How to write a war

Its been said --somewhere-- that describing a war--whether for nonfiction or fiction-is one of the hardest tasks for any writer; and I believe that.

I've also heard that narrative structure for this kind of thing falls either into broad sweeping, high-level summaries and overview-style writing (aka, the 'bird's eye view'); or, a writer forces his attention onto a hodge-podge of small minutiae; tiny anecdotes and minor incidents which tell the drama at the 'worm's-eye level'.

Have you ever seen war-writing done any other way? Has it ever worked any other way? Which are the best examples found at either end of the spectrum? Perhaps, you would want to cite books where the author achieves a mixture of these two techniques? Perhaps, 'following a leader throughout his campaign' (this suggests itself) but on the other hand, dwelling on just the leaders of the campaign, might be too narrow a scope.

I can name at least one book which demonstrate a job done well; and that would be Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall'. I noticed recently (in the comments section for 'Guns, Germs, & Steel') people are saying that Jared Diamond tries to show how history can form the character of an individual man; and that he fails. I'm not here to talk about that book, which I don't much care about.

But I will mention that this was essentially, the dramatic content I received from reading Gibbon; and what made it so astounding. In Gibbon, you follow a long and sometimes nauseating amount of historical detail down through every stage of Rome's history...and you often wonder what's the point of reading all this..and than, wham! You arrive at one of the last 'key moments' in Rome's history where one leader might have made all the difference. And then all the hundreds of years of the empire's failures and corruptions are exposed for what they wrought on the inadequate character of that particular emperor; and then it all makes sense and its really grand.

Anyway. I'd like to hear your opinions on how well writers like Cornelius Ryan and John Steinbeck covered WWII; John Hersey or William Shirer, perhaps. You could talk about the coverage of specific WWII battles (nonfiction or fiction) and speak on how well you though the author did his job. Contribute any insight you wish.

Good topic. I thought The Pacific War remarkable for the way Costello seemed to effortlessly change focus, from grand strategy to political maneuverings to small, individual acts, with little disturbance in the narrative line. Bernard Cornwell achieved a similar feat in his (fictional and not WWII-ish) 1356: A Novel and I'm inclined to think the ability to skillfully modulate point of view isn't all that rare. Being able to do it well is rare, but being able to do anything well is rare.

Anthony Beevor, Max Hastings, and David Halberstam are authors who can effectively describe both small unit actions and larger strategic concepts in the same work.

I do not read a lot about the German-Russian theatre in World War II, but I would be interested to hear from others regarding authors who effectively wrote about the small and big details of a battle or campaign in a single work.

Bair Irincheev wrote excellently in this vein in The War of the White Death, a book of the 1939-40 Winter War in Finland. The book covers Army/Divisional level down to some individual company actions.

I really enjoy novels by writers who experienced the wars that they wrote about. I feel that the novel gives them scope to go beyond their personal experience, yet at the same time provide a reliable, authetic view. The ones that I have really enjoyed have been The Cruel Sea, Das Boot, Life and Fate, Alone in Berlin, Suite Française, The Things They Carried and Matterhorn. The Kindly Ones is a similar reading experience, by an author that defintely was not there.

Outstanding autobiographies that read like novels include Sagittarius Rising, Quartered Safe Out Here, First Light and Chickenhawk.

I would wholeheartedly recommend any of the above. Enjoy!