Hello!

Did you know that this month's book is Killer Angels by Michael Sharra? If so, I hope you've already gotten a start on the reading, as this week's assignment is to read through the book, or as much of the book as you can manage.

We're going to start by examining the background of the book. Some of the questions might require research on your part, or some the answers might be included in your book if it contains a foreword or preface.

Who was Michael Sharra, and why did he write Killer Angels? How did he write the book (i.e. what sort of sources did he draw on, how long did the writing process take, what was involved in getting the book published, how was the book received)?

Killer Angels is classified as a novel, rather than historical account. Why? Give specific examples to support your answer.

Who are the main characters? Give a brief description of each, and include (as you see it from the account) his motivation and worldview.

Whom, among the characters, would you describe as "godly men"? Give a reason for your answer.

What is the time frame covered? Where does the action take place? What is the significance of "ground"?

What role does the weather play?

Discuss the concept of "duty" and how it plays out in this account. After your general definition of duty, focus on at least one character and describe how he either carried out his duty, or didn't, and what the consequences were.

If you have read other sources about the characters portrayed in Killer Angels, how would you say this account supports or contradicts what you've read?

Where does the title come from? Quote the source, and discuss why or why not this title is appropriate.

I believe that the book, Killer Angels, is classified as a novel merely because it is not a completely accurate (or at least a book trying to be a completely accurate) account of the time and situation. Michael Shaara, himself, says in his "To The Reader" preface/forward/introduction says that he condensed the action, modified some of the characters (eliminating minor ones), as well as "changing some of the language" on account of it being a "naive and sentimental time." Therefore he thought it necessary to "update some of the words so the religiosity... of the time... would not seem to quaint to the modern ear .... The interpretation of character is my own."

That section would probably account for the overdose of swearing and taking God's name in vain.

That would be the main reason. He said, apart from that, basically that he wrote the book to live the book; so as not to be "cold history" but an actual story.

First and foremost, Killer Angels is a story of the battle of Gettysburg as told by Michael Sharra. Basically, he took a historic event and people of the past and developed their characters (what they think, speak, and, in some cases, do) according to how he saw them in his mind’s eye. Such works could perhaps make a good story (although I’ve never really enjoyed historical fiction) they can never be taken at face value without danger of completely misunderstanding who (e.g.) Robert E. Lee or General Longstreet actually were. For example, from the book I was given the distinct impression that Lee was an extremely poor strategist and “old-fashioned” tactician. However, all other sources I’ve read or heard (including Dr. Grant) positively state that Lee was a military genius and brilliant strategist. Thus, it would seem that here at least is one example in which Michael Sharra did not remain historically accurate.

Good. In addition, the author reported conversations that might have taken place (but how can we know for sure?) and thoughts running inside people's heads (which, unless they wrote them down in a journal, we can't know either).

Good response. I've also read about Lee's brilliant strategy in other sources. However, the Battle of Gettysburg appears to be an exception. I don't know if the disaster (for the South) was the result of many errors on the part of many, or if Lee is primarily to blame, or Longstreet, who was blamed at least by Jubal Early, according to the notes at the end of the book. It's easy to look back at an event and see what should have been done; not so easy (especially in that time, considering the limitations of their communications) to do in the middle of the event.