I Think That'll Depend On Each Reader, Tbh. I'll Let You Know Straight-up That Historical Accuracy Goes

i think that'll depend on each reader, tbh. i'll let you know straight-up that historical accuracy goes out the window, to an extreme. personally, i wasn't annoyed - i was just confused and laughing at certain times at the sheer absurdity of it. at a certain point i realized it wasn't even trying to be accurate and i just went along with it.

but if you care about that deeply, it's probably going to be an infuriating read.

after a lot of hemming and hawing i decided to give alex and eliza: a love story a chance. but holy shit. at first i thought it was taking a few historical liberties to give hamliza this enemies to lovers arc (which still doesn't make sense) but then it escalated into utter mayhem. i am confused at what beef this author had with henry livingston.

wtf was hamilton actually like

yet another long rant about how little i really know about hamilton! this is in regards to his personality because i can't get him down. i can't figure out what he would've been like in everyday life.

for any historical figure, we take explicitly documented traits and build off of them. even if it's clumsy, i'd be confident "predicting" how washington & jefferson usually act, etc. but for some reason, ham's characterization is all over the place. his recorded personality traits, also mixed with his political attitudes, often conflict and authors end up leaning into certain parts. for instance: there's flirty & flamboyant ham. there's prideful, arrogant, standoffish ham. there's bumbling politics ham, obtuse and belligerent 24/7 - aka musical ham, but that was an intentional choice. there's even kind and warm ham, which definitely seems accurate for his family and close friends least.

was he loud and intense 24/7? or was that just him during work, since we also know that he had a habit of mumbling to himself and looking like a daydreamer to spectators?

some people said that his general countenance was serious and austere, but we also know that he could be a charmer in social spaces. he was described as feminine but also as "martial". some have written that there's an "simplicity" in his manners, and a clear openness, but we also speculate that he closed off some part of his emotions after laurens' death. he was constantly worried about his loved ones' health, like him tucking in judge ford, but we also know that he could ghost people mercilessly. was he guarded or was he not?

i guess i can pinpoint how he might have interacted with select people, like eliza, his children, washington. but i don't know which side of him was shown in the majority of his interactions - what the "real" him, or at least common him, would've been.

one of my fav descriptions of him notes how even his speech fluctuated:

“His language is not always equal; sometimes didactic like Bolingbroke’s; at other times light and tripping, like Sterne’s. His eloquence is not so defusive as to trifle with the senses, but he rambles just enough to strike and keep up the attention...His manners are tinctured with stiffness and sometimes with a degree of vanity that is highly disagreeable. “

and i recall another anecdote about how he was serious and made intelligent conversation at dinner, but became more of the flirty charming persona afterwards while socializing.

like all human beings he was multifaceted, but damn. i really can't confidently say "oh if you ran into hamilton in the street he would be really polite/reserved/kind/charming."

i guess all of this goes to say that this guy was insanely complex and i'm not sure if anyone, let alone himself, really figured it out. that's definitely why i'm interested in him as a figure, but ugh. frustrating when i'm writing and can feel myself slipping into a common ham archetype that i don't think is 100% accurate. and we didn't even get into how much of that is "real" or - adams' version.

thank youuuu i was fighting for my life trying to explain that longer and more deferent does not necessarily mean more affectionate!

absolutely useless discourse: comparison of washington's thank you letters to jefferson & hamilton

today in the group chat i shared the letters that washington sent both jefferson and hamilton after their respective resignations, noting that they were really similar in their message. for some reason this sparked debate on which letter felt "warmer", with a surprisingly split vote?

washington particularly paid close attention to the words he used - Sir, Dear Sir, My Dear Sir all show different degrees of affection and he could use that subtlety to convey tone. i thought this debate might be interesting to throw out to people who know washington's letter-writing habits, or general 18th century letter standards. the real answer is that both letters are basically the same and this is a stupid question but hush. we're continuing the age-old tradition of pitting jefferson and hamilton against each other.

the pro-jefferson side of the chat was noting how he sounds much more obliging and deferent to jefferson, like "i cannot suffer you to leave your station without assuring you", or "I beg you to believe that I always am Dear Sir Your Sincere friend". obviously they break later on but at this point, he must've had great respect for him.

the pro-hamilton side said that that's proof he was closer to hamilton, and felt more comfortable being straightforward: "you may assure yourself of the sincere esteem" instead of "i beg you to believe". also, they pointed out how although he says that both of them fulfilled all their duties to his expectations, he says in only hamilton's that he can render it due to opportunities that "cannot deceive me".

any thoughts?

absolutely useless discourse: comparison of washington's thank you letters to jefferson & hamilton

today in the group chat i shared the letters that washington sent both jefferson and hamilton after their respective resignations, noting that they were really similar in their message. for some reason this sparked debate on which letter felt "warmer", with a surprisingly split vote?

washington particularly paid close attention to the words he used - Sir, Dear Sir, My Dear Sir all show different degrees of affection and he could use that subtlety to convey tone. i thought this debate might be interesting to throw out to people who know washington's letter-writing habits, or general 18th century letter standards. the real answer is that both letters are basically the same and this is a stupid question but hush. we're continuing the age-old tradition of pitting jefferson and hamilton against each other.

edit: omfg my friend just messaged me with "you idiot why didn't you make a poll" and i am soo stupid. probably too late but i'll still add it.

the pro-jefferson side of the chat was noting how he sounds much more obliging and deferent to jefferson, like "i cannot suffer you to leave your station without assuring you", or "I beg you to believe that I always am Dear Sir Your Sincere friend". obviously they break later on but at this point, he must've had great respect for him.

the pro-hamilton side said that that's proof he was closer to hamilton, and felt more comfortable being straightforward: "you may assure yourself of the sincere esteem" instead of "i beg you to believe". also, they pointed out how although he says that both of them fulfilled all their duties to his expectations, he says in only hamilton's that he can render it due to opportunities that "cannot deceive me".

any thoughts?

hamburr is losing and we have to do something about that rn

alex & eliza strikes again: revolutionary use of freeze frame epilogue narration

spoiler warning for alex & eliza love & war, if there's anyone who cares enough about that book to need it lmao.

i fucking love the second book in the alex & eliza trilogy because right at the end of part 1 (didn't even realize there were parts until i was told it was the end of part 1) it has a whole-ass epilogue montage like those corny sitcoms that freeze frame and go: "johnny would go on to become the world's greatest ice-cream test taster".

one moment we're going through what is supposedly a historically accurate story where after the battle of yorktown, aaron burr tells betsey that alexander is alive by delivering a letter where her husband, the quintessential 18th century man, writes:

"pack your bags, my dearest! we are moving to the city! - A."

and the next, we're suddenly in italics for around 20 pages of a textbook recounting of the next few years - the author throws away all the historically accurate emotional moments like laurens' death. absolutely incredible.

also: there's no philip? we have a mrs. schuyler birthing scene but there is no mention of the hamilton couple's first child. i'm so confused. where on earth is philip hamilton, and can we put up a missing child poster for him?

so here's a little taste of what the epilogue section reads like:

“Chief among these visionaries was Alexander Hamilton, whose accomplishments during the Revolutionary War would soon be overshadowed by the work he did for the budding republic. ”

oh i'm sorry 5th grade social studies textbook. this isn't foreshadowing, this is straight up telling the reader what's going to happen next lmao.