The Dangers of Recreating Public Memory

Recreating public memory could pose a problem in the future. Valerie Lynn Schrader states in her article, ‘Who Tells Your Story’: Narrative Theory, Public Memory, and the Hamilton Phenomenon, “Artistic liberties may be double-edged: while they make the musical more creative and cohesive, they may create historically inaccurate public memory” (Schrader, 2019, p. 266). In the article, Schrader wants researchers to study the impact of recreating public stories.

First, the article goes into detail about how Lin-Manuel Miranda created Hamilton. Schrader goes into the characters’ backgrounds, songs, and hidden messages. Furthermore, she collected data from various sources on public memory and gave readers examples of how people can mistake artistic expression for historical facts. Lastly, the article talks about the public moral argument, which refers to how the public may identify with a character they feel drawn to, which can persuade an individual more easily to believe the stories told, whether accurate or not.

Artistic expression can help individuals connect to historical characters more deeply and emotionally. However, recreating public memory for important historical people of the past can potentially be dangerous by subconsciously manipulating people into believing false narratives, which could result in individuals acting inhumanely if producers do not stick as closely as possible to historical facts.

Rhetorical Analysis

Schrader uses ethos, logos, and pathos throughout her essay, heavily relying on logos by providing various credible sources for her paper, such as “Jermone Burner’s book, Making Stories: Law, Literature, Life” (Schrader, 2019, p. 263). Schrader begins her article by giving readers an inside look into the production of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton. This provides Schrader credibility by using the creator of the production. Furthermore, she uses several academic articles throughout her paper to express why more research should be done on creating public memory.

Using ethos, Schrader provides the background to Hamilton, connecting her audience to Miranda’s production using the creator of the musical as part of her essay to drive her point further. For example, Schrader uses an interview to explain that Miranda did not know much about Alexander Hamilton’s life before the musical.

By connecting Miranda and people who have never heard of Hamilton, one can argue that Miranda could put anything in the production, and the majority of the public would accept it as truth. If Miranda was not an expert on Hamilton, how would the public know if what Miranda produced was accurate or not? They would not know because the average person knows little about Alexander Hamilton. Miranda could have composed his musical with ill intentions, and the public would not second guess it.

Additionally, Schrader effectively uses the emotion of caution and concern to reach out to her intended audience, researchers, on the topic of public memory, which uses pathos. She expresses, “The article seeks to contribute to theatre studies, rhetorical studies, and communication theory” (Schrader, 2019, p. 272).

I agree that more studies need to be conducted. If we do not consider the potential future problems that recreating public memory could cause, we could unintentionally create a future full of resentment, chaos, and misunderstanding due to misinformation in the guise of artistic expression. Misinformation is already an epidemic in itself without recreating public memory.

Lastly, Schrader touches on public moral argument using pathos again, stating, “Fisher explains that public moral argument must be publicized and made available for consumption and persuasion and aimed towards the general population rather than experts” (Schrader, 2019, p. 271). This message implies that the public can be manipulated into believing false narratives, which could alter perceptions.

For example, imagine what could happen if producers recreated Hitler’s public image as a hero and attempted to push the narrative that what Hitler did was good. Obviously, Hitler was not a hero and did inhumane things to millions of Jewish people. How would the public memory of Hitler change if individuals connected with Hitler? With time, people’s perceptions could change, and they may believe Hitler did the right thing and attempt to follow in his footsteps, which would be catastrophic.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Schrader’s essay is highly compelling, and I agree that more research needs to be done on the topic of recreating or creating public memory. Her essay was formal, well put together, and organized into sections that were easy to read.

Additionally, she used many reliable resources like statements from Lin-Manuel Miranda, producer of Hamilton, books, and scholarly journals to conduct her essay. She states throughout her article what it is about and does not leave any room for second-guessing.

Who tells your story is important because if someone wants to destroy a reputation, they will only need a platform, an audience, and a storyline. More research would be beneficial to ensure that people with ill intentions do not rewrite history for their benefit.

*** I love the musical Hamilton, I was just reflecting on the possible issues of recreating public memory and how it can be used to change historical facts. :) What are your thoughts on recreating public memory?

References

Kail, T. (Director). (2020). Hamilton: An American musical [Film]. Walt Disney Pictures.

Schrader, V. (2019). ‘Who Tells Your Story?’: Narrative Theory, Public Memory, and the Hamilton Phenomenon. New Theatre Quarterly, 35(3), 261-274. doi:10.1017/S0266464X19000265