|
BIO
Jeff Shaara is the New York Times bestselling author of TO THE LAST MAN, THE GLORIOUS CAUSE, RISE TO REBELLION, and GONE FOR SOLDIERS, as well as GODS AND GENERALS and THE LAST FULL MEASURE --- two novels that complete the Civil War trilogy that began with his father's Pulitzer Prize-winning classic THE KILLER ANGELS. Shaara was born into a family of Italian immigrants in New Brunswick, New Jersey. He grew up in Tallahassee, Florida, and graduated from Florida State University. He lives in Tallahassee. Visit the author online at www.JeffShaara.com.
Back to top.
INTERVIEW
 May 16, 2008
THE STEEL WAVE is the second installment in Jeff Shaara's historical fiction trilogy centered on the European Theater of World War II. In this interview with Bookreporter.com's Stephen Hubbard, Shaara discusses some of the surprising firsthand accounts he had encountered while researching this novel and explains how it offers new material on a subject that has been covered many times previously in other books and films. He also singles out one particular lesser-known character who he hopes will gain more recognition as a result of his work, and comments on the current trend in historical writing to soil the images of previously respected historical figures, as well as increasing negative attitudes toward members of the armed forces.
Bookreporter.com: On your website, you mention receiving documents and diaries from veterans and their families. How important was this treasure trove to your work on THE STEEL WAVE?
Jeff Shaara: In every book I’ve done, the original documents (diaries, letters, memoirs) are the most essential part of my research. With World War II, there are so many more materials available that were impossible to find for the American Revolution, for example.
BRC: Was there any story or accounting you found in those personal collections that fascinated you or that led your writing of THE STEEL WAVE into an area you might not have gone otherwise?
JS: German Field Marshal Rommel’s papers were a key to my research, which I did not expect. He is brutally honest in his evaluation of Hitler and in the failure of his own army (especially his generals and himself). That was a real surprise, and it helped considerably in writing from his point of view.
BRC: You've often stated that first-hand accounts are essential for you to get into the heads of the historical figures in your work. In going through the diaries and letters during your research for THE STEEL WAVE, is there any one person who just impressed you or whose words may have changed your opinion of them, for better or worse?
JS: As I mention above, I was very surprised by Rommel. I did not expect to like the man (and I’ve heard from numerous readers of THE RISING TIDE who say the same thing). Much of what I knew of Montgomery and Patton was pretty well borne out by my research --- neither one is a very nice man, though both are exceptional battlefield commanders (Patton probably more so). I was very surprised by Eisenhower, by all that he went through trying to manage the extraordinary challenge of assembling a massive Allied army from two entirely separate military cultures and personalities (the Americans and British).
BRC: Can you discuss the responsibility that comes with taking actual historical figures like Eisenhower, Patton or Rommel and using them as main characters but still remaining true to the history?
JS: I am painstakingly careful to “get it right” when it comes to historical characters, especially iconic figures such as Churchill, Eisenhower, etc. It’s a very risky thing to put words in the mouths of these kinds of historical figures (as it was working with George Washington, Ben Franklin, Robert E. Lee, etc). The challenge is to get into the heads of these people, to feel I know them personally. If I don’t reach that level of intimacy, I can’t possibly speak for them. And, if I don’t believe that the dialogue or the inner thoughts are accurate, I promise you, the reader won’t either.
BRC: Since the release of THE RISING TIDE, Ken Burns brought us the documentary "The War" and showed us the personal experiences at home and on the front. Did you examine "The War" at all? If so, did it aid your work on THE STEEL WAVE in any way, or was it released after the book was finished?
JS: Ken Burns’s work was released after most of my own work was completed. In any event, I would not have relied on his research. I try to avoid riding on the back of another historian or historical researcher. I would much rather dig into these people myself and make my own discoveries.
BRC: THE STEEL WAVE, like its predecessors, is a stunning piece of work. You must enjoy writing these books or else you would stop. Are their frustrations you've experienced in trying to bring these stories to the page, or is this writing experience just invigorating?
JS: I am extremely fortunate that I have never suffered from what most writers know as “writer’s block.” My father suffered horribly, staring for months at a blank piece of paper, with no inspiration coming to him. I have never “struggled” to tell any of my stories. Once the research has been completed, I tend to be pretty excited about the story, as well as the people in it. Often, my greatest challenge is not to write too much --- too many pages of manuscript. I have to rein myself in from trying to tell too much of the story (something my editor reminds me of constantly). I am extremely fortunate to be doing what I’m doing --- I can’t imagine not enjoying writing, or telling these stories.
BRC: Given the power of hindsight, during your research for THE STEEL WAVE, was there any shortcoming on the part of either the Axis or the Allied forces that left you shaking your head?
JS: Mistakes are common in war, and both sides make them. In THE STEEL WAVE, as in every story I’ve done, I am constantly amazed how history turns on a single event, how entire battles (or wars) can be altered by someone’s idiotic mistake, or stroke of genius. I doubt it has ever been any different throughout history.
BRC: In discussing your series on the American Revolution you once referred to Nathaniel Greene as the Stonewall Jackson of the Revolution, yet he is relatively unknown. Is there a little-known figure in THE STEEL WAVE you feel more people should know about?
JS: The one figure that I hope shines through is paratroop commander James Gavin. His control of a desperate situation in the countryside behind the beaches quite possibly turned the tide of the campaign. I try to take you close to Gavin throughout the story, as told by Sgt. Jesse Adams of the 82nd Airborne. Most of the primary characters are pretty well known, and Gavin is certainly not unknown, especially to military historians. But the general public likely has not heard of him.
BRC: In THE STEEL WAVE, you take us to D-Day and the invasion of Normandy. It would be near impossible not to include this event, yet it is an oft-told moment in both books and films. How did you approach the writing of that chapter of history in order to set it apart and make it unique and fresh for your story, and not just another D-Day recounting? Was there anything new that you uncovered in your research of that event that you used?
JS: I was very apprehensive doing a book that covered the same ground that has been done so many times before. That is the primary reason I focused so much of my point of view on the paratroop sergeant, Jesse Adams. I do take you across Omaha beach, but only with a character you see for a couple of chapters. I couldn’t ignore that part of the campaign --- that would have been ridiculous. But to focus a hundred pages of the book on the same scene that was done so well in Saving Private Ryan or The Longest Day would not have given the reader any surprises. Instead, I take you across Omaha beach with a man who faces his own surprise, and it’s not pretty. I tell his story, as one GI, rather than using him to tell the history of Omaha Beach. To me, the story inland --- what happens to the paratroopers --- is a major surprise and is something most people have no concept of. That was fun.
BRC: You obviously can't write about everything when doing these books. Was there any story or event you loved that you had to keep out of THE STEEL WAVE simply due to time/space issues or an inability to fold it into the main story?
JS: I love Winston Churchill and would love to have included more of him. The same is true for Patton. Both are in the story, just not as often as I would have liked. But both will return in the next book, Patton especially. There are always stories I can’t include, and in the case of the paratroopers, there was so much more I could have written about, so many incidents --- some funny, some tragic. But, at the end of the day, I have to tell a good story and not try to tell ALL the good stories.
BRC: Thomas Paine and Phil Sheridan were previous figures you said you just couldn't get into the heads of, so they were ultimately left out. Was there anyone left out of THE STEEL WAVE because you just couldn't find a touchpoint for them?
JS: Not really. Montgomery is difficult, Hitler would be impossible, but I was able to portray both men through the eyes of someone else close to them. That challenge will come again in the next book, which will focus somewhat on the fall of Hitler, the final days.
BRC: Paratrooper Jesse Adams has his hands full in THE STEEL WAVE. As the fictional everyman, are his experiences purely fictional within the historical frame, or are they based on a combined collection of researched memoirs?
JS: Every event that occurs to Sgt. Adams is real. It happened. Adams is a composite, though he represents the real experiences (and memoirs) of several men. I never fudge history or create a scene that just isn’t plausible. Some of the events are shocking, some are (surprisingly) funny. My job is to create a storyline that makes sense, that flows well, and that engages the reader. Fortunately for me, there is so much good material, and the events as they happened are so appealing for the drama and the humor. (If you don’t have humor in a story such as this, the reader would simply get numb to page after page of trauma and horror. That’s a mistake that some filmmakers make. They bomb the audience with horrific special effects, as a substitute for telling a good story. It rarely works).
BRC: What do you make of the present trend in historical writing whereby historians seek to tear down once revered icons of our past or retell the history as more of a negative critique of events?
JS: Despite what most academic historians tell you, they are a product of their cultural environment. An historian’s job, in my opinion, is to tell us what happened --- just the facts. But inevitably, the desire to publish something “new” and “fresh” (I hate that word) results in a different take on a character. There are numerous grotesque examples, Ben Franklin being one. Hollywood thinks the audience would rather see him just as a “dirty old man.” In fact, Franklin changed the history of the world by what he accomplished in Paris with King Louis XVI. That's a great story, and one that I try to tell in THE GLORIOUS CAUSE. But modern historians would rather go for the salacious, the titillating, because they believe that’s what the audience expects.
One particular issue in the WWII series is Eisenhower’s relationship with his driver, Kay Summersby. It has long been speculated that they had an ongoing affair, but the only reference I ran across came from Patton, and all he says is that Summersby was present at various dinners, etc. Eisenhower had political enemies, and certainly this is the sort of thing they would emphasize. But --- whether or not the affair occurred --- it has nothing to do with the story I’m trying to tell. I’m not “covering up” some aspect of Ike’s personality, or choosing to gloss over some flaw. It just isn’t relevant to my own story. But many historians today would rather look at the presumed affair first and leave the rest of Eisenhower’s amazing accomplishments as a footnote. I hate that.
I think the tendency to focus on the negative in our “heroes” came during the 1970s, with the bitterness over the Vietnam War. Hollywood reflects this in the way the military was portrayed. Films such as Platoon, Apocalypse Now and Coming Home change the way the audience is supposed to view soldiers. I despise the movie American Beauty, because it uses the cliché of the Marine colonel as the obvious lunatic, as though any man who would be a Marine must be nuts. That kind of take reflects some people’s cynicism with our government and our military. It has no place in any of my stories.
BRC: What are you working on now, and when might readers expect to see it?
JS: I am now in the midst of researching the third of the WWII trilogy, which will cover the Battle of the Bulge and the fall of Hitler. I hope to be writing that manuscript by this fall, and the book will be completed (again, I hope) so that it can be released fall of 2009. No title yet (it’s too soon).
 Click here now to buy this book from Amazon.com.
Back to top.
INTERVIEW
 November 10, 2006
Historical fiction author Jeff Shaara began his career by writing a prequel to his late father's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, THE KILLER ANGELS, and has since gone on to publish a number of books centered on major wars in history. In this interview with Bookreporter.com's Stephen Hubbard, Shaara discusses the personal accomplishment of completing his father's work and explains why he focuses his writing on characters during wartime. He also describes the effort he put into making his latest novel, THE RISING TIDE, as historically accurate as possible and shares some surprising facts he learned while researching important figures in World War II.
Bookreporter.com: First thing's first --- Why war?
Jeff Shaara: It's not war that intrigues me, it's how the participants, the characters in my story, respond to that war. There is no greater challenge for anyone to face than the horror of what he must do in wartime. It's a very dramatic and effective way to measure character, define heroism and examine tragedy, all of which make for a good story. Wars are fought by ordinary people who find themselves caught up in an extraordinary situation. How they respond to that situation, how leaders emerge, how one man becomes a hero while another remains hidden, how our lives, all of our lives, have been changed by this kind of history…all of those things are ingredients for what I believe to be an interesting story.
BRC: You've written about the Civil War, the American Revolution, World War I, the Mexican War, and now, with THE RISING TIDE, World War II. Which of these conflicts holds the most interest for you?
JS: I was surprised by the drama I encountered in the American Revolution. My two books on that era are in some ways different from anything else I've done, because the characters are not simply fighting a war --- they're creating a nation. It's one thing to have a conflict of two armies, strength against strength, "may the best man win." But in the Revolution, a few American colonists chose to stand up to the most powerful army (and government) in the world --- and they won. That's a unique story.
BRC: How intimidating was it to begin completing the work your father did with THE KILLER ANGELS, especially considering it won a Pulitzer Prize?
JS: Since there were no expectations that anyone would ever read my manuscript, I had no fear about writing it. The whole idea was for me to do my father's kind of research, get into the heads of the characters, tell the story from their points of view --- so that it could be adapted for a screenplay. All the energy came from Ted Turner and his people. Turner wanted to do more Civil War films, since Gettysburg had been so successful. I understood very well that if the story I put together was lousy, it would simply end up in the trash, and no one would ever know I wrote anything.
Since I was representing my father's literary estate with the publisher in New York, and since his book THE KILLER ANGELS was now a #1 bestseller, they were naturally curious just what it was I was writing. They asked to see the manuscript of GODS AND GENERALS, and responded to that by offering me a publishing contract. That changed my whole life. There was never any thought to "competing" with him at all. My father spent 40 years of his life perfecting his craft and won a Pulitzer Prize. I knew very well that I was just getting started, and I never feel like I have to weigh my work against his.
BRC: Your father, unfortunately, never had the chance to enjoy the success THE KILLER ANGELS achieved, and he no doubt would be proud of the success you've had in following him. Do you feel that in finishing the Civil War trilogy it was more important to continue his legacy and bring that to a close for him? And since you continue to pursue writing, do you feel you do it for yourself now?
JS: I didn't attack GODS AND GENERALS as a way of finishing what my father had started; but very soon afterward, when my book was on the bestseller list, I was very clear that the work I was doing should have been his to complete, and the attention I was receiving should have gone to him. Completing the Civil War trilogy created an emotional connection between me and my father that is difficult to explain, something very personal to me. But now, since I've moved away from the Civil War, I feel very much like the work is my own, that the characters and the storylines are my own. But the lessons I learned from him are very powerful and guide me in my writing every time. I am never far from the impact and the influence of THE KILLER ANGELS.
BRC: In THE RISING TIDE, how did you determine which aspects of World War II were going to be the focal points for your story, and how did you ultimately decide the beginning point for the story?
JS: In every story I do, it's important to show how the history is being created, how major decisions are affecting everything that happens. So of course, I feel I need to bring in the "guys at the top" as primary characters. The choice of Eisenhower, and his subordinates and allies, was an easy one to make. But then, I need to get away from the leaders and put myself in the action. My last book on the First World War (TO THE LAST MAN) had been the first effort I had made at telling a story from the front line, from the "grunt's" point of view. This time, I knew I wanted to repeat that, but not just from the infantryman's eyes. Since the tank battles were so critical to the story of North Africa, it made sense to find someone in a tank. Since the paratroopers were so pivotal to the invasion of Sicily, it was logical to find a paratrooper's point of view.
Finding the beginning of the story was very difficult. There is so much history happening all over the world, so many important events --- from Pearl Harbor to the invasion of Poland, to Dunkirk, and Norway and the Philippines. I couldn't just plop the reader down in the middle of 1942 without some explanation of where we were and why, what had happened before to bring us to this point in the story. Fortunately, that's what my "Introductions" can do.
BRC: THE RISING TIDE, like your other works, features real-life combatants as well as fictional characters. How do you hone down the immensity of the World War II canvas and select just a handful of true warriors? And how do you work in the fictional characters while keeping the honesty of the history intact?
JS: It's always difficult deciding what to include and what to leave out. None of my books are "blow-by-blow" accounts of the entire war, or comprehensive histories of the event. All I'm trying to do is tell a story from a few points of view: men who were in crucial places at crucial times, men who made the decisions that changed the history of their time, the men who saw how those decisions played out in the field, the men who could take me (and the reader) into the history, getting past the dry facts. It's always about finding a good story, not explaining the entire war. But --- I feel a powerful responsibility to "get it right," to keep the facts straight, not to play games with history, with the timeline, or anyone's involvement. I am very proud of the historical accuracy of everything I've written, and, though mistakes occasionally are made, I take great pains to correct them.
Even through the creation of a fictitious character, I must stay true to the history. And so, in every case, a fictional character is the product of the accounts told by an assortment of other characters who were there, who saw and experienced and related all those things that then become part of my story. All my research comes from original source accounts: diaries, memoirs, collections of letters. I never create an event that simply didn't happen, I never put two historical figures together who never met. The dialogue, which of course has to be described as fiction, comes directly from the personalities and experiences of the actual figures who were there, and who have passed those experiences on to us.
BRC: When writing THE RISING TIDE did you ever have doubts about the work from the standpoint that World War II is so popular? Because it has been written about so extensively and had numerous films made, were you concerned that you just might be rehashing things?
JS: I was very unsure that I wanted to do a story on World War II, because it had been done so very many times before. In terms of Hollywood alone, it is the one military subject about which more films have been made than all others combined (and they're still being made today). I absolutely did not want to simply tell another story that everyone already knows, and I'm definitely not going to do a "revisionist" approach --- tearing down heroes or doing some kind of "expose" just to get a book published. I have very little respect for that kind of thing. Once I got into the research, I realized that I didn't know nearly as much as I thought I did, so I had to assume that most people were in the same boat. If I could find good characters and tell an honest story, then it was worth doing. I was very surprised by what I learned about North Africa and Sicily, and what I discovered about Eisenhower, Rommel, Patton, etc. I truly believe that this is a story that will surprise people. And, it's all true.
BRC: With the Civil War trilogy, it is nearly impossible to feel that any of the main combatants are evil people, yet THE RISING TIDE and its concentration in Word War II works from a different understanding. How were you able to write about someone like Rommel or Kesselring from a neutral position considering their participation in Hitler's Axis army, which is generally considered one of the great evils of all time?
JS: I was very nervous about using a Nazi as a primary character in my story, and then I discovered that, in fact, Rommel was not a Nazi at all. It's easy to label all German soldiers as evil, since of course they fought for a cause that was handed to them by an evil man. But Rommel is a three-dimensional character, a human being and a good soldier. To dismiss him, or to ignore his accomplishments because he was on the wrong side, is very limiting to our understanding of history. If we want to understand what happened, why it happened and how it happened, we have to know what was going on in the minds of those men on the other side. I've done that in every book I've written: take you to the other side, give you a voice you might not expect to hear. Certainly there are some people who might find my characterization of Rommel objectionable. But it's honest. The voice comes from the man himself, from his letters, his documents, his correspondence with his wife. The most important aspect of Rommel, something I was frankly relieved to learn, was that Rommel began to realize that Hitler was, in fact, mad. That made my job much easier.
BRC: When writing a book such as THE RISING TIDE, do you try to connect more with historians who love that time period, or do you ultimately hope to attract individuals who may not have had much interest before?
JS: With all due respect to historians, I'm not really interested in reaching them as a primary audience. My books are geared toward those who probably hated history in school, who were shortchanged in their understanding of history by the misery of a dry textbook. In the end, it's all about finding a good story, passing that story on to an audience who might find themselves surprised by the events and the characters that gave us our history. I love hearing from readers who are as surprised by these stories as I am, who tell me, "I had no idea…" That's the same way I feel when I'm researching.
BRC: The research for the work that you do must be an immense undertaking, and it would seem that you could spend your whole life researching instead of writing the story. How much time do you devote to the research end of things, and how do you know when it is right to stop and actually create the story?
JS: The research typically takes twice as long as the writing of the manuscript. I usually read 60-70 books for each book I write, over a period of maybe a year. Plus, I travel to as many of these historical sites as I can, the sites I will be writing about. The more modern the story, the more material there can be to research; and at some point, once I feel comfortable putting words in the mouths of these historical figures, it's time to stop reading and start writing. Obviously, with World War II, I could continue to read memoirs and letters for years to come. At some point, I realize I have a story to tell, and so it's time to tell it.
BRC: Film adaptations of THE KILLER ANGELS and GODS AND GENERALS enjoyed modest success. Are there plans at all for THE LAST FULL MEASURE being filmed to complete the Civil War trilogy, or are there any plans or discussions about any of your other works? To go with that, do you feel that the film adaptations are positives and fuel those people who typically don't read with enough drive to pick up the book?
JS: Actually the film adaptation of my father's THE KILLER ANGELS (the film Gettysburg) was enormously successful. The film adaptation of GODS AND GENERALS was a financial disaster for Ted Turner. Unfortunately, that has caused Turner to withdraw his commitment to finance a film version of THE LAST FULL MEASURE, which would have completed the Civil War trilogy. Someone else may yet finance the project, but right now there's nothing happening. I hear from time to time from Hollywood people who show some interest in my books, but there is nothing concrete in the works. I suppose films tend to reach an audience who might not be inclined to pick up a book, but so often Hollywood's efforts don't measure up to the story as it's told in the book. Obviously, if someone was serious about making a film from any of my other books, I'd be very pleased. But I don't sit by the phone waiting for that call.
BRC: With the wide range of subjects you've delved into, what one historical person who you've put on the page is the most intriguing and fascinating to you personally, and why?
JS: The one person I would like to meet and spend time with is Ben Franklin. It is no exaggeration to say that Franklin changed the history of the world, that his actions (along with George Washington's) in the American Revolution brought about our victory over the British. Beyond that, he was simply a fascinating man, a unique and brilliant mind. I despise the way Hollywood usually portrays him, as a "dirty old man." Just tell the truth about him, and you have a story far more interesting than anything a screenwriter could create.
BRC: Do you think historians generally frown upon historical fiction, or have you seen a change in the perception of historical fiction as now being a good jumping point for readers to actually invest more time in that subject from the historical perspective?
JS: I believe there has been a change among most historians in how they perceive historical fiction. I've met a great number of academics and nonfiction historical writers who express appreciation that fiction is reaching a far larger audience than nonfiction, and is bringing enormous numbers of people to historical subjects that could never be captured by a high school textbook. I meet enormous numbers of people who tell me how much they hate reading history, but they've read my father's book, or my own, and now they're taking their kids to Gettysburg. I think most historians recognize that. (There are always those diehard academics who dismiss all fiction as worthless. I don't really listen to them.)
BRC: Our world seems to be devolving into chaos. Do you think more world leaders should look back at history, especially World War II, and just remind themselves of what can come of things if they are allowed to go too far? Are there lessons they could learn from that period?
JS: It's easy to suggest that world leaders should look back at history, to see what kinds of mistakes they continue to repeat. But that has never happened before, and I doubt it will happen now.
BRC: THE RISING TIDE is just the first in a trilogy of World War II. When this series is completed, do you know what you have planned for your next project?
JS: The World War II trilogy deals with the European theater, and once it is complete, I will do a fourth book, covering the end of the war in the Pacific. There is simply too much of a story there, too much drama, too many good characters to ignore. After that, I'm not sure --- maybe Korea; take the characters from World War II forward. I don't think I will ever do a story of Vietnam or anything more modern. There is simply too much politics involved, and no story I could tell would be free of that. That's not what I do: I have no political agenda, I'm not trying to make a "point" or beat readers over the head with the lessons of history, who was right and who was wrong. It's also possible I may go back to the Civil War, tell one more story with an entirely different setting than the Shaara trilogy. As long as there are readers (and a publisher) who ask me to write something, and as long as I can find a good story, I'll keep writing.
Click here now to buy this book from Amazon.com.
Back to top.
AUTHOR TALK
 October 2004
In this interview Jeff Shaara, author of TO THE LAST MAN, explains why he decided to write a novel about World War One after exploring earlier periods in American history in previous books. He also discusses the appeal of two of his main characters, the research he conducted for this latest project, and the lessons that can be learned from such a gripping story.
Q: You've written five previous novels that dealt with earlier periods of American history. Why move forward? Why World War One?
Jeff Shaara: I enjoy digging into stories that most people just aren't that familiar with. We've learned so much about the Second World War and the Civil War, from Hollywood, from history class, from the thousands of books that have been written over the years. I'm often asked why I don't tackle D-Day or Pearl Harbor, the Alamo or Custer's Last Stand. The answer is easy: You already know those stories --- there's simply not much I can add. Just like the Mexican War or even the American Revolution, I am drawn to a story that has familiar names in unfamiliar roles. Once I began looking at the characters who were responsible, or who represented so much of what happened in World War One, those who were responsible for so much heroism, so much history, I knew it was a story I wanted to tell. It's a surprising story, not just for the horror, but for the humor as well, and of course, for the amazing characters.
Q: Two of your main characters are flying aces. What is their appeal?
JS: I originally thought I could do an entire book about the "battle flyers", but I realized that the war in the air was such a contrast to what was happening on the ground that it was a necessary addition to this story. But, once again, it's not about the airplanes as much as it is about the men who flew them. On the German side, Manfred von Richthofen is at first a cavalryman, who quickly realizes that horses are dangerously obsolete. But he views his airplane as just another horse, as though pilots are just like the knights of old, fighting gallant and honorable duels in the air. The American pilot, Raoul Lufbery was enormously attractive to me for several reasons. First, he completely disagrees with Richthofen's view of air combat. His job is to kill the enemy, not engage in chivalry. Plus, Lufbery is the most accomplished American ace of the war, and yet most people have never heard of him. This is the man who teaches an entire generation of young American pilots, including Eddie Rickenbacker, how to fly. Plus, Lufbery is a part of the Lafayette Escadrille, an incredible mix of characters, a story that I felt needs to be told. Both Lufbery and Richthofen are marvelous characters.
Q: Von Richthofen is the primary German voice in this story. Why?
JS: I didn't want to spend too much time with the generals. In all my previous books, I look at the events through the eyes of the men at the "top". Once I realized how fascinating Richthofen was, I knew his voice was crucial to the story. Even though the German commanders, Ludendorff and von Hindenburg, do have a small voice in this story, I wanted to show what life was like for a German hero, a man who had so much responsibility thrust on him to support the morale of his country. But beyond becoming a propaganda tool, Richthofen (the "Red Baron") was the greatest flying ace of the war, on either side. Some historians have dismissed his reputation as myth. They're wrong.
Q: Describe the kinds of research you do for a story like this.
JS: In all my books, whenever possible, I rely only on original source materials: diaries, memoirs, collections of letters, the voices of the people who were there. One enormous advantage in researching the First World War is the wealth of material that has been passed down. Many of the specific sources were easy to find, such as the memoirs and papers from "Black Jack" Pershing, the young George Patton and George Marshall, and books written by a great many flyers and Marines. But then I was privileged to receive inquiries from descendants (usually the grandchildren) of a number of soldiers who fought in the war. I was so grateful to be given unpublished diaries, collections of photographs, all kinds of wonderful information that you simply can't find in a modern history book. This is what inspired me to include an "Acknowledgements" page at the beginning of the book, to thank those people who offered me their personal artifacts.
Beyond the reading, it is critical that I walk in the footsteps of the characters. I spent some time in France and Belgium, walking the ground, to get a first-hand look (and feel) for what the countryside was like. That is an important part of every story I've done.
Q: Were you surprised by what you discovered about any of the characters in this story?
JS: I've mentioned the flying aces --- I was enormously surprised at the depth of the "Red Baron", that, through his writings and the writings of the men around him, what life was like for the one part of the German military that was so successful. I was even more surprised to discover how significant Lufbery was to the Allied war effort in the air, and as well, how much humor and charm surrounded him and the other pilots of the Lafayette Escadrille. Pershing's role was a surprise as well. Much like George Washington, the pure force of John Pershing's will is what held the American effort together, and allowed the American Expeditionary Force to take to the front lines as a well-trained fighting force, without which the allies would have lost the war. There is an awful lot of revisionist history that dismisses America's role, especially as written by a great many French and British historians. I was very surprised to learn that in fact, the Americans were enormously responsible for the defeat of the Germans. This isn't simply my opinion. It's the opinion of most French and British generals at that time, as well as a good many Germans.
I was also surprised by the role of many of the young men who would become far more famous in World War Two. George Patton is a minor character in this story, as is George Marshall. There are so many similarities in this book to my book on the Mexican War, GONE FOR SOLDIERS. In Mexico, so many familiar names from the Civil War are much younger men, completely inexperienced as soldiers, who learn the first lessons about life and war. In TO THE LAST MAN, so many familiar names from the Second World War are fighting in World War One as inexperienced officers, who have their first taste of command and combat, the foundation for what they will accomplish later in life.
Q: Most people have heard of the Red Baron. One other well-known character from this era is Sergeant York. Why didn't you include him in this story?
JS: First of all, just because people are familiar with a character doesn't mean they know the real story. (I am appalled how many people believe the "Red Baron" is simply a cartoon character). I gave serious consideration to focusing on Alvin York, but in the end, I realized that his story is not so very different from the stories of a great many other anonymous foot soldiers, who did not have the good fortune to return home as a national hero, or to see themselves portrayed on the silver screen by Gary Cooper. York was certainly a hero, and I'm not taking anything away from his accomplishments, but there were an enormous number of American Marines and Doughboys who deserved attention as well. In the end, I chose to follow the front line action through the eyes of an otherwise anonymous Marine private, Roscoe Temple. The Marines were such a crucial part of the American effort, and for the most part, they participated in every major fight we had.
Q: Is the young Marine, Roscoe Temple, a real character?
JS: Temple is a composite character, drawn from the personal memoirs and diaries of several Marines. But every event he witnesses is accurate, every move his squad makes is authentic, every experience is something that was endured by a real Marine. Also, the officers and sergeants who lead his squad into battle are real figures --- every name (and the date of their death) is accurate, taken from the official records of the American Second Division, which included the Marines.
Q: What lessons can be learned from this story? Is there something about World War One that is as relevant today as it was then?
JS: There is one lesson that Pershing himself was very much aware of. At one point in his memoirs (and in my story), he quotes Napoleon, who said that he always enjoyed fighting a "coalition", because they are the easiest enemy to defeat. In the First World War, Germany nearly won, because they were fighting a mix of nations who held an uneasy and uncomfortable alliance, and who exhausted as much energy bickering with each other as used to combat their common enemy. Without getting political, which is something I really try to avoid, I believe this lesson is clearly relevant today. Anyone who believes that a coalition is the best way to tackle the challenges of our modern world should give the same heed to Napoleon's view as did "Black Jack" Pershing.
There is a more obvious lesson of course. As war has become more "modern", and the technology and weaponry has continued to improve, wars are still fought by soldiers, by young men (and women) with guns. The First World War shocked the entire world by the degree of slaughter, the astounding horror of what war had become. A great many people felt then that humanity would never allow that kind of catastrophe to occur again, that we could elevate ourselves above that kind of ghastly conflict. It only took twenty years, until the start of World War Two for even the most optimistic to be proved wrong.
• Click here now to buy this book from Amazon.
© Copyright 1996-2008, Bookreporter.com. All rights reserved.
Back to top.
|
