GDG- Characters in Killer Angels

[Chet Diestel]

Esteemed GDG Members J. David Petruzzi and Tom Ryan Contribute:

  Tom,

   Interesting question.  I think, perhaps, that in his research of the 
individuals Shaara was captivated by several.  Most of them were 
Confederate... Lee, Longstreet, Hood, Pickett, Garnett, Armistead, etc.  On 
the Federal side, only a few.  In Meade's case, maybe Shaara found nothing 
special about him.  Perhaps, as a writer, he feared what introducing a 
sour-demeanored, snappy commander (whether true or not) now and then would 
do to his inspirational story.  Meade gets only a mention in the book, and 
about 10 seconds of screen time in the movie.
     I think that Shaara was only concentrating on those personalities that 
he could develop as he saw them, based on the written record, and show their 
inspirational, higher-than-self ideal.  As many do, he found the majority of 
those on the southern side where Gettysburg was concerned.  If he were to 
try some sort of "balance," he would have gone beyond his historical base.
    J.D.,

   I think that probably comes as close as anyone is going to get to 
Shaara's motivation for choosing his characters.  As with any writer, he had 
to limit the number due to standard space limitations, and he latched onto 
the most interesting people he could find to make the story come alive.
  Someone mentioned surprise that Sickles was not included.  He probably 
left him out because he was looking for Union heroes (he chose Buford, 
Hancock and Chamberlain), and Sickles certainly did not fit the bill.
   Regards, Tom

    While I agree generally with both of your takes on Shaara motivations 
regarding character selection, part of his actions may have been much more 
basic in nature. Shaara may simply have been exercising an author's 
desire --- if not need --- to fully focus on the protagonist(s) in his 
story.
 At Gettysburg, there can be no denying that the Confederates in the form of 
the Army of Northern Virginia  --- as attackers --- reflected that literary 
purpose more than the Union side, where the Army of the Potomac played the 
role of defender.
   It seems that Shaara was employing --- and employing it with marked 
success --- the tried-and-true story-telling device of focusing the reader 
more on the active than the passive.
  The ANV was on the offensive, it was its leaders planning and the carrying 
out --- or failure to carry out --- those plans that led to the ultimate 
tragedy of defeat for the South and triumph of victory for the North.
  Indeed, the three principle figures in the AOP that the author included in 
extended narrative form --- Buford, Hancock and Chamberlain --- were those 
whose actions prevented the protagonists from achieving their goal of an 
ultimate crushing victory. Yet, even this trio is presented to the reader in 
largely passive manner regarding their actions where they prepare and then 
wait for and then either delay or repulse the Confederate onslaught. Indeed, 
even Chamberlain's bayonet charge with the 20th Maine down the slopes of 
Little Round Top is treated as a counterattack --- a classic defensive 
measure --- which, of course, is what it was historically.
  Moreover, neither Buford nor Chamberlain have any personal relationship 
with those men in Gray, save all being Americans. It is only in the 
character of Hancock where we have the duo elements of personal and 
interpersonal relationshis that stretches across the battle-lines. The 
reader must understand the man who Hancock was to fully comprehend the deep 
emotional effect of friendship with him has on Armistead.
  Moreover, the reader has to understand to a good degree Hancock's military 
ability to fully understand how that effected Longstreet's mathematical 
calculations on an attack that he feels is doomed to fail from the start 
with horrific results. Hancock and the men he commands won't break. It is 
this mental professional-personal relationship which leads Longstreet to be 
presented at his most passive, to a point where he can not even verbalize 
the orders to begin the assault to Pickett.
  So, in many ways Shaara's presentation of the epic war story differs 
little in structural and narrative forms from that of every other great 
author since Homer recited the story of the Trojan War in the palaces of the 
ancient Greek city-states.
    With regards,
       Chet