So, I have this friend who is a cultural historian and an expert on pop culture (especially The Sopranos, as you’ll see). Thanks to me, she is also a Mad Men fan. In thinking about Mad Men and meta-text, I wrote to her because I knew she had the academic vocabulary and the all-around smarts to bounce ideas off of. in fact, Melissa is the first person to introduce me to the idea of meta-text, so of course she’s my go-to on the subject.
Here’s our correspondence, pretty much verbatim; I fixed some wording so I could omit our personal chat, but that’s all visible. I think it should keep us very busy in comments!
Deborah Lipp
One of the Basketcases mentioned that Matt Weiner ignored the meta-context of abortion on TV…So I started thinking about the way that Matt is kind of a victim of his own meta-context. He has trained his audience to read his show particularly closely, and now they’re complaining about his predictability. (Chekov’s engagement ring. Jessica Paré must be there for a reason and her gradual increase in visibility must mean something. And so on.)
Melissa
Honestly, I think the predictability isn’t such a bad thing. In reality, these aren’t such complex characters. Oh, the show is written with a definite depth, but what (I think) Weiner is doing is showing us that these characters are just not that fucking complex. They’re driven to react very predictably to situations. Like Don. I KNEW he’d end up with Megan. She satisfies a certain need—mother, eye candy, certain sophistication (but not too much), and he’s right back to Old Don. Of course it couldn’t be the shrink! She knows too much about him!Peggy and Joan were so stereotypically girly [in Tomorrowland], but the reality of it is that ANY women (and many men) would have dropped to the “oh-my-god-can-you-believe-that” gossipy stage. It’s very Sopranos-esque too, because Chase’s characters really weren’t that complex in hindsight. They just *are*.
Shopworn tropes are shopworn for a reason. Because they work and they’re so often true. I don’t believe Weiner is a victim of his own metatext. Is he making critical commentary of another text here? Is he anti-abortion and making a statement via Joan? Is he expanding on another text?
I think metanarrative is actually the term to apply here. This is a story about a story–one version of the American Dream from the perspective of people working in an ad agency in the 60s.
Deborah Lipp
Matt’s interviews shimmer with a certain frustration about fan reaction, but he’s created the reaction. Maybe it wouldn’t have been so incredibly predictable if the very nature of his narrative structures weren’t demanding that fans look closely. And once you look closely, well—[I think he was] irritated that people realized Joan didn’t have an abortion and that it was a major issue of ‘net conversation for weeks. … because it’s a television and movie trope that EVERY woman who plans an abortion walks out of the clinic still pregnant, his plot “twist” says things he didn’t intend to say.
See where I’m getting here?
Melissa
Interesting. Chase had similar frustration with fan reactions.We *do* look closely, and as a result we may get irritated if we’re hit upside the head with a shopworn trope. I actually enjoy the bumps on the noggin, but that’s just me. Shopworn tropes are…kinda like cliches. They’re true. He used that plot twist for Joan because (I firmly believe) it’s true to the character, as well as the character of the show. It sets up an incredible “NOW WHAT?” for next season–how is she going to explain this to Roger?
I haven’t been reading too much fan commentary because I’m up to my eyeballs in school work. I was prepping lectures right up to showtime last night. Is the general consensus after the big reveal last night that it was a cheap ploy? If so, I disagree wholeheartedly. Same thing with Don giving Megan Anna’s ring and the engagement. It worked for me because it was so totally true to the character.
Melissa
Still more…rambling and tossing out terms cause you’ve got me in literary theory mode.I think I told you I read an article or blog post that tried to call Don a post-modern hero. Of course I screamed: HORSESHIT!
Weiner is far from a post-modernist writer, which is why I keep going back to the term “metanarrative.” A story about a story. Story within a story. It’s self-reflective. Completely, hopelessly self-reflective. And intertextual with all the references/allusions to other works. And consciously self-referential. Postmodernists like to claim there is no such thing as a metanarrative. Instead, all we have are lots of little texts and no commonality. That’s too separatist for my taste. I’m a humanist scholar, and my work tells me there are no new stories, simply old ones in shiny new clothes. Or in this case, a new story in old clothes. Whatever.
I’ve also had the word bildungsroman going through my head now–psychological and moral growth of a character or characters (or maybe lack thereof? a sort of reversal of the concept in some cases?) as they look for answers to complex questions.
I understand Weiner’s frustration–not at the in-depth analysis because the show BEGS for it, but at the criticism towards his seeming “predictability.” I saw the Don and Meagan thing coming just like everyone else–especially with that Hitchcockian framing of her in the doorway while she put on lipstick. FUCKING BEAUTIFUL!
And you know what? It’s brilliant. Perfect. Appropriate. Entirely in keeping with the characters.
Shopworn TV/Movie tropes? Damn right. Hope he keeps ‘em coming.
Deborah Lipp
Can I quote this entire dialogue on the blog?Fan response is sharply divided. Which is kind of beautiful.
It’s so fantastic to watch with a huge crowd. Gasps. Cheers. Tears. I had to THINK ABOUT MY MAKEUP not to cry when Don told Sally his name was Dick. You *must* come up next year for the finale party.
Melissa
Sure! Quote away!I totally understand Weiner’s frustration… Analyzing a show is good. Over-analyzing is bad. There’s some non-thinking and over-thinking happening, and both are cringe-worthy.
Deborah Lipp
Yeah, [people over-analyze]. I blame Keyser Soze. He ruined how people look at media.Okay, let me ask this:
There’s been a lot of discussion in the feminist blogosphere that abortion NEVER occurs on TV or film as an ordinary life event, 4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days notwithstanding. It’s all Juno or Knocked Up or whatever. So I understand [people] to be saying that Joan’s unremarkable abortion could have served as a critique of all the shows that refuse to show that.
Now, I don’t think Matt is interested in critiquing television, I think he’s interested in *creating* television. But that’s beside the point.
Melissa P
NO, it isn’t beside the point, although I he’s not totally “creating” television, per se. He is giving us something new out of the cinematic foundation work already set.And why does Joan have to have an abortion? Seriously? It’s not an ordinary life event. It’s a horrible choice that some women have to make for a variety of reasons and I don’t think it should ever be normalized or approached in some nonchalant manner in order to make a point. Sure it would have served as a critique, but I think THAT would have a been a cheap way to make a point. Honestly, I found her initial reaction to be somewhat off-putting and uncomfortable. Until the scene in the waiting room when she’s talking to the mother whose daughter is having an abortion. Wow. Beautiful in its simplicity. And poignant. In the 60s, only “bad girls” got “in trouble.” If anything, I think Joan took charge of her own body by NOT having the abortion, whether the baby is Greg’s or Roger’s. Unlike Peggy, whose staunch Catholic upbringing led her to block out what was happening to her. Peggy would NEVER have considered an abortion…
Good call on Keyzer Soze.
Deborah Lipp
I think Peggy never considered the possibility of abortion. There was a quality of awakening when she watched that episode of The Defenders.Okay, so the whole, it’s not beside the point thing is where it gets into the academic side of it, and that’s something I didn’t know. Not sure I believe it–I think art transforms itself outside of the grasp of the artist, and that probably applies to the meta level as well.
Melissa P
Ding ding ding ding! The beauty of the critical process! We often say that those who can’t do, teach. And those who are failed artists become critics. Bullshit. Criticism allows us to become part of the artistic process and in turn is an art form. (Thank you, Oscar Wilde!)For me, art is an ongoing process between artist, product, and audience. BUT..really big caveat here…that doesn’t replace the intent of the artist and the artistic product.
Deborah Lipp
It’s always a fine line. You can definitely see where people are going off in strange directions sometime, and you’re like, wait, it’s Air Force One not Shakespeare. OTOH, there are times when Roberta and I absolutely disagree with Matt about his interpretation of his own writing, and I feel like we’re right and he’s wrong, and I feel like that’s something he built into it.
13 Responses to “Meta-textuality and Mad Men”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Re: Melissa’s comment here:
I agree with this. Joan’s decision seemed true, and not contrived. I think in a previous discussion, I may have mentioned that it did remind me a little bit of Miranda going in for an abortion on “Sex and the City,” and that very real moment where she said to Carrie, “What if this is my baby?” (And then of course, it was later revealed that she decided not to go through with the abortion.)
To be clear, I don’t think Mad Men was in any way copying off of SATC. But the situations had some similarity. Joan had already had two abortions, so having a third meant a very real possibility that she wouldn’t be able to conceive in the future. Miranda was somewhat older than Joan at the time she got pregnant, but she mentioned to Carrie about her “lazy ovary” and the fact that her boyfriend only had one testicle. She really thought that this might be her one chance to have a baby. In both situations, I don’t think the characters (Joan or Miranda) were making a case that abortion was wrong for everyone. Just that it wasn’t a decision that felt right for them at the time.
And since Juno is referenced above, sure the character of Juno could have gone through with the abortion, but if she had, there would have been no story.
This is awesome, you got me started alright.
There’s too much for me to say here.
I’m an academic too, and yes, true to form I may be overreaching but I’ve recently written a blog post about my 2 favourite things:
Mad Men and cultures of climate change which you can read here:
http://www.10waystosavetheworld.net/mad-men-smoking-climate-change.
Melissa: “Unlike Peggy, whose staunch Catholic upbringing led her to block out what was happening to her. Peggy would NEVER have considered an abortion…”
Deborah: “I think Peggy never considered the possibility of abortion. There was a quality of awakening when she watched that episode of The Defenders.”
Do you think Peggy knew what was happening to her? I got the sense from her horrified reaction that she honestly didn’t know she was pregnant. I don’t think the Church had anything to do with it.
And if she had, she would not have had an abortion BUT she might have sought some advice and help. Back in those days, there were places that girls went for their confinement before turning their children over for adoption.
This is so neat! Thank you for sharing!
Brenda, I think what Melissa was saying was that Peggy’s Catholicism contributed to the denial that caused her not to know she was pregnant. Perhaps she’ll chime in.
(Regular Commenter Melissa here, not Scholar Melissa)
I wish I could find an essay I read long, long ago about Greek tragedy, and how you can often see what’s coming a mile away, and you want the characters to see it coming, too, and stop it before it happens, but they can’t and it’s important that they don’t. It was something along the lines of, “Again and again we see Oedipus blinded, and we cry, ‘Do not!’”
It’s how I used to feel watching Fawlty Towers. As hilarious as it was, it was physically painful to not be able to reach into the TV, give Basil a good shake, and make him understand what he should do differently to avoid being the architect of his own misery.
I’m so glad you posted this! I totally agree with Melissa on the non-abortion. I wish I could communicate so well.
Love this dialogue — so clear, fair, yet full of character. May I link to this on my own blog?
I think my favorite part is Scholar Melissa saying that criticism and audience discussion become part of the art once it has left the artist’s hands. Just about equal is her observation that the “Hitchcockian” framing of Megan in a doorway as she put on lipstick was the message that She’s The One — EXCELLENT! David Mamet published a book of essays about dramatic writing several years ago, and the one line that jumped out and stuck in my brain was, “Tell the story in the cut.”
The cut – ie. the shift from one image or setting to another – and the frame, these are the alphabet of cinematic storytelling.
Discussing a series is like dream interpretation by committee. Tricky. The unspoken wish is to be able to wake up inside the dream (or real life, for that matter) and take charge for a while.
Thanks for posting. Thanks to Scholar Melissa for permission to use the conversation.
Feel free to give us the link, joyjoy.
Shopworn tropes are shopworn for a reason. Because they work and they’re so often true…
We *do* look closely, and as a result we may get irritated if we’re hit upside the head with a shopworn trope. I actually enjoy the bumps on the noggin, but that’s just me. Shopworn tropes are…kinda like cliches. They’re true…
I’m a humanist scholar, and my work tells me there are no new stories, simply old ones in shiny new clothes. Or in this case, a new story in old clothes. Whatever.
Thanks much for this! I enjoy the bumps on the noggin, too, and sometimes get annoyed when people yell “cliche” or “stereotype” while I’m thinking “tradition” and “archetype” (or even, when I’m feeling ambitious, “”classic form” and “myth.”)
Alright, if everyone keeps referring to me as “Scholar Melissa” I just might end up with an out of proportion ego. I prefer “professional appreciator.”
Here’s my chime in on Peggy’s Catholicism. I do believe that her staunch Catholic upbringing contributed to the denial. The religio-ethnic (did I just coin a term?) background and social environment of Peggy’s family really serve to further this view, especially the interaction with Father Gil. Yet, he seems a tad uncomfortable with the attention paid to him by Peggy’s mother and sister. Of course, I shrieked when he was alone in his room playing a guitar. Shades of future guitar Mass, perhaps? I can’t help but find it rather telling that Peggy’s evolution so far coincides with Vatican II. Priest- with- acoustic guitar pretty much drove that point home for me.
Melville: YES!! Go for the ambitious. Mad Men is, in a sense, mythological. The functions of myth (even “modern” myth) have not changed. Myths affirm the values, customs, and beliefs of a particular culture, reinforcing bonds through the development of unquestioned “truths.” Myths trace origins, ethics, morality, and evolution of social structures. We get to see these characters evolve during the most turbulent decade of rapid change in American history.
“Professional Appreciator” Melissa do you think that Don is an archetype of the ‘anti-hero’ like Butch and Sundance or Bonnie Clyde? Do you root for Don inspite of his petty cruelty or do you root against DD because he’s a dark bad guy who seemingly can’t be redeemed? IMHO Don is not that bad; he doesn’t kill or steal or participate in illegal commerce. (He did do that small little thing in Korea). He just happens to like girls……………….a lot.
“[I think he was] irritated that people realized Joan didn’t have an abortion and that it was a major issue of ‘net conversation for weeks. … because it’s a television and movie trope that EVERY woman who plans an abortion walks out of the clinic still pregnant, his plot “twist” says things he didn’t intend to say.”
You know, it’s a trope here in North America, but only here in North America. I’ve been following the Guardian’s blogs about Mad Men as it was shown in the UK (they just finished with season 4 last November 30), and the viewers there were shocked to find out that Joan KEPT her baby!
When I commented that it’s the done thing here, because of media politics and societal politics in general (they just don’t have a powerfully organized religious right influencing their governments in Europe), people actually thought the idea was unfounded (and wrote things like “What about Maude! She had an abortion!” which then meant I had to contextualize that show in its time–and how things have changed drastically on TV and film since the seventies).
I found that really enlightening–and puzzling. It was hard for me as a North American to see how so many British viewers really thought Joan opted out of motherhood all together. That scene where she was on the bus, looking peaceful and calm? People there understood that she looked “at peace” because the abortion took care of the dilemma.