[ SECRET POST #3506 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3506 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[Dollhouse]


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
[http://transgirlnextdoor.tumblr.com/]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 30 secrets from Secret Submission Post #501.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

08. http://imgur.com/E7sciQO.png

Transcript by OP

[fscom]

For such a progressive and historically accurate musical, Hamilton sure did ignore the queer aspects of Hamilton's relationship with Laurens. (Yet it found time to play up Ham's relationship with Angelica Schuyler, making her definitively in love with him.)

"Reliable with the ladies" - things John Laurens would never in any lifetime say about himself

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

I'll admit right now I haven't done a ton of research on either Laurens or Hamilton, but labeling historical figures with ahistorical sexual identities (and, ya know, slurs) is a lot more complicated than you may realize.

Also, notably, you call Hamilton a "historically accurate musical"--but it isn't, in terms of details; the creators openly admit they fudged some details to make a better story. What *is* accurate, I think, is the spirit of the times--and I'm sorry, your 21st-century conception of "queerness" as something that demands naming, visibility, and legitimacy simply is not a part of that spirit.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

Are you really getting on OP for using the word 'queer' in this context

I think the rest of ye argument is bullshit too but I can't put my finger on why exactly (also I'm phone posting). But I guess I'd say that, one, I think Hamilton isn't trying to be accurate to the spirit of the times. It's interpreting the spirit of the times through modern structures and modes. And given that, I really don't think there would be anything wrong with presenting a part of history in an explicitly queer way. I think it is, frankly, incredibly fucking weak sauce to imply that there is something wrong with that, especially when the textual indications are very strong.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

I agree w you as far as the intent of the show (you put it much better than me), and I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with the idea of the show interpreting/presenting the history in that way. So to a large extent I agree with you, and I think you pointed out some real laziness in my response.

I guess what I'm frustrated with in this secret, and in the similar sentiments I've seen on tumblr, is this blind insistence that what we can see in historical documents *is* the same thing that we call queer today. So while I agree that writing Hamilton and Laurens as gay would be a valid, interesting, even awesome interpretation, I'm a little put off by the assumption that it would be not just a valuable interpretation, but an essential part of "historical accuracy;" that to leave it out is somehow an intentional (and, by implication, homophobic) omission rather than just....a failure to make a certain interpretation.

So that's what's at the core of my objection: the problem of historical LGBT-ness is tricky, these concepts are really historically defined, Laurens would likely never have aligned himself with the kind of sexuality-as-identity concepts we hold dear today, and acting as though not writing Jamilton (is that what the kinds call it? Jalexander? Haurens?) is a failure to accurately represent history is disingenuous.

That said, they were wild about each other's cocks!

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but I think you are confusing queerness with LGBT labels/identities. Queerness as a term is fair use; it describes non-straight romantic/sexual activity and feeling. If Hamilton and Laurens were sexually into one another, that's queer. Ascribing identities like "gay" or "straight" aren't appropriate, obviously, and even "bisexual" should be used with caution. Queerness isn't (or doesn't have to be) an identity - and more than that, it can aptly describe one-time encounters or situational bisexuality without forcing a sexual identity on someone. Queer is queer no matter what, no matter the age.

I agree, as I said, that you can't just look at some letters and say "well clearly Hamilton is gay" or "clearly they were boning". That doesn't mean it is am impossible assertion, and the possibility can be discussed seriously without throwing it out because a few Tumblrinas want slashfic.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

That's totally fair! I completely agree that it's a complex question and it's wrong to try to diminish that complexity by treating it as simple or factual.

But I guess it just seems to me that it's important to bear in mind that's a matter of ambiguity. I think there are some people who want to use the complexity of identity to close off the question the other way - as a weapon against queer interpretation - and I don't think that's really doing anyone much good. Which I don't think you were doing! But that's maybe where I was coming from.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

Jamilton (is that what the kinds call it? Jalexander? Haurens?)

LOL, Haurens. I see it called Lams, actually, but I don't know if there's a different match name more common in fans of the musical. Lams predates it and is used among history nerds on Tumblr.

Re: Transcript by OP

[arcadiaego]

I'm sorry, your 21st-century conception of "queerness" as something that demands naming, visibility, and legitimacy simply is not a part of that spirit.

Given the musical is explicitly about visibility and legitimacy (in terms of race and background) then I think the OP is making a perfectly valid comparison. Not sure why you're using scare quotes either. Given your justifiable objection to using contemporary definitions, such as 'bisexual' for historical figures, why the objection to 'queer', which is commonly used in academic circles?

[(Anonymous)]

It doesn't play them in an explicitly textual way, I agree with that, but I dont think it's correct to say it doesn't acknowledge then at all, especially when you start getting into performance as against text. Because I think it's very much performed that way.

[(Anonymous)]

agree; when I saw it Miranda and Ramos really did lean into that

[(Anonymous)]

Not OP but I haven't seen the play yet (but we managed to score tickets for December! whoo!) - but could you give an example? I'm curious about this.

[(Anonymous)]

The historian who wrote the book about Hamilton, which LMM read and inspired the musical, is pretty against the interpretation that Hamilton could have have homosexual relations/banter/whatever with Laurens.

Myself, I think some historians - especially old straight historians - love to go on about how it was a ~cultural difference~ and "homosocial" relations were a thing. Well, maybe, but homosexual relations were a thing, too. It's impossible to definitely ascribe any sexual identity on virtually any historical figure. But completely dismissing what reads of pretty blatant romantic and even homosexually charged language of these letters on the basis of "that was just what straight people did back then" is seriously dumb.

[crossy_woad]

Very interesting! This is well-thought through.

[fishnchips]

I just love the bigoted old historians who keep trying to retcon any possible gay stuff their fav might've done. I see this a lot with Ludwig II of Bavaria. And also the people who vehemently deny that thing with Alexander the Great and Hephaistion.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh yeah, Alexander the Great, and Emperor Hadrian, often get the "well durr homosocial we don't know" treatment. True, we don't know virtually anything about history 100%, but c'mon. Even if Alexander and Hephaistion weren't lovers, Alexander did have a favorite male concubine in Bagoas who he at very least kissed in front of a crowd after Bagoas danced for him.

I'm all for avoiding labeling historical people, because we don't know exactly, but at very least it's pretty likely that certain people had gay relationships.

(Not necessarily applying this to Hamilton, I just think some historians are very, very quick to deny suggestions of homosexuality)

[(Anonymous)]

Well, some people seem to believe homosexuality is an ~invention of the 20th century.

[arcadiaego]

Or the 21st, apparently.

[(Anonymous)]

I read something for a class once about homosexuality only dating to the 19th century, or something, but I think the author was thinking in terms of identifying as a homosexual person, not simply feeling sexual attraction entirely/primarily towards the same sex. It was a weird article that also tried to insist suicide and menopause were social constructs and telling me Japanese women don't go through menopause, and I'm thinking "The fuck they don't" and then realizing he probably meant they don't get hot flashes or whatever whereas I was defining "menopause" as "the end of estrus." I guess anything can be a social construct if you define it conveniently.

[arcadiaego]

Just bros being bros.

[(Anonymous)]

This has been a surprisingly interesting, thoughtful discussion above!

[crossy_woad]

Oooh. Give us the tea. Drop us some wisdom!