I am, I'm sure, one of the many people on the planet who find Mad Men insufferable. Indeed, I would venture to guess that there are more people who find Mad Men insufferable than are those who find brill and insightful. Why? These kinds of posts in which way to much is proven. Or because of consensus between flying monkeys and anti-flying monkeys on the greatness of Mad Men by virtue of is depthiness, which is -- I am going to suggest -- actual evidence of it's depthlessness. I mean really, if someone you think is too dumb to tie his shoes suddenly writes a mash note to a tv show, it's time to reassess your view not double down on it. The depthlessness of Mad Men is the reason folks get to pour all manner of meaning into it. I've watched a couple of episodes and it strikes me as a typical TV show, which is to say badly written with thin characters burdened with silly plot devices, and a deep commitment to pretending to be profound by being as superficial as possible.
Allegedly Leopold Frieherr von Ranke was reading one or another of Scott's historical romances and generally enjoying himself when it occurred to him that there was no way that Scott could know what he was claiming to know and the truth was most likely far more interesting than Scott's fiction. This is, I think, true and this account of the actual men and women who created Mad Men proves von Ranke's point. This post doublely proves von Ranke's genius, as if von Ranke's genius needed proving, by showing how incoherent real WWII is if viewed as a fictional narrative.
If you want to write about TV here's the model. Pick solidly nobrow or lowbrow or hilowbrow fair and wallow in the various pleasures it offers while mocking the pleasures.