#hetalia artist that wants to show you her original characters and content | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

nowhere-hunch · 4 years

Text

I watched ‘Hamilton’ on Disney+

I’m not really a fandom person, but I would say I hang out online in a lot of “fandom-adjacent” spaces. Maybe a better word would be “lurker”. So although I was separated from it by many degrees, I’m aware of some of the insane stuff that came out of the Hamilton fandom during its heyday. Which makes me a teensy bit nervous about posting this on Tumblr - “the room where it happened” you could say (yes, I’m very funny, I know). But I’m hoping I have my blog settings right to make it hard for people to find and I won’t use any tags, so I should be fine, right? To be clear, I like Hamilton and this whole thing is positive toward it. It did get pretty long though.

First of all, I’m a little surprised that there’s a Hamilton fandom at all. Theatrical shows aren’t really the most accessible medium, especially for the demographics that we associate with fandom. The stage shows that I see with fandoms usually have other media associated with them as well, either that was based on them or that they were based on. For example, Les Mis has the book and multiple movies. That said, I’m not necessarily surprised that inaccessibility itself didn’t prevent the formation of a fandom. These days there’s plenty of ways to pirate things, plus you could argue that the cast CD of the musical that was released counts as an alternative media — since most of the dialogue is in fact part of a song.

But, being an inaccessible medium for so long has had an effect on the stories that are created for it. The demographics of people who are watching Broadway shows are probably different than those of people watching primetime TV. The historic events and people in Hamilton aren’t given much if any explanation or backstory. Several times a character is introduced that the audience is supposed to be excited about just because we already know the name: Alexander Hamilton or George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or whatever. For those specific examples, it kind of makes sense. Just by living in the U.S. you tend to get an idea of who those people are (they’re the people on the money). But people like John Laurens are given the same treatment (or lack thereof) in terms of backstory. I think I learned a little about John Laurens at some point in AP U.S. History but then I passed that test and literally never thought or heard about him for nine years until I watched Hamilton.

Hamilton is not a play that is meant to teach the story of Alexander Hamilton; it’s a play that is meant to use the story of Alexander Hamilton in order to teach something else. The historical people and events that are mentioned briefly are meant to provide context for what’s going on with the main characters. “OK I know that the Boston Tea Party happened in the lead up to the Revolution so if they’re talking about that now, I know where we are.” It seemed weird to me that it became so popular when it assumed a good deal of knowledge on the part of the viewer, but I think there are (at least) three factors that makes that not too much of an issue.

One, as I said earlier I did learn about John Laurens and other kind of minute details about the Revolutionary War in high school. If “fandom” is stereotypically mostly made up of students in middle school/high school/college, it might be the case that this background knowledge is actually more accessible to them than to the average Broadway patron, who would have been out of school for even longer than me. If this musical had been about some other figure that isn’t included in an integral part of the American public school curriculum, it probably wouldn’t have seen as much success. I believe that Linn Manuel Miranda had a goal of expanding and making more diverse the audience for these shows, so this choice of subject material makes sense.

Two, Hamilton is simply a solid musical. I’m saying this as someone who doesn’t see a lot of musicals and really isn’t and never was into theater that much, but that’s the point — to the untrained eye of someone fandom-adjacent, it’s a very enjoyable piece of media. The songs are catchy, the jokes are funny, the emotional parts are moving, there’s at least a couple of performers who sound really good to me, not that I have any idea how to tell. If you think about it for more than three seconds it’s hard not to get blown away considering how much skill it must have taken to write that entire story in rhyming verse! That’s the kind of thing Shakespeare did, or even Homer — both of whom produced works that had a big impact on their era’s version of “pop culture”. I wonder if this points to something in the human brain that makes us want to engage more with stories told in this way?

Three, I think fandom (in general) had been primed for stories like this by a series that had one of the largest fandoms during the time just before Hamilton came out: Hetalia. Hetalia is a comedy manga and anime series where each country in the world is personified by an immortal (kind of) human character. It deals a lot with history and real-world people and events— if you were a fan, your “canon” material was not only the manga and anime but also real-world facts about countries’ geography, culture, and history. Since the characters for “England” and “America” (the U.S.) were some of the most popular, the Revolutionary War specifically was the subject of a lot of fan works.

Unlike Hamilton though, Hetalia is presented in a format that was made for fandom and its story reflects that as well. It has a huge cast of characters, many of which are barely developed at all in “canon” but still have a reason for viewers to connect with them (“I’m from that country!”), opportunities for creating OCs, etc. that encourage fan activity. Through Hetalia, many people were introduced to the idea of using knowledge of history for fandom purposes, which was obviously a big part of the Hamilton fandom. What’s unfortunate is that, while there wasn’t much more to get from Hetalia beyond its fandom — in fact you could strongly argue that there was more “artistic merit” in a lot of fandom content than the series itself—for me the Hamilton fandom and all of its weirdness overshadowed anything that was said about the interesting things Hamilton had to say to its “traditional” audience.

I think one property of a good piece of media is that it has different messages and takeaways that are relevant to different people consuming it. Hamilton is like this. The central theme of the story is the idea of “legacy”, but there are several lenses it provides to investigate with. For example, it has many messages about race and national origin that may resonate most strongly with different people, including:

People of color are absent from the legacy of the founding of the country they live in. It’s weird to watch actors who are people of color talk about defending slavery, but it’s no more weird than having groups of all white people do the same (which is how it actually was).

Various founding fathers have a legacy of being people who valued freedom, but they owned slaves and/or supported the institution of slavery.

Alexander Hamilton’s legacy as an immigrant is celebrated, while immigrants today are regularly treated in horrifyingly inhumane ways.

I’m positive there are people who can write entire books about how the show addresses any one of these. For me though, the theme that resonated the most was the idea of legacy through a historical female perspective, as portrayed through the relationship between Alexander and Eliza Hamilton. The gist of it is this: Alexander Hamilton married Eliza Schuyler and frankly did not treat her well. His most obvious offense is cheating on her multiple times with a woman who “seduced” him (“Lord, show me how to say no to this” — dude you literally just did: “…no…”), but even this is actually a symptom of his fatal flaw: he cares about his legacy more than her. It is brought up multiple times that he chooses his work over his family responsibilities (there’s a whole song about it), and at the time he starts his “affair”, Eliza is actually away on a family trip that he decided to skip in order to keep working even more.

His obsession with legacy causes even more hurt for Eliza because it is inherited by their oldest son, Philip. Philip challenges someone to a duel who was criticizing his father. Based on how she talked to Alexander, saying she would rather have him alive and unknown than dead with a legacy, we can assume she would be against this. But Philip goes to his father for advice, and rather than discourage him, Alexander gives him advice on how to act that will make him look the best to people remembering it (shoot into the air, it’s a bad look to kill someone and if they have any honor they will do so as well). Philip is killed in this duel. Alexander cries at his bedside while Eliza next to him wails — the cheating has already been revealed at this point, and she and Alexander haven’t “made up”. Aaron Burr, who is a foil to Alexander Hamilton in many ways in the story, illustrates the differences in their priorities in a more subtle way. Before the final duel, in which Alexander himself is killed, Burr states as he works himself up that he must win because, “I won’t leave my daughter an orphan.”

Throughout, the viewer kind of overlooks Eliza. We know she is a woman living in the 1700s and so her agency is limited. She can’t divorce Alexander or really do anything to hold him accountable for the pain he has caused her. Her defining characteristics are things like “kind”, “gentle”, and “patient” — as described by her sister who sets her up with Hamilton in the first place. After the “Reynolds Pamphlet” is released (in which Hamilton publicly confesses to his affair), she sings a song about being sad, we’re told that there’s no record of how the real Eliza reacted to the information, and after a while she and Alexander make up. To us it seems like she just kind of takes what happens to her without resistance — it doesn’t really matter if that’s what she *wanted* to do because it’s what she *had* to do. We see a lot of female characters like this in media, especially media created or set in the past, and while there is now some backlash against them, there’s not much to complain about when it’s “historically accurate”.

But that all changes at the end. The climax of the play is the duel in which Hamilton is shot and killed. After that is the “big finale” song, but since Alexander Hamilton is dead, who sings it? Eliza. We are told that Hamilton dies with Eliza and her sister Angelica by his bedside, but we don’t see this. We see Eliza come back alone and sing about what she does for the remaining 50 years of her life. We learn that she is the one who gathered his writings, interviewed people who knew him, and did other research to share his life story. In effect, she wrote the story that the musical was based on. After seeing again and again that Hamilton cares about his legacy more than Eliza, it is revealed that Eliza is his legacy. Now we realize that when characters sing “You can’t control… who tells your story,” they don’t mean that in some philosophical or metaphorical way. The individual responsible for passing on your legacy after you die could literally be anyone, even the people you see as hindering it.

I cried during the final song. Actually these specific lines:

Eliza: I interview every soldier who fought by your side Soldiers in background: She tells our story … Eliza: I raise funds in D.C. for the Washington Monument Washington: She tells my story

Now, Washington in particular probably didn’t need her help to tell his story (I mean, he’s on money), but the way the lines are sung gives a sense of the kindness or love that is expressed when another person knows or tells your story. How many people have lived and died who are now totally forgotten about? Eliza did the work to save people from that fate. Alexander Hamilton I don’t think would be described as a “kind” person, even in this musical, but there is kindness in his legacy thanks to Eliza.

And, the final song contains the final plot point, the final part of the epilogue: after Alexander’s death, Eliza founds an orphanage.

I help to raise hundreds of children I get to see them growing up

Want to talk about legacy? Go to the memorial service for a teacher who worked for decades. Go to a birthday party for a 90-year-old who has 10 kids, 50 grandkids, and 150 great grandkids. They might not have their stories written down in books, but they get to enjoy legacy during their lifetimes. In the end, it turns out that in a way, Eliza is a foil to Alexander. While he makes himself and others miserable working to build a legacy that he won’t live to see, Eliza lives her life in service of people who she loves and who depend on her though she is not remembered now. Which of them made more of a difference? Which of them would you rather be?

This is kind of a radical message: that these two types of “legacy” are both valuable in some ways. For a long, long time in history, the kind of legacy that Alexander wanted was generally not available to women, people of color, etc. The “people in power” highly valued this type of legacy, so they reserved it for themselves. As the years went on, people fought for equality, and one of the issues was, although not necessarily stated explicitly, “We want to have valued legacies too!” It seems the response was a kind of reluctant “OK, I guess we’ll open up some opportunities for you to make contributions that will be recorded in history like ours.” For many women and other groups, this was actually great. Many people had wanted those opportunities for a long time, and it’s good that they are available to those who want them. So, it’s hard to say in absolute terms that this wasn’t a good thing. But at that point, we started to see a lot of media with “strong female characters” who are tough and sarcastic and ultra-skilled at combat or whatever that all add up to, “You will be admired and your legacy valued if you forget about girly stuff and just do what men have been doing all along.”

But encouraging everyone to value legacy in this way has created a culture where a lot of things send the message “Be more like Alexander Hamilton” while very few if any say “Be more like Eliza Hamilton.” It’s pretty radical to suggest that maybe the way that Eliza and people like her have been building legacies for all this time was actually good and beneficial and shouldn’t be completely abandoned for Alexander’s way that has always been presented as the most valid.

I think the reason that this resonates with me so loudly is that I am a middle class white woman and grew up as a “gifted” student, and in our modern “enlightened” world, I feel the pressure that historically has been on white men to create some tangible legacy that will live on after I die. But in media, in stories that are fundamental to my culture, in my own family tree before pretty recently, I don’t see women doing this. I have modern society saying to me “You need to make a legacy for yourself.” while the culture that has built up over centuries consistently sends the message “women don’t get legacies”. What Hamilton is saying is “They do have legacies, just not the kind society has taught you to value.”

And actually, I would argue, it goes further, showing how women have found power and agency by refusing to leave a legacy in the traditional sense. The only time in the musical where Eliza talks about her own legacy is in the song “Burn” that she sings after finding out Alexander cheated on her. It includes these lines:

I’m erasing myself from the narrative Let future historians wonder how Eliza Reacted when you broke her heart … The world has no right to my heart The world has no place in our bed They don’t get to know what I said I’m… burning the letters that might have redeemed you

The first time I watched it, I assumed that “erasing myself from the narrative” was a metaphor for her burning the letters. But after watching the ending and knowing that Eliza was actually the one who did the work of passing on “the narrative”, it’s clear that she meant it literally. She knows how much Alexander values his legacy as much as we the audience do, so she’s hitting him where it hurts. Normally, when perspectives are missing from historical narratives we are told it’s because of carelessness (either nobody asked or someone lost it) or external censorship. In Hamilton, we are told Eliza’s part of this story is missing because that’s the way she wanted it. In her time and place, she doesn’t have the opportunity to speak out against her husband or otherwise get justice, but she has still found a powerful way to “get back” at him. Her side of the story is missing because of her agency, not her lack of it.

Initially, Eliza telling Alexander’s story is interpreted as an act of love, very romantic. But thinking back to “Burn”, you have to remember that in the 50 years Eliza lived doing that work after he died, she never “redeemed” him for the bad things he did to her. In that light, you can almost see spite running subtly through the love. “I will do everything in my power to make sure people don’t forget you because I love you (and I want them to know what a jerk you were to me).” I don’t think Eliza hated Alexander. In the play it is clear that she does love him, but she does have reasons of her own for recording his legacy besides blind devotion or adoration. For this, in a way, Eliza herself is in a way redeemed by Washington and the soldiers in the final song, even though her motives aren’t completely “pure”, these men are benefitted by (and in the song appreciative of) her work.

As I said, there are a lot of themes in Hamilton that could be talked about at length, but this one is the most interesting to me, or at least the one that I’ve found myself thinking about the most since I watched the show. I want to talk about one more thing and bring us back to where this discussion started: the Hamilton fandom.

The most notorious example of “craziness in the Hamilton fandom” was the whole “hivliving”… thing. There’s a great video about it on YouTube that really does press that “gossip” button in my social primate brain just right. I highly recommend giving it a watch.

That may be… if not the culmination then the climax the of the insanity in the Hamilton fandom. If you didn’t watch the video, here is a very very brief synopsis:

Within the Hamilton fandom, there are two groups of people who support opposing “ships”: fans of Hamilton/Laurens and fans of Hamilton/Washington.

Members of the Hamilton/Laurens faction make a habit of harassing Hamilton/Washington fans using “social justice” rhetoric (i.e. “Your ship is problematic”). It seems agreed upon by those outside that most if not all of their accusations are baseless, but it persists.

One vocal member of the Hamilton/Laurens fans, claiming to be an HIV+, bisexual, bigender, muslim victim of sex trafficking living in India, also runs a blog called “hivliving” about, well, living with HIV. Since blogs like this are rare, the blog becomes a popular and well-loved resource.

Someone named Ursula discovers that the person running the “hivliving” blog is not in fact an HIV+, bisexual, bigender, muslim victim of sex trafficking living in India, but a white 18-year-old college student living in the U.S. When confronted and pressed, they come clean to their followers.

In the aftermath, someone realizes that Ursula is associated with people in the Hamilton/Washington faction of the Hamilton fandom, and so word starts spreading that Ursula investigated and confronted hivliving due to revenge over “shipping wars”.

More rumors come up and eventually, the story transforms so that the commonly known version is: “Hivliving was pretending to be an HIV+/etc. person and was exposed by someone who wanted revenge for them criticizing their cannibal-mermaid-AU fanfiction.” All the “normal” people have a fun time laughing about how insane people can be online.

Because of this negative attention, Ursula is forced to abandon fandom.

Seriously though, watch the video if you have time.

If there were a lesson to the hivliving story, it would be about legacy. It would be a cautionary tale about how a legacy built on good intentions and serious work can be turned completely around through no fault of your own. I don’t have much to add to that, besides noting that it is a weird coincidence that it happened in a fandom for a show that itself put so much focus on legacy. Hamilton fans, in telling the story of hivliving and Ursula, shaped it to serve their own ends (vilifying fans of a rival ship), much like Eliza shaped Alexander’s story in telling it for her own reasons. But the last thing I’ll note is this: the fans largely shaped the story by adding things, Eliza shaped the story by leaving things out.

#media

0 notes