It Just Sounds So Modern

In July of 2010, Ben Zimmer wrote an article for The New York Times titled “Man Men-ese” in which he discusses the accuracy of the show’s dialogue for the time period. Overall, Zimmer defends the historical accuracy of the language used by the show. He questions why Man Men has received so much scrutiny for language despite it being the only show on television that works hard to sustain historically appropriate use of language.

This article provides a clear look at Mad Men’s use of time appropriate language and cites many examples of phrases the creators of the show regret having used due to the language being from a later time period than the show. One example he shares is Joan’s line from season one “The medium is the message,” a phrase that was not coined for another four years. The evidence cited is made more credible because the author actually received this information from a conversation with Mathew Weiner, the creator, executive producer and head write of the show. The author also includes examples of lines with issues from multiple linguists and more generally lines that have upset viewers such as Roger’s line “I know you have to be on the same page as him.”

After discussing more examples of non-historically applicable language, the author then questions why the show has received so much scrutiny for this by viewers, which he argues was brought on by Weiner and his staff members need for accuracy and perfectionism with other aspects of production. This argument is supported by the author’s reference to examples such as the importance of the size of a fruit bowl to Weiner in set design.

The author then redirects the article to his conversation with Mathew Weiner in which Weiner explains the process through which he and his staff writers work to avoid words and phrases that don’t work for the time period. He ends the article by discussing Weiner’s personal struggle to use completely accurate language as he identifies himself as “one of the most nitpicky people in the world.”

Overall, this article provides great insight for anyone interested in the historical appropriateness of Mad Men’s language and pulls from a good variety of sources to demonstrate this, and using Mathew Weiner, the show’s creator as a main source certainly enhances the article.

Don Draper: A Randian Hero?

“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” - Ayn Rand 

The simplest summarization of the philosophy of Objectivism could strike someone as the implicit ideology of Don Draper.  The ethics of a rational man, according to Ayn Rand, author of the acclaimed novel Atlas Shrugged, determine the course of his life, through reasoning and his own objective observation and rejecting the notions of altruism and self-sacrifice.  Furthermore, happiness is only achievable to a rational man acting in accordance with these principles.  

Bert Cooper first makes reference to the similarities between Don Draper and Ayn Rand’s idealized rational man in the episode “The Hobo Code.”  “You are a productive and reasonable man, and in the end, completely self interested." But Don’s egoism is first presented to the audience in episode one, “Smoke Gets in your Eyes.”  By definition, the affair with Midge, once revealed as extramarital by the end of the episode, is an act of carnal and psychological selfishness.  Rand would argue that such an affair, if in accordance with one’s own morality, is a rational act, in addition to being an expression of positive self-esteem.  Once his life story is gradually revealed, Don’s rational egoism is further affirmed by his creating a new life for himself for his own selfish purpose.  He did so not at the expense of the real Don and Anna Draper, but as he eventually explains, he had to remove himself from his traumatic past, and he had to get out of Korea.  The only way to do so was to leave Dick Whitman behind.  

Don particularly resembles one character from Atlas Shrugged, Hank Rearden, an ambitious steel executive whose business is derailed by excessive government regulation.  Both men play the part of a solid provider, even when they receive little to no personal satisfaction from doing so.  Both men find the tenets of post-materialism to be illogical, such as when Don dismisses Midge’s friends’ criticism of his lifestyle in “The Hobo Code.”  Lastly, both men pursue intellectual and sexual relationships with independent businesswomen as a means of escaping the seemingly vacuous relationships they have with their wives.  It is because of these similarities that I believe the writers of Mad Men intended to have some basic axioms of Objectivism be prevalent in Don Draper’s life.  

In an attempt to avoid oversimplifying Don’s philosophical motivation, it should be fully recognized that he does not solely see through an Objectivist lens.  The whole notion of evading reality is asserted by his abandonment of his true identity.  Rand would argue that man should not act without knowing the purpose of his actions, which one could argue, that Don has never truly been cognizant of his immediate nor long-term future.  But there is something to be said for his individuality, his commitment to success, and his apparent rational egoism, even if it operates at the expense of Betty and his children.  Don is driven to make money for himself, not for others.  He strives to be the best ad man at Sterling Cooper, which makes his relationship with the aspiring Pete Campbell more contentious.  His mind operates within his definition of a sound business model, that which is the client is to adopt his idea. He uses his own objective, reasonable mind to govern his life and rarely accepts that which is fed to him by Roger, Betty, or Pete.  Rand writes in Atlas Shrugged that “Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not” (1012).  There is no doubt that Don chose to live by this assertion when his life spun out of control; he chose to repair it through volition.  

Critiquing Mad Men

In recent article published in New York Review of Books titled “The Mad Men Account," Daniel Mendelsohn criticizes the amount of praise and accolades given to Mad Men when it is really just a glorified soap opera. He claims that the show has been viewed in too bright of a light and does not deserve to be compared to shows such as The Wire and The Sopranos, both on HBO.

Mendelsohn cites weak writing, a chaotic and oftentimes unbelievable plot, and what he calls a “glib” attitude towards 1960’s culture that positions current attitudes and culture far too superior to it. Instead of creating an in-depth look at the problems of the times, ranging from misogyny to racism, Mendelsohn claims that the writers of Mad Men instead present an unrealistic look into an imagined American society. Similar to Latoya Peterson’s argument in “Why Mad Men Is Afraid of Race," Mendelsohn says that instead of Mad Men briefly introducing a topic such a racism and then ignoring it, the writers of the show should expound more upon this aspect of society. He cleverly calls this the writers “advertising” an issues rather than dramatizing it. In addition to criticizing the work of the shows creators, he also writes that the acting is almost always bland and uncreative, with the actors more focused on playing stereotypes then real people.

Even after showing the flaws of the show, Mendelsohn says that he has watched every episode and will continue to watch. He says the reason for this, and what he assumes is the reason for many other children of the 1960’s, is that is offers them a chance to see the world that their parents would have lived in. They view the world in the ways that Sally Draper and Glenn Bishop would have witnessed it, and Mad Men offers a glimpse into what society could have been.