of the generals in the book? Problem is that I do not have enough personal reference (reading experience) to agree or disagree with the statement about "The Killer Angels"

Regards,

B

 

[Nathanb1]

I think that refers to the "Marble Man" super general image of Lee. Sahara made him vulnerable and fallible, unfortunately at the expense of JEB Stuart. You might look at some of the threads on the book and the film, Gettysburg.

Hint: Longstreet becomes wise and all-knowing.

 

[Bee]

THANK YOU! I am still pretty clumsy about doing searches, so I will give it another try (maybe this time use "movie" with Gettysburg)

B

 

[Nathanb1]

Well, sometimes it helps to try different terms...like Shaara, and restrict them to a certain Forum. Gettysburg probably will get you all sorts of stuff you don't want. Try throwing Eric Wittenberg in there, too! If I can weed out a good one I'll post the link here.

 

[Bee]

Thank you, again! I just bumped around some movie clips (more time bleeding as I watch them) I appreciate your help, as I am not familiar with the nuances of these perceptions of Longstreet & Lee, however, I keep running into oblique statements referring to them (alternate portrayals)

 

[Nathanb1]

Boom! Here's another. Eric Wittenberg is the guru.

http://civilwartalk.com/find-new/8090400/posts

 

[Bee]

I used the link and ended up at.....New Posts??

 

[Nathanb1]

I used the link and ended up at.....New Posts??

Argh. Hang on. Sometimes I like the iPad and sometimes I don't.

 

[Nathanb1]

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/stu...ons-at-gettysburg.114149/page-11#post-1134723

Here's a good one.

 

[Nathanb1]

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/plenty-of-blame-to-go-around.80987/

 

[Bee]

Great material! Thank you so much for putting some time in for me.

Sincerely,

Bee

 

[Nathanb1]

Great material! Thank you so much for putting some time in for me.

Sincerely,

Bee

You are so welcome! We have a rule around here....just ask and someone will come along. You may find more in the Lee forum.

Good luck!

 

[Bee]

Ordered: Plenty of Blame to Go Around

Next stop: Lee forum!

 

[Nathanb1]

This is going to be expensive. Once you read one of @Eric Wittenberg's books, you're a buyer for life.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Great material! Thank you so much for putting some time in for me.

Sincerely,

Bee

Hate to jump in here with the guru-speak. Awfully glad Nate is the one to get her hands on you- when I showed up here I had to fly around the room backwards a few times. I'd been a life-long reader of James Minchenor, you see. She popped that bubble in a big hurry His history isn't, worse, plain, old made stuff up like if Shaara also had a chip on his shoulder, BOOB, after all the air went out, flew around the room backwards, ended up in damp and crumpled deflated heap. On the re-read, Shaara may have stuck to script once in awhile- he writes like maybe he was watching everything through the keyhole, while sitting in closet. Got what he could, filled in the rest to make his editor happy. Michenor wrote while his satellite happened to be orbiting that section of the planet at the time.

Worst things Shaara missed from his keyhole are all so major you find yourself wondering why someone who really did know their stuff did that to future wanna-be Gettysburg nerds. It's the best Shaara book, his son lacks the father's ease of a dialogue. Tell you what book gave me the best appreciation for the what was going on in the rest of the field- glad I read it before the others ( accidentally ) " Gettysburg's Forgotten Cavalry Actions ". Yes, it is Eric's. Must get up the nerve to ask please to have my tattiest, most used copy signed. That one was carted around like an old friend making sense for the first time in decades of the whole battle. Like puzzle pieces, I could finally fit ' Killer Angels ' somewhere, too.

Sorry to make such a large pile of beginner drivel in your back-and-forth with Nate! Was REALLY lucky, that's all Joined CWT as my daughter was going to Gettysburg College, Spent days wondering the battle field, maps wrapped around my legs, no ide where in blaze I was. Went to a few CWT meet-ups and got straightened out in a big hurry, pointed to Eric's books, had the tour, so lucky! Still a beginner, just not a stupid one any more.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Ordered: Plenty of Blame to Go Around

Next stop: Lee forum!

I hope you enjoy it. I think you will find that the version of the meeting between Stuart and Lee portrayed in the book and the movie never happened. The problem is that the source for that "meeting" is someone who was still 15 miles when it happened--Col. Thomas T. Munford of the 2nd Virginia Cavalry. Munford was repeating what someone else told him. In my lawyer's world, that's called hearsay, and hearsay is unreliable by definition. There were four people who knew what happened in that meeting: Lee, Stuart, and Lee's two military secretaries, Charles C. Marshall and Charles Venable. Neither Lee nor Stuart left any such account, and neither did Marshall or Venable.

The truth is that nobody knows what happened in that room. But I will suggest to you that the way it's portrayed in either the book or the movie is 100% fictional.

That's just one of the many problems with The Killer Angels. It's a great novel, but it's not history. If you read it as a novel, it's a classic. But whatever you do, don't read it as history.

 

[photoman475]

Eric, and others:

I've read all three Shaara books, and the conclusion I reached after the second re-read was that the books had just enough history in them to make the story "plausible". In other words, we know that there was a battle at Gettysburg, we know that Lee, Longstreet and the Chamberlains were there, that kind of thing. The dialog is invented, but again, fits the general history. Because of the two movies' need to have drama in them, the movies don't always stick to the books.

Does this sound like a fair summation?

 

[Bee]

She popped that bubble in a big hurry His history isn't, worse, plain, old made stuff up like if Shaara also had a chip on his shoulder, BOOB, after all the air went out, flew around the room backwards, ended up in damp and crumpled deflated heap.

JPK,

PLEASE feel free to elucidate ad nauseam! Your description (quote) alone, is quite comforting. My post -- which sat in the what-the-heck-has-she-been-smoking pile- was my first realization that I had dropped down a rabbit hole, and the sides had been greased. My study-buddy started with the Magnum Opus (Shelby Foote 3 volume) and he got bogged down and angry with me because I was floating around in an alternate universe (we had a huge argument about "where/what was Stuart doing") Both of us decided that we wanted (needed) to linger, camp out in Gettysburg for a while, because all of this gorging at the table of CW history was overwhelming us.

Again, I really appreciate the rescue line!

Sincerely,

Bee

 

[Bee]

That's just one of the many problems with The Killer Angels. It's a great novel, but it's not history. If you read it as a novel, it's a classic. But whatever you do, don't read it as history.

Dear Eric,

Thank you so much for bothering to take to time to trod what must be a thoroughly beaten path. It is all new to me, and for some irrational reason, I forgot that I was reading fiction, which placed me at odds with any other source on the topic. I started to get suspicious when I realized that it would have been impossible for Stuart to know that he was "late" for the "great battle", when there was no great battle planned at the time of his departure. The thread that Nate directed me to (in which you really set the record straight about what Stuart was up to) was probably the most useful tool thus far in my attempt to bushwack a trail back to history -- not fiction.

I have cleared a shelf and consulted the many "must-have" book lists so carefully compiled by the many generous users of this forum. I am eternally grateful.

Again, thank you so much for giving the most valuable asset that one possesses: Time.

Sincerely,

Bee

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Eric, and others:

I've read all three Shaara books, and the conclusion I reached after the second re-read was that the books had just enough history in them to make the story "plausible". In other words, we know that there was a battle at Gettysburg, we know that Lee, Longstreet and the Chamberlains were there, that kind of thing. The dialog is invented, but again, fits the general history. Because of the two movies' need to have drama in them, the movies don't always stick to the books.

Does this sound like a fair summation?

Not entirely, no. There are a ton of historical inaccuracies in The Killer Angels. There never was a Buster Kilrain. Kilrain was Michael Shaara's attempt to inject himself into the story. The whole business about Buford holding at Thoroughfare Gap in August 1862: 100% pure fiction. While there may have been a handful of troopers of the 5th New York Cavalry there during the fighting at Thoroughfare Gap, that was an infantry fight, and Buford and his brigade were nowhere close when it happened. There are just a LOT of historical inaccuracies and literary licenses taken that I find it really bothersome.

As for Jeff Shaara: He can't even begin to hold a candle to his father as a writer. I read Gods and Generals and found it very troubling for the reason that he clearly put his spin on things. I made it about 50 pages into The Last Full Measure, put it down, and never picked it up again.

As a result, I will never, ever spend another dime on his stuff again. It's NOT history. Anyone who things it is is taking the easy, lazy way out.

Truly, from my perspective as an author: if I can't make the actual events interesting enough to keep people interested, then it's time for me to stop writing. The real events are so compelling that they need not be embellished with fictional liberties.