What do you think?
Rate this book
The Haunting of Lin-Manuel Miranda
“That’s a lot of horse hockey, Hamilton.”
Described by the New York Times as “classic activist theater” and “a cross between ‘A Christmas Carol’ and a trial at The Hague’s International Criminal Court.”
"In this, his latest work, the protean Ishmael Reed--the legendary artist and prolific writer--continues to burnish his already sterling reputation by dismantling the 'Creation Myth' of the founding of the U.S., as represented in the incredibly profitable play and musical, Hamilton . Reed, a verbal acrobat of global renown, demonstrates here why he is widely considered to be the leading intellectual in the U.S. today."
-Gerald Horne, author of The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the USA
This powerful play, originally produced at the Nuyorican Poets Café, comprehensively dismantles the phenomenon of Lin-Manuel Miranda and Hamilton . Reed uses the musical’s crimes against history to insist on a radical, cleareyed way of looking at our past and our selves. Both durable and timely, this goes beyond mere corrective – it is a meticulously researched rebuttal, an absorbing drama, and brilliant rallying cry for justice.
The perfect tie-in to both the success of and backlash to Hamilton , it is the major voice in contrast to the recent movie. It captures both the earnest engagement that fans of the musical desire, as well as the exhausted disbelief of those who can’t stand it. Teachers, students and fans of drama, literature, and history will find much to love. It is written by one of America’s most respected and original writers, who is eagerly promoting it, and who is long overdue for a renaissance.
Described by the New York Times as “classic activist theater” and “a cross between ‘A Christmas Carol’ and a trial at The Hague’s International Criminal Court.”
"In this, his latest work, the protean Ishmael Reed--the legendary artist and prolific writer--continues to burnish his already sterling reputation by dismantling the 'Creation Myth' of the founding of the U.S., as represented in the incredibly profitable play and musical, Hamilton . Reed, a verbal acrobat of global renown, demonstrates here why he is widely considered to be the leading intellectual in the U.S. today."
-Gerald Horne, author of The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the USA
This powerful play, originally produced at the Nuyorican Poets Café, comprehensively dismantles the phenomenon of Lin-Manuel Miranda and Hamilton . Reed uses the musical’s crimes against history to insist on a radical, cleareyed way of looking at our past and our selves. Both durable and timely, this goes beyond mere corrective – it is a meticulously researched rebuttal, an absorbing drama, and brilliant rallying cry for justice.
The perfect tie-in to both the success of and backlash to Hamilton , it is the major voice in contrast to the recent movie. It captures both the earnest engagement that fans of the musical desire, as well as the exhausted disbelief of those who can’t stand it. Teachers, students and fans of drama, literature, and history will find much to love. It is written by one of America’s most respected and original writers, who is eagerly promoting it, and who is long overdue for a renaissance.
77 pages, Paperback
First published October 6, 2020
24 people are currently reading
1020 people want to read
About the author
Ishmael Reed
140 books446 followersIshmael Scott Reed is an American poet, essayist, and novelist. A prominent African-American literary figure, Reed is known for his satirical works challenging American political culture, and highlighting political and cultural oppression.
Reed has been described as one of the most controversial writers. While his work has often sought to represent neglected African and African-American perspectives, his energy and advocacy have centered more broadly on neglected peoples and perspectives irrespective of their cultural origins.
Reed has been described as one of the most controversial writers. While his work has often sought to represent neglected African and African-American perspectives, his energy and advocacy have centered more broadly on neglected peoples and perspectives irrespective of their cultural origins.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 117 reviews
December 10, 2020
This is a very bad play and a very excellent critique of Hamilton
Read
October 19, 2021Pretty funny in an ironic way that Ishmael Reed wrote a bad play full of good politics about a good musical full of bad politics.
December 11, 2022
I watched the Hamilton musical on the Disney Channel twice. It was entertaining fiction.
I took multiple courses on this era at Berkeley and Stanford and immediately recognized the portrayal of Hamilton as BS.
I used to read a lot of “great men” biographies, but soon realized that the portrayals were selective. Never warts and all. The subjects were often idealized, more hagiography than scholarly. But as we like to say in the U.S., “follow the money.”
Americans love heroic stories, myths, that support our sense of exceptionalism. And the bonus is that men, who tend to read a lot less than women, will read these kinds of tomes. Sales are good.
Lin Miranda is an artist, but he’s no scholar. He decided to rely on one book by Ron Chernow as his sole source. But no book is infallible. Even in long books, authors bring in their own biases, including what they choose to leave out. It’s important to consult different sources and, indeed, some of the biggest critics of the Hamilton portrayal are other historians.
This book is short and can be read in one sitting. Ishmael Reed, a long established author, has done his homework.
Hamilton married Elizabeth Schuyler because her family had money. The Schuylers were also slaveholders, buying and selling human beings as they saw fit.
This is only one of many factual insights that readers will find in this short book.
=======
I took multiple courses on this era at Berkeley and Stanford and immediately recognized the portrayal of Hamilton as BS.
I used to read a lot of “great men” biographies, but soon realized that the portrayals were selective. Never warts and all. The subjects were often idealized, more hagiography than scholarly. But as we like to say in the U.S., “follow the money.”
Americans love heroic stories, myths, that support our sense of exceptionalism. And the bonus is that men, who tend to read a lot less than women, will read these kinds of tomes. Sales are good.
Lin Miranda is an artist, but he’s no scholar. He decided to rely on one book by Ron Chernow as his sole source. But no book is infallible. Even in long books, authors bring in their own biases, including what they choose to leave out. It’s important to consult different sources and, indeed, some of the biggest critics of the Hamilton portrayal are other historians.
This book is short and can be read in one sitting. Ishmael Reed, a long established author, has done his homework.
Hamilton married Elizabeth Schuyler because her family had money. The Schuylers were also slaveholders, buying and selling human beings as they saw fit.
This is only one of many factual insights that readers will find in this short book.
=======
July 21, 2021
“Didn’t you take the hint when the Rockefeller foundation endorsed your play? Hamilton? Do you think that the Rockefeller’s are for revolution? You think they would have bought 20,000 tickets for the school children if you’d shown Hamilton as he really was? Do you think American Express hired you because of revolution? That they want to turn their company over to their workers? And what about your work for Disney? Do you believe their board of directors is a bunch of socialists? Are you that naive?”
This was a fantastic, searing critique of Miranda’s Hamilton. I learned a great deal from the monologues Reed places throughout the play, telling the stories of enslaved Africans, Indigenous people, and even indentured servants. Reed does not simply rant about Miranda (and Hamilton ’s) wrongs but does the work to educate folks, and correct a long history of misinformation regarding the so-called Founding Fathers. A must-read, and for those that do choose to use excerpts from Hamilton as an educational tool— this is a necessary pairing if you hope to have any sort of critical discussion.
This was a fantastic, searing critique of Miranda’s Hamilton. I learned a great deal from the monologues Reed places throughout the play, telling the stories of enslaved Africans, Indigenous people, and even indentured servants. Reed does not simply rant about Miranda (and Hamilton ’s) wrongs but does the work to educate folks, and correct a long history of misinformation regarding the so-called Founding Fathers. A must-read, and for those that do choose to use excerpts from Hamilton as an educational tool— this is a necessary pairing if you hope to have any sort of critical discussion.
January 11, 2021
Good and short critique, sadly no one fought lin-manual miranda
August 2, 2025
I love it when someone talks mad shit about something popular that's also mid at best.
October 11, 2020
Audacious, didactic, declamatory - would I expect anything less from Ishmael Reed? A necessary talk-back to the phenomenon of Hamilton.
November 30, 2020
The fact that Toni Morrison was the second-highest contributor to get this project made is very funny to me.
November 22, 2021
As a takedown of the politics of Hamilton and the "trite" lyrics of Lin-Manuel Miranda, Ishmael Reed's play is a success. As a piece of theatre, this play is not very theatrical. I would even use the word boring. The Haunting of Lin-Manuel Miranda is a kind of staged BuzzFeed list of all of the ways Hamilton got its racist history wrong. I don't disagree with any of what Reed has to say about Miranda or Hamilton, but this isn't much of a play; it's more of an extended rant with different characters voicing Reed's objections. I guess I just wanted it to be wittier. In many ways, the whole thing feels just as earnest as Miranda himself.
September 21, 2023
This excellent, well-written play and introduction contextualizes the revisionist history of Hamilton and speaks to the glorification of so-called "founding fathers" in such an exacting way.
July 6, 2025
Strictly as a play, the merits of ‘The Haunting of Lin-Manuel Miranda‘ are fairly limited; but - oh boy- as a deconstruction of false historical narratives and the disgusting justification of some of the founding fathers this work is just illuminating and brilliant.
February 14, 2021
This is the script of a play.
Lin-Manual Miranda is asleep in his room. Washington is in a chair with his slave Venus on his lap. Hamilton enters and he and Washington have a cynical discussion about slavery, sex and ambition. Hamilton leaves. Miranda wakes up, having dreamed the conversation.
Miranda get visited by the people in "Hamilton" and the people he left out. There is a "Christmas Carol" feel to the play. Except it is too late for a happy ending.
Washington, Hamilton and Harriet Tubman visit. Less well known visitors appear. Ben, a slave owned by the Schuyler family, a Negro Woman sold by Alexander Hamilton, a Native American Woman and Man, Diana, a slave who ran away from the Schuyler family and an indentured servant of the Schuyler family, all tell their story to Miranda. Miranda keeps pleading that these stories were not in Ron Chernow's biography of Hamilton which he relied on.
This is political theater. it purpose is to teach a lesson. Hamilton was not an abolitionist. Hamilton was not an enemy of slavery. Hamilton was not supportive of the working class or the common man. Hamilton was the 18th century equivalent of a well connected corporate lawyer who married well.
Reed makes his case and the case makes sense. George Washington and the other Virginians who founded this country would never support anyone who they thought was unsound on the slavery issue. Protecting slavery in the new Union was the issue for them. They supported Hamilton, which meant that Hamilton had to have supported slavery.
Reed outlines Hamilton's dealings in slaves. His wife's family were slaveholders and he did the legal work for their slave dealings. Reed also takes shots at the idea of Hamilton as a noble politician and man. He enthusiastically supported horrific Native American policies and deeds.
At the end of the play Miranda goes to Ron Chernow's office and confronts him. Miranda attack's Chernow's book based on what he learned from his visitors. Chernow comes off as dishonest and cynical. Miranda comes off as naïve.
Not a great play, but a great use of theater to educate.
Lin-Manual Miranda is asleep in his room. Washington is in a chair with his slave Venus on his lap. Hamilton enters and he and Washington have a cynical discussion about slavery, sex and ambition. Hamilton leaves. Miranda wakes up, having dreamed the conversation.
Miranda get visited by the people in "Hamilton" and the people he left out. There is a "Christmas Carol" feel to the play. Except it is too late for a happy ending.
Washington, Hamilton and Harriet Tubman visit. Less well known visitors appear. Ben, a slave owned by the Schuyler family, a Negro Woman sold by Alexander Hamilton, a Native American Woman and Man, Diana, a slave who ran away from the Schuyler family and an indentured servant of the Schuyler family, all tell their story to Miranda. Miranda keeps pleading that these stories were not in Ron Chernow's biography of Hamilton which he relied on.
This is political theater. it purpose is to teach a lesson. Hamilton was not an abolitionist. Hamilton was not an enemy of slavery. Hamilton was not supportive of the working class or the common man. Hamilton was the 18th century equivalent of a well connected corporate lawyer who married well.
Reed makes his case and the case makes sense. George Washington and the other Virginians who founded this country would never support anyone who they thought was unsound on the slavery issue. Protecting slavery in the new Union was the issue for them. They supported Hamilton, which meant that Hamilton had to have supported slavery.
Reed outlines Hamilton's dealings in slaves. His wife's family were slaveholders and he did the legal work for their slave dealings. Reed also takes shots at the idea of Hamilton as a noble politician and man. He enthusiastically supported horrific Native American policies and deeds.
At the end of the play Miranda goes to Ron Chernow's office and confronts him. Miranda attack's Chernow's book based on what he learned from his visitors. Chernow comes off as dishonest and cynical. Miranda comes off as naïve.
Not a great play, but a great use of theater to educate.
August 29, 2024
Would do 3.5 - the play is not very good but really appreciate that it was written
October 24, 2020
Ishmael Reed could have written a long, detailed essay about his objections to HAMILTON, but instead he wrote a shot play packed with facts, wit, and imagination. It not only criticizes the way corporate entertainment distorts history, but challenges the way American history is taught and misremembered. I'll be thinking about this one. Then I'll read it again, and write more about it.
October 12, 2020
As a piece of literature, this might not be Reed at his best. As a corrective to the new narrative of the Revolution spawned by "Hamilton," as Miranda might say, "it gets the job done."
July 29, 2025
A necessary critique of Hamilton; it feels like after finally getting the rage I missed about the show, I got to unpack its full significance and negative ramifications on how we teach history. Not sure a play was the best way to make this critique though, but loved reading it.
July 16, 2023
A really great rebuke of Miranda’s unscholarly take on the life of Alexander Hamilton.
The play leaves a lot to be desired in terms of structure and script, but it is PACKED with well researched history that aims to paint a more accurate portrait of Hamilton. I love Reed using the very medium that Miranda used to reclaim his history.
I’ve always had a complicated relationship with the musical. I truly think that Hamilton is a marvel in theatre, on a technical sense. I also know that the history is SO misguided. Having plays like Reed’s are incredibly salient in a time where conservatives would rather erase the truth of American history in exchange for nationalist perspective.
The play leaves a lot to be desired in terms of structure and script, but it is PACKED with well researched history that aims to paint a more accurate portrait of Hamilton. I love Reed using the very medium that Miranda used to reclaim his history.
I’ve always had a complicated relationship with the musical. I truly think that Hamilton is a marvel in theatre, on a technical sense. I also know that the history is SO misguided. Having plays like Reed’s are incredibly salient in a time where conservatives would rather erase the truth of American history in exchange for nationalist perspective.
March 21, 2025
A brutal and excellent takedown of the phenomenon of Hamilton that puts Lin-Manuel Miranda on trial for the crime of romanticizing slave owners. I do think this would be better formatted as an essay rather than a play, but I understand the artistic impulse to respond to a play with a play. As a piece of theatre, I don't think this works particularly well as it is primarily made up of large chunks of stationary dialogue, however, those chunks of dialogue contain swaths of important historical information that are overlooked in Miranda's musical. A very necessary rebuttal to the revisionist history of Hamilton and required reading for its fans.
October 21, 2020
A strong corrective to the history as presented in Hamilton. I really liked the presentation of it, with the voices of those left out of the narrative speaking for themselves. I also appreciated how the characters didn't even agree with each other 100% of the time and brought up some interesting historical debates. Didactic, but sometimes I'm into that when executed well. I just wish there were a bibliography; so many intriguing points were brought up that I'd love to explore in more depth (but I recognize that this isn't typical for a theatrical script).
December 28, 2024
“Have I created state approved art? Like ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’?”
3.5. Kind of terrible as a play, but a good critique of the phenomenon known as Hamilton. I have to give Reed credit for being so pissed off about something that he put his pen to use—even if the result felt a little clunky and, at times, over the top.
3.5. Kind of terrible as a play, but a good critique of the phenomenon known as Hamilton. I have to give Reed credit for being so pissed off about something that he put his pen to use—even if the result felt a little clunky and, at times, over the top.
September 10, 2024
As a play, I don’t think this really works particularly well. The dialogue is pretty clunky, and there isn’t much in the way of dramatic tension.
However, I think that this play undresses the hagiography and sophistry of “Hamilton” extremely efficiently. In that way, I almost wonder if the underwhelming theatricality here is a fitting choice to rebuke the musical?
I think I probably would have enjoyed this more if it was crafted with more of a Brechtian flourish. With that said, it’s extremely gratifying to see Lin Manuel Miranda and Ron Chernow get owned so hard.
However, I think that this play undresses the hagiography and sophistry of “Hamilton” extremely efficiently. In that way, I almost wonder if the underwhelming theatricality here is a fitting choice to rebuke the musical?
I think I probably would have enjoyed this more if it was crafted with more of a Brechtian flourish. With that said, it’s extremely gratifying to see Lin Manuel Miranda and Ron Chernow get owned so hard.
Read
July 25, 2025Heavy-handed, but that seemed to be the point. This was a blunt instrument to offer a counter-history to the rose-tinted liberties Hamilton takes with history. Reed’s play gives voice to disregarded people and histories, and it makes you think about what responsibility historical fiction owes to history. Not the most elegant play, but very thought-provoking and an important challenge. I think all Hamilton fans should read this.
Read
December 21, 2022as a play it was kinda meh (the only scene which i'd describe as being good or moving was the one with diana), but as a systematic takedown of Hamilton and Lin Manuel Miranda, it was pretty good.
March 9, 2024
Wow, this is incredible. It was always a little strange/off to me how huge "Hamilton" was with educators; along with the drive to bring students and/or get them inspired by people of color playing white slaveholder roles.
Reed does a solid skewering of Lin Manuel's work, while being light on Manuel himself and darkly funny about the whole thing. And the last scene/climax was so damn heavy and devastating: The ghost of Diana (a runaway slave from the Schuyler family that was brutally killed) begs Miranda to be written into a scene. Damn - I hope I get to see this in production one day.
Reed does a solid skewering of Lin Manuel's work, while being light on Manuel himself and darkly funny about the whole thing. And the last scene/climax was so damn heavy and devastating: The ghost of Diana (a runaway slave from the Schuyler family that was brutally killed) begs Miranda to be written into a scene. Damn - I hope I get to see this in production one day.
March 30, 2025
Very enjoyable and interesting! The introduction alone was great. Learnt a lot.
May 11, 2025
get her, jade!
June 15, 2021
A fair critique of the "Hamilton" phenomenon and the voices - specifically the enslaved people and Native Americans - that were left out of both the musical and Chernow's book. Why are we spending so much time and money on the stories of mediocre white men, overlooking their atrocities, when there are amazing stories of courage and resistance from people of color in our country's history that we could be celebrating instead?
Did this play make me dislike the musical? Not really, but it should be required reading for anyone who DOES like Lin's show (especially white people) for context. The play DID make me regret dedicating so much time to reading Chernow's book two years ago ("but it's 800 pages!" jokes gave me some wry chuckles). Sure, Chernow's tome is a hell of a historical biography, but I could've been spending my energy reading Black or Native historians instead.
Did this play make me dislike the musical? Not really, but it should be required reading for anyone who DOES like Lin's show (especially white people) for context. The play DID make me regret dedicating so much time to reading Chernow's book two years ago ("but it's 800 pages!" jokes gave me some wry chuckles). Sure, Chernow's tome is a hell of a historical biography, but I could've been spending my energy reading Black or Native historians instead.
January 18, 2021
This would have been better as a polemic in the The Atlantic or some other long form journalistic source, but then maybe no one would have read it. That being said, I suspect no one saw it as a play either. Whilst there are many problems with both the book and the play, Hamilton, from a historical perspective, this attempted teardown reads more like a college student's whiney thesis than a play anyone will go see. The play should have started, and ended, with a single line, "If you want history go read Howard Zinn." A fine instruction and a lot less tedious than reading this play.
October 31, 2025
The Haunting of Lin-Manuel Miranda by Ishmael Reed
Is ghostly.
Let’s start at square 1: I do not like Miranda’s writing, lyrics, personality, or just vibe. I also find US (political) history morally repugnant, however foretelling it may be of their modern predicament. As such I have not seen Hamilton. But those same squares did make me highly interested in this play.
I know a fair amount, being Canadian and listening to various history podcasts, to know who Washington, Hamilton, and Tubman are both from a US based view and a world view. What I did not know was the conception of Hamilton being based on one source, the influence of money and almost forced positioning of the play Hamilton in American zeitgeist.
The play is billed as “a cross between A Christmas Carol and a trail at the Hauge”, but I found the text preachy, dry, and too tied up with a bow. That being said, it is a performance piece and a responsive & active demonstration, so it must be clear, fact based, and accessible as a retort to the public. I read a play, a play should be enjoyed by an experience, not read.
I think if given the opportunity to be fully funded this play can be so much more. Honestly the tag that got me interested is its downfall. It would be great if it was either a trial with ghosts and representatives finding Miranda guilty or more likely guilty of neglect - à la First or Last episode of Star Trek TNG. Or if it had been a true altered “A Christmas Carol”, with the flashbacks of what actually happened, the girls dancing whilst horrible things happen below their feet, the slave who is not at rest with her toes and fingers cut off, Harriet Tubman’s legacy, Hamilton being a buyer and seller of humans, the manipulation, the corruption, the inability with all his privilege and influence being destitute at his deaths.
This play is for anyone who enjoys plays, activism, un-whitewashing of history, or anyone that knew of someone who deserved the Scrooge McDuck experience and a good Jimeny Crickette visit.
Is ghostly.
Let’s start at square 1: I do not like Miranda’s writing, lyrics, personality, or just vibe. I also find US (political) history morally repugnant, however foretelling it may be of their modern predicament. As such I have not seen Hamilton. But those same squares did make me highly interested in this play.
I know a fair amount, being Canadian and listening to various history podcasts, to know who Washington, Hamilton, and Tubman are both from a US based view and a world view. What I did not know was the conception of Hamilton being based on one source, the influence of money and almost forced positioning of the play Hamilton in American zeitgeist.
The play is billed as “a cross between A Christmas Carol and a trail at the Hauge”, but I found the text preachy, dry, and too tied up with a bow. That being said, it is a performance piece and a responsive & active demonstration, so it must be clear, fact based, and accessible as a retort to the public. I read a play, a play should be enjoyed by an experience, not read.
I think if given the opportunity to be fully funded this play can be so much more. Honestly the tag that got me interested is its downfall. It would be great if it was either a trial with ghosts and representatives finding Miranda guilty or more likely guilty of neglect - à la First or Last episode of Star Trek TNG. Or if it had been a true altered “A Christmas Carol”, with the flashbacks of what actually happened, the girls dancing whilst horrible things happen below their feet, the slave who is not at rest with her toes and fingers cut off, Harriet Tubman’s legacy, Hamilton being a buyer and seller of humans, the manipulation, the corruption, the inability with all his privilege and influence being destitute at his deaths.
This play is for anyone who enjoys plays, activism, un-whitewashing of history, or anyone that knew of someone who deserved the Scrooge McDuck experience and a good Jimeny Crickette visit.
December 26, 2025
As a non-american that didn’t take history past the 9th grade, my introduction to Alexander Hamilton was through the pro-shot play. Yes, I have seen a ten-dollar bill; no, I did not care to know who that was.
As little as my knowledge on general history is I assume ‘founding fathers’ of a land that has an existing indigenous populus can’t possibly be the most noble of gentlemen, couple that up with the fallacy of ‘Freedom for all’ with no real developments towards slavery abolition for 200 years, I took the play Hamilton as fanfiction not an accurate historical reflection. And I have loved it since I saw it 2 years ago and probably still will. However, the points made within this book are very valid.
You can certainly say it is good-natured fun that doesn’t intend to skew history and portrays Alexander Hamilton as the immigrant hero abolitionist with an impressive pen game, but what does that mean for the actual history and the victims from marginalized communities that the play tries so desperately to make him seem a part of?
I love the Idea of a response to Hamilton, especially since the play has gone beyond the US (West End and German productions) to counter the narrative with the truth that he was none of those things, barely even an immigrant, considering he was born within the British Empire, and even if he was, he was socially a white man. A well-constructed response, and hopefully someone hires Lin to write it because boy does this one suck.
Regardless, I will still be listening to the soundtrack.
As little as my knowledge on general history is I assume ‘founding fathers’ of a land that has an existing indigenous populus can’t possibly be the most noble of gentlemen, couple that up with the fallacy of ‘Freedom for all’ with no real developments towards slavery abolition for 200 years, I took the play Hamilton as fanfiction not an accurate historical reflection. And I have loved it since I saw it 2 years ago and probably still will. However, the points made within this book are very valid.
You can certainly say it is good-natured fun that doesn’t intend to skew history and portrays Alexander Hamilton as the immigrant hero abolitionist with an impressive pen game, but what does that mean for the actual history and the victims from marginalized communities that the play tries so desperately to make him seem a part of?
I love the Idea of a response to Hamilton, especially since the play has gone beyond the US (West End and German productions) to counter the narrative with the truth that he was none of those things, barely even an immigrant, considering he was born within the British Empire, and even if he was, he was socially a white man. A well-constructed response, and hopefully someone hires Lin to write it because boy does this one suck.
Regardless, I will still be listening to the soundtrack.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 117 reviews