Ishmael Reed on Why He Thinks Hamilton is a Total Fraud- Page 2

[Kad]

Posted: 1/18/19 at 12:58pm

The fact that Reed has written a play explicitly to criticize Miranda, but staunchly refuses to see Hamilton itself and justifies that by saying his play is actually a critique of Chernow's biography, seems more than a little disingenuous. 

[John Adams]

Posted: 1/18/19 at 1:07pm

Is it really effective and/or appropriate for Reed to make LMM the object of his critique, or would it be better directed at those who are naive enough to think of "Hamilton" as a documentary?

Updated On: 1/18/19 at 01:07 PM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 1/18/19 at 1:22pm

The "justifications" by some on this board for Reed's blatant attempt to discredit Lin Manuel Miranda are asinine. 

Reed wants attention and the only way he can get it is by latching on to Lin Manuel's name even if it is in a negative way. 

He would get scant attention if he had named the piece of <<edited by BWW staff>>  he wasted precious energy to write, "The Haunting of Ron Chernow". 

And that's the last I will say on this hack. He doesn't deserve not one more second of my attention. 

<<edited by BWW staff>>

Updated On: 1/18/19 at 01:22 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/18/19 at 2:02pm

Kad said: "The fact that Reed has written a play explicitly to criticize Miranda, but staunchly refuses to see Hamilton itself and justifies that by saying his play is actually acritique of Chernow's biography, seems more than a little disingenuous."

It's part and parcel of his intellectual dishonesty. The unfortunate part of all this is that it reflects badly on several institutions.

[Niles Silvers]

Posted: 1/18/19 at 4:00pm

As we move ever closer to a fascist dictatorship, it's predictable that Reed and others save their big guns for those who dare raise their voices for democratic ideals.  The demand for intellectual purity rages on, while the world burns. 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 1/18/19 at 4:55pm

But why should LMM be safe from good faith criticism? I like reading the posts here that take Reed and Gordon to task for they actually wrote. I also like reading the dissecting of their allegations against Hamilton and turning it on its head by providing the context of the period in which Hamilton lived (something some POC argue is something only those privileged enough to be a founding father and live a free life during that time could enjoy so they the people who did not enjoy such freedoms and were the victims of such oppression don't have to give them that sort of pass). I also think those who point out the intellectual dishonesty by Reed by dedicating a whole work to criticizing LMM without actually watching it have the best point. It's so true.

What I have an issue with is the hyperbole surrounding the very idea that LMM should be above such analysis and scrutiny. I just don't see why people are up in arms by the very idea that Hamilton and LMM himself are being critiqued at all. Like the very idea someone would take the work to task if offensive to them from the outset and it's adopting an idea that he and Alexander Hamilton himself are above scrutiny. It's like Reed, who people decide to attack on a personal level even though they probably don't know who he is or what he has contributed prior to this, offended your God or something. I mean this is about an exchange of ideas.

Updated On: 1/18/19 at 04:55 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/18/19 at 5:02pm

@Scotty does someone say he is above scrutiny? The most I see is that some people think he is being exploited for attention. Well-grounded criticism will not get flack; that's not what we have here.

[Kad]

Posted: 1/18/19 at 5:17pm

I agree with HH. No one is saying Miranda and Hamilton are above criticism at all. It's the method that riles. 

Timing this reading to coincide with a time of a lot of press for both Miranda and the show while putting the names of both on the work and then professing that the play isn't really about either of them is, plain and simple, exploitative. It's the real life equivalent of clickbait and this is certainly not good faith critique. 

[haterobics]

Posted: 1/18/19 at 6:46pm

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "I just don't see why people are up in arms by the very idea that Hamilton and LMM himself are being critiqued at all."

I don't know why you see that either.

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/18/19 at 7:11pm

What I didn't add to my comment is that it is possible that LMM did not include everything in the book. This guy should at least see LMM's interpretation of the book/ the show before raking him over the coals. It just seems to make sense of you are going to write a piece like this. JMO

[bear88]

Posted: 1/19/19 at 12:37am

I read plenty of smart criticism of Hamilton years ago, often by African-American historians, making some of the same criticisms and observations, but without the sneering, leftier-than-thou, dishonest approach Ishmael Reed and Rome Neal are employing. Given its status as the most popular musical in a generation, maybe longer, I think smart criticism of the show and source material is absolutely fair and appropriate. But Reed and Neal can't bother to take Hamilton seriously enough to even see the show in any form, and pull this little trick to get Lin-Manuel Miranda's name in the title (as if he's just some stupid POC who got tricked by a white historian) to get themselves in the New York Times. So it just comes off as trolling, which I find off-putting.

[ggersten]

Posted: 1/19/19 at 9:48am

I find it - interesting - that those who are criticizing Reed for criticizing Hamilton without having seen it have not seen Reed's play either.  

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/19/19 at 11:19am

ggersten said: "I find it - interesting - that those who are criticizing Reed for criticizing Hamiltonwithout having seen it have not seen Reed's play either."

well... I think the criticism of Reed here arises from what he said in his interview, not from the play, no? I don't think anyone would criticize Reed for calling Miranda to task for what Miranda has said about Hamilton in interviews (unless Reed had not read the interview he was criticizing). The problem here is a lack of intellectual honesty.

[Impossible2]

Posted: 1/19/19 at 1:40pm

Did anyone who went to see Hamilton actually go because they had any interest at all in Alexander Hamilton?

I know I didn't nor did I feel like I knew his entire life story after I'd seen it.

Nor did I think I would learn that from a 2 hour Broadway musical.

This guy is an idiot x

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/19/19 at 1:55pm

ggersten said: "I find it - interesting - that those who are criticizing Reed for criticizing Hamiltonwithout having seen it have not seen Reed's play either."

I would say this would be a fair critism if Reed had seen HAMILTON.