[ 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

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?