Saturday, May 30, 2015

"Red-Tape and Pigeon-Hole Generals:" Andrew Atkinson Humphreys

In the novel the writer introduces a character by name and then provides a meticulous physical description. He's a fictional character! You can't google an image of him. The writer has to provide us an image of him. In historical writing the writer never provides the meticulous physical description of his subject that the writer of fiction does. How tall was "Stonewall" Jackson? That you would get from the fictional writer. I have no idea how tall Stonewall was. What you get from historical writers is sometimes one specific physical feature, Stonewall's eyes were steely blue, I know that, or a physical characteristic, a manner, Robert E. Lee was dignified, rode Traveller with his back straight, or you often get from historical writers, in lieu of meticulous physical description, a description of the subject in action. That is how the writer of history saw his subject, right? He saw him riding a horse or directing a battle, he didn't see him sitting as still as a statue for a photograph. This is how chapter one of Red Tape opens:

"Our new Division General, boys!" exclaimed a sergeant of the 210th Pennsylvania Volunteers whose attention and head were turned at the clatter of horses' hoofs to the rear. "I heard an officer say that he would be along today, and I recognize his description."

The men, although weary and route-worn, straightened up, dressed their ranks, and as the General and Staff rode past, some enthusiastic soldier proposed cheers for our new Commander. They started with a will, but the General's doubtful look, as interpreted by the men, gave little or no encouragement, and the effort ended in a few ragged discordant yells.

OMG! Can't you just see that? That is horrible! THAT scene happened and that is exactly the way it happened.

"He is a strange-looking old covey anyhow," said one of the boys in an undertone. "Did you notice that red muffler about his neck, and how pinched up and crooked his hat is, and that odd-looking moustache, and how savagely he cocks his eyes through his spectacles?" 

THAT is what I alerted to. THAT is Humphreys. That is a vivid, vivid description of a specific physical characteristic that instantly captures more of the personality. That also didn't happen. That statement was not made at that time. It's too long! People don't talk like that. As Humphreys was riding by there is no way some guy said all of that. That is a writer's device: Armstrong is putting all of his impressions or a collective impression into one voice for the sake of story-telling. It is not very artful writing, Armstrong does not pull it off. Those impressions are true but one guy didn't say all that as Humphreys rode by.