Questions about HAMILTON — Page 2

mufish said: "The ironic thing is that Hamilton did plan on literally throwing away his shot. His second was aware, but Chernow makes the argument that Burr didn't know. It's actually a pretty fascinating topic - they both got a shot off, but the question is whether Hamilton shot first and intentionally missed, or if his shot was a reflective response to getting hit by Burr's shot."

Totally fascinating topic! Book "spoilers" ahead, if you can call discussion about 200+ year old history a spoiler...

Whether or not Burr knew or could have surmised Hamilton's intentions, Chernow makes a pretty strong case that Burr had an intent to kill either way. Burr invoked the challenge. Burr was in a miserable state of lost pride and weakness due to his political status and was looking to take it out on someone. Hamilton, on the other hand, was (to me) frustratingly intransigent and easily could have diffused the whole situation with his brilliant pen and a face-saving statement. The dispute leading to the duel was ridiculously childish. At least the Charles Lee / Laurens duel was about something more substantial! Hamilton had it in his power to avoid the duel. The book explains Hamilton's dark obsession with duels throughout his whole life and even addresses the topic of whether Hamilton may have had a conscious or subconscious death wish going in to the Burr duel. Hamilton took the duel seriously and went into it knowing that Burr might cause him injury or death. Whatever the case it is a very, very tragic story, especially when coupled with the story of Philip. Sigh. But that's why the book and the musical are so good. :)

Note: all I know about the duel I learned from the one book, so I'm not at all claiming to be an expert in it. (As with most Americans, I always knew about the duel but never any of its details.) I'd love to read a few other books about it to see how they stack up against Chernow's take.

OlBlueEyes: I thought that I might be too old and settled to appreciate a new (to me) form of music that was so popular with so many.

This was not the monotonic gangster rap that I had been appalled to find was about the only "music" that my nephew grew up on. This was tuneful and rhythmic.

@OlBlueEyes. Absolutely no offense, but I think people like you are exactly why the musical is so popular. If this show was targeted to young minorities I don't think it would be as popular, and they may even feel patronized. But put an "ethnically-diverse" cast singing and dancing hip-hop and rap on a BROADWAY stage, where most patrons are affluent older white people, and suddenly the show is "groundbreaking," because as you say, many people in a certain demographic have a warped view of what hip hop and rap is and can be and who it is and can be for.

I'm here to say that while Hamilton is a wonderful, fantastic, well-done production, it is NOT as "groundbreaking" as people claim. People have been mixing hip hop with history and classical works for a long time. I mean long before Lin-Manuel Miranda there were the Q-Brothers and The Hip Hop Shakespeare Company in London, Hip Hop Nutcracker, and other programs turning Shakespeare and other classic work into hip hop musicals. I think people give Lin Manuel Miranda credit for '"revolutionizing musicals: and theater when in reality he is more so responsible for introducing an old concept to BROADWAY and a new demographic. He has managed to make hip hop and rap digestible to an audience, who like you, typically think of this music as "monotonic gangster rap that [they] had been appalled to find was about the only "music" that [their] nephew grew up on."

Updated On: 2/21/16 at 10:50 PM

^^^ You'll be waiting an awfully long time, Hogans.