Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.1 AVERAGE
4.1 AVERAGE
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
relaxing
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This basically sets the bar for historical fiction for me. This was a re-read but it does a great job both giving an overview of the battle but also getting into the head and experience of those who were fighting it. At times, there are parts that get a little Lost Cause-y, but I think it more shows some of the genesis of how the lost cause sorta came about (it definitely shows Lee in a rightfully critical light and you have Longstreet opining that baseically everything thinks he can do no wrong). Anyhow, this is a must read for anyone interested in the Civil War
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I’ve read a lot of books, but this was such a struggle. Confusion on all of the characters, so much detail on each day that didn’t seem to be relevant to the story. I felt like I was back in school being forced to read it.
My boss is a Civil War buff, and this is one of his favorite books. So this read is for you, my friend!
As for me, I am not a Civil War buff. I’ve visited Gettysburg, and I’ve learned the basic facts that people learn in school. And one of my first Coulter forebears in America fought in the war. But most of the details in The Killer Angels were not very familiar to me. I learned a lot about the kinds of perspectives people at that time might have had, leading up to and in the midst of a horrible battle. The novel is a very straightforward retelling of Gettysburg, with chapters devoted to various characters. Though there are intense scenes of battle, overall the book feels more like a series of monologues that take us into the thinking of various participants in the battle. Michael Shaara focuses on people on both sides of the war (along with the British Arthur Fremantle, who observed Gettysburg at James Longstreet’s side), but it feels like there is a clear sympathy for those from the South (I often thought an alternate title for the book could be Would Someone Please Listen to Longstreet‽). For the North, the focus is most clearly on Joshua Chamberlain, and there is some attempt by Shaara to set up a Maine–Virginia opposition, but overall it seemed there was more time exploring the South, what went wrong for them at Gettysburg, and who was to blame. Longstreet ends up being the story’s tragic hero.
In this telling of Gettysburg, Shaara takes the perspective that Gettysburg was the defining moment that signaled the end of the war, though Vicksburg was taking place at exactly the same time and may have been the more significantly decisive battle. One of the strengths of this novel is that it engagingly draws the reader into the historical moments; one of its weaknesses is that it’s hard to see where Shaara inserted his own opinion under the guise of what seems like objective historical fact. I love a lot of historical detail brought into a narrative story, but with this book, I was often wondering which information came directly from reports and letters and other personal testimony, and which was made up for the book.
Another issue that, for me, hinders the storytelling in The Killer Angels is that it focuses almost entirely on people right in the middle of the hierarchy of the war. Most of the main characters are generals or other commanders, so by the end of the book, we get an interesting panorama of what motivated these leaders. But because we don’t get to know what motivated ordinary enlisted men, or what the war was like from their perspective, the story has a sense of Important People moving relatively unimportant chess pieces around on the board. When, in the book, thousands of soldiers die at Gettysburg, it didn’t hit me emotionally the way it really should.
The other side of the war that’s absent from this retelling is the national leadership in Washington and Richmond. Nowhere in the book is there any indication of the communication between the national governments and the fighting forces. I assume there was such communication occurring, but in this novel it feels like the generals are mandated to do whatever they think best (and maybe that’s the way it really was, I don’t know). Lincoln and Davis are barely mentioned, and the people on the field merely surmise about what the ultimate point of the war is (as though perhaps the book and its author don’t want to be over-specific about that, either).
Adding all of those details about enlisted men and government leaders would make the book unwieldy, so it’s fine that Shaara chose to focus on the generals. But it gives the book a bit of an old-fashioned tone. I think a war story (about any war) now would more likely take a different focus, with other ideas of who the “main characters” are.
I listened to the audio version of The Killer Angels, read by Stephen Hoye. He is an excellent reader, skillfully navigating a very wide range of accents and personalities. Even the non-dialogue parts of each chapter are subtly modified to suit the character being focused on. It’s quite impressive! Because I don’t know the details of this moment in history really well, I would sometimes have been lost without Hoye’s guidance.
I’m glad to have read the novel, and I know I learned a lot about Gettysburg and some of the people who fought there. Overall, this is a book that I admire as an achievement more than I love as a book, but that probably has a lot to do with my minimal interest in Civil War history.
As for me, I am not a Civil War buff. I’ve visited Gettysburg, and I’ve learned the basic facts that people learn in school. And one of my first Coulter forebears in America fought in the war. But most of the details in The Killer Angels were not very familiar to me. I learned a lot about the kinds of perspectives people at that time might have had, leading up to and in the midst of a horrible battle. The novel is a very straightforward retelling of Gettysburg, with chapters devoted to various characters. Though there are intense scenes of battle, overall the book feels more like a series of monologues that take us into the thinking of various participants in the battle. Michael Shaara focuses on people on both sides of the war (along with the British Arthur Fremantle, who observed Gettysburg at James Longstreet’s side), but it feels like there is a clear sympathy for those from the South (I often thought an alternate title for the book could be Would Someone Please Listen to Longstreet‽). For the North, the focus is most clearly on Joshua Chamberlain, and there is some attempt by Shaara to set up a Maine–Virginia opposition, but overall it seemed there was more time exploring the South, what went wrong for them at Gettysburg, and who was to blame. Longstreet ends up being the story’s tragic hero.
In this telling of Gettysburg, Shaara takes the perspective that Gettysburg was the defining moment that signaled the end of the war, though Vicksburg was taking place at exactly the same time and may have been the more significantly decisive battle. One of the strengths of this novel is that it engagingly draws the reader into the historical moments; one of its weaknesses is that it’s hard to see where Shaara inserted his own opinion under the guise of what seems like objective historical fact. I love a lot of historical detail brought into a narrative story, but with this book, I was often wondering which information came directly from reports and letters and other personal testimony, and which was made up for the book.
Another issue that, for me, hinders the storytelling in The Killer Angels is that it focuses almost entirely on people right in the middle of the hierarchy of the war. Most of the main characters are generals or other commanders, so by the end of the book, we get an interesting panorama of what motivated these leaders. But because we don’t get to know what motivated ordinary enlisted men, or what the war was like from their perspective, the story has a sense of Important People moving relatively unimportant chess pieces around on the board. When, in the book, thousands of soldiers die at Gettysburg, it didn’t hit me emotionally the way it really should.
The other side of the war that’s absent from this retelling is the national leadership in Washington and Richmond. Nowhere in the book is there any indication of the communication between the national governments and the fighting forces. I assume there was such communication occurring, but in this novel it feels like the generals are mandated to do whatever they think best (and maybe that’s the way it really was, I don’t know). Lincoln and Davis are barely mentioned, and the people on the field merely surmise about what the ultimate point of the war is (as though perhaps the book and its author don’t want to be over-specific about that, either).
Adding all of those details about enlisted men and government leaders would make the book unwieldy, so it’s fine that Shaara chose to focus on the generals. But it gives the book a bit of an old-fashioned tone. I think a war story (about any war) now would more likely take a different focus, with other ideas of who the “main characters” are.
I listened to the audio version of The Killer Angels, read by Stephen Hoye. He is an excellent reader, skillfully navigating a very wide range of accents and personalities. Even the non-dialogue parts of each chapter are subtly modified to suit the character being focused on. It’s quite impressive! Because I don’t know the details of this moment in history really well, I would sometimes have been lost without Hoye’s guidance.
I’m glad to have read the novel, and I know I learned a lot about Gettysburg and some of the people who fought there. Overall, this is a book that I admire as an achievement more than I love as a book, but that probably has a lot to do with my minimal interest in Civil War history.
Well, I had heard a lot about this book, so my expectations were high. It is not often that things live up to high expectations but this did. As someone who has studied history and been to Gettysburg at least 6 or 7 times, I can tell that Shaara truly exhaustively researched before writing this. It is so rare than an author combines tons of research with a true literary gift, but this is an example. It brings to mind Wolf Hall. In both those cases, the authors seem to feel free to just write, and write with emotion, because they know their stuff so well that they don't get bogged down in the details. They know the details and include them, but the details don't slow them in their literary work. This is the closest I think you can get to really having been at the Battle of Gettysburg, and I thank God I didn't have to be there.
The only real critique of this book as far as I can tell, is that it amounts to what John Keegan so accurately critiqued in his amazing The Face of Battle--namely a view of war and battle that is only from the top level officers' point of view. I would have loved it if at least 2 chapters in the book were from the perspective of enlisted men, preferably one from both sides.
As for the idea that there is an element of the Lost Cause in the work, I reject that. I think that the author addresses the issue of the reasons and motivations for the war and for soldiers fighting in the war very subtly and with great nuance. There wasn't, and never is in any war, solely one reason why soldiers fought, but I think, if anything, Shaara would say that slavery was the primary reason, which most historians support. In addition, the Lost Cause movement usually has Lee at its pinnacle, and if anything, Longstreet is Shaara's Southern hero, although Shaara's true hero is Chamberlain, and he is indeed a true American hero.
This book is a marker against which all historical novels should be judged, and especially all history novels of war should be judged.
The only real critique of this book as far as I can tell, is that it amounts to what John Keegan so accurately critiqued in his amazing The Face of Battle--namely a view of war and battle that is only from the top level officers' point of view. I would have loved it if at least 2 chapters in the book were from the perspective of enlisted men, preferably one from both sides.
As for the idea that there is an element of the Lost Cause in the work, I reject that. I think that the author addresses the issue of the reasons and motivations for the war and for soldiers fighting in the war very subtly and with great nuance. There wasn't, and never is in any war, solely one reason why soldiers fought, but I think, if anything, Shaara would say that slavery was the primary reason, which most historians support. In addition, the Lost Cause movement usually has Lee at its pinnacle, and if anything, Longstreet is Shaara's Southern hero, although Shaara's true hero is Chamberlain, and he is indeed a true American hero.
This book is a marker against which all historical novels should be judged, and especially all history novels of war should be judged.
This was my second time reading this book. Since the first reading, I have visited Gettysburg and taught a class on The Civil War, which I will be teaching again this fall. This book is so well written, sharing the story of Gettysburg from both sides through the eyes of several leaders. What a war. What difficult decisions had to be made and feelings and actions I can’t imagine. I will continue to study these leaders and this battle to understand even more.
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
A vivid re-telling of the Battle of Gettysburg as seen from the lives of the individual soldiers and commanders. Certainly worth the time to read it, and it's made even more vivid by visiting the actual battleground!
As someone who has never taken to American history, this book was totally magical for me. It brought to life this 3-day battle and deeply humanized the key men on both sides, capturing their weaknesses, idiosyncrasies, insecurities... people and things they loved... their deep sadness and fear at times... why they were fighting the war. I was close to tears several times throughout the book. It definitely helped to be reading it knowing that I would get to stand where these men fought and died in less than a week! I don't know that it's possible to fully grasp the scope of the battle until you stand and look across the vast Pennsylvania fields and ridges and hills where it took place. The scale is just massive. Fantastic book and one that will stay close to my heart.