Thursday, January 8, 2009
Killer Angel
Today in class (Thursday), we dicussed the book's title, The Killer Angels, and its origin. The author of the book, Michael Shaara, got it from Chamberlain's title, Man, A Killer Angel. The title raises the point of man's capability do both good and bad, to be a killer and an angel. Every man is born with the ability to be violent, most just have to be pushed into doing it. For the most part men do not want to kill but if pressed, they will turn to violence. On the other hand, man also has the capability to be inherently good, to be an angel, as the title suggests. Most will argue, as will I, that man would rather live in peace than in war and would prefer to avoid violence. However, every man has their breaking point and far too often, it is reached. Take Chamberlain for example, he is clearly not a violent man by nature. He is a scholar rather than a soldier, but when war is thrust upon him, he accepts it. He even goes as far to say that he likes the life of a soldier and has grown to tolerate and to an extent, enjoy, the consequences of it. He grows accustomed to and takes a liking to the violent life he now leads, revealing his inherent ability to be a "killer". The opposite scenario of Chamberlain, is that of Longstreet. Longstreet is a military man by nature and is comfortable with war. But, he displays his "angel" side in his desire to preserve as many lives as possible. Unlike his superior, Lee, Longstreet values human lives and does not see his soldiers as expendable items. He sees them as people, just like him, and wishes to prevent as many of them from dying as possible in battle. Yes, his desire to take a defensive stance is a strategic decision but it is also to on behalf of saving lives, showing his inherent capability to be good. Chamberlain and Longstreet exemplify man's capability to be both an angel and a killer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
i like this. i, like most of the class, noticed the differences between Chamberlain and Longstreet, but i had not connected them to the title. Clearly neither man is purely a killer, nor an angel; instead these two characters portray the dichotomy of the title itself.
I think you have established some of the key aspects that the title raises. I think these are the reasons Michael Shaara really wanted to show Gettysberg through they eyes of main characters in the battle. This character double (or doppleganger for the English scholars) shows depth to the battle and gives a wider scope of views in terms of sides, ideology, and war. Great post and analysis of the reading.
I happen to agree with both Tess and Michael-- this is a very well said explanation of Killer Angels. I didn't think of Chamberlain and Longstreet as manifestations of a killer and an angel, respectively, as you did in your post. I think Mikey is right that this is why Shaara wrote the book the way he did. These two characters are essential to the story much more than I think Lee's character.
I clearly understand your theories about the breaking point of a man and how this turns him to violence. Chamberlain is the perfect example of a well educated and scholarly man who fights for something he truly believes is right. The theme of perspective and belief is consistent throughout the Civil War. One nation is split into two completely different countries because of contrasting beliefs and view points of the world. War is often times a battle of ideology and philosophy. It is a battle of one belief against the opposite. I understand that all men have something they are passionate about and something they are willing to die for.
Your blog definitely covers the idea of men as the killer angels. You show both sides of the argument and present a really strong case. I think it goes without saying that people are complex. Even if they come off like an angel such as Chamberlin, they can still have killer-like qualities and visa versa.
I agree. I think it shows that people have the ability to be a killer or an angle and they have to choose. I also think they can choose a little of both.
I think it is going to be interesting to be able to decide at the end of reading this text whether certain characters fell under the killer title or the angle title.
Like many people have said, Chamberlain and Longstreet are going to be very important characters and you were able to show the differences between them.
So is participating in war being a killer or an angel? On the one hand, one is obviously killing when in war. However, you could also look at it as being an angel towards the cause that one is fighting for.
Alright Nick, easy post. I mean anyone can break down the title to a book. No seriously good post. I liked how you were able to connect the title to some characters. The most important part to the "killers" or the "angels" was Longstreet's reversal. I don't know exactly how Longstreet was before his daughters deaths strategical wise, but if he was a aggressive commander before you can see his character change. After the deaths of his daughters he started to value the lives of his men, thus giving him the "angel" title.
Post a Comment