Current work

Become a Fan

« Victory margins in presidential elections: Kansas, 1864-2008 | Main | Top 100 sitcom episodes of all time, No. 39: "Mixology Certification," Community »

May 31, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I was really put off by Linda Holmes's very thoughtful but ultimately unconvincing piece. It felt like a long justification for feeling icky about a plot turn that, well, we were supposed to feel icky about.

Regarding your suggestion that Pete could have been the one to prostitute himself, a commenter on AV Club, I think, pointed out that Don had a different reaction back when Sal rebuffed the advances of the cigarette company scion: He wondered why Sal didn't just go through with it.


You're being very unfair to both of those reviews. Both of them explicitly say that Joan having sex for a partnership could have been done successfully, if it were done differently. I don't think pretending that your alternate suggestions are the only other options is fair play.

Robert David Sullivan

Tony: I remember that about Sal. Don may have been buying into the stereotype of gay men (and maybe men in general) as willing to fuck anything. This might also be part of the gender politics of the time: Men have sex for pleasure, women have sex to get something.

Robert David Sullivan

Christina: I didn't mean to suggest that those reviews are invalid or badly reasoned. But I think they raise an interesting question of whether we can become too protective of TV characters. That doesn't necessarily mean that Poniewozik and Holmes are wrong in this particular case.

The comments to this entry are closed.

  • Write to me at robertdavidsullivan at gmail dot com.