Ismael Reed is just desperate for attention. When your only claim to fame is a novel published nearly fifty years ago, you've got to find a way to stay relevant, so he does it by hitching his wagon to the literary/theater star of the moment by way of insult.
He did much the same with James Baldwin in the early 1970s, when Baldwin praised that only claim to fame of his, the novel 'Mumbo Jumbo'. Instead of being gracious toward the older artist, he chose to go on the attack, calling Baldwin "a hustler who comes on Job." I think he received more attention for the insult at the time than he did for the book itself and it's the same thing going on here.
Miranda has every right to take artistic license with Chernow's book. In fact, it's likely the only way that he could at least get the idea of Hamilton as a historical personage in the eyes of the iPhoning, Snapchatting, and Instagramming public. I honestly don't see a problem here, except for Neal and Reed trying to pull racial rank on a fellow artist largely because they see a way to profit off of it by way of publicity and money.
16
"The play, 'The Haunting of Lin-Manuel Miranda,' was written by Ishmael Reed, 80, a prolific and often satirical writer who, as a critic reviewing one of his books once said, 'has made members of every constituency angry' during his long career."
I think Lin-Miranda's defenders need to take a step back. Clearly Mr. Reed is equally intelligent and controversial.
6
@AACNY: I disagree with the idea that Mr. Reed is "equally intelligent" - if he were, he wouldn't need to swipe gratuitously at Lin-Manuel Miranda's success.
I'm sure Reed is far more controversial than Lin; that would be b/c Reed set out to BE controversial (which seems like a poor use of one's time to me, but that's Reed's problem).
12
@L
As I said, there's a great deal of defensiveness.
2
@AACNY: Defensiveness? Nope, Miranda needs no defense; his work speaks for itself and stands fully on its own.
I'm expressing my opinion that Reed is taking an intellectually flabby approach to get himself some attention. He seems to need attention the way Trump needs attention: badly!
6
it is great to still see that ishmael reed's writing is fighting(his fictional dressing down of nixon and spiro agnew really are worth the read given today's national political leadership climate)
and since both he and miranda actively use history as fictional platforms of ideas isn't this ultimately going to be sparing over the vehicles used to best express how these writers want to hover over an historical event for deeper audience reflection on a theme or moment, not what ideas are included or the actual facts themselves? its a given that history is not entirely informing either writers here.
besides we have largely given up as a nation, if we ever really bothered, on the pursuit of historical studies to have more concise personal understandings/views on history instead of myths etc... and in its place more recently is the adopting of more musicals or biographical adaptations into dramas. i figure that is a fair trade as long as we don't then don't stoop to critiquing the rap music as inauthentic in the name of historical justice etc. its a trade off for living in an ahistorical country.
3
its true, when i read an article recently in the guardian about the lovely Mr. Lin-Miranda, who i really like, that the opening lyric quoted from Hamilton, in which Alex pulls himself up by his own bootstraps with his endless amounts of drive and determination,
“Got a lot farther by working a lot harder / By being a lot smarter/ By being a self-starter.”
seems like just another warmed-over ad for the pioneer myth of Amerika, which ignores the flip side effect of that endless hard work ethos, in which people today are on endless numbers of drugs and alcohol in order to cope. I have patients, so called "successful" types, homeowners, who take valium to go to work, alcohol to come home, and albien or xanax to sleep, not to mention marijuana all weekend. What's wrong with that picture? Now i understood why even Pence would go see a rap-lyriced play. Hamilton was great, but he was also a hustler. An American.
While valorizing the aggressive immigrant Amerikan who is not without her own faults, it is also designed to make everyone who is not a self starter, or a workaholic, feel like less than.
Trump's grandad was a hardworking self starter, as was his father, and, i gotta admit, though Donnie would not be where he is without Daddy's seed money, like a good American he sleeps little, and works and plays golf alot.
Which Trump would you wanna be like? The brothel owner? The racist developer?
6
@eyton shalom: Please explain your use of the letter "k" in spelling "Amerika". I want to be sure I understand exactly and correctly what you mean.
8
For crying out loud, take it for what it is. It’s a Broadway Musical, not a 1,000 page history book.
27
And has anyone ever asked...regardless of the circumstances of how blacks came to the New World - what would their world look like today if they never had?
1
It is just a very successful Broadway musical; no more , no less. Its thrilling and exciting and some people love the music and the freshness, but its certainly not the place to learn your history lessons.
6
I haven't seen "Hamilton" but I understand one of the lines that gets the biggest hand is when Hamilton and Lafayette say "immigrants, we get things done."
What I have never understood is how Lafayette would ever be considered to an immigrant. He came to the U.S. to fight in the Revolution and then returned back to France. To say he was an immigrant is like saying that Eisenhower was an immigrant to Great Britain during WW2.
7
From the article: Mr. Neal said he had not seen “Hamilton” or read Mr. Chernow’s book. And: “I didn’t see it at the Public Theater,” he said of “Hamilton.” And when it went to Broadway, he said, “I just didn’t want to spend that kind of money.
Honestly, that's ALL I needed to read to know that Mr. Neal is LAZY, and that he & Mr. Reed are attempting to raise their own "visibility" by trying to ride on the coat-tails of the very hard, very creative work and very successful work of Lin-Manuel Miranda. I smell nothing but jealousy and pettiness in their work and comments.
The issues they raise are a distraction - because art is what it is, and "Hamilton" does not claim to be the all-knowing biography of every minute (nor issue) of Hamilton's life.
Lin is brilliant at what he does, and he doesn't owe you (or anyone!) an answer. His work speaks for itself, and touches hearts and minds every day.
Mr. Reed, use your own "genius" and stop trying to piggy-back on someone else's. Make it on your OWN merits, and not by trying to knock down or deride Lin's work. If your work matters, it will rise on its own - but it seems your sarcasm at age 80 has has not carried you to the level that Lin achieved in his mid-30's. Mr. Neal & Mr. Reed, you've only succeeded in making yourselves look very small, petty, and jealous ... and it's really ugly!
24
I'm going to wait for the backlash to the backlash - that's my favorite part.
5
I have just checked out a few facts that are pertinent to this discussion: 1) The abolitionist movement did not formally begin until 1820 according to historical sources. Hamilton died in 1804. 2) Not having seen the show, I cannot tell, from the article or comments, whether Miranda actually calls Hamilton an abolitionist of portrays him as anti-slavery, which seems to be historically correct. 3) Chernow's handling of Hamilton's (possible?) homosexuality reeks of an attempt at false fairness. This is something that one sees far too often in biographies of possible gay men written by heterosexuals. Letters Hamilton wrote to his "closest friend" Laurens, which fairly sizzle on the page, are passed off as not unlike the writing style of the time. Oh really? Fairness as a smokescreen against rather evident truth. If they are great, they must be straight.
2
The musical takes massive liberties with history. So much so that any complaints about its inaccuracies are hard to take serious.
This guy is using Lin-Manuel Miranda's fame to bring attention to himself, and it's sad.
9
@Jason
Jason,
Ishmael Reed is one of the most highly-respected American writers of the last fifty years. The idea that he’s vying for fame at this stage in his career is patently absurd.
Sincerely,
R S
4
@R Scott Not really. Artists are needy people.
4
There is single truth that seems to be unacknowledged. Federalists oppose democracy. That Federalists increasingly control America's Judiciary gives credence to those that say America is no longer on the road to democracy and that in 2019 all Americans may be created equal but some are more equal than others.
3
Much of history is ugly.
Why don't we just acknowledge it?
9
How many Americans believe that the Oliver Stone movie JFK is historically accurate? The entertainment industry, including the first billion dollar Broadway musical, is feeding off the ignorance of an ill-educated public like a vulture over roadkill.
7
@Cold Eye Yes, I'm sure the vultures of Broadway were slavering to find a rap musical about Alexander Hamilton to soak the public.
4
Ridiculous. Hamilton was a politician. He was also human. As a politician, he was willing to trade off one issue for another -- Washington D.C. as the capitol of the U.S. in exchange for the new federal government assuming war debts. The continuation of slavery in exchange for unity of the states. As a human being, and a man, he was vulnerable to his emotions, whether it was "love" for his wife or "lust" for his mistress. Whether they came from slave-holding families I'm sure did not enter into the question, nor should it. He didn't have slaves himself. As for his wife, who came from that horrible slaveholding family, Elizabeth Hamilton herself went on to establish a home for orphans, which continues to this day. I'm sure it has helped many black children, the descendants of slaves, certainly to a greater degree than whatever this guy is trying to do. Find your own story, Mr. Neal. You're simply trying to skim off money and attention for yourself by taking on a fine piece of academic work and a very inventive and artistic interpretation of it.
14
@steve
Far more than just a politician Hamilton gave birth to the Federalist Society which has destroyed America. I am 70 hoping to see a second American Revolution and the rebirth of a nation I once loved.
4
@Montreal Moe
I think Hamilton himself would be horrified at what the Federalist Society is doing. As a politician, he seemed to understand compromise. But you can't control what people do in your name. Kinda like Jesus Christ in that way too.
8
Reed's is a classic example of why the Left has ceded so much power to the Right.
Rearranging chairs on the Titanic.
6
@Rich
Yes, it's terrible that "the Left" is not disciplined, like the Republican party, and still leaves room for individual opinions.
8
Some of the comments reflect the lack of a balanced education available in American classrooms. The media missed Rep.King's comment that he learned how to be a white nationalist in school. He's not the only one. How do I know that Hamilton was not an abolitionist? It was easy. He left receipts confirming his sale of Blacks. His grandson says that he owned slaves and bought them for others. Also, he went along with G.W.s plan to "extirpate" Native Americans. Hamilton wrote:" the people of Kentucky wonderfully pleased with the government; and Scot, with a corps of ardent volunteers, on their route to demolish every savage, man, woman, and child." No, I haven't seen "Hamilton," nor have I seen a production of "King Lear," but I read the text of "Hamilton" a number of times and even quote from his book in my play. Finally, I'm easier on the musical than three brilliant women scholars, especially Prof.Michelle Du Ross whose essay on Hamilton can be found online.They represent an uprising in the Historical Establishment against the Good Old Boys,who make sales by representing the " Founding Fathers," enslavers and Native -American exterminators ,as gods. Hope that all of you will see a full production of my play in May
37
@Ishmael Reed
Imagine that -- hearing from the author! Thank goodness.
10
@Ishmael Reed
Thank you so much.
I am a Canadian and we are a federalist society that works because our constitution fits our goals and values.
Trump is no original. William Jennings Bryan has all but disappeared from your history even as his minions now control the Republican Party.
We in Canada were lucky enough to have South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation to learn from while Apartheid was still championed by the Hamiltonians well into the Reagan administration
3
@Ishmael Reed And thanks to my reliance on LMM's musical for historical accuracy, I now believe that Aaron Burr was black and that Lafayette was a rapper. Who knew!
8
The time for this was years ago, when Hamilton was first becoming popular at the Public Theater. Right now this smacks much more of sour grapes than an attempt to correct the historical legacy.
Also? Mr. Neal has some nerve complaining that Mr. Miranda didn't do his homework when *he* refuses to see Hamilton, enter the ticket lottery, request a ticket from his former actor Jasmine Cephas Jones, or even watch the pirate videos on YouTube. Hypocritical much?
10
I believe the term is pawning off - this guy is pawning off LMM. “Leech” would also apply.
5
I'm good and you're bad. Sadly the once maligned "identity politics" of the 1980s and 1990s have become "the new normal" in NYs elite liberal circles. Combine with a dash of self-righteousness, sprinkle with finger-pointing accusation, demand "freebies" galore from *anyone* with *something*... and you have the perfect recipe for disas.... I mean decli... I mean "cultural enhancement" and giving the disenfranchised an ahem voice...
4
@Tan Bogavich
It was the 1890s when William Jennings Bryan peddled the same schtick to his Democratic base replete with racism, nationalism, pseudo Christianity and anti Semitism.
In his Devil's Dictionary Ambrose Bierce defines populist as the singling out of some perceived elite as the enemy as William Jennings Bryan is THE Populist.
The elite are concerned with making America a better society for all and possess what I would call liberal Christian values but they too are subject to the 24/7 propaganda as everyone else.
I doubt you would even begin to understand any elite conversation you are a populist and hate nuance.
Reagan made life simple and destroyed America.
2
Let me see if I understand this.
Messrs. Reed and Neal are put out because of the historical inaccuracy of ... a *musical*?
Well, um, okay, so I guess Miranda should have "remorse" for overstating Hamilton's abolitionist tendencies.
But come on! Doesn't Miranda get some props for correcting the misconception that the rhythms of hip-hop are a recent development when clearly the roots are firmly set in the street patter of the 18th century New York?
I know I was thoroughly convinced "Hamilton" was a rigorous historical treatise given the hyper-accurate portrayal of Lafayette as the speed rapper we all know he was. I certainly do not view "Hamilton" as an attempt to make a modern statement about class, immigration and diversity. I mean, it's intended to be an AP U.S. History study guide ... isn't it?
17
@Paul Fisher, to be complete: it takes nothing away from the musical, but "Hamilton" premiered in 2015. The path for fusing rap/hip-hop with Broadway had been cleared in this Jimmy Fallon - Ariana Grande set, which was on YouTube already months earlier, in September 2014.
Jimmy Fallon & Ariana Grande Sing Broadway Versions of Rap Songs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6gVs9k0ZM0
[may not be suitable for work, in part because there's no way you can listen without wanting to dance]
@Freddie Miranda's previous musical "In the Heights" was rapping on Broadway in 2008. I don't know if it was the first, but it beats Fallon and Grande by a mile.
3
While it is certainly Mr Reed and Mr Neal's right to make this piece, the personal attack quality to it is off-putting.
The fact that Mr. Neal has neither seen the musical nor read Chernow's book means he has no business critiquing Mr. Miranda. He certainly has no right to use words like "feel remorse". For what?
Making art that is different than that which Mr. Neal makes? To enlarge upon a theme is always welcome. To diminish less so.
27
Too many of us see what is "entertainment" or "fictionalized accounts" as historical truth.
More power to Mr. Reed who provides a differing view of Alexander Hamilton to counteract the juggernaut which is Hamilton. The historical truth undoubtedly lies somewhere between the two (and undoubtedly more) representations.
5
Let's remember: 1) Chernow's 700+ pp. book (which I have read--props to me) is itself a rewriting of the Hamilton story, and 2) the play "Hamilton," in having a multiracial cast, encourages us to reframe "Americanness."
Hamilton had been neglected and, when discussed, seen as merely a financial whiz--which he certainly was. But he was much more: a brilliant political thinker and great writer--yet becoming a greater advocate of excessively strong central government as his life went on, unfortunately.
Though often outfoxed by the sneaky Mr. Jefferson, to his credit, AH was "an open book" about most things and not a hypocrite, as was TJ. Yes, he married into a slave-owning family--but not a plantation family, as Jefferson had. But yes, he was opposed to the institution of slavery from an early age.
One can argue that he didn't do enough to stop slavery. In that category, please include virtually everyone else with money and education, starting with our national saint, George Washington, who owned slaves himself (on a Va. plantation), as AH did not. But AH surely benefitted from the labor of enslaved people, living with his wife, who had been given 2 or 3 slaves by her parents.
Remember too: Lincoln, while believing that slavery was wrong, took most of his life to come to the position that the institution should be ended, and only then because he felt it had to be done to save the Union--as Prof. Foner shows in HIS brilliant book, "The Fiery Trial."
34
Let's call this as it is: both the director and the playwright are using Lin Manuel Miranda's name to create and produce a play that otherwise no one would have any interest in.
If their beef is historical inaccuracy, then the real target of their ire should be Ron Chernow--the HISTORIAN-who wrote the Hamilton biography that inspired the musical. Note, however that the tile of the play is "The Haunting of Lin-Manuel Miranda" not "The Haunting of Ron Chernow"--proving that this is basically a clickbait strategy to direct traffic to this unknown play instead of a sincere effort to correct history.
I don't think Miranda ever claimed he was inspired to write about Hamilton because he was an abolitionist, etc. Miranda said what interested him in Hamilton was that he clawed his way up the power structure of early American govt based solely on his smarts and his brilliant writings. Clearly Miranda knew Hamilton was flawed since the musical portrayed him as an arrogant hothead who saw himself as superior to everyone around him.
In any event, no one in their right mind loved Hamilton because it was an accurate history lesson. Hamilton became a phenomenon because of the soundtrack--people loved the songs Miranda composed. At most the musical inspired people to do more research of their own into the characters portrayed. But no one in the audience leaves that musical thinking they just received an objective, unbiased history lesson.
72
@EM
"At most the musical inspired people to do more research of their own into the characters portrayed. But no one in the audience leaves that musical thinking they just received an objective, unbiased history lesson."
You overestimate the curiosity of the millions of playgoers who've seen Hamilton or have the soundtrack. It's an international phenomenon.
4
@EM
Alexander Hamilton a founding father opposed slavery but married Hamilton's mother who was of a mixed Jamaican race more than 1/4th "Negro Blood" . The smart political Federalist Alexander Hamilton was lucky and married a Dutch women who was rich and privileged who owned slaves.
1
"Christopher Columbus, a heroic figure discredited in recent decades by those who say his voyages opened the way to the destruction of native culture and the importation of slaves."
Is the editor drunk? Genocide? It's just what some people "say."
6
How disingenuous on the part of Mr. Neal not to have seen the play nor read the book and now wanting to target it in the staging of Mr. Reed's rebuttal (that includes some personal darts at Mr. Miranda). Sounds a bit like personal rivalry with a dash of envy to me. Or perhaps another Latino versus African American showdown on who owns a historical narrative? Or could it be Mr. Reed and Mr. Neal want a share of the limelight that "Hamilton" [after all a work of fiction] is getting and use this opportunity for a 5 minutes chance at fame by "exposing" its faults and discredit it by making it look opportunistic? Why do minority artists compete and fight among each other instead of basking in each others' triumphs? Why discredit and throw dirt into each other's work? The show has brought mainstream attention to many important issues of past and present, even if it waters down history. Mr. Reed could use his talents to come up with other kinds of critiques and spins on the present and the past. People are avid for them as "Hamilton" suggests. Ride the wave with Mr. Miranda rather than throw him off the boat. Too bad Mr. Neal could not attend the reputable Public Theatre performance of "Hamilton". Perhaps a collection can be organized for a donation of a ticket to the Broadway show, a copy of Chernow's book and of the scholarly anthology from Rutgers University Press. That may ground his direction of the new play better.
19
@tdb
How many commenters have to be reminded that Mr. Neal is not the author of the play? Mr. REED is the author.
1
@Thomas Zaslavsky: Mr. Reed is the author, but Mr. Neal is the enabler, in his attempt to profit from Lin-Manuel Miranda's brilliance. It's just the ultimate in sour grapes & grasping on the part of BOTH Reed and Neal.
3
@tdb
The fact that you and other commentators think that Mr. Neal or Mr. Reed stand to profit from this tiny off-Broadway production discredits anything you have to say in this discussion (same goes for other commentators who seem to think small theater can make it rain, so to speak).
(Cue the exception-that-proves the rule comments about the one-in-a-million production eventually made money...)
5
As a teacher and historian I know it is impossible for film or theater to cover every aspect of a persons life. Their format won’t allow it. I am in total agreement with those who say you have to get students interested in the subject and HAMILTON does that. With ever shorter attention spans and too much social media we are going to be a much more ignorant and less democratic country. The play makes it possible for students to open their minds up to learning more about this period in American history. All the harder these days because of the poor direction presented by education majors dictating what little is taught in history in primary and secondary schools.
15
"heroic figure discredited in recent decades by those who say his voyages opened the way to the destruction of native culture and the importation of slaves."
Was Columbus personally involved in these, or were they unintended consequences of his voyages? After all, his goal was supposed to be finding a sea route to Asia.
Daniel Boorstein's THE DISCOVERERS told of an incident where Columbus threatened to mutilate one of his sailors because the sailor suggested that they hadn't really reached Asia. As far as I'm concerned, THAT's enough to kill Columbus's heroic aura.
1
@Charlesbalpha
Please read about Columbus in the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me" and be prepared to be nauseous each time you walk by his statue. An explorer turned monk wrote the Queen asking Columbus be recalled because of his extreme cruelty to the natives. Yet once again profit over piety triumphed.
1
@Charlesbalpha
Ben is right. Columbus, as governor of one of the new territories, was one of the worst, greediest, and cruelest in history. Comparing him to King Leopold II of Belgium in the Congo for pure evil should be a lively discussion.
1
@Charlesbalpha
Thank you for clearing up Columbus's own list of sins. Historians should be concentrating on that rather than blaming him for the later consequences of his explorations.
2
I've been teaching a course on the Politics of Hamilton, with the soundtrack as primary text (along with Chernow). We spent a great of time in the class on Hamilton's views on slavery, but beyond that, I saw an opportunity to use these texts as an invitation for a deeper discussion of the central role that slavery played in the development of the U.S. Constitution. (It infiltrated nearly aspect of it.) Also, we discussed the fact that many slaves welcomed the British as potential liberators (although ultimately were disappointed by them). I also used supplementary texts on Native Americans in the revolutionary war (especially Native American women), in an attempt to fill in the gaps that I agree are left by Miranda and Chernow.
My point is that the musical and the bio are useful to begin engagement around these topics, but do not offer final statements on them.
I teach Politics and would never have been able to attract enough students to a course on early American constitutional development without the musical as a hook. So I appreciate what Miranda has accomplished in this regard.
Moreover, I used some of Reed's criticism of Miranda the last time I taught the course, and I look forward to including excerpts from the play in the next version.
I also plan to include some of the Times excellent reporting on the mixed reception that the musical has received in Puerto Rico.
I also, I have to admit, saw the musical in New York, and I absolutely loved it.
31
@Chingghis T According to Chernow, Hamilton repeatedly thwarted efforts by southerners to reclaim runaway slaves who had fought with the British in return for their freedom. As you know, he also co-founded the New York Manumission Society and defended the rights of free blacks in the New York courts. Undoubtedly there is room for criticism of Hamilton's behavior but it seems important to view his actions within the context of his times.
24
I just finished reading the Chernow biography of Hamilton and came away with a very different impression than Reed & Neal--who may or may not have read the book and/or seen the play--about Hamilton's complicated relationship with slavery.
The primary goal of Hamilton, Washington and the Federalists were to make the union whole after the British were defeated. They feared that the energy that fueled the revolution could devolve into anarchy and the rise of an authoritarian figure without a centralized government. (The French Revolution soon proved their point.)
The southern Republicans--rich planters like Jefferson, Madison & Monroe who made their fortune on the backs of slaves--were fiercely opposed to ending slavery. At the second Constitutional convention, a compromise was reached that put off the question of ending slavery until 1808 in order to get the votes necessary to create a truly United States. To imagine that Hamilton--a poor, orphaned immigrant and a self-made man--had it within his power to overthrow the complex southern economy in order to abolish slavery is nonsense.
The Hamilton biography is a great literary work and a fantastic guide to understanding current politics. We are debating the same issues more than 200 years later, such as how much power the executive branch should be given. Mr Chernow had to piece together hundreds of documents to write this book and he is forthcoming about gaps in the historical record.
23
@Annabelle, nowhere does anyone state, or even suggest, that “Hamilton...had it within his power to overthrow the complex southern economy in order to abolish slavery...”.
Perhaps you might read the article. What is up for debate so whether Hamilton was or was not an abolitionist. Not whether he could have effected change on his own.
3
@Passion for Peaches: Ah, but Mr. Reed would like to convict him of that!
2
This article quotes noted Civil War historian Eric Foner: " He married into a slave-owning family,” ... “That’s where the money was, people who owned slaves.”
Of course Abraham Lincoln married Mary Todd whose family owned slaves and five of her brothers served in the Confederate Army. One of them, Benjamin Hardin Helm, was a Confederate General and was killed at the battle of Chickamauga in 1863.
U. S. Grant's wife, Julia, was also from a slave holding family.
If anything, it seems to me that historical figures with these types of family connections often lead to a much more determined opponent of slavery than if that person had no connection to slavery at all.
9
@MzF I've been reading Chernow's biography of Grant. He also married into a slave-owning family. And I read Chernow's bio of Hamilton, and imho he offers a more complex (perhaps contradictory) view of Hamilton's views on slavery than are indicated here.
8
"Mr. Neal said he had not seen 'Hamilton' or read Mr. Chernow’s book."
How does this qualify Neal to direct a pointed critique of Miranda's, Chernow's, and the musical's shortcomings?
63
@Dennis
Did you not notice who wrote this play? Tip: The name is REED, not Neal.
1
@Thomas Zaslavsky: Both Neal and Reed are guilty of intellectual laziness, AND of trying to use someone else's fame as a punching bag.
5
Let's assume for argument's sake that the assertion is true (that Hamilton was not an abolitionist). This fact was set forth in a book that was 1) written by a Pulitzer prize winning historian and journalist, and 2) was highly praised. Lin-Manuel Miranda based a fictionalized rap production on this serious source. And this man is choosing to troll Lin-Manuel Miranda? Sounds like the problem (if there is one) is with the source (the Chernow book). Did Mr. Neal read the book (let alone see the play)? Is Mr. Neal setting forth historical documentation to rebut a well-researched book? No? I'm guessing taking on the book won't be as lucrative.
49
@Mary
Perhaps it has less to do with profits than challenging the facts of a play that has garnered international attention. Millions accept the play as historically accurate while relatively few have read Chernow's book.
6
@nom de guerre You prove my point.
@nom de guerre: Based on how long the book has been on the best seller list, I think it's false to claim that "relatively few" have read it.
3
It's sad how people excuse factual inaccuracies these days for the sake of entertainment.
8
@Imagine
It's sad how people these days expect entertainment to be their primary source of history or news.
11
Ah, yes, the puerile, imbecilic criticism that is “The play/musical/novel/symphony I would have written – and that you should written – because mine would have been so much superior.” Mr. Reed’s complaints are those of a petulant narcissist – offended that in the course of the Herculean labors and enormous challenges to condense vast and endlessly complex historical and biographical elements into a relatively short work (Hamilton runs 2:50), Mr. Miranda was not mind-melded to Mr. Reed’s idiosyncratic whims – which Mr. Reed, of course, believes were essential to the musical.
In any biographical cinematic or theatrical work there are inevitable cuts, compromises and elisions necessary to executing a coherent piece. Critics of merit do not attack a piece because it didn’t fulfill their preconceived ideas (the narcissism that works of art exist to reflect ME! ME! ME!). Rather, intelligent critics ask, “What did this work of art attempt to achieve and how? In what way did it accomplish the goals it set for itself?” We need not like or approve of a work of art, but grownups understand that art demands our empathic effort to enter the world of the creator – not the other way round..
Finally, what is dispiriting is how for a third-rate, near-forgotten talent like Mr. Reed can only attract interest in his work by attaching himself to the truly successful. The Times’ role in furthering this exercise in narcissistic envy is equally troubling.
34
I'm sorry to read this. Ishmael always speaks well of you.
3
What did this work of art Attempt to achieve and how? The play is an attempt to challenge audiences to imagine something that is not true. It asks “What would America be like now if its founders were ethnically diverse? A silly question. In this attempt, it presents the character of Alexander Hamilton as a sort of moral Horatio Alger. The best criticism I have read of the musical called it a “neo-liberal fantasy.” A characterization borne out by outrageously high ticket prices and the gushing of celebrities like Hillary.
The “goal” of any Broadway show is to make money. That goal was accomplished in spades. The first Billion dollar musical. Everybody likes a happy ending. Study the the racial and economic demographics of the full paying audiences at “Hamilton”. They are the goal.
3
@Cold Eye: You have so badly missed the point if you think it's about what your first sentence says! AND I'm going to guess you haven't seen "Hamilton" either. (Don't let lack of facts impede your opinions; look how well that works for Mr. Trump!)
5
Well this play sounds terrible
4
Come now. As a tribal member, none of the players in this piece really care about Native representation. It's just a ploy to get attention *for themselves* - as usual.
I would turn the telescope on them: What have *you* ever done for us?
Not much. Leave us out of your dumb argument.
21
I’m glad someone is finally bringing the fabrications of “Hamilton” into the light. I thought I might be the only one in the country who dislikes that rewriting of history.
Ever since the play debuted I have been surprised and disappointed to see the show lauded by people who really should have questioned it. But most people don’t bother to read deeply into our country’s history. The average American takes the Founding Fathers stories he is presented, in school and in various forms of “faction” entertainment, as the Truth. Unfortunately, this is true even for a story presented in costume, on a Broadway stage, and the 18th century characters are rapping.
17
@Passion for Peaches
I think it is YOU who has the problem here. YOU are conflating things that should be taught in the classroom with things that are presented on a Broadway stage. In this case, the latter is "inspired" by the former, but is not a retelling of it. The use of rap is not just intended to make the story current, it is a form of expression Mr. Miranda chooses to use, as it is his right to do as an American but also his duty as an artist being true to himself. I think the "average American" understands the difference between art and history.
16
@Passion for Peaches
Do you believe Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" was 100% factual, with NO "rewriting of history"?
Do you think "The Crucible" is a purely factual report of the Salem witch trials?
Of course "Hamilton" takes liberties with facts. It's meant as art, not journalism.
13
@Passion for Peaches "But most people don’t bother to read deeply into our country’s history." Most people don't bother to read deeply into anything. I am not saying we are stupid, but there's only so much time, and with so many things to read deeply about, we are lucky if we are somewhat knowledgeable about one or two topics. Ultimately, does it matter if most people who see "Hamilton" think he cared more about slavery than he did? Really?
This article begets the question - how do we handle imperfect art? "Hamilton," is surely art. The musical in many ways perfected the art of storytelling on stage, weaving complex events and characters through a tumultuous narrative with infectiously smart lyrics and rhythms.
But whether fair or not, this particular work of art (of which I am an ardent fan), becomes a de facto vehicle in which the public interprets history, because of its status and content.
Even as a self-described Hamilton obsessive, public history should force us to confront our past and better reinterpret our present. If Hamilton the Musical paints a whitewashed picture of Hamilton the man, or the colonial era more generally, we need to have that conversation. But I hope we can respect the great achievement that "Hamilton" is and criticize it without devolving good/bad or black/white mindset.
While I think there's a necessity for this kind of critique, I wonder whether it's fair to attack Miranda himself so forcefully. One could (I think rightly) argue that Hamilton and Miranda's goal was to empower those traditionally whitewashed from history. (Such goals that have materialized both on and off stage - see Hamilton Education Program, relief for Puerto Rice, among others...) I hope in this discussion we don't lose sight of this noble goal - Miranda is a role model to many. While it's okay and important to hold our role models accountable, I hope we can also respect him and all he's done for us already.
7
@Nick It can happen in many forms.
The Sound of Music is described by the real von Trapp family members as nonsense, as fiction, as an invented story that carries the family name.
On the other hand, the book to "1776" reads like an appendix to a masters project in American History. It set a record for the longest stretch without a song, in a musical, because it had so much History to stuff into the book. Pages and entire speeches are cobbled from historic documents and contemporaneous journals/diaries.
Do we really want to compare Mr. Sondheim's Assassins against the history books? It is probably closer than we care to know.
At what point do we arrive at the theater, red pen in hand, determined to grade the book of the musical as if it is an assignment for a U.S. History class?
9
@Nick
Not only was it whitewashed, it was pinkwashed, leaving out Hamilton's well-documented gay side as well. Tellingly, the only gayness in the musical was mocked.
Role model? Not quite.
@Nick Hold our role models accountable? For heavens sake.
I left school a long time ago and I have not been able to see Hamilton because of the same reasons almost all Americans have not. Broadway shows do not generally enter public consciousness until the movie version comes out. Even then, the audience is not universal. "Hamilton" has not affected my view of Hamilton in the least.
Miranda is an immigrant in his own country. This is his observatory. He has no obligation to observe from every vantage point. Neal, the director, is directing the reaction to an ouvre that he hasn't seen. Hmmm, OK.
21
It's important to speak truth to power and question authority.
The musical spawned a slew of "Hamilton" curricula in NY and other area schools, and many kids saw the show as part of it. Thanks to Mr. Reed for speaking up to try to set the record straight.
23
@RW
If it's going to be "curricula", then teachers owe their students a fair and complete picture which includes mention of Hamilton's homosexuality as well.
The musical was a fantasy and to extrapolate it as a telling of history is irresponsible unless the whole person is fairly portrayed.
2
@rs
Rumors of his homosexuality are speculative, unverified.
5
Yes, and King Mongkut of Siam wasn't the enlightened monarch of "The King and I," the von Trapps escaped Austria quite comfortably via a train to Italy, and none of the bio musicals are the least bit accurate. So what? It's a Broadway musical, not a historical reenactment.
63
@HKGuy, at least “The King and I” (adapted from Anna and the King of Siam) included the fact that he owned a huge number of slaves. And the walking-across-the-Alps thing in “The Sound of Music” was nothing but a dramatic flourish.
5
@Passion for Peaches: So your point is ... ??
1
Hamilton is entertainment, not a history lesson (I really don't think any of the founders rapped). One can find historical inaccuracies in every movie, play and TV show about historical figures. That's because they are entertainment, not history. If anything, Hamilton may be encouraging people to learn more about the founders of this country and the disagreements that led to compromises such as allowing slavery. Mr. Reed should save his criticisms for college textbooks. If there are inaccuracies there, we have a problem.
40
@Jacqueline Gauvin The article explains that the viewpoint comes from a book written by Chernow. Perhaps the bigger lesson is that real life figures generally come in shades of grey. They make mistakes.
History textbooks ability to discern motivation, or personal viewpoints will always be subject to interpretation. People change, people lie, and the facts can deceive. They will be one person's view of accuracy and subject to revision. The same is true of most any academic pursuit.
5
@Jacqueline Gauvin
But it was taught as history in NYC schools and entire curricula were built on it.
It's not simply an entertainment.
4
@Jacqueline Gauvin, the problem is that most people do NOT bother to “learn more about the founders of this country.” This production (as does the book it is based on) lionizes a man who was tainted.
3