Scan barcode
littlelady_28's review against another edition
5.0
If you like the Civil War and historical fiction you will enjoy this book. Sharra clearly did extensive research for this project but also managed to humanize all the characters instead of turning them into generic historical figures. I give it an A.
quiltmom14's review against another edition
4.0
While the writing isn't as phenomenal as his father's, this Shaara is pretty darn good. The history is a bit frightening when looking at the current condition of our country. Each character becomes a real person, so much so that I found I liked the confederate leaders much more than the union, and had to remind myself what they were actually fighting for. This book is rich In detail and worth reading every one of its (very many) pages.
caitlin_89's review against another edition
4.0
This book was so great. I really didn't know a thing about the Civil War. I have a much better idea now. Shaara brings to life the real people behind the war heroes.
beingshort's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.25
taryn_a's review against another edition
5.0
I read The Killer Angels over a decade ago and finally read the "son-written prequel" in Gods and Generals. Better late than never, right? But, in my experience, sometimes those books you've "always meant to read" come to you at just the right time. This was one of those.
Reading a book on the Civil War during an epidemic and divisive election year has been interesting. While I'm not comparing any of the things we're currently experiencing to the atrocity of slavery, the division, the confusion, the anger, the blind loyalties, decisions being made by politicians far removed from situations, the media outrage, is all vaguely similar.
But back to the book. The thing I loved about The Killer Angels that is translated to this book is the storytelling. You get the perspectives of multiple characters. The author doesn't pass judgment on decisions, just tells the story as it unfolds. Is this a work of fiction? Yes. But the research shows on every page. The men, their thoughts and emotions, sympathies and beliefs all feel so very real. You'll learn more about the men who fought in the Civil War and feel the gravity of their decisions and actions so much deeper in this book than you will in a textbook stating facts and dates.
And that's what I love about historical fiction. Instead of knowing about Stonewall Jackson's death, you feel the blow it was to his friends and family. Instead of reading about how the Federal Army retreated for another time because they were led by an incompetent man, you feel the agony of the generals and soldiers who were forced to retreat from a battle they were winning--at the cost of additional lives.
If you like historical fiction that tells the story from multiple and conflicting angles, I highly recommend this one.
Reading a book on the Civil War during an epidemic and divisive election year has been interesting. While I'm not comparing any of the things we're currently experiencing to the atrocity of slavery, the division, the confusion, the anger, the blind loyalties, decisions being made by politicians far removed from situations, the media outrage, is all vaguely similar.
But back to the book. The thing I loved about The Killer Angels that is translated to this book is the storytelling. You get the perspectives of multiple characters. The author doesn't pass judgment on decisions, just tells the story as it unfolds. Is this a work of fiction? Yes. But the research shows on every page. The men, their thoughts and emotions, sympathies and beliefs all feel so very real. You'll learn more about the men who fought in the Civil War and feel the gravity of their decisions and actions so much deeper in this book than you will in a textbook stating facts and dates.
And that's what I love about historical fiction. Instead of knowing about Stonewall Jackson's death, you feel the blow it was to his friends and family. Instead of reading about how the Federal Army retreated for another time because they were led by an incompetent man, you feel the agony of the generals and soldiers who were forced to retreat from a battle they were winning--at the cost of additional lives.
If you like historical fiction that tells the story from multiple and conflicting angles, I highly recommend this one.
ehays84's review against another edition
4.0
Well, I started with The Killer Angels a couple of summers ago and then went back to this one. These are a perfect summer read for me because I start teaching the CW at the beginning of the year to my 8th graders. For such a high standard as his father's book was, Jeff Shaara deserves an awful lot of credit for this book. He easily could have written something that was just a weak attempt at copying at what his father had done, but he really does live up to his father's legacy. I'd say this book isn't as good, but that's mainly because he takes on a much bigger task in this book, and actually that's my main criticism is that the task was too much for one book. I wonder if he would say that now. I believe he has written further CW novels since about smaller periods of time or just one battle, and I am sure he sees the benefit of this.
He takes on the buildup to the war, setting the background with the main characters before the war, the start of the war, the early battles of the war with some detail about the Battles of Williamsburg and second Manassas, and then goes into lots of detail about Antietam, but especially Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. I think all of those parts are stellar and very well done, except for the part about the early battles. The most glaring thing that I think deserves criticism is that he didn't get into the first Battle of Bull Run hardly at all. When Stonewall Jackson is supposed to be one of your main characters, and you don't do the battle in which he earns the nickname, something is off. And I bet he wanted to include this, but then the book would have been probably over 600 pages long, and at nearly 500 it was already very long. But even more than that, you probably can make the argument that his strongest character is Jackson, in large part because he was such uniquely strange and heroic figure, but there was a long stretch of the book in which he didn't have any chapters from his point of view.
And I get why he had Chamberlain as one of his main characters because he is the main person through which we see the Battle of Fredericksburg, he isn't a general so we get to see a lower down officer's perspective, and then of course it is building up to his crucial role in The Killer Angels, but he didn't fight at Chancellorsville, and hardly did at Antietam. And he wasn't even in the army yet for the earlier battles. There were other characters, like, say, General Meade (just off the top of my head) who were involved more and might have presented a more complete view. At least he did General Hancock who does present a complete view from the northern side.
He really gets character, and helps us get inside a character's head extremely well. He can describe setting very well, which is key for this book with all of the troop movements and high ground, etc.
In the end, these books are so important for us to wrestle with the fact that in war, there can be heroes and villains on both sides, even if we clearly (and rightly) see one side as fighting for the right overall reason and one side fighting for the wrong overall reason. I would agree with General Grant, and I think Shaara would too, that it is possible to respect an opponent and the devotion with which he fought, even if you think his reason for fighting was horribly wrong. We also, of course, are reminded yet again that war is hell. It always is. Ask any war hero, and they will tell you so. In my own humble opinion, we must avoid war as much as we possibly ever can, but there are times where wars just have to be fought. I mean, could the Union have just said, "well, Confederacy, sure. You just go and start your own country and keep millions of souls in terrible bondage for unknown decades to come and attempt to spread chattel slavery to untold millions of acres in the American West, Caribbean, and Central and South America. That's better than fighting a war against you I guess because 600,000 men will be killed." I just don't think so.
He takes on the buildup to the war, setting the background with the main characters before the war, the start of the war, the early battles of the war with some detail about the Battles of Williamsburg and second Manassas, and then goes into lots of detail about Antietam, but especially Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. I think all of those parts are stellar and very well done, except for the part about the early battles. The most glaring thing that I think deserves criticism is that he didn't get into the first Battle of Bull Run hardly at all. When Stonewall Jackson is supposed to be one of your main characters, and you don't do the battle in which he earns the nickname, something is off. And I bet he wanted to include this, but then the book would have been probably over 600 pages long, and at nearly 500 it was already very long. But even more than that, you probably can make the argument that his strongest character is Jackson, in large part because he was such uniquely strange and heroic figure, but there was a long stretch of the book in which he didn't have any chapters from his point of view.
And I get why he had Chamberlain as one of his main characters because he is the main person through which we see the Battle of Fredericksburg, he isn't a general so we get to see a lower down officer's perspective, and then of course it is building up to his crucial role in The Killer Angels, but he didn't fight at Chancellorsville, and hardly did at Antietam. And he wasn't even in the army yet for the earlier battles. There were other characters, like, say, General Meade (just off the top of my head) who were involved more and might have presented a more complete view. At least he did General Hancock who does present a complete view from the northern side.
He really gets character, and helps us get inside a character's head extremely well. He can describe setting very well, which is key for this book with all of the troop movements and high ground, etc.
In the end, these books are so important for us to wrestle with the fact that in war, there can be heroes and villains on both sides, even if we clearly (and rightly) see one side as fighting for the right overall reason and one side fighting for the wrong overall reason. I would agree with General Grant, and I think Shaara would too, that it is possible to respect an opponent and the devotion with which he fought, even if you think his reason for fighting was horribly wrong. We also, of course, are reminded yet again that war is hell. It always is. Ask any war hero, and they will tell you so. In my own humble opinion, we must avoid war as much as we possibly ever can, but there are times where wars just have to be fought. I mean, could the Union have just said, "well, Confederacy, sure. You just go and start your own country and keep millions of souls in terrible bondage for unknown decades to come and attempt to spread chattel slavery to untold millions of acres in the American West, Caribbean, and Central and South America. That's better than fighting a war against you I guess because 600,000 men will be killed." I just don't think so.
kharmacat's review against another edition
4.0
Jeff Shaara has made a formula from his father's Pulitzer Prize winning novel, The Killer Angels, telling the tales of the same characters during the Civil War, prior to Gettysburg. Although he cannot quite match the dramatic storytelling of his father, the book succeeds in expanding upon such an interesting time in our country's history. If I were able, I'd give it 3.5 stars instead of 4, and have been generous with the extra half-star, since I will move on to read the son's second novel, the sequel to his father's masterpiece, The Last Full Measure.
lamanz2's review against another edition
3.0
Disjointed sentences fill most of the book. Way too many elipses.
The content is okay, but the book is vague about the interesting components and instead is filled with a lot of flowery thoughts that serve as filler.
The content is okay, but the book is vague about the interesting components and instead is filled with a lot of flowery thoughts that serve as filler.
legalois's review against another edition
5.0
Check out my review on my blog http://youmeandacupofteablog.blogspot.com/2014/06/book-review-gods-and-generals.html