<p>The real Don Draper was born in like 1918.</p>
<p>I interpreted Peggy’s faux pas as leading her into an ethical/loyalty crisis (that will involve a scene with Don?) and thereby the mechanism that gets her back to the old firm. I don’t see Stan as her friend as much as her link to Sterling, Cooper, Draper, et al…that is never severed.</p>
<p>Re Peggy: I see Pete coming back into her life.</p>
<p>^^^Yep, but Don will end up being Peggy and Pete’s kid’s little league coach :)</p>
<p>I’m a long time CC reader but first time poster-- and appreciate insights on everything from colleges and parenting to Mad Men.
With regard to Don’s age, I’m puzzled by the claim that his chronology doesn’t make sense (or that his “real birthday” was 1918)… Don’s 40th birthday was at the beginning of season 5-- spring of 1966. In that episode, when Megan says something about turning 40, he says he’s already been 40 for 6 months-- meaning his (Dick’s) real 40th birthday would have been around Nov./Dec. 1965. that would make him born in 1925, so 24-5 and draftable in 1950 for Korea. Or am I missing something?</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see how fall Pete is going to fall without Trudy? I think he will be going to some dark, dark places.</p>
<p>Don would have been draft age in WWII, specifically 1944 if he was born in 1926. While it’s technically possible he would have been drafted for Korea - the draft age extended to, I think, 29 - I’ve seen stuff by veterans that say in 1952 and 53 they weren’t bringing in people that old. If you saw the show when Don is in Korea, Jon Hamm plays him as a wide-eyed kid, not a 25 year old.</p>
<p>You can find many podcasts around the web discussing the latest episode. This is one that I’ve found to be thought provoking and covers a lot of ground in about an hour. If you have the time, give a listen.</p>
<p><a href=“https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/drawing-a-blankenship/id633246697[/url]”>https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/drawing-a-blankenship/id633246697</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure it did, especially for a more traditional character like Trudy. Trudy has always been highly invested in appearances, and moving up and out to a nice house in one of the better suburbs to start a family was how you showed the world your husband had made it in business.</p>
<p>Megan’s desire to stay in NYC is reflective of her more rebellious character. Not that we all don’t wish - now - to have purchased that apartment for $75,000 in the mid 1960s.</p>
<p>Edited to add, I ran an inflation calculator and 75,000 in 1968 would be $500,000 in 2013. Probably 25% of what such an apartment would cost in Manhattan today.</p>
<p>I have read many interesting posts about the symbolism in Mad Men and agree with much of it. I have seen every episode and in earlier seasons looked forward to every story development. This season I am finding that I dislike every character so much that I may not continue to watch the series. I suppose I having been hoping all along for Don to forgive himself. At this point I don’t see it happening. If Don is going out that window, it’s time to finish up the series.</p>
<p>Just started watching – I’m halfway through Season 1. 
The style, the clothes, the attitudes toward women, the smoking and drinking all the time – I’m fascinated by all of it. Both of my parents are gone now, but that was the era I spent my childhood in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is exactly how I am feeling as well. I’ll give it one or two more episodes…</p>
<p>Last night’s episode was very interesting. I love that we got to see more of Dawn and her true feelings about the people who work at SCDP (is Price still a part of the name?).
Harry continues to be vile and the decor of his office reveals how truly awful his taste is. Poor Joan continues to pay the price for her path to partnership and the glimpse of her personal life through her sister’s visit shows how sad it continues to be, in spite of her new position at work. Clearly she isn’t treated as an equal partner which is very realistic for a woman of her time and I just wonder how much change she’s going to be able to make. I am hoping for an alliance of sorts with Dawn who shows lots of potential as an interesting character.</p>
<p>Don and Megan’s relationship continues to disintegrate, as expected. Was anyone else as glad as I was that neither SCDP nor Peggy’s new agency was successful in winning the big Heinz account?</p>
<p>Did everyone catch the big bird that Stan flipped Peggy? That was my favorite part of last night’s episode.</p>
<p>Yes, the bird was great.</p>
<p>And Don heading to his lover directly after being upset about the soap love scene. </p>
<p>The only woman Don has respect for is Peggy–his expression while eavesdropping her presentation.</p>
<p>I think that Don respects Joan too. I loved their interaction last season.</p>
<p>I think he respects Joan, but also feels very protective of her. With Peggy I think he recognizes that she is his equal.</p>
<p>A few things didn’t make sense:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Joan’s firing of Harry’s secretary. They seemed to want to dramatize a power issue but she shouldn’t be doing that. The protocol is to talk to Harry and make an appropriate decision not to try to exercise power. </p></li>
<li><p>The entire Heinz fiasco. Timmy the Ketchup guy’s interest in SCDP is that Beans is doing so well now. How can he fix that? He goes through a charade to make the guy fire the ad agency that is helping the Beans brand do better. It seemed to me everyone got played by Timmy and the Beans guy bought it, which perhaps shows why he’s not running Ketchup. But why in the name of heaven do you fire the ad agency that is helping your sales and getting you corporate attention? It makes no sense. I thought that was a rare real business misstep in the plotting. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>BTW, as to the advertising, I thought Don’s approach was really good. Easily fixed up by including a partial image, maybe a shadow of the Heinz bottle, but really intelligent. I can see a hand reaching for a bottle over a hamburger along with the tagline. Lots of room to work there. I thought Peggy’s work was workmanlike; it plays off the reality of the marketplace but doesn’t really “change the conversation” as much as she says. It’s just a big image of the Heinz bottle, which is essentially how Heinz was then marketing and the way Coke often markets. It’s the picture of the icon everyone knows. BTW, anyone old enough remembers the Heinz ads from the mid-70’s using Carly Simon’s Anticipation to make a huge virtue out of the thickness of the ketchup. That plays in the customers’ heads.</p>
<p>I think a lot of the symbolism was really blunt. I thought they did a nice job of conveying open sexuality versus hidden. The people who hide who they are become less comfortable as society allows people to express who they are. </p>
<p>Like everyone, I was horrified by Don’s abuse of Megan. </p>
<p>I am not sure why they are so turned off by Harry Crane. He not only does an important job but he has been creative in it from the beginning. Maybe they need someone to exclude. </p>
<p>I enjoyed the plot with Dawn though I was disappointed they shot her meetings with her friend in the same location each time. She is torn between worlds, an issue that continued to grow in importance. She is treated as a friend by Harry’s secretary. She is valued by Joan. Don stands up for her in his way at the partners’ meeting. But it is tough for her. When I look at Dawn, I think about the black kids in my classes in elementary. We were friends. But they all lived in the city - and I envied their old, cool houses compared to my clean-lined tri-level - and they would only come to my house for parties. I think in 1968 I switched to public school. There were no black or Asian kids. I didn’t think of it at the time but I suppose the Sarkisians were as ethnic as it got there, except of course for us Jews in a mostly Catholic area. I remember 1 black kid in middle school. The suburbs weren’t integrated then. It’s interesting to reverse the feelings: being the only white person in the crowds at Northland or being in a crowd of all Jews in Tel Aviv instead of the only one in the room.</p>
<p>I enjoyed hearing Brigitte Bardot and Serge Gainsbourg singing “Bonnie and Clyde”, though the song’s a bit of an earworm.</p>
<p>It looked to me like Megan was materially less attractive. Anyone else notice? If she was made to look less attractive, why?</p>