Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels
The Killer Angels
The Killer Angels, written by Michael Shaara, is a gripping novel about the turning point in the Civil War. In this novel, Shaara, follows the Generals and Colonels of both the Union and Confederate armies from June 29, 1863 until July 3, 1863. The book discusses the strategy and logic used by each of the commanding officers of either army, along with the non-war side of each officer. In this historical novel, based on the battle of Gettysburg, the characters and events are, for the most part, historically accurate, however Shaara, who was not actually present at Gettysburg, had to fictionalize what the character's thoughts and conversations were. In "To The Reader", Shaara writes "The interpretation of character is my own." Sharra also states "I have therefore avoided historical opinions and primarily gone back to the words of the men themselves, their letters and other documents." Shaara is stating that the character's interactions were based on the letters and other documents that were written by those men that fought in the battle of Gettysburg. The difference between this and an actual historical account is simply the fact that Shaara wrote a book that has plot and a story line to it, and although it has an inevitable …show more content…
He was a professional: the Cause was Victory." "The war had come as a nightmare in which you chose your nightmare side. Once chosen, you put your head down and went on to win." Because Longstreet was a professional and clearly did not believe in causes his concern would have been for humanity, not for the issues that were dividing a nation. He would have chosen a friend over his country for this
The Killer Angels, written by Michael Shaara, is a gripping novel about the turning point in the Civil War. In this novel, Shaara, follows the Generals and Colonels of both the Union and Confederate armies from June 29, 1863 until July 3, 1863. The book discusses the strategy and logic used by each of the commanding officers of either army, along with the non-war side of each officer. In this historical novel, based on the battle of Gettysburg, the characters and events are, for the most part, historically accurate, however Shaara, who was not actually present at Gettysburg, had to fictionalize what the character's thoughts and conversations were. In "To The Reader", Shaara writes "The interpretation of character is my own." Sharra also states "I have therefore avoided historical opinions and primarily gone back to the words of the men themselves, their letters and other documents." Shaara is stating that the character's interactions were based on the letters and other documents that were written by those men that fought in the battle of Gettysburg. The difference between this and an actual historical account is simply the fact that Shaara wrote a book that has plot and a story line to it, and although it has an inevitable …show more content…
He was a professional: the Cause was Victory." "The war had come as a nightmare in which you chose your nightmare side. Once chosen, you put your head down and went on to win." Because Longstreet was a professional and clearly did not believe in causes his concern would have been for humanity, not for the issues that were dividing a nation. He would have chosen a friend over his country for this