Post #17: Final Reflection

For the AP English Composition and Literature exam, I believe I did fairly well on both the multiple choice and the free response portion, though I personally felt like I did far better on the multiple choice section than the free response section.

Technically speaking, I'm not supposed to discuss the multiple choice portion of the exam even once the 2019 Free Response section has been released so I will avoid going into specific detail about the multiple choice portion but I found most of the passages fairly easy to understand, reading through the passages once or twice was typically sufficient for me to comprehend the passage which made answering the multiple choice questions fairly easy.

For the free response portion of the essay, I found the poetry and the open question essay far easier than the prose essay. The poetry essay I felt should particularly resonate with most people in my generation given the current dialogue about privacy concerns. In regards to the open question essay, I found that the George Orwell's novel, 1984, fit well with the prompt so I elected to use 1984 as my book for the prompt.

While I found both the poetry and the open question essays fairly easy to write, I found that I struggled to write a meaningful essay for the prose essay. The prose passage I had a harder time identifying with compared to the poetry and open question. This led me to conduct what I believe was a slightly more superficial analysis on the sisters, as well as occasionally straying from the prompt and focusing on the Lapham family as a whole instead of the two sisters Irene and Penelope specifically.

Certainly, I have to credit the ease that the essay writing came to me during the test in part due to the numerous essays I had to write for this class as a whole. The constant practicing of timed writing, in addition to being forced to write about a certain book for most of those essays, made it so when it came time to write my open question essay, the freedom to choose whichever book I felt was most applicable to the prompt made the open question essay very easy.

Post #16: Final Independent TED Talk

Post #15: Monster Ball Materials

Post #14: Burns Supper Extra Credit

I did not do this.

Post #13: Robert Burns Required Materials

Post #12: King Lear Open Quesiton

Prompt:

In a literary work, a minor character, often known as a foil, possesses traits that emphasize, by contrast or comparison, the distinctive characteristics and qualities of the main character. For example, the ideas or behavior of the minor character might be used to highlight the weaknesses or strengths of the main character.

Choose a novel or play in which a minor character serves as a foil to a main character. Then write an essay in which you analyze how relation between the minor character and the major character illuminates the meaning of the work.

Essay:

The fool serves the role of a medieval court jester. The fool is always a source of both comic relief and sober wisdom. Providing sound advice under the guise of tomfoolery. Shakespeare's play, King Lear, is no exception. Shakespeare uses the subservient, but wise fool in contrast to the fool's superior but ultimately more foolish master King Lear in order to communicate to the audience that both wisdom and foolishness can come from equally unlikely places.

On the surface, the Fool and his master, King Lear, share very little in common: Other than being outwardly old men, (The fool is implied to have served as a paternal figure to Lear due to consistently calling Lear, "nuncle" and thus, is likely of the same age or slightly older than Lear) the Fool and Lear seemingly share no other traits. Lear was in a position of power and had ruled the kingdom of England while the Fool was just a simple servant of the king. Lear attempts to act as a wise old man while the Fool embraces his title as a fool. These contrasting characteristics, however, serve to only highlight the fact that beyond the surface, the Fool is more like the wise man that Lear attempts to portray himself as and Lear is more the fool that the Fool acts as.

The fool even alludes to this relationship in Act 1 as he mockingly laments that he does not own a monopoly on foolishness as royal nobles, such as King Lear, also commit foolish actions. This is very clearly a jab towards Lear's actions in Act 1 Scene 1 where he, out of anger, disowns his favorite daughter Cordelia for speaking honestly and exiles his most faithful servant Kent for warning Lear that his decision to disown Cordelia nad to split his kingdom among his remaining two daughters was a foolish move. Indeed, by the end of the play, Lear's decision to split the kingdom between his two daughters would ultimately cause his daughters to scheme to remove all of Lear's power and would ultimately lead to Lear's death. Other characters comment on the absurdity of Lear's actions as well: Lear's elder two daughters treats Lear's action as a sign that he is growing senile. Kent likens Lear's decision to exile Kent to a sick person killing off their doctor. The Duke of Gloucester notes that Kent's only crime towards Lear was honesty, implying that Lear is delusional and is attacking anyone that would threaten his delusions.

Meanwhile, the Fool, despite his namesake, acts as one of the wisest characters in the play. He admonishes Kent's decision to continue to serve the king via disguising as a man named Caius, warning Kent that he who tries to keep a wheel from rolling down a hill will only break their neck. At the time of the Fool's admonishment, the first signs of Lear being usurped from power were being revealed, as Goneril harshly rebukes Lear's decision to keep 100 knights and Regan chooses to punish Kent via stocking him, one of the most humiliating forms of punishment during Shakespeare's time. Thus, the Fool's metaphor about the wheel and the man who breaks his neck trying to stop it are in reference to Lear and Kent respectively. Lear is quickly losing what little power he has and will ultimately die powerless. During all of this, Kent will be trying to keep Lear alive and well. When Kent ultimately fails, it is implied that Kent has become suicidal as a result of Lear's death and will commit suicide after the end of the play. Both Lear and Kent's fate were predicted by the Fool in the first half of Act II of the play. Given that the play is five acts total, it shows that the fool has far more foresight and wisdom than he acts.

The contrast between the ultimately foolish King Lear and the inwardly wise Fool is ultimately highlighted in the final act that the Fool makes an appearance: Act III. In Act III, Lear goes truly mad, and commits some truly foolish actions. First, Lear refuses to release his knights from his custody in order for Regan and Goneril to house him, instead electing to go out into a heavy storm with no shelter in sight. In response to this, the Fool desperately tries to convince Lear to reconsider his decision and to go back to Goneril and Regan, which Lear stubbornly refuses. Often, we see supposedly wise people turn out to be truly foolish characters while foolish people turn out to have much inner wisdom, this was the case for the Fool and Lear, who bring out the inner foolishness and wisdom from each other.

Reflection:

The task was for us to "analyze how the relation between the minor character and the major character illuminates the meaning of the work". The College Board Student Performance Q&A for this prompt noted that "the aim of this prompt was to assess students’ abilities to move beyond paraphrase or summary, which focuses on description of events in the text, to comparative analysis of the foil and the major character as a way of understanding the larger significance of the work".

The score I received for this essay was a 7. The biggest emphasis my teacher made while grading my essay was that it needed to be extended beyond the text at times and that it was also occasionally repetitive.

Part of the reason my essay was repetitive, in my opinion, was that I was unsure how much context I needed to provide while doing my analysis. As a result I would find myself repeating points I had previously outlined in an attempt to ensure that a reader unfamiliar with King Lear would still be able to follow my train of thought. While a laudable effort, this sort of writing does not exactly work out well in a timed writing situation. Thus, in order to perform better in future Open Question essays, I'll need to make some assumptions that my reader is already well-versed with the what happens in my books so I can better focus on why the events within my books matter.

Post #11: Greek Tragedy Festival

Post #10 It's All Greek to Me PPT

Post #9: Canongate Myth Series Prompted Writing

2009, Form B: Many works of literature deal with political or social issues. Choose a novel or play that focuses on a political or social issue. Then write an essay in which you analyze how the author uses literary elements to explore this issue and explain how the issue contributes to the meaning of the work as a whole. Do not merely summarize the plot.

Ragnarok and the Real World

In Ragnarok: The End of the Gods by A.S Byatt, the thin girl who reads about Ragnarok finds parallels between the chaos and bloodshed of World War II and the horrific destruction in Ragnarok. Through the thin girl’s commentary as a framing device, Byatt retells the story of Ragnarok from the point of view of an innocent child who is well versed in stories. Byatt uses the genre savviness of the narrator to warn that unless humanity learns to overcome their baser instincts, humanity will cause their own downfall.

The thin girl, who serves as the narrator of the book and provides much commentary on the story of Ragnarok, is a character who, due to her consistent exposure to myths and fairy tales, can easily predict the story of Ragnarok. She describes the Ases, the Nordic gods, as brutish and bad, and thus is not surprised when the Ases all die in Ragnarok. She notes that although the Ases are aware of their impending doom due to the prophecy of Ragnarok, they do little to stop it. For example, in the prophecy of Ragnarok, the Fenrir wolf is prophecized to eat and consume Odin whole. When Fenrir is actually born, however, the Ases committed certain actions that ensure Fenrir would become their enemy. The Ases had decided to painfully imprison Fenrir by binding the wolf with magical ribbons. This would cause Fenrir to hate the Ases and thus attack them once Fenrir was freed. Had the Ases simply killed Fenrir when the wolf was a small cub, or had the Ases treated Fenrir with respect and mercy, Fenrir would have not hated the Ases and likely would not have attacked and eat Odin.

The shortsightedness the Ases had with Fenrir was applicable to many other important figures in Ragnarok. The Ases threw the Midgard Serpent, who was prophecized to kill Thor, into the ocean which had plenty of food for the serpent to eat and thus grow stronger. The Ases ostracized Loki, who was prophecized to be the eventual herald of Ragnarok, due to his cunning nature and would eventually imprison him and torture him endlessly by having venom drip into his eyes while he is imprisoned. Each and every one of these instances was a case where, had the Ases applied a bit of long term thinking, or if the Ases had elected to show a bit of kindness, the Ases would not have made an enemy that would cause their downfall in Ragnarok. The brutish, arrogant, or as the thin child says, bad nature of the Ases were precisely what led to their downfall.

This parallels with the World War II era that the thin girl lives in. After the end of the first World War, then known as the Great War, the victors of World War I forced Germany to make massive reparations to the victors as punishment. This would lead to not only incredible humiliation for Germany, but also would lead to a massive economic depression for Germany and would create a culture of despair and resentment in Germany. This very culture of despair and resentment enabled Adolf Hitler to seize control of Germany and create the Third Reich. Soon afterwards, Hitler would set his sights on global conquest and would spark World War II, creating an alliance of other nations who similarly felt cheated or humiliated by the end of World War I called, the Axis Powers. Had the original victors of World War I, who would become the Allied Powers and opposed the Axis Powers, elected to instead treat Germany and the other future Axis Power members with mercy and compassion, then Germany would not have gained its culture of resentment which allowed dictators like Hitler to thrive. The Allied Powers, however, like the Ases had succumbed to their baser desires of greed and revenge. Which would lead to their own Ragnarok in the form of World War II.

Granted, there are some differences between the Ases and Ragnarok versus the Allied Powers and World War II. Unlike the Ases, the Allied Powers would not be utterly annihilated in World War II. The Allied Powers would, in fact, emerge victorious. There was, however, a period of time where it truly seemed the Allied Powers would be destroyed as Britain remained as the last Allied stronghold against an approaching Axis tide. This period of time is the period of time that the thin girl lives in, a period of time where every day Britain appeared to be closer to falling. For the thin girl, and all other British people living at the time, their Ragnarok truly seemed to be unfolding before their very eyes.

Due to the intervention of the US, as well as a few strategic mistakes made by Hitler, however, Britain would not fall and the Allied Powers would emerge victorious. From their experiences from the first World War, the Allied Powers would show the Axis powers far greater mercy, ensuring that a third World War would not occur.

The story of Ragnarok and the hubris and arrogance of the Ases, juxtaposed with the real events of World War II, serves as a cautionary tale for humanity. Too foten, we are eager to make choices that would provide immediate gratification and appeal to our baser instincts. Whether it be choices as mundane as binge watching for ten hours on Netflix to choices as important as investing in high profit ventures such as housing, we fail to see the long-term consequences of these immediate gratification actions: Binge watching on Netflix means less time to study and owuld caus

e sleep deprivation and poor grades. Investing in housing when the real-estate business is a bubble that is about to pop would only contribute to the next great financial disaster when such a bubble inevitably pops.

Reflection

     For this assignment, we were allowed to select an open question prompt and answer it using our Canongate Myth book. For my Canongate myth book, Rangarok: The End of the Gods by B.S Hyatt, I chose the 2009 Open Question prompt, which said, "Many works of literature deal with political or social issues. Choose a novel or play that focuses on a political or social issue. Then write an essay in which you analyze how the author uses literary elements to explore this issue and explain how the issue contributes to the meaning of the work as a whole. Do not merely summarize the plot."

    I had anticipated that I would get a 7 on the essay, as though I believed that my essay offered "insight and understanding of the literary elements the author uses", my "analysis [was] less thorough, less perceptive and... less specific in supporting detail". My teacher roughly agreed with me, giving me a score of 7.5. She believed that my essay was almost 8 material but felt like I went too out of context of the book near the end of my essay when I talked about how World War II served as a parallel with the Ases.

     Of note with this task is that we were given a chance to prepare a thesis statement ahead of time for this assignment, and were given more freedom to select a prompt that we felt would suited our book. This was certainly a factor into helping me focus my essay, as I had time to prepare a general outline of my essay. Overall, my essay's score improved from the 5.5 it was before to the 7.5 it is now. I believe part of the factor into its improvement was that I tried to bring in outside knowledge into my essay to add complexity into it. I may have, however, added too much outside knowledge, which lowered my essay score

Post #8: Open Question Reflection

Prompt:

     Select a novel, play, or epic poem that features a character whose origins are unusual or mysterious. Then write an essay in which you analyze how these origins shape the character and that character's relationships, and how the origins contribute to the meaning of the work as a whole.

Essay:

     There's no other character who is shaped by their unusual origins than Medea, the titular character from Euripides' play, Medea.

     Medea is different from the other characters in the play in that she is not native to Greece. When Jason had sailed across the Mediterranean to retrieve the Golden Fleece, he encountered Medea during his travels. Medea, due to the intervention of the love goddess Aphrodite, became smitten with Jason and would become one of the [sic] his key allies. Medea, while helping Jason escape from her family, would kill her brother and cast his remains into the sea, forcing Jason's persuers [sic] to instead search for her brother's remains instead of chasing Jason. This, naturally, estranged Medea from the rest of her family.

     To Medea, however, this estrangement was a worthy price to pay as long as she can stay with her love, Jason. The two would eventually marry and have two children. Jason would, however, cheat on Medea and married another women [sic] as well: The princess of the city Medea and Jason lived in. This is when Medea's backstory relevant [sic]: As an outsider whom others considered to be a "barbarian", Medea was generally looked down upon by others. Additionally, she was a women with magical powers and a clever mind which made her an uniquely powerful threat to a predominantly patriarchal society. Medea's powers, her status as an outsider, and her gender all made Medea an outcast among her peers.

     This status as an outcast, and her existence threatening the power structure of the patrarchal [sic] society Medea lives in, would define how Medea interacts towards the rest of the play's cast. Among the male members, the king fears Medea for the perceived threat she is towards the king, causing the king to order Medea's exile. Aegeus, though he would provide Medea shelter after her plot to exact revenge is enacted, sees Medea mostly as a tool to help overcome his fertility problems and is reluctant to actively assist Medea in escaping. Both of these characters have a fairly frosty relationship with Medea, but the character with the frostiest relationship with Medea is Jason himself.

     Jason continually belittles Medea throughout the play by treating her reactions to Jason's cheating as nothing more than overly blown up melodrama. He acts as if his cheating on Medea is actually beneficial for Medea and outright states that he chose to marry the princess because Medea was a "barbarian" outsider. One could say that Jason represents the worst aspects of a patriarchal society: A society that allows men to freely act as they please while women are helpless and unable to make any meaningful change.

     If Jason embodies the worst aspects of a patriarchan society, the Medea embodies a form of feminism considered radical for Euripides' time. Unlike the Greek chorus of women in Medea, who acknowledge the plight of women in a patriarchal but refuse to try and meaningfully change it, Medea, though not reforming society, refuses to play out the role of the passive, submissive women, that society assigns to her. Instead, she uses her gifts of manipulation and magic to directly challenge the supposed invulnerability that the patriarchs, namely Jason, appear to boast off.

Reflection:

     The task on hand was to write an essay examing how the unusual/mysterious origin of a character from a specific literary work shapes that characters relationships to other characters in the work and how these origins ultimately impact the literary work's meaning.

     I anticipated that I would earn a 5, as my essay relied heavily on plot summary. In addition, in hindsight there were numerous grammatical and spelling errors in my essay (which I marked with [sic]) that would certainly detract from my essay. My teacher was slightly more merciful than me, giving me a score of 5.5. Mostly, my teacher believed my essay had a slow start and was lacking in strong support for my thesis.

    Compared to poetry and prose essays, open question essays, as their name implies, are the most free form of the three essays. One is not bound to a specific passage of text in a open question essay. This is its own double-edged sword. It allows one to analyze a piece of text that is comfortable to them. On the other hand, without a piece of text to reference, this means that you need to have an incredibly thorough understanding of the piece of text you're using. This would become my undoing. Though I was familiar with Medea, it had been a few weeks since I last read the text. This resulted in me forgetting various crucial details, like the name of the city Jason and Medea lived in and the specific details on Jason's affair.

     Ultimately, in order for me to do better on the next open question essay, I'll have to review the literary work that I plan on using beforehand in order to ensure that I have a more solid foundation of knowledge to draw upon while writing.

Post #5: Prose Benchmark Essay and Reflection

Essay

     Through ever changing characterizations of Zenobia, Hawthorne Communicates the narrator's mixed, but ultimately resentful and envious attitude towards Zenobia. Revealing a discrepency between who the narrator really is, and who the narrator aspired to be.

     The narrator in Hawthorn's novel begins with clashing feeling of awe and disgust towards Zenobia. This is a character who has been accustomed to a simple communal rural life. To suddenly see a room with "exceedingly rich" (L. 7)  furniture, "white radien[t]" (L. 6) lamps, and even "a chandelier hung down in the center" (L. 3), the narrator was no doubt impressed by the room Zenobia was in. This impression is immediately followed by contempt, however. The narrator calls the room both a "fantasy" (L. 11) and a "costly self indulgence" (L. 12). For a narrator who lives a down-to-earth rural lifestyle, to call something a "fantasy" (L. 11) implies that the narrator doesn't believe the room, and by extension Zenobia, will amount to anything substantial. Indeed, the narrator implies that he sees the room as not only insubstantial, but wasteful as well by referring to the room as a "costly self-indulgence". (L. 12)

     At the same time, however, the narrator reveals deeply buried envy, as he acknowledges that in this room, he struggles to "perceive... [themself] a positive effort" (LL. 20-21) In an attempt to reconcile his envy of Zenobia with his contempt towards her, the narrator tries to justify why he does not have the same wealth Zenobia exhibits by trying to characterize Zenobia as "incapable of pure and perfect taste" (L. 29) and, by extension, being incredibly superficial.

     The narrator soon afterwards, however, acknowledges that they are unsure of how accurately they characterized Zenobia. Acknowledging that in the end, "[they] hardly know whether [they] then beheld Zenobia in her truest attitude" (LL. 35-36)

     Why then, does the narrator characterize Zenobia so maliciously when they know that they don't really know who Zenobia truly was as a person? It is because the narrator resents Zenobia's ability to be able to learn from and critique her past. While the narrator merely reflects on how their time on Blithedale farm as a dream, Zenobia offers a "qualified approval and criticism" (L. 57) of the farm which she had previously lived in. It was this very action, which the narrator qualified as "self-complacent [and] condescending" (LL.56-57), which causes the narrator to resent Zenobia.

     Zenobia represents all of the sophistication that the narrator never had. From her aristocratic room to her philosophical evaluation of Blithedale farm. Even as the narrator tries to copy Zenobia by also leaving the farm, he fails to match up to her equal level of sophistication. Unlike Zenobia, the narrator cannot present themselves with rich ornaments. Unlike Zenobia, the narrator cannot treat their time at Blithedale farm with an elegant qualified critique. Instead, the narrator can only treat their time at Blithedale with barely concealed scorn, saying that  "now... [they] can look at [Blithedale farm] from a distance, it requires all my real regard for [the founder of the farm] to prevent me from laughing." (LL.75-79)

     It is ironic that though the speaker called Zenobia's evaluation of Blithedale "condescending" when the speaker themself notes they can barely not laugh at the farm.

Reflection

     The task assigned to me was to, I quote verbatim, "[i]n a well-written essay, analyze how Hawthorne portrays the narrator's attitude towards Zenobia through the use of literary techniques". In essence, I was asked to write a prose essay analyzing a passage of text from a novel written by Nathaniel Hawthorne.

     For my essay for this prompt, I'd give myself a 5. Compared to the poetry essay from this year and the analysis AP Comp essays I wrote last year, I'd say I found the prose prompt easier to write. Though my analysis could still use some work, I'd say my essay at least had a "plausible reading of how the Hawthorne protray's the narrator's attitude towards Zenobia" which is one of the criteria for a 5 essay. On the other hand though, my essay ended abruptly and was unevenly developed. (Compare the 2nd paragraph to the 4th paragraph for example) In addition, though I drew the conclusion that the narrator was also leaving Blithedale farm, I failed to provide evidence to support my interpretation which would likely lower my score more.

     In a way, the prose essay is basically a more free-form and lengthier version of the poetry essay. Like the poetry essay, there's a piece of text where we have to analysis how the speaker/narrator communicates something. The prose essay, however, has far more text than the poetry essay and the aforementioned text is not specifically bound to a certain poetic form unlike the poetry essay. The prose essay's saving grace, however, is that with more text, we're also given far more context to work from compared to the poetry essay. 

     All in all, for my first attempt at writing a prose essay, I'd say I did far better than I did for the poetry essay. That being said, I need to become better at writing concisely. In hindsight, a good portion of my second paragraph could be rewritten or cut in a fashion that prevents me from actually losing any content. By looking at my old essays and rewriting them so they have less words but still mean the same, I can slowly build this skill of writing concisely.

Post #4: Petrarchan Sonnet

Song

[BURR]

Ah, Mister Secretary

[HAMILTON]

Mister Burr, sir

[BURR]

Didja hear the news about good old General Mercer?

[HAMILTON]

No

[BURR]

You know Clermont Street?

[HAMILTON]

Yeah

[BURR]

They renamed it after him. The Mercer legacy is secure

[HAMILTON]

Sure

[BURR]

And all he had to do was die

[HAMILTON]

That’s a lot less work

[BURR]

We oughta give it a try

[HAMILTON]

Ha

[BURR]

Now how’re you gonna get your debt plan through?

[HAMILTON]

I guess I’m gonna fin’ly have to listen to you

[BURR]

Really?

[HAMILTON]

“Talk less. Smile more.”

[BURR]

Ha

[HAMILTON]

Do whatever it takes to get my plan on the Congress floor

[BURR]

Now, Madison and Jefferson are merciless.

[HAMILTON]

Well, hate the sin, love the sinner

[MADISON]

Hamilton!

[HAMILTON]

I’m sorry Burr, I’ve gotta go

[BURR]

But—

[HAMILTON]

Decisions are happening over dinner

[BURR]

Two Virginians and an immigrant walk into a room

[BURR AND ENSEMBLE]

Diametric’ly opposed, foes

[BURR]

They emerge with a compromise, having opened doors that were

[BURR AND ENSEMBLE]

Previously closed

[ENSEMBLE]

Bros

BURR

The immigrant emerges with unprecedented financial power

A system he can shape however he wants

The Virginians emerge with the nation’s capital

And here’s the pièce de résistance:

[BURR & ENSEMBLE]

No one else was in

The room where it happened

The room where it happened

The room where it happened

No one else was in

The room where it happened (The room where it happened)

The room where it happened

The room where it happened (The room where it happened)

No one really knows how the game is played (Game is played)

The art of the trade

How the sausage gets made (How the sausage gets made)

We just assume that it happens (Assume that it happens)

But no one else is in

The room where it happens. (The room where it happens.)

[BURR AND COMPANY]

Thomas claims—

[JEFFERSON]

Alexander was on Washington’s doorstep one day

In distress ‘n disarray

[BURR AND COMPANY]

Thomas claims—

[JEFFERSON]

Alexander said—

[HAMILTON]

I’ve nowhere else to turn!

[JEFFERSON]

And basic’ly begged me to join the fray

[BURR AND COMPANY]

Thomas claims—

[JEFFERSON]

I approached Madison and said—

“I know you hate ‘im, but let’s hear what he has to say.”

[BURR AND COMPANY]

Thomas claims—

[JEFFERSON]

Well, I arranged the meeting

I arranged the menu, the venue, the seating

[BURR]

But!

No one else was in—

[BURR AND COMPANY]

The room where it happened

The room where it happened

The room where it happened

[BURR]

No one else was in—

[BURR AND COMPANY]

The room where it happened

The room where it happened

The room where it happened

[BURR & COMPANY]

No one really knows how the

Parties get to yesssss (Parties get to yesssss)

The pieces that are sacrificed in (Ev’ry game of chesssss)

Ev’ry game of chesssss

We just assume that it happens (Assume that it happens)

But no one else is in (The room where it happens)

The room where it happens

[BURR AND COMPANY]

Meanwhile—

[BURR]

Madison is grappling with the fact that not ev’ry issue can be settled by committee

[COMPANY]

Meanwhile—

[BURR]

Congress is fighting over where to put the capital—

Company screams in chaos

[BURR]

It isn’t pretty

Then Jefferson approaches with a dinner and invite

And Madison responds with Virginian insight:

[MADISON]

Maybe we can solve one problem with another and win a victory for the Southerners, in other words—

[JEFFERSON]

Oh-ho!

[MADISON]

A quid pro quo

[JEFFERSON]

I suppose

[MADISON]

Wouldn’t you like to work a little closer to home?

[JEFFERSON]

Actually, I would

[MADISON]

Well, I propose the Potomac

[JEFFERSON]

And you’ll provide him his votes?

[MADISON]

Well, we’ll see how it goes

[JEFFERSON]

Let’s go

[BURR]

No!

[COMPANY]

—one else was in

The room where it happened

[BURR AND COMPANY]

The room where it happened

The room where it happened

No one else was in

The room where it happened

The room where it happened

The room where it happened

[BURR]

My God!

[BURR AND COMPANY]

In God we trust

But we’ll never really know what got discussed

Click-boom then it happened

[BURR]

And no one else was in the room where it happened

[COMPANY]

Alexander Hamilton!

[BURR]

What did they say to you to get you to sell New York City down the river?

[COMPANY]

Alexander Hamilton!

[BURR]

Did Washington know about the dinner?

Was there Presidential pressure to deliver?

[COMPANY]

Alexander Hamilton!

[BURR]

Or did you know, even then, it doesn’t matter

Where you put the U.S. Capital?

[HAMILTON]

Cuz we’ll have the banks

We’re in the same spot

[BURR]

You got more than you gave

[HAMILTON]

And I wanted what I got

When you got skin in the game, you stay in the game

But you don’t get a win unless you play in the game

Oh, you get love for it. You get hate for it

You get nothing if you…

[HAMILTON AND COMPANY]

Wait for it, wait for it, wait!

[HAMILTON]

God help and forgive me

I wanna build

Something that’s gonna

Outlive me

[HAMILTON/JEFFERSON/

MADISON/WASHINGTON & COMPANY]

What do you want, Burr? (What do you want, Burr?)

What do you want, Burr? (What do you want, Burr?)

If you stand for nothing (What do you want, Burr?)

Burr, then what do you fall for? (What do you want?)

[BURR]

I

Wanna be in

The room where it happens

The room where it happens

I

Wanna be in

The room where it happens

The room where it happens

[BURR & COMPANY]

I I wanna be in

The room where it happens

Wanna be (The room where it happens)

In the room where it happens (The room where it happens)

I (I wanna be in the room)

Where it happens

I wanna be in the room… (The room where it happens)

Oh (The room where it happens)

Oh (I wanna be in)

The room where it happens

I wanna be (The room where it happens)

I wanna be (The room where it happens)

I’ve got to be (I wanna be in)

I’ve got to be (The room where it happens)

In that room (The room where it happens)

In that big ol’ room (The room where it happens)

[COMPANY]

The art of the compromise—

[BURR]

Hold your nose and close your eyes

[COMPANY]

We want our leaders to save the day—

[BURR]

But we don’t get a say in what they trade away

[COMPANY]

We dream of a brand new start—

[BURR]

But we dream in the dark for the most part

[BURR AND COMPANY]

Dark as a tomb where it happens

[BURR & COMPANY]

I’ve got to be in

The room… (The room where it happens)

I’ve got to be...

The room where it happens

I’ve got to be...

The room where it happens

Oh, I’ve got to be in

The room where it happens… (The room where it happens)

I’ve got to be, I’ve gotta be (The room where it happens)

I’ve gotta be…

In the room! (I wanna be in the room)

Where it happens!

Click-boom! (Click-boom!)

Sonnet

Unknown, unprecedented compromise

Made over dinner with power at stake

Power, the country’s fate it would remake

It spurns me with much coldness and despise

I desire power itself as a prize

A prize as delectable as fresh cheesecake

I remain while others devour and take

Won’t wait for it while others now rise

Once kept from the room where the deal was brewed

Seize the chance for power I must consume

Discard my restraints, discard my napkins

To strike deals to gain power I conclude

I have to be in that great, big old room

That great, big old room where it all happens