mad about mad men

** Warning: this post contains spoilers about the finale of Mad Men Season 4.

The most captivating and heartwarming romance on Mad Men has been that of the audience slowly falling for Pete Campbell. Don Draper saw it before the rest of us did. As the third season drew to a close, Don warmed to Pete Campbell. In the final episode of the season, Don Draper singled out Pete to be a young partner at the new agency. With a start, I realized that I too had developed a soft spot for Pete Campbell. Without my knowledge, Pete had transitioned from being that whiny entitled brat to one of my favorite characters on the show. This transition was subtle, sneaky, and yet completely believable. It's a prime example of the kind of magic that Mad Men writers typically produce. Surprising, engaging and understandable.

Which brings us to the final episode of the last season: Tomorrowland. It was awful. Yes, after all these months, I'm still upset about how terrible this episode was. Maybe Don Draper is ahead of the curve again and I'm missing something, but until this proves to be the case, I'll remain frustrated and disappointed.

It wasn't just that we wanted to see Don stick it out with Faye. Television that always indulged our obvious desires and never surprised would be boring television. I didn't need things to go smoothly. I needed things to go believably. That Don would so abruptly convince himself that he was in love and propose to Megan was ridiculous and most importantly unsupported by the writing before that episode. Sure, we saw her come onto him clumsily in a prior episode. We saw him glancing at her in the penultimate episode, suddenly realizing that she was pretty. Still, what about the whole season with Faye? What about the laps in the swimming pool, getting past alcoholism? In short, why did the writers toss all of Don Draper's growth out the window, and why did they do it so clumsily?

Having said all that, do we really need to wait until 2012 for redemption?

West on Obama

reading make believe

When it comes to selecting books to read, I try to alternate between fiction and non-fiction. Of course I will occasionally break the rule if I become very engaged with an idea or with an author, but as much as possible, I try to stick to this heuristic. I like rules of thumbs and this one helps me to ensure that I am reading a good balance of fiction and non-fiction.

Some of my friends claim to only read non-fiction. This always strikes me as odd; my initial reaction is you're missing out on so much! When I ask why, people usually tell me that they feel like it would be wrong to waste time on fiction when there is so much out there for them to learn and become aware of. As the thinking goes, why read a made up story when there are real things to learn about. Surely our western revere for the liberal arts should leave us better off than to fall prey to this deeply flawed and illogical conclusion. To think that we don't learn from literature is deeply disrespectful to the world of art and betrays an arrogance in placing other fields of knowledge on a pedestal.

Fiction, and the fine arts generally, teach us things about humanity and emotion that we cannot always gleam from non-fiction. You won't learn as many facts. I can acknowledge this, but when did knowledge ever end (or even begin) with facts? Art gives us a better understanding of the peripheries. Fiction is a part of this tradition.

Oddly, I hear this sentiment most often from those friends who have some political and social awareness and engagement. Implicit in their reasoning is a haughty self righteousness: these people are too principled to waste time on fiction when there is a world to better. To this, I would respond: it is no coincidence that so many great thinkers have lauded the critical importance and indeed necessity of a vibrant arts community in any successful democracy. This is not just fluffy feel-good talk. Where else can we explore the boundaries of acceptability and possibility? In fiction and make believe, we can explore our potential. We can subtly dissent and ask questions of authority that in other forums may prove to be more uncomfortable. We can be provocative and say: "Oh that? It was just make believe." All the same, people will be thinking.

It seems to me that fiction is particularly important as an antidote to the worship we accord to free market capitalism in so many developed economies. In choosing to read fiction and partake in the arts, we acknowledge the inherent limits of the market-based analysis that so often consumes us. We acknowledge that not everything can be priced and that the best of an enlightened society means broadening our thinking beyond a cold and simplistic understanding of utility. Moreover, as I alluded to above, the arts provide a safe space where we can collectively challenge prevailing norms and explore our limits in a socially acceptable way.

I would love to hear from some of you who choose to only read non-fiction. From my vantage point, you are stunting your own personal development and also failing to engage fully as social and political beings. I'd welcome your arguments otherwise.