On this day in 1975, Michael Shaara’s The Killer Angels won the Pulitzer Prize for Literature, which, I’m told, is a good get. Killer Angels, for those of you who haven’t read it, tells the story of the Battle of Gettysburg, mostly through the eyes of Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and James “Pete” Longstreet and Union officers Joshua Chamberlain and John Buford. The prose is vivid, the narrative taut, and Shaara’s command of tactics and history are both impressive.
I think it’s fair to say that Killer Angels probably had more of an impact on the collective memory of the Civil War than any work of fiction published in the second half of the twentieth century.* Shaara went a long way toward rehabilitating Longstreet’s reputation, which had suffered at the hands of the Lost Cause generation. And Killer Angels made a hero of Chamberlain. A friend who used to work at the Gettysburg Battlefield insists that more visitors there wanted to hear about the 20th Maine and visit Little Round Top than anything else.** Killer Angels, I seem to recall, was also influential with Ken Burns — though I can’t find a link*** proving this right now; sorry — who certainly followed the book’s structure when he made the episode on Gettysburg for the Civil War series.**** Perhaps more significant than any of that, Killer Angels remains a favorite of among military officers, as well as, I’m told*****, instructors at the service academies.
All of which is just ducky. But here’s the odd thing from my perspective: I teach Killer Angels almost every quarter. And I have no idea why. I suppose nostalgia plays a part in my decision. The great Dick Sewell had Killer Angels on his syllabus in the first class I ever took at the University of Wisconsin on the Civil War. I loved the book. No, I lurved it. And so maybe I hearken back to that experience when I put together my own courses. Also, I use it as candy, a kind of treat for the students at the end of a quarter in which they’ve done quite a lot of reading****** (about 250 pages/week). The undergraduates who take my courses still seem to like the book, much as I did almost twenty years ago. Honestly, though, the reasons I’ve just given aren’t great; there’s not a lot of thought about so-called learning outcomes in those answers. In short, I wish I was doing more with Killer Angels. Or, I at least wish that I had some idea of what more I could do with it.
For instance, maybe I should start spending more time talking to my undergraduates about the function of narrative or the importance of authorial intent. Also, there’s plenty of odd material in Killer Angels, especially the heavy emphasis Shaara places on Bobby Lee’s ailing heart. So I suppose, in a perfect world, I should revise my Civil War class next time I teach it so that I lecture about the uses and limitations of historical fiction. But that would mean first learning something about that subject.******* Come to think of it, that sounds like a good idea.
* Can I defend this assertion? Almost certainly not. But that won’t stop me from trying.
** It is with anecdata like this that I can win any argument. Except the ones where I’m opposed. Those, I’ll admit, are somewhat tougher.
*** Again, I’ll ask you please to note the rigor with which I’ve constructed this post. You could call this material battle tested. Or not.
**** “In no small measure, the Civil War, a battle between the mechanized Yankee forces and the hardscrabble Confederate heroes, is a near-perfect metaphor for American history.” That’s a fake quote that I’d like to attribute to Mr. Shelby Foote, Professor Emeritus of Cracker Studies********. You can tell it’s Foote (though not really) by the “in no small measure” part.
***** This part is true. Seriously.
****** Except, of course, for those students who do no reading at all. Those students get coal. The best students, ironically, also get coal. Though theirs is fashioned into a handsome bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
******* Beyond, that is, the research for a paper I wrote about fiction and history for Gordon Wood during my first semester of graduate school. Which paper, I should add, almost led to my dismissal from the program. For undergraduates who are looking to beat the rush, I sell that paper, while supplies last, for only $19.95 at my secret blog. You’ll probably do better with it than I did; I say that with confidence because you could hardly do worse.
******** The phrase “Cracker Studies” is of Eric’s coinage. I have ripped him off and used it here without his permission. As is my wont.
33 comments
May 6, 2008 at 12:03 am
Vance Maverick
Well, Burns blurbs it on the back cover (in the Amazon preview).
It must be strange to move from texts in which the fount of truth is documentary to a realist novel, in which truth is immanent (even if the narrator complicates it, as Shaara doesn’t seem to do much, in those couple of excerpted pages).
May 6, 2008 at 12:08 am
Vance Maverick
Also, the phrase “matriarch of interracial marriage” was very ill-considered. Not that this has much to do with anything. (Which probably means I should prefix it with about eleven asterisks.)
May 6, 2008 at 12:45 am
ari
“matriarch of interracial marriage”
? Also, my asterisks are my art.
May 6, 2008 at 4:10 am
LizardBreath
The ‘candy’ thing makes sense: it is awfully fun (and I’m glad to hear someone who teaches this stuff identify it as historically respectable).
It’s an interesting contrast with Shaara’s son’s books, which are both less entertaining, and seem to me to be written from an unpleasantly “Glorious Lost Cause” perspective. KA is warm and respectful toward the Confederate characters, but not in a way that makes you think Shaara pere is sorry they lost.
May 6, 2008 at 5:43 am
The Commander Guy
I have not read KA, but am putting it on my list.
You could consider having your students read this, by Frank Haskell as a supplement. He served during the battle and wrote this account as a letter home a couple days after the battle. So supposedly it is a comtemporaneously produced accounting of the battle.
It’ll only take a couple of hours to read so it is not a burden.
Haskell would be killed in action at cold harbor.
May 6, 2008 at 6:13 am
ww
The film was absolutely fantastic. Shot on location, a first, and using thousands of reenactors. A stunning effort.
May 6, 2008 at 6:55 am
Drew
I am also in the “lurve” camp on KA; read it in high school and went on to teach it in a literature course, using it primarily as a good intro to stream of consciousness (particularly the Armistead Pickett’s Charge chapter). Rereading KA does expose some creaky and convenient characters, but the book has real merit for the way it humanizes everyone involved.
I’ve read that Pickett biographers particularly dislike Shaara’s portrayal of Pickett as “our eternal boy,” suggesting instead that Pickett was much more moody and introverted.
May 6, 2008 at 7:40 am
dware
I’ve never assigned KA but i’ve used excerpts in survey and had some fun with it as an example of a compelling narrative becoming the “canonic” version of the events it describes. Another example? Kenneth Roberts’s Northwest Passage (his portrait of Rogers, a sympathetic monster, goes way beyond anything Spencer Tracy could bring to the part). One more? Shelby Foote’s comments throughout Burns’s The Civil War–my students will remember his voice and at least a bit of what he said long after they’ve forgotten the pain I inflicted.
May 6, 2008 at 7:49 am
Vance Maverick
Sorry for the silliness, Ari. I figured since we read the same blogs, I wouldn’t need to give a link.
May 6, 2008 at 7:59 am
John Emerson
When actually it was the First Minnesota that single-handedly won the battle of Gettysburg. Hmph.
May 6, 2008 at 8:19 am
ari
Minnesota nationalism has a new voice!
May 6, 2008 at 8:20 am
ari
Oh, that, I get it now, Vance. Thanks. Yeah, that was a very poor choice of words indeed.
May 6, 2008 at 8:23 am
Kevin Levin
The book propelled Joshua L. Chamberlain to stardom after a century of obscurity.
May 6, 2008 at 8:30 am
Some uses of fiction in teaching history. « The Edge of the American West
[…] 6, 2008 in our thing by eric Ari’s Killer Angels post reminds me, oncet upon a time I used to teach historical novels a lot more. Lots of ’em are […]
May 6, 2008 at 8:32 am
eric
Minnesota nationalism has a new voice!
As between Emerson and Keillor, I’d bet on Emerson.
May 6, 2008 at 9:07 am
The Modesto Kid
Not a good bet — the Woebegonians will bury the anti-relationshipists in the second and third generations.
May 6, 2008 at 10:21 am
charlieford
The film’s ok: I liked it when I first saw it, but repeated viewings found me incapable of ignoring how overweight almost all the re-enactors are. Those troops were marching 20 miles a day and living on beans and corn-dodgers. The Confederates in particular were nearly starved. But as they come out of the woods, on the third day, it’s more like Pickett’s Waddle. But, next to GODS & GENERALS, it’s CITIZEN KANE. Oops, I mean CASABLANCA.
May 6, 2008 at 10:38 am
eric
GODS & GENERALS
a.k.a. Sideburns of Glory!, the true tale of the most valiant facial hair American history has ever seen!
May 6, 2008 at 10:48 am
SEK
I sell that paper, while supplies last, for only $19.95 at my secret blog.
Send it to me and I’ll slap it on the secret server.
I should revise my Civil War class next time I teach it so that I lecture about the uses and limitations of historical fiction.
I think you should. Alternately, you could fly me up there and have me do it for you.
But seriously, I can’t think of a better time to teach this lesson than after you’ve had them reading 250 pages per for nine weeks, since they’ll be more suitably prepped to the understand the distinctions. I sometimes have a hard time convincing students that realist novels aren’t history so much as historical. The realist conceit lends itself well to these discussions, though, esp. when dealing with late 20th Century works of historical realism. Now that I think about it, I should write this up into a post. Thanks, Ari!
May 6, 2008 at 11:04 am
ari
I’m here for you, SEK. I really am.
May 6, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Sifu Tweety Fish
The asterisks mess up your flow, G1
1 There are other options.
May 6, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Sifu Tweety Fish
Well, I take it all back, then.
Try <sup> some time: maybe it’ll work better for you than it did for me.
May 6, 2008 at 12:21 pm
eric
<sup> works in the post, but not in the comments.
And Ari is above all that sort of thing.
May 6, 2008 at 12:29 pm
andrew
I sell that paper, while supplies last, for only $19.95 at my secret blog. You’ll probably do better with it than I did; I say that with confidence because you could hardly do worse.
It could be like that urban legend: students turn in the paper to the same professor–it gets a higher grade each time–original author, annoyed, objects–professor explains: “it gets better every year.”
May 6, 2008 at 12:34 pm
andrew
Also:
so that I lecture about the uses and limitations of historical fiction. But that would mean first learning something about that subject.
I don’t know much about historical fiction and have not read Shaara, but I reiterate my previous recommendation of this article, which includes a few paragraphs on Killer Angels, among other historically fictive works.
May 6, 2008 at 1:46 pm
ari
That’s awesome, andrew. And please go away, Jetpack. You’re not welcome here. Also, I reiterate: my asterisks are my art.
May 6, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Clover88
You sound apologetic for assigning KA. I say never apologize for 1) introducing students to important cultural literacy texts, 2) for showing them your passion for a book, and 3) making them read good fiction. Too few of them read at all. I have UC-bound juniors (precious few, but I teach some) who NEVER read any book that is not required for a class. They get their vocabulary by studying SAT-word workbooks, but not reading. So let’s show them our enjoyment of good fiction and reading.
May 7, 2008 at 7:27 am
canid
*The Crater*, by Richard Slotkin is a better book…KA is of course very good, though, and would prob be a fun book to teach….
May 7, 2008 at 8:43 am
Michael Bartley
Killer Angels is great. Yet, surprised that you are teaching it due to my own experience as a history undergrad at a fine western Ag. school many years ago. I wrote a review of Evan Connell’s Son of the Morning Star. It is was and is my belief that it is one of the finest works of literature/history written about the American West. Yet, my Professor while mildly interested in my paper (don’t want to bruise the undergrads), was adamant in his rejection of my suggestion that is would make a great addition to his reading list. He let loose with a salvo on sources, bibliography, art and history, etc. It was impressive and unyielding. Now, all these years later I find a Professor willing to go beyond Connell all the way to fiction. Wish you’d been in his office that day.
May 7, 2008 at 4:05 pm
L
I seem to recall, was also influential with Ken Burns — though I can’t find a link.
I think he said that in Robert Brent Toplin, ed., Ken Burns’s the Civil War: Historians Respond.
May 8, 2008 at 1:18 am
Hemlock
I read Jeff Shaara’s Rise to Rebellion after Killer Angels. Definitely “great cause” historical fiction. However, I did enjoy his portrayal of Joseph Warren.
May 9, 2008 at 11:10 am
Clio Bluestocking
Last semester, student wrote a paper on a visit that he allegedly made to Gettysburg. It sounded too familiar; but I couldn’t find the source. Now I have. Dammit.
May 10, 2008 at 4:04 am
Odds & Ends: May 10, 2008
[…] Using The Killer Angels in the classroom at The Edge of the American West […]