![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
How do you write like---
So! Hamilton an American Musical.
As usual I'm a day late and a dollar short, but hey, y'all voted for this one, so you're asking for it.
So first off: the music is AMAZING in every possible way, so smart so catchy so emotionally evocative so clever so culturally important so beautiful, and I could look at pictures of the male cast (in costume or out of it) basically forever, and Lin-Manuel Miranda may literally be too good for this world, and I love what the colorful casting has done to the historical narrative and the way that's been made an integral part of the story through the music and book, and I love the reaction it's gotten and the way it's changing Broadway and people in general's perception of the history. And I legitimately teared up when young Philip tried to show his Dad he was going to be a politician too by rapping for him, I want to live in a world where ability to freestyle is a prereq for political power, we wouldn't be the first country ruled on that basis and there are much worse ways.
Also there needs to be a Doctor/Master vid to 'I'll Be Back'
So my knowledge of Hamilton the musical comes from listening to the soundtrack all the way through once, listening to bits and pieces of it out of order, and following it via Broadway fandom on Tumblr since it was just a twinkle in fandom's eye. So I've seen a lot of gifs and stills and text posts and the cast being unfairly adorable, basically, but haven't actually watched any extensive video, and thus my knowledge of the show is based mostly on the music and the fandom. And the cast being adorable. (Of course I still haven't ever watched Les Mis either, and that hasn't stopped me there.)
So that's caveat #1. Caveat #2 is: I came in with a certain amount of knowledge/opinions about the Federalist/DR thing already. But only a very limited amount. Where I was is actually really well summed up by this Vox article by Matthew Iglesias, which you should read: Cabinet Battle #1," explained.
I cannot make statements on how accurate that is to the history, but yeah, basically: as a U.S. East Coast Liberal, I have watched the historical narrative shift, over my lifetime, from "We should side with Jefferson because he didn't constantly fuck over the poor freemen for his own gainand hey who cares about the blacks anyway eh" to "We should side with Hamilton because at least he wasn't a fucking slaver and hey who cares about the poor anyway eh." This is complicated by the fact that it's still very much a North vs. South regional conflict, with Jefferson for the South and Hamilton for the North, except that I'm a born & bred Marylander so my bred-in opinion on the North vs. South thing is "Fucking arrogant Yankees, fucking delusional Southerners, just fuck 'em all." With special consideration for hating Virginia because it's our river, dammit, yes the ENTIRE THING, and oh right, the deal was that who would cede land for the District? Why is it only coming from our side of the river then...?
If you're not from one of the thirteen colonies you should know that yes, this is all still considered relevant by people today. And Maryland and Virginia still periodically get into fights over who owns the river the same way they did back in the 1790s (spoiler: it's Maryland. But you should still pay for half the bridge ok that's just fair, one end of it is on your side.)
Anyway. To the extent I have independent study knowledge of the period, it's from a class I took in college about reading Maryland womens' diaries from the early 19th century, so while I have Opinions on historical birth control, early letterzines, the homefront effects of the Great Embargo, just how freaking incestuous the upper classes were, and the evils of cheating husbands when a wife is that constrained, I didn't come into the musical with any particularly strong feelings about the Great Men of the period.
Except a vague impression that if you have to be obsessed with one of the the two, Burr was way, way more epic than Hamilton. (This is based mostly on my fondness for the museums of Parkersburg, WV.)
So there's the background. Based on fandom's reaction, I went into Act Two expecting to get totally sold on the Federalist point of view: yes, LMM, rap to me about debt consolidation and banking systems and convince me for at least the length of one musical that the Federalists were good guys and I should cheer them on. My body is ready.
And then... that didn't happen.
Like. The arguments in the Cabinet Battles basically come down to TJ saying "Hey, Hamilton, your 'political policy' is based on making you and your friends rich and consolidating power at everyone else's expense" and A. Ham going "Yeah? Well you're a fucking slaveowner."
Which ADMITTEDLY is a valid burn but doesn't actually do anything to convince me that A. Ham's political policies are any good. Specially since (at least in the soundtrack) we don't see him trying to actually do anything about slavery except burn TJ with it.
And then, the central character conflict is supposed to be Hamilton vs. Burr (TJ is just there to be a strawman bad guy, afaict), where we side with Hamilton because Hamilton has principles and Burr has none. Except that, per the musical at least, the political principles Hamilton has are:
1. Making banks more powerful
2. Making A. Ham and his rich inlaws more powerful even if it means screwing over his own friends
3. Defending the constitution so that the government A. Ham is part of stays powerful
Whereas the political principles Burr has in this musical are:
1. Ok we're trying democracy, so I'm'a get out of the way and let democracy happen.
2. Oh, no, wait, we've decided 'democracy' means 'secret deals in smoky rooms' now? Well fuck that then, you aren't shutting me out.
3. Yes, I am going to run for the Senate against the rich old dude who thinks he's entitled to a seat without even trying, and yes I am enough of a populist to win it, and no, I don't care about your stupid party loyalties, did you actually listen to that speech you wrote for the General?
4. So,,,, you're going to fuck over all of your vaunted political principles, and this entire country, just because you're still peeved at me on a personal level? Fuck you Hamilton you're the worst thing that ever happened to democracy.
...so I guess what I'm saying here is sorry, Lin-Manuel, you totally failed to convince me that Hamilton is more epic than Burr.
Also. To the extent that Hamilton's life journey is the through-line of the show, it's pretty much just selling the narrative that if you're smart enough, and you work hard enough, and you're determined enough, then anyone can be rich and powerful and famous. And that is just such a pernicious storyline? Because no, not everyone can be rich and powerful and famous if they just try hard enough. But it's a storyline that American culture tries really hard to sell people on.
And, fair enough, the people who tell the stories we all follow in droves - people like Lin-Manuel Miranda - did try really hard, and then get rich and famous and powerful (at least, as far as Broadway will get you, in his case) - so it's really easy for our story-makers to buy into that, and gloss over the thousand other things that had to line up for them to get there, and ignore the thousand other people who also tried. It's also fucking pernicious because if you push enough on individual people trying hard and getting rich and powerful, you hamstring the 'if we all work together we can make everyone a little less miserable' narrative, which is one I like 100% better than 'screw everyone else, get rich'. (Not to mention I am at the age where I keep seeing friends fall one by one into severe depression because they've been sold all their lives on that idea and when it comes clear that trying hard isn't enough on its own to become spectacularly successful, their life narrative collapses and they've got nothing left. It's just. Not good, ok.)
There's an argument to be made that fine, that narrative has problems, but it's a foundational narrative of the US, and we still needed a story that gave immigrants a people of color a place in it, which, yes, I guess? But it's not like people haven't been selling immigrants and people of color on it just as hard as anyone else, for as long as the US has existed. That's why we get twelve-year-old boys giving themselves concussion syndrome in football, that's why we get women coming to the US to be supermodels and ending up as slaves. It's a fucking awful narrative to convince people to hang their lives and sacred honor on, and a lot of people in this country do.
So as a social statement it's very much about "we'll support the current power structure, if you just Let Us In" whereas at this point in my life I am more at "this is all super-broken and we need to keep trying to fix it until it's not".
And maybe that was supposed to be part of the point of A Ham's tragic fall, betraying his family and then betraying himself, but. Without you cheering on his quest to be rich and famous and powerful, there's not much left there that I can find? And the duel didn't really work for me as a heroic flaw catharticly bringing him down because the heroic flaw there was 'a deep-down belief that the rules don't apply to me the same way they apply to other people', you just spent a year campaigning to outlaw duels, it's less a tragic flaw at that point than a comic one.
So I'm left with "you must be a great man because Angelica likes you and Eliza married you." Except oh wait, Angelica also liked Jefferson. And you cheated on Eliza. Nvm.
I'd heard a lot about the final song, "Who Lives Who Dies Who Tells Your Story", as a triumphant feminist ending that pushes Eliza toward the center, and I loved all her stuff earlier about controlling the narrative, so even as I was less impressed than I wanted to be with Act 2, I was looking forward to that. But then instead of what I was expecting, which was something along the lines of Eliza going full-out a-certain-point-of-view "he went and got himself killed for stupid man reasons so it's my right to finish the narrative he started however the hell I want to", I got, "Oh no, my husband is dead, so I'm going spend the rest of my life honoring his memory because what else is a woman without a husband good for amirite or amirite?"
:/
Anyway.
I REALLY LOVE THE MUSIC. AND I REALLY LOVE THE CAST. And I love that the fandom exists and is writing tons of nobody-dies modern AUs and second-generation shipping. It's so great! And I'm sure my expectations were too high, even if I do firmly believe that if he tried, Lin-Manuel Miranda could write a rap about Hamilton being a dork about accounting that would convince me the Federalists were right.
And I'm probably not going to be in the fandom ever. Unless Burr fandom really gets going. Meanwhile I shall keep writing about Grantaire being drunk on stage during the presidential debate and Toussaint being Valjean's campaign manager.
Possibly if I read Chernow and got more of where the show was coming from, I would have different opinions, but a) reading one entire brick for the sake of a musical fandom is enough for this decade, and b) Les Mis fandom on Tumblr has been posting enough excerpts of Chernow's wrong wrong wrong opinions on the French Revolution that I'm not sure I would trust him on the broad political stripes anyway. I do kinda want to finally read the Federalist Papers now though, so there's that.
As usual I'm a day late and a dollar short, but hey, y'all voted for this one, so you're asking for it.
So first off: the music is AMAZING in every possible way, so smart so catchy so emotionally evocative so clever so culturally important so beautiful, and I could look at pictures of the male cast (in costume or out of it) basically forever, and Lin-Manuel Miranda may literally be too good for this world, and I love what the colorful casting has done to the historical narrative and the way that's been made an integral part of the story through the music and book, and I love the reaction it's gotten and the way it's changing Broadway and people in general's perception of the history. And I legitimately teared up when young Philip tried to show his Dad he was going to be a politician too by rapping for him, I want to live in a world where ability to freestyle is a prereq for political power, we wouldn't be the first country ruled on that basis and there are much worse ways.
So my knowledge of Hamilton the musical comes from listening to the soundtrack all the way through once, listening to bits and pieces of it out of order, and following it via Broadway fandom on Tumblr since it was just a twinkle in fandom's eye. So I've seen a lot of gifs and stills and text posts and the cast being unfairly adorable, basically, but haven't actually watched any extensive video, and thus my knowledge of the show is based mostly on the music and the fandom. And the cast being adorable. (Of course I still haven't ever watched Les Mis either, and that hasn't stopped me there.)
So that's caveat #1. Caveat #2 is: I came in with a certain amount of knowledge/opinions about the Federalist/DR thing already. But only a very limited amount. Where I was is actually really well summed up by this Vox article by Matthew Iglesias, which you should read: Cabinet Battle #1," explained.
I cannot make statements on how accurate that is to the history, but yeah, basically: as a U.S. East Coast Liberal, I have watched the historical narrative shift, over my lifetime, from "We should side with Jefferson because he didn't constantly fuck over the poor freemen for his own gain
If you're not from one of the thirteen colonies you should know that yes, this is all still considered relevant by people today. And Maryland and Virginia still periodically get into fights over who owns the river the same way they did back in the 1790s (spoiler: it's Maryland. But you should still pay for half the bridge ok that's just fair, one end of it is on your side.)
Anyway. To the extent I have independent study knowledge of the period, it's from a class I took in college about reading Maryland womens' diaries from the early 19th century, so while I have Opinions on historical birth control, early letterzines, the homefront effects of the Great Embargo, just how freaking incestuous the upper classes were, and the evils of cheating husbands when a wife is that constrained, I didn't come into the musical with any particularly strong feelings about the Great Men of the period.
Except a vague impression that if you have to be obsessed with one of the the two, Burr was way, way more epic than Hamilton. (This is based mostly on my fondness for the museums of Parkersburg, WV.)
So there's the background. Based on fandom's reaction, I went into Act Two expecting to get totally sold on the Federalist point of view: yes, LMM, rap to me about debt consolidation and banking systems and convince me for at least the length of one musical that the Federalists were good guys and I should cheer them on. My body is ready.
And then... that didn't happen.
Like. The arguments in the Cabinet Battles basically come down to TJ saying "Hey, Hamilton, your 'political policy' is based on making you and your friends rich and consolidating power at everyone else's expense" and A. Ham going "Yeah? Well you're a fucking slaveowner."
Which ADMITTEDLY is a valid burn but doesn't actually do anything to convince me that A. Ham's political policies are any good. Specially since (at least in the soundtrack) we don't see him trying to actually do anything about slavery except burn TJ with it.
And then, the central character conflict is supposed to be Hamilton vs. Burr (TJ is just there to be a strawman bad guy, afaict), where we side with Hamilton because Hamilton has principles and Burr has none. Except that, per the musical at least, the political principles Hamilton has are:
1. Making banks more powerful
2. Making A. Ham and his rich inlaws more powerful even if it means screwing over his own friends
3. Defending the constitution so that the government A. Ham is part of stays powerful
Whereas the political principles Burr has in this musical are:
1. Ok we're trying democracy, so I'm'a get out of the way and let democracy happen.
2. Oh, no, wait, we've decided 'democracy' means 'secret deals in smoky rooms' now? Well fuck that then, you aren't shutting me out.
3. Yes, I am going to run for the Senate against the rich old dude who thinks he's entitled to a seat without even trying, and yes I am enough of a populist to win it, and no, I don't care about your stupid party loyalties, did you actually listen to that speech you wrote for the General?
4. So,,,, you're going to fuck over all of your vaunted political principles, and this entire country, just because you're still peeved at me on a personal level? Fuck you Hamilton you're the worst thing that ever happened to democracy.
...so I guess what I'm saying here is sorry, Lin-Manuel, you totally failed to convince me that Hamilton is more epic than Burr.
Also. To the extent that Hamilton's life journey is the through-line of the show, it's pretty much just selling the narrative that if you're smart enough, and you work hard enough, and you're determined enough, then anyone can be rich and powerful and famous. And that is just such a pernicious storyline? Because no, not everyone can be rich and powerful and famous if they just try hard enough. But it's a storyline that American culture tries really hard to sell people on.
And, fair enough, the people who tell the stories we all follow in droves - people like Lin-Manuel Miranda - did try really hard, and then get rich and famous and powerful (at least, as far as Broadway will get you, in his case) - so it's really easy for our story-makers to buy into that, and gloss over the thousand other things that had to line up for them to get there, and ignore the thousand other people who also tried. It's also fucking pernicious because if you push enough on individual people trying hard and getting rich and powerful, you hamstring the 'if we all work together we can make everyone a little less miserable' narrative, which is one I like 100% better than 'screw everyone else, get rich'. (Not to mention I am at the age where I keep seeing friends fall one by one into severe depression because they've been sold all their lives on that idea and when it comes clear that trying hard isn't enough on its own to become spectacularly successful, their life narrative collapses and they've got nothing left. It's just. Not good, ok.)
There's an argument to be made that fine, that narrative has problems, but it's a foundational narrative of the US, and we still needed a story that gave immigrants a people of color a place in it, which, yes, I guess? But it's not like people haven't been selling immigrants and people of color on it just as hard as anyone else, for as long as the US has existed. That's why we get twelve-year-old boys giving themselves concussion syndrome in football, that's why we get women coming to the US to be supermodels and ending up as slaves. It's a fucking awful narrative to convince people to hang their lives and sacred honor on, and a lot of people in this country do.
So as a social statement it's very much about "we'll support the current power structure, if you just Let Us In" whereas at this point in my life I am more at "this is all super-broken and we need to keep trying to fix it until it's not".
And maybe that was supposed to be part of the point of A Ham's tragic fall, betraying his family and then betraying himself, but. Without you cheering on his quest to be rich and famous and powerful, there's not much left there that I can find? And the duel didn't really work for me as a heroic flaw catharticly bringing him down because the heroic flaw there was 'a deep-down belief that the rules don't apply to me the same way they apply to other people', you just spent a year campaigning to outlaw duels, it's less a tragic flaw at that point than a comic one.
So I'm left with "you must be a great man because Angelica likes you and Eliza married you." Except oh wait, Angelica also liked Jefferson. And you cheated on Eliza. Nvm.
I'd heard a lot about the final song, "Who Lives Who Dies Who Tells Your Story", as a triumphant feminist ending that pushes Eliza toward the center, and I loved all her stuff earlier about controlling the narrative, so even as I was less impressed than I wanted to be with Act 2, I was looking forward to that. But then instead of what I was expecting, which was something along the lines of Eliza going full-out a-certain-point-of-view "he went and got himself killed for stupid man reasons so it's my right to finish the narrative he started however the hell I want to", I got, "Oh no, my husband is dead, so I'm going spend the rest of my life honoring his memory because what else is a woman without a husband good for amirite or amirite?"
:/
Anyway.
I REALLY LOVE THE MUSIC. AND I REALLY LOVE THE CAST. And I love that the fandom exists and is writing tons of nobody-dies modern AUs and second-generation shipping. It's so great! And I'm sure my expectations were too high, even if I do firmly believe that if he tried, Lin-Manuel Miranda could write a rap about Hamilton being a dork about accounting that would convince me the Federalists were right.
And I'm probably not going to be in the fandom ever. Unless Burr fandom really gets going. Meanwhile I shall keep writing about Grantaire being drunk on stage during the presidential debate and Toussaint being Valjean's campaign manager.
Possibly if I read Chernow and got more of where the show was coming from, I would have different opinions, but a) reading one entire brick for the sake of a musical fandom is enough for this decade, and b) Les Mis fandom on Tumblr has been posting enough excerpts of Chernow's wrong wrong wrong opinions on the French Revolution that I'm not sure I would trust him on the broad political stripes anyway. I do kinda want to finally read the Federalist Papers now though, so there's that.
no subject
He totally was, and not token-ly, but it's one of the things in Chernow that didn't make it into the musical. (There is SO MUCH more depth in the history, of course. But that's case with any adaptation. 730 pages does not condense into 46 songs, even lyrically dense ones.)
no subject