The History Book Club discussion

General H. Norman Schwartzkopf said that Killer Angels is "the best and most realistic novel about war that I have ever read."

"In the four most bloody and courageous days of our nation's history, two armies fought for two controlling dreams. One dreamed of freedom, the other of a way of life. For more than rifles and bullets were carried into battle. There were memories. There were promises. There was love. And far more than men fell on those Pennsylvania fields, Bright futures, untested innocence, and pristine beauty were also the casualties of war"

The Killer Angels is unique, sweeping, unforgettable - a dramatic re-creation of the battleground for America's destiny."

"My favorite historical novel....A superb re-creation of the Battle of Gettysburg, but its real importance is its insight into what the war was about, and what it meant." - James M. McPherson - Author of Battle Cry of Freedom

"Remarkable...A book that changed my life...I had never visited Gettysburg, knew almost nothing about that battle before I read the book, but here it all came alive." -- Ken Burns Filmmaker, The Civil War

"Shaara carries (the reader) swiftly and dramatically to a climax as exciting as if it were being heard for the first time." -- The Seattle Times

Michael Shaara

Norman Schwarzkopf





TO SEE ALL PREVIOUS WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

This is the reading assignment for week one - (January 4, 2010 to January 10, 2010):

Foreward plus 1. The Spy

Hello Everyone,

Today we are announcing the opening of our historical fiction discussion on Killer Angels. This is the first historical fiction group selected book. We hope that the membership will participate. Since I am mainly a non fiction reader aside from reading some good mysteries and thrillers, I can attest that when I was pre-reading this book that I could not put it down. It is that good.

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers.

This book will be kicked off on January 4th. This discussion will be led by assisting moderator of historical fiction - Elizabeth S.

We look forward to your participation. Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.

Since we will only get started on this book on January 4th, there is still time remaining to obtain the book and get started.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

This thread opens on January 4th for discussion. This is a no spoiler thread.

Welcome,

~Bentley


TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

Michael Shaara

This is definitely a great book, and a perfect first group-historical-fiction read. The only "problem" is that it is a difficult book to put down. :) That is a real advantage for anyone who starts late--you won't have any trouble catching up.

And for those who start with the group and want to read faster, or for those who've already read the book, that isn't a problem either. Just remember we'll be discussing the various sections on the outlined schedule. Please be careful to avoid spoilers! It is an exciting book, and we don't want to ruin any of that excitement for those reading for the first time.

We hope to see lots of you here on Monday as we begin the discussion. I hope everyone is enjoying a great New Years!

Even though I have already read this book, I am looking forward to participating and also contemplating the stimulating discussion from everyone.

Happy New Year everyone!

Really look forward to a lively discussion...there are so many sidebar discussions that we can pursue.

Happy New Year all. Elizabeth S..I think the discussion will be exciting.

This is a great, engaging book. I didn't 'read' it however I listened to it. ** I highly recommend listening to Killer Angels - Random House Audio 2004 version. The narrator, a professional actor, does the voices of the main characters in their regional accents and it adds a whole new dimension to the experience. It's the difference between reading a Shakespeare play and seeing it performed by top flight actors. I have a long commute (hour each way) and I routinely listen to audio books to make the experience enjoyable and enlightening. Buying audio books is expensive but I get them for free from my local library. If you haven't tried listening to a book, I highly recommend it and hope some of you will weigh in on your experience with this format.

Marlowe wrote: "This is a great, engaging book. I didn't 'read' it however I listened to it. ** I highly recommend listening to Killer Angels - Random House Audio 2004 version. The narrator, a professional actor..."

Very interesting, Marlowe. I also have an hour commute, and do listen to podcasts and the like quite frequently. I have tried listening to some non-fiction works and had a hard time trying to keep track of events in the detail I do when reading, so I have mostly been disappointed with them. But maybe this book would be different, and one I should try.

Thanks for the suggestion, Marlowe. I will see if my local library has this audiobook available.

Marlowe wrote: "This is a great, engaging book. I didn't 'read' it however I listened to it. ** I highly recommend listening to Killer Angels - Random House Audio 2004 version. The narrator, a professional actor..."

I like the idea of hearing the stories told with authentic accents. Not having a commute, I'm not a listener of books. I often do my reading 1-2 minutes at a time between dealing with children issues. But to hear the accents sounds like fun.

I like how the book begins with the setting and a summary of main characters. I should confess that I finished the book last week in preparation for our group discussion. (I did stop as I read to write down questions and thoughts for discussion.) I found myself frequently referring back to the cast of characters as I read. It really helped to keep things straight.

To kick things off, I thought I'd list some of the great Gettysburg websites out there. If anyone else has others to suggest, feel free. Anyone who wants to avoid spoilers should maybe hold off checking out these links until you finish the book.

http://www.gettysburg.com/ will help you plan a trip to Gettysburg, gives detailed information on the battle and the Civil War, pictures of reenactments, etc. On the front page there is a link to the excellent Gettysburg Expedition Guide from TravelBrains.

http://www.nps.gov/GETT/index.htm is the official national park website for Gettysburg. It has battlefield podcast tours, virtual tours, lots of pictures and history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_o... is a great wikipedia page with a good summary of the battle and lots of history.

http://www.gettysburgfoundation.org/ is focused on preserving Gettysburg and its history. It says that "nearly 1,400 statues, sculptures, markers, and tablets stand where the armies fought, honoring both sides of the battle, and making Gettysburg National Military Park the steward of the world’s largest collection of outdoor sculpture." Wow.

I was at Gettysburg a couple of years ago. I was not prepared. We were driving home from a 2 week family vacation, realized we were close, and figured we should go while we could. My husband and I loved it and wished we could spend more time. But it was a rainy day, and the kids were ready to be home, so we only spent a few short hours there. Enough to do an audio tour (the Gettysburg Expedition Guide from TravelBrains, which I highly recommend). I really wish I'd read The Killer Angels before we went!

This week's reading assignment includes the author's note To The Reader. In my copy of the book, it is on page vii. In it, Shaara says he wrote The Killer Angels "for much the same reason" as Stephen Crane said he wrote The Red Badge of Courage.

For those of you who didn't study The Red Badge of Courage in school, it is the first historical novel based on the American Civil War. It was published in 1895. It tells the story of "a young recruit who overcomes initial fears to become a hero on the battlefield" (quote from wikipedia article). The text of the book is available online, along with other commentary. (See www.redbadgeofcourage.org)

According to Shaara and Crane, they wanted to write books that told what it was like to actually be on the battlefields, to really get the feel of the weather, the passions, the images, rather than the "cold history" from nonfictional accounts. This certainly seems to be an advantage of historical fiction. However, there are disadvantages too. What do you enjoy and appreciate about historical fiction in general? What are the dangers or disadvantages?

Elizabeth...some great urls and information..for some reason the National Park Website did not load: this one might:

http://www.nps.gov/gett/index.htm

Gettysburg is quite large a spot to cover adequately in such a short time..you are so right that it is better if you can be prepared to see it. You can even acquire a guide with a little advance notice who will give you the lay of the land and some interesting information and who will drive around with you.

Jeff wrote: "A terrific non-fiction companion volume to Killer Angels is by , which is an excer..."

Jeff some terrific anecdotes. I wondered about Harrison myself when reading this chapter. He had to be driven by some kind of deep animosity to do what he did.

Jeff, I just noticed your comment. You and I must have been typing at the same time. :)

Thanks for your book recommendation, and comments on the spy. I am hoping that as we go through Killer Angels we can continue to note which are the historically accurate parts and which are the condensed, glossed over, or debatable parts. Shaara says, "I have not consciously changed any fact." As we read and compare with history, we can discuss how well he held to that.

And thanks for the reminder about the movie Gettysburg. Even though The Killer Angels won the Pulitzer Prize the year after it was published, it was a "relatively obscure novel until it was adapted into the 1993 film Gettysburg." And then The Killer Angels started selling like hotcakes. I haven't seen the movie. Anyone else see it?

By the way, the quotation is from the SparkNotes for The Killer Angels, copyright 2002. Also a good reference after reading the book. (Available online from B&N for around $5.) I'll be pulling a number of comments from the SparkNotes in the coming weeks.

SparkNotes Editors

Elizabeth..it looks like a great source...I also especially liked the movie Gettysburg.....especially about the Maine unit who thought they were being given a position that might have given them a bit of respite after being involved in so many battles before this one (smile).

Yes Jeff...you have summed up my views on HF as well. Very well placed. KA does fit squarely as being in the camp that does it well. Good post.

I agree, Jeff. There is such a broad range of books that are labeled historical fiction. The biggest danger is people who can't (or won't) separate truth from fiction. I love historical fiction books that have notes at the end of the book (or each chapter) that detail the facts and the fudges. I like to read through that before things settle in my brain.

But most books are written to be exciting and sell more, so that accuracy may not be important. People are so apt to believe anything they read, even when it is just regular fiction. Add the title "historical" and it must be gospel truth.

And yet the history is so much easier to remember, events are easier to place in relation to each other, the emotions of the moment are easier to understand, when that touch of fiction is added. Overall, I do like historical fiction.

He's some info I have found about our spy in Chapter 1. Interesting stuff!

That Mysterious Spy, Harrison

Henry Thomas Harrison (1832-1900)

Harrison, a shadowy figure who shows up from time to time as a spy, usually working for Gen'l Longstreet. He has a role to play in the Gettysburg movie and appears to have preferred to keep his personal life "personal." He was identified as James Harrison (1834-1913), the actor, for a time (see the entry in the Historical Times Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Civil War, for example, but he is more probably Henry Thomas HARRISON (ca. 1832-post 1900). Known simply as "Harrison," he was an effective southern spy. He operated out of Washington, DC, prior to Gettysburg and reported back to Longstreet on 28 June 1863, bring the first news of George G. Meade's relief of Joseph Hooker as commander of the Army of the Potomac. He also reported that Meade had crossed the Potomac River. Longstreet passed the information along to Lee and the stage was set for Gettysburg. Stewart Sifakis, Who was who in the Civil War, notes that Harrison was "positively identified" in the middle 1980s as Henry Thomas Harrison, originally a Mississippi scout serving with the CSArmy in northern Virginia during the first year of the war. He became a special agent in 1862 with Secy War James A. Seddon and the following spring was serving with Ongstreet in s.e. VA before going on his Washington "hunt." In the fall, 1863, he appears to have been paid off for his services because he was a security risk (heavy drinking). However, when Longstreet was in the west, he again sought out "Harrison" for more work. Harrison was gone. He allegedly went to Mexico to aid Maximilian and later disappeared in the Montana Territory until 1900. Then he vanished once more. There is an article in the Civil War Times Illustrated that discusses the spy, February 1986 ("The spy Harrison") Above information taken from Sifakis, Who was who.

Source:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.a...

Here's another link to information about Henry T. Harrison:

Writer-director Ronald F. Maxwell adapted Michael Shaara's Pulitzer Prize winning novel, The Killer Angels, © 1974, into a powerful epic film thus allowing us to appreciate this historic event through the magic of film. Shaara’s novel and the movie screenplay are both based on the historical record but there are naturally some liberties taken with the facts and some created events appear in the story line. This is by necessity in order to portray any historical event as a novel or movie. With the advantage of hindsight, the following comments are directed solely at the the role of Longstreet's scout (spy) Harrison as written by Sharra and incorporated into the screenplay.

http://home.comcast.net/~site002/Harr...

Good pages, Joe. That comcast site has lots of other stuff about Harrison. Here's the (I think) base page: http://home.comcast.net/~site002/Harr...

The website says, "The author of this website is the great-grandson of Henry Thomas Harrison and has been researching H. T. Harrison for many years." Evidently some information about the spy surfaced in 1982, years after Shaara wrote his book. We now know that the spy was not an actor. He really was a secret agent. I didn't see anything about why he hated the North so much, other than that he was from the South. In those days that was enough, huh.

Great stuff Joe! I enjoyed reading all of it.

I totally missed that link on the bottom, Elizabeth. THANKS!

In this week's reading we cover Monday, June 29, 1863, Chapter 1: The Spy. Note that each of the chapters in the book are titled by the viewpoint character. It is very helpful to keep track of who's eyes we are looking through.

So here we follow the spy as he collects a last few pieces of information and reports to General Longstreet with the information that the Northern Army is on the move, and actually moving very fast. Longstreet takes the information to General Lee, who is not comfortable with getting information from spies. Yet the information of this spy causes the Southern army to turn.

In fact, we see a number of evidences that spies are not well received. Many seem to think them morally wrong, and vastly different from a scout. In our day, spies and secret agents have been glamorized. Does that change the morality of it? Is there any moral question, now? What do you think of the common view in the 1860s that spies are distasteful? How and why has that view changed over the years?

Joe wrote: "I totally missed that link on the bottom, Elizabeth. THANKS!
"

You're welcome.

I especially enjoy the picture of Harrison on the webpage. One of the links talks about decoding the message you can clearly see in his hands. Evidently that is part of how this picture, and other information surfaced. In 1982 Harrison's descendant was trying to find someone to help her decode the message.

Also, for those (like me) who have a hard enough time remembering the size of various types of army units today, without the added fun of figuring it out "back then"... here is a helpful website:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettt...

It carefully explains the order of units:
1 Corps = 3 Divisions
1 Division = 3-5 Brigades
1 Brigade = 4-6 Regiments
1 Regiment = 10 Companies (1,100 officers and men)
1 Company = 2 to 3 Platoons* (100 officers and men)
(* depending on military organization manual)
1 Platoon = 5 Squads (1 officer & 50 men)

These figures are fairly consistent for both the North and South, but there are some differences. The website also gives more detail about the organization, including how cavalry and artillery fits in there. Wish I'd printed it out to refer to as I read Killer Angels.

Elizabeth S wrote: "I especially enjoy the picture of Harrison on the webpage. One of the links talks about decoding the me..."

A message to "MY LOVE."

The plot gets thicker.

Joe wrote: "A message to "MY LOVE."

The plot gets thicker."

Definitely.

I wonder, without the spy, when and if the Army of the Potomac would have caught up with the Army of Northern Virginia, and would the results have been dramatically different? I'm not enough of a military historian to venture a guess. Anyone have any ideas? Avoiding, of course, spoilers revealing too much about what DID happen at Gettysburg.

Now that you mention that, Jeff, I do remember Longstreet say (or think) just that just before he awoke Lee.

So the spy's information was quite vital. I'm not to familiar with the geography of the east, does the Cumberland Valley show on any of the maps in The Killer Angels? I don't see it on page viii, the Situation--June 1863 map.

Cumberland Valley:

http://www.answers.com/topic/cumberla...

Had another excellent source but it would have been a spoiler:

Thanks for the help!

Be careful about the strengths of regiments in the Civil War. Usually they were at full strength when raised, but rarely were they reinforced to the extent of their casualties. Instead of reinforcing existing regiments new ones were organized (sometimes just so that there would be more opportunities for more officers. At Gettysburgh many of regiments had been in combat for a long time and were much smaller than the nominal 1,000 men they had at their organizing.

The link in message 26 actually discusses the strengths of the armies at Gettysburg, and the difference in the size of the Corps. John and Jeff have good points about the sizes shifting. I would assume there are various methods of dealing with casualties. It does mention later in The Killer Angels that Union regiments never got replacements for their casualties. I wonder how well the upper officers took that into consideration when assigning locations.

I also want to do some more background reading on the Civil War up to this point. I don't know much about Stonewall Jackson. Mostly just that he has a cool name. :)

I know very little about Gettysburg, other than the obvious, but was fascinated about the first chapter. Ordinary and extraordinary men making pivotal decisions of immense historical significance. What motivated Harrison (the spy)? Money, political bent? One can understand Lee's mistrust, not knowing the motive for necessary spy work, yet he surmounted that distrust to truly listen. I also could not help but think that the spy was very, very good at what he did, so that he was not caught; or conversely, the troops were ultra-sloppy in being aware of possible spies enroaching on their obvious presence. Interesting to ponder!

Viviane wrote: "I know very little about Gettysburg, other than the obvious, but was fascinated about the first chapter. Ordinary and extraordinary men making pivotal decisions of immense historical significance...."

Amen. I also knew little about Gettysburg before this book, other than the obvious. It would be funny to compare what was "obvious" to each of us and see if it lines up at all. :) But maybe we shouldn't, for spoiler reasons.

As to the spy, I think he was both good and the troops were ultra-sloppy. I don't think anyone considered spies to be a) honorable, b) effective, or c) real. There is much to ponder here. As I said earlier, the use of spies obviously changed in the next 100 years.

Viviane wrote: "I know very little about Gettysburg, other than the obvious, but was fascinated about the first chapter. Ordinary and extraordinary men making pivotal decisions of immense historical significance...."

And it appears this spy was very good at deception after the war as well. He disappeared for so long that his wife thought that he was dead, and remarries. He stayed in hiding so well that it took us over a 100 years for the rest of us to discover his identity and story. And even that was by accident.

Thanks for the recommendations, Jeff. I'm putting some on my to-read list. It is good to know what is best in your opinion. I think it is usually good to start with the best. I can always branch out later. When you say "go for broke" with Shelby, you weren't kidding. 3000 pages is real dedication.

Joe wrote: "Viviane wrote: "I know very little about Gettysburg, other than the obvious, but was fascinated about the first chapter. Ordinary and extraordinary men making pivotal decisions of immense historic..."

Goes to show, the best spies are unknown.

Elizabeth S wrote: "Joe wrote: "Viviane wrote: "I know very little about Gettysburg, other than the obvious, but was fascinated about the first chapter. Ordinary and extraordinary men making pivotal decisions of imme..."

Maybe he was scared something would happen to him if he told anybody what he did. He probably knew how significant his role was, and because the Union won the war, thought that someone might want to kill him for helping the other side. I'm sure a LOT of people would have thought that he was partly responsible for how things transpired.

Elizabeth S wrote: In our day, spies and secret agents have been glamorized. Does that change the morality of it? Is there any moral question, now?

Spies have always existed, albeit under other names, guides, reconnaissance individuals/groups, etc. Moral? Too huge a question for one simple answer - is war moral? We could spin circles on that one. What's the expression? - "All's fair in love and war!" Morality of war or spies - could be a cultural thing as well. Think of medieval ages when men lived for battles a a purpose for living - as outrageous as that strikes me, it is culturally true for many ages...

Excellent point taken about Stuart..he really did place Lee in a bind. However, other sources say he was receiving conflicting orders.

Good stuff about spies, Jeff. I was thinking more along the lines that spies weren't gentlemanly. This is a period of adjustment in war, from the old-style where each side lines up their men in a straight-forward way and does the dramatic charges of the Light Brigade to the shoot-from-cover and trenches and camouflage. I hadn't thought much about spies being inaccurate.

I'm glad you mention Pinkerton. I read a short bio of him, once. It was good enough, but short. He seems such an interesting person. Anyone read anything good that is more in-depth?

The one I read: Pinkerton America's First Private Eye by Richard Wormser

And we'll be glad to have you, Jbunniii. Hope you enjoy the audio as much as Marlowe did. It is a good book.

Those are great points about spying, Jeff. It was really in its infancy at the time of the Civil War. I like your anecdote about Schwarzkopf. It isn't just gathering information, it is also asking the right questions.

And we will definitely have to discuss the "ordinary men doing extraordinary things" as we go through the book.

Jeff wrote: "Some points I've been pondering for the last day or so:

1) Spying has clearly changed over the last 150 years. We now have a vast intelligence community that deals with much more than battlefield..."

Yes Jeff..I have always been partial to Lee and Longstreet though I think Grant deserves a lot of credit too. I even think that Grant was a better general than president. And there were many other brave leaders on the Union side as well.

Scharra states in his Forward that, "Their main objective is to draw the Union Army out into the open where it can be destroyed." However, Lee also knows that, simultaneously, Shiloh is surrounded by Grant and will likely fall soon. As the smaller army, he must offset a big loss in the West and avoid a war of attrition that he can't win. Therefore, he must invade and have a significant win on Union soil. Then, hopefully, he can end the war with a negotiated peace.

Spying is either romantic or despicable depending on your point of view. We have romanticized the 007 type spy who is a patriot who goes behind the lines to help his mother country.

The other type of spy is one who works against his mother country to help an outside entity for money, ideology, extortion or other causes.

I think we like the first and hate the second. Without formal spy agencies in the past, spies were generally of the second type so there was no one to look up to.

Does anyone see this differently?

Jeff wrote: "Yes, I think that's a critical point to understand why Lee responded the way he did to news that the Union Army was much closer than he'd imagined. The entire point of Lee's invasion of the North ..."

I think part of the key to the unfolding of events is that the Union army moved faster than expected, faster than they had moved in the past. I think events may have unfolded much differently if the Army of the Potomac had taken longer to arrive and allowed Lee to pick the day, territory, and method of engagement. Something to discuss more as we get to later chapters.

One thing that was drilled into my head by a history teacher in middle school is that the defenders have a huge psychological upper hand. Yes, in the past, the Confederates had won over and over against the Union forces, and the Confederates had a lot of confidence going into Gettysburg. But there was some shift in advantage when switching from defense to offense.

Erick wrote: "Spying is either romantic or despicable depending on your point of view. We have romanticized the 007 type spy who is a patriot who goes behind the lines to help his mother country.

The other..."

Agreed. Spies who infiltrate the enemy are dashing and clever. Spies who were born and bred here, but give away our secrets, are dastardly traitors.

I think which side you are on also influences things, though. When we read Tom Clancy, we romanticize the Cardinal of the Kremlin and Ramius because they helped our side, even though they betrayed their mother country. (Although there could be some arguments that the USSR wasn't really a mother country.)

And I think back in the 1800's, in the times we are reading about, acting wasn't an admired profession. So even the the infiltrating spies weren't as admired as they would be today, because they had to rely on acting abilities so much. They lied to get information and survive, and that isn't gentlemanly.

So overall, I think you are right. With a little lean towards admiring all spies now, and a little lean in the other direction back then.

(Not even historical fiction, but since I mentioned them... )