we were just pretending

“It’s the difference between giving a character a reason for action and giving her emotionalmotivation. A reason is, “I need money.” A motivation is, “I give up; I’m exhausted; maybe this is the best I can do.” And that difference matters, a lot, for a psychologically realistic drama like Mad Men. Joan’s actions can’t make sense just because the arc of season 5 needs them to. They can’t make sense because they fit the themes of the episode. They can’t make sense because “it really happened to someone once.” And they can’t make sense because “that was what it was like for women back then.”

Because Joan isn’t “women.” She’s a woman. She isn’t “someone.” She’s a specific character. Indeed, one thing that elevates Mad Men from so many lousy ’60s dramas is that it treats its characters as idiosyncratic people, not stand-ins for social forces and demographic groups. Her actions have to make sense because they are what she would do, not anyone else.”

Though I really liked a lot about this episode, I also agree with what Poniewozik is saying here, and he argues it really well. And in a larger sense, this character vs. larger narrative debate is for me at the heart of what makes great storytelling and what falls short—in any medium.