Publication
Collection
Call number
Physical description
Status
Call number
Description
The New York Times bestselling prequel to the Pulitzer Prize-winning classic The Killer Angels In this brilliantly written epic novel, Jeff Shaara traces the lives, passions, and careers of the great military leaders from the first gathering clouds of the Civil War. Here is Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, a hopelessly by-the-book military instructor and devout Christian who becomes the greatest commander of the Civil War; Winfield Scott Hancock, a captain of quartermasters who quickly establishes himself as one of the finest leaders of the Union army; Joshua Chamberlain, who gives up his promising academic career and goes on to become one of the most heroic soldiers in American history; and Robert E. Lee, never believing until too late that a civil war would ever truly come to pass. Profound in its insights into the minds and hearts of those who fought in the war, Gods and Generals creates a vivid portrait of the soldiers, the battlefields, and the tumultuous times that forever shaped the nation.… (more)
Subjects
Series
User reviews
This summer I read Gods and Generals, by Jeff Shaara. This book was based on the American Civil War, and centered mainly on the lives of the important generals up to and during the Civil War. I chose to read this book because it wasn’t like all the other books I have been
What I liked most about this book was that the author, Jeff Shaara, took these people from this time and gave them personalities, feelings, and senses. Before this I was reading about these people from a textbook, where they only described the deeds they did, and if they include a description it’s usually brief and not effective. I also liked how the author also described how the main characters, which are: Robert E. Lee, Winfield S. Hancock, Thomas J. Jackson, and Joshua L. Chamberlain, are affected by the way war was being fought had changed, and how It is continuing to change.
Before reading this book I thought that all the people on the confederate side were ruthless and bad people, but once I read this book I found that most of these people, including Robert E. Lee, only fought against the union because they didn’t want to fight their home state, and if they had they would have felt like they were betraying their own people. Reading through this I felt bad for Lee because he was put into a predicament where he had to choose between his home and his country, and he chose his home, even though he didn’t share the exact same views his countrymen shared. This put me to thinking about what I do if put in this predicament, would I fight for my country or my home?
There are a lot of things that I liked about this book, but there was one part that I didn’t particularly like. The one issue that I didn’t like was that a good portion of the book was focused more on the Southern side of the story; I would have liked it to be a bit even, like half Southern part of the story, and half Northern part. Even though I don’t like this part I can assume the reason for this was because at the beginning of the American Civil War, the war was basically one sided, where the Southern side was winning and had great strong leaders, and the Northern side was basically trying to organize themselves and try and get a strong enough leader.
I could go on and on about how well this book was written, how the author brought these people, who didn’t seem real, to life for me, and how he showed me, the reader, how difficult a changing style of war was to fight. Immediately after finishing this book I looked up the author to see if he had any other books, and I found that he not only had two more books on the Civil War, but he also had books on the American Revolutionary War, and the two World Wars. After reading this book I strongly suggest that you read this book, if you find this an interesting genre.
The story
Most of the story unfolds in the actions, thoughts and dialogues of the four men being followed and this method limits the amount of detail that can be covered without breaking away from the flow and format of the storytelling. Thus, someone with no background on the American Civil War might find themselves overwhelmed or confused at times.
My primary criticism of the book is that it focuses on four officers, three of whom are already well know and their stories well-told. The most interesting tale is probably the story of Joshua Chamberlain, who was not a soldier at the start of the war and must learn his way in the heat of battle. This is the only truly unique perspective in the book.
The other aspect I found frustrating was the abrupt manner in which perspectives changed, often with no overlap - even when it would have been interesting to have some.
For instance, much of General Jackson's early exploits are uncovered not from Jackson's perspective but from Lee's. There are other times when the men are on the same battlefield and instead of exploring the same events from multiple perspectives - something I personally think would have added a rich layer to this book - the author instead hands the baton off between men with one man's story picking up where the other's ends.
This book makes characters out of the four historical figures in a way that supposes to know their innermost thoughts and feelings on various topics. This sort of creative speculation is necessary in this style of book, but can occasionally feel disingenuous.
That all being said, the book covers the men in a compelling way, and after a slow start, moves at a good clip. The books avoids the traps of excessive sensory details and of extraneous broader historical context and narrows in on the visceral experience of the main characters and the men they lead. It makes a drama of the civil war in a manner that feels remarkably free of moral judgement and only gets into technical criticism in situations where it is very believable and where historians generally agree with the criticism being leveled.
I was happy with the reading experience and felt like my knowledge of the civil war was enhanced, albeit in a more personal sense than a technical one. I do plan on reading The Killer Angels next.
As in most of Mr. Shaara's books this one is also
It is a very nice complement to history books and biographies I have previously read.
The central characters of Gods and Generals are Robert E. Lee, Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson, Winfield Scott Hancock, and Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. As the story unfolds it shows these men during the time before the war. All except Chamberlain were military men whose careers were essentially languishing and there is little evident about them prior to the war that would suggest what they would be capable of accomplishing when leading men into battle. My understanding is that each of these central characters, Jackson excepted because of his death at the immediately previous battle, looms large over the landscape of Gettysburg.
While a work of fiction I believe that Shaara does a good job at capturing the likely internal thoughts of both his central the many supporting characters during the first half of the Civil War. He shows their strengths and weaknesses, their frustrations in dealing with the politics of the respective governments, as well as the politics within the army that often had a direct consequence on the field of battle. I enjoyed this very readable book.
genius of RE Lee — "Bobby" Lee
Big Faith in God on both sides — doing right thing god on their side
No plans — other side North — look like fools always retreat
Units — Irish Brigade — Maine Brigade —
Rebell Yell — when charge —
Jeff Shaara explores
Shaara captures the disillusionment of both Lee and Hancock early in their careers, Lee's conflict with loyalty, Jackson's overwhelming Christian ethic and Chamberlain's total lack of experience, while illustrating how each compensated for shortcomings and failures when put to the test.
Men didn't necessarily chose sides based on their views of slavery, but were more opposed to the right of the central government to impose laws on individual states. For many it was the state's rights they were fighting for. I was interested to learn that Lee was asked to lead the troops for Lincoln, but could not bring himself to first feel loyalty for his home state of Virginia. It was also fascinating to learn of how many
early Union losses were because of bad leadership. Meade constantly asking for more troops when he had Lee on the run. Burnside waiting for the pontoons instead of crossing in the shallow section of the Rappahannock River.Thus giving Lee a chance to man the bank on the other side and win the day in Fredericksburg .
Shaara deciding to describe the battle through the eyes of four men also gives you a good perspective of the opposing ideas and insights into their beliefs, for example how religious both Jackson and Lee were. I would be interested in continuing my education in America's bloodiest battle and will look to go on to read about Gettysburg.
The book claims to cover 4 viewpoints, Robert E. Lee,
Which brings us to the second major problem. While Killer Angels seemed to be a repudiation of the Mythos of the Lost Cause, with an attempt to rehab Longstreet's undeserved reputation at Gettysburg. Gods And Generals seemingly pulls out every single cliche it can from the Lost Cause. Kindly Mr Lee who was apolitical (How he can spend 3 years in Arlington across the river from DC during the late 1850s and yet have no idea about politics is beyond me) to kindly Mr Lee who was just looking out for the welfare of his slaves, which is why he kept them enslaved.
Speaking of slaves, after an early appearance by a former slave at Arlington (written in the most white man writing a minority way possible), slaves never again appear in the story. Also somehow never mentioned is the Emancipation Proclamation, which was one of the major results of a battle smack dab in the middle of the novel.
It's not a bad novel persay, but is disappointing because it could have been done much better. If for example the time period of the Seven Days Battles / 2nd Bull Run / Antietam which would have ran from July of 62 to September of 62 was it's own section and given time to build out of there instead of things feeling rushed (while somehow also feeling very slow at points) it could have been better.
It's worth a read, I would definitely read The Killer Angels first, and if you want more then pick this up. Don't read this as a series starting here and going into Killer Angels.
The parts of the book dealing with the armed clashes between Union and Confederates were my favorites, as Shaara has a talent for giving the reader a real sense of what it was like to be caught up in the moment, and carried on the chaos of a battle where the side who is winning or losing changes from one minute to the next. Though he glosses over the battle of Antietam by showing it mostly through Chamberlain’s eyes while his unit is held in reserve, the bloody engagements at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville are vividly portrayed. So too the anger and anguish of officers like Hancock, who had no choice but to obey orders they knew would lead to military disaster, and the frustration of commanders like Jackson who reach for a total victory that is just outside their grasp. It is a true lesson on the definition of “the fortunes of war.” I like Shaara’s writing style, especially his command of character POV. Most of the chapters are relatively short and to the point, and there is a lot of attention given to detail—descriptions of uniforms and landscapes being most prominent—that may not be to everyone’s liking.
And this book—published in 1996—may not be for every reader of history, for it is an example of a kind of historical fiction that would not find favor in many quarters in the 21st Century, where in the eyes of some, American history is solely the story of oppressors, the oppressed, and a few hypocrites who might fall in between. There is no doubt that Shaara’s treatment of Jackson, mainly at the end of the book, falls into outright romanticizing. The issue of race and slavery is barely mentioned, and the one Black character who appears is an emancipated slave who respectfully approaches Lee about buying his brother’s freedom. It comes off as an awkward scene, written to address the underlining and dominant issue of the Civil War, and then be done with it. But it does go the reality that the people of the time lived under a very different moral code, and did not debate the great issue of the day endlessly in every conversation. They were who they were, and not who a modern America thought they should have been. And Shaara makes it very clear that the Civil War was fought by men who very much did not want to go war, and who very much did not want to kill each other on a battlefield.
So, GODS AND GENERALS will certainly “trigger” some, and this book is not for them. But for those interested in a fighting man’s perspective on the Civil War, this is a good book that makes flesh and blood out of some of the dry facts so many of us leaned in American History class. It proves that good history is a good story, one that can be retold endlessly time and again.
Although, as mentioned, I generally shy away from “war” books, I do enjoy historical fiction and in my opinion, this was historical fiction at its best.