Mad Men, but not Madness: on the literary and social relevance of this show (Part I Don Draper)

I’ve seen responses to this show ranging from the-best-thing-ever type worship, to is-there-something-I’m-missing disregard. While my own feelings tend to the former, what I’m doing here is considering just some of the literary implications of this show, starting with the main character, Don Draper, played by Jon Hamm.

That Don Draper captures us is due, at least in part, to the great archetypal admixture that he embodies. In other words, he resembles some of the coolest aspects of some of the coolest characters in western literature. Here, I’ll briefly consider two: Moses and Odysseus.

Freud on Moses: Freud suggests* that the second family, the one where the hero's story actually takes place, is the real family. The birth family is a fictitious family. This is an archetypal story construct that is at play in AMC’s Mad Men. Don Draper’s mysterious past hints at a potential social conflict, but the hints are slight. Draper is not part of a society founded on social register. That he is self-made may possibly be more impressive to his friends and family than the implication that he is from a well-to-do family. Therefore, like Moses, Draper appears from seemingly out of nowhere.

Draper in many ways echoes Odysseus. In episode 11 of season 2 (“The Jet Set”), Don languishes in a California dream with guest character Joy. In his lotus-eating haze, he indulges in an affair, leaving co-worker Pete Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser) high and dry. His eventual return to his job is accompanied with an immovable sense of confidence. Draper has a certain exemption from most of the discomforts of the other characters. In this way, he is like Odysseus tied to the bow, listening to the song of the sirens, while everyone else stands around with wax in their ears.


* Joseph Campbell, in Occidental Mythology, when speaking of Freud's theory regarding Moses (Campbell, 128).