Don and Megan
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Mad Men
Karl Aksel — 5 years ago(June 26, 2020 07:06 AM)
When Megan breaks up with Don, he offers to give her everything she needs because he "owes her that much". She says that he doesn't owe her anything, and she seems to mean it.
A few episodes later, she's all about how Don "ruined her life". Come again? How has her failings as an actress been Don's fault? Yes, she quit her soap for him, but here's the thing:
-She wanted to go to California. She was damn well eager.
-She had, in fact, dreamt of California for some time, but stuck with her soap because Don lived in New York.
-Don's suggestion that they move to California, then, gave her just the opportunities she had always wanted.
-Don decided to stay in New York. But so what? Megan moved to California anyway. Would her career be more successful if Don had moved with her?
-When Don suspects he is getting fired, he suggests he could move in with her and start over in California. That's when she breaks up with him.
In short, Don gave Megan a chance to pursue her ambitions. He is not to blame that she failed to land the big parts. -
Lukey Socky — 5 years ago(June 26, 2020 09:56 AM)
Stunningly accurate and insightful analysis.
As most men know, this string of events portrays one more example of "a woman can and will change her mind at any time about anything, whether it makes logical sense or not, and will go to her grave with her reasons, never willing or able to divulge or explain said reasons to anyone, least of all those she left suffering in her wake."
The very definition of capriciousness.
Agreed? -
Karl Aksel — 5 years ago(June 26, 2020 06:01 PM)
That's a bit pointed, but it's not that far from truth. In the case of fiction, of course, the characters come from the writers. I don't know who wrote or directed the relevant episodes, but I find it funny that either a) no one objected to how Megan was written, or b) that the objections were overruled.
-
Karl Aksel — 5 years ago(June 26, 2020 11:23 PM)
I replied the way I did because you replied the way you did. And you replied as if I was reaching out to you specifically. "Thanks for letting me know" - with a reply like that, why did you reply at all? Oh, and I notice you changed your user name from "I'm the woman you hate" to "Lisa Flowers". Way to be a dick.
-
Gigi S. — 5 years ago(June 26, 2020 11:33 PM)
I'm just not in the mood for this hostility from a weird person such as yourself. I was being nice, you obviously have a few screws loose. We can change our usernames at will. I don't know what else to tell you other than what occurred beteeen us initially wasn't as confusing as you are making it out to be. Please don't keep arguing with me over this. Thanks.
-
Karl Aksel — 5 years ago(June 27, 2020 06:07 AM)
If I misinterpreted your meaning, then my apologies. Your initial response seemed to be quite hostile (as if you were saying, "yawn, nobody cares"), but your username gave me an opportunity to reply in an ambiguous way. I figured if your initial reply was not meant to be hostile, then you would interpret my reply to you as tongue-in-cheek. If, however, your first post
was
hostile, then my response could be interpreted as equally hostile. Your reply, which came with a name change which made
my
reply seem
overtly
hostile, seemed to confirm the latter.
This new tack of playing the meek little kitten who has never been anything but nice doesn't convince me, however, because for sure, at no point were you being
nice
.