The differences between Tom Rath and Donald Draper are fairly immense. One is stuck in the war in which he faced many horrors; one is embarrassed by a past that forced an identity change. While Rath struggles to find success in the corporate world, Draper views his corporate world as an escape from all else. Although, Rath and Draper’s personalities clash to an extreme degree I think the qualities in which they share are very interesting. They both have a multiple world syndrome; the war, their job and their home life. They have secrets that they feel they must keep from everyone else, and they both look at life with a sense of cynical realism.
“You’re born alone and you die alone and this world drops things on you to make you forget it,” Draper’s depressing words reflect not only his own philosophy, but that of Rath, “Things just happen…they happen and they happen again and anybody who tries to make sense out of it goes out of his mind” (96). This sense of naturalism engrained in these characters makes them more similar than any difference can account for. But why are these qualities so important? Why is the absence of Draper’s family’s importance in Mad Men the same as the lack of the corporation in The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit? Both these characters seem to reject these ideals respectively, yet how can they still essentially represent the same character?
I think more importantly than these particular specifics to the story, is the general mood of it. If the mood is carried through from one medium to another, can we deem it an adaptation? The two stories are different in so many ways (time period, setting, corporate life, et cetera) yet they contain so many of the same values. Does mood and memory then carry more weight than the actual story itself? Many of the problems I had with the adaptations of the “Mama” stories came from the fact that the mood changed so dramatically over the different forms. What then is mood? How can it capture so much in so different stories? What is its purpose in stories and the idea of adaptation?
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
I found the following passage in The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit interesting:
"In this strange, polite world high in the sky above Rockefeller Center, maybe nobody ever really got fired. Maybe all Hopkins did was to give a man nothing to do, absolutely nothing to do, until he started to go out of his mind sitting uselessly in his office all day, and resigned. Maybe that was the polite, smooth way to get rid of a man nobody wanted" (138).
In the passage we get a conflation of the heaven/hell dichotomy. What is usually thought of as the ideal place, where one gets paid to sit and do nothing, turns out to be a peculiar kind of torture to Tom, his own private hell. Perhaps this is a further sign of Tom's cynicism, but I think there's something else working in this passage beyond just characterizing his temperament. Wilson provides us in this passage with an empty space situated within the rat-race usually associated with the corporate world. There's a sort of fear inherent in this space that the moment there's no work then there's no worker. Tom might as well have disappeared in this scene, at least in his own thinking, since he momentarily serves no purpose in the community of which he has become a part. This line of thinking is interesting especially since it is usually seen to come from the top: managers worried that workers are not utilizing every moment of their time to perform pertinent work. It is also an inversion of the Marxist concept of surplus-labor in which workers labor beyond the hours they are actually paid for. I'm not quite sure what to make of the implications of the passage yet but I think it would make a good topic for classroom discussion.
"In this strange, polite world high in the sky above Rockefeller Center, maybe nobody ever really got fired. Maybe all Hopkins did was to give a man nothing to do, absolutely nothing to do, until he started to go out of his mind sitting uselessly in his office all day, and resigned. Maybe that was the polite, smooth way to get rid of a man nobody wanted" (138).
In the passage we get a conflation of the heaven/hell dichotomy. What is usually thought of as the ideal place, where one gets paid to sit and do nothing, turns out to be a peculiar kind of torture to Tom, his own private hell. Perhaps this is a further sign of Tom's cynicism, but I think there's something else working in this passage beyond just characterizing his temperament. Wilson provides us in this passage with an empty space situated within the rat-race usually associated with the corporate world. There's a sort of fear inherent in this space that the moment there's no work then there's no worker. Tom might as well have disappeared in this scene, at least in his own thinking, since he momentarily serves no purpose in the community of which he has become a part. This line of thinking is interesting especially since it is usually seen to come from the top: managers worried that workers are not utilizing every moment of their time to perform pertinent work. It is also an inversion of the Marxist concept of surplus-labor in which workers labor beyond the hours they are actually paid for. I'm not quite sure what to make of the implications of the passage yet but I think it would make a good topic for classroom discussion.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit
So I haven't finished the book; I have to say, though, that it reminds me a lot of Revolutionary Road. I'm actually writing my paper on that; it was a book first. The plots are similar, although Revolutionary Road does not have as much emphasis on the war. So I actually wondered if that was an adaptation of -- or at least inspired by -- The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit. I can't remember for sure if I ever saw the 2 connected in the press.
I felt like, even though Mad Men actually had a similar plot to The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, it had a different tone. It didn't seem quite as depressing, and there were humorous points where we laughed. I'm not sure if that's just because it's TV or not -- the whole change of form thing we've been studying. I did think that the ambiguity about Don Draper's marriage in the 1st episode we watched was a good twist; I didn't think he was married throughout the show, but I did wonder about it. And then at the end, we find out that he was.
I felt like, even though Mad Men actually had a similar plot to The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, it had a different tone. It didn't seem quite as depressing, and there were humorous points where we laughed. I'm not sure if that's just because it's TV or not -- the whole change of form thing we've been studying. I did think that the ambiguity about Don Draper's marriage in the 1st episode we watched was a good twist; I didn't think he was married throughout the show, but I did wonder about it. And then at the end, we find out that he was.
the "luxury" of suffering?
my first taste of mad men has led me to wonder which version of 'reality'–that of the tv show, versus that of the world of sloan wilson–is most accurate. or can they co-exist together? i guess what i mean is that the tv show addresses ideological crises that are missing from the novel, like the blatantly misogynistic attitude that men hold for women, and that women hold for themselves. or..."missing" isn't the right word. i think i'm judging man in the gray flannel suit from a modern perspective, and mad men is also "judging" the fifties from a modern perspective, so we both see things that either weren't "seen" in wilson's eyes, or else were seen but were not seen as remarkable.
in fact, in the example of misogyny that i mentioned, betsy's role actually gives her a lot more freedom and equal footing with tom, than i thought was granted to women in general in mad men, with perhaps the exception of megan (though she, of course, is able to procure this only by remaining a single woman). sloan wilson hardly addresses sexism, so from his narrative's viewpoint, it doesn't exist. rather, the injustices he expresses in the world that tom and betsy live in, are fueled by economy and politics, and equally brutalize men and women–or at least, they do for those directly involved in war (tom and maria are the only characters given some real homage for what they suffer during the war).
if betsy suffers, it doesn't seem to matter much to wilson, maybe because she refrains from the pessimism that keeps her spouse from rising above such things, or maybe because wilson doesn't feel that she's suffered. but mad men suggests that there's such a darker level of suffering pressed down beneath the surface of the smiling, well-groomed, deferential woman, and i try to imagine what my life would be like if i were betsy, the good wife, trapped just like her husband, but not allowed to show suffering. for if she did, then wilson could never give the novel a "happy ending," because tom would never be able to get over the luxury of his own suffering.
in fact, in the example of misogyny that i mentioned, betsy's role actually gives her a lot more freedom and equal footing with tom, than i thought was granted to women in general in mad men, with perhaps the exception of megan (though she, of course, is able to procure this only by remaining a single woman). sloan wilson hardly addresses sexism, so from his narrative's viewpoint, it doesn't exist. rather, the injustices he expresses in the world that tom and betsy live in, are fueled by economy and politics, and equally brutalize men and women–or at least, they do for those directly involved in war (tom and maria are the only characters given some real homage for what they suffer during the war).
if betsy suffers, it doesn't seem to matter much to wilson, maybe because she refrains from the pessimism that keeps her spouse from rising above such things, or maybe because wilson doesn't feel that she's suffered. but mad men suggests that there's such a darker level of suffering pressed down beneath the surface of the smiling, well-groomed, deferential woman, and i try to imagine what my life would be like if i were betsy, the good wife, trapped just like her husband, but not allowed to show suffering. for if she did, then wilson could never give the novel a "happy ending," because tom would never be able to get over the luxury of his own suffering.
It's a great time to be female
The 2 episodes of Mad Men we watched, although very entertaining, did not seem to have much in common with flannel man book except for the setting... kind of. The main character in Mad Men and The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit was a male with a job and a family, often wore suits, and drank a lot of liquor. Other than that, it seemed like a completely different everything.
In Mad Men, the main character was already the boss and he did not seem to be desperate for a promotion. He WAS a veteran but of a different war. Characters from the book like the doctor, the lawyer, Hopkins, and the nannyish woman never made an appearance. The main character did not seem to question the meaning of everyday life, and his goals seemed to be different than the goals of the flannel man.
HAVING SAID THAT, I feel like I'm looking at it the wrong way and we weren't supposed to watch this with the mindset that it was a direct adaptation of the flannel man book. It seems more like an adaptation of a time period, lifestyle, and culture. If I look at it that way, it seems to be much more accurate. The images in the show were similar to the images I was generating while reading the book. There was a certain dissatisfaction, but each respective medium took a different view of it. Mainly, the flannel man seemed to be way more obsessed with money. The mad man seemed to be more uncertain as to what it was he wanted.
In conclusion, I feel like I missed something and I'm writing about the complete wrong thing because Mad Men and The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit do not seem related at all, or maybe just slightly vaguely coincidentally related.
In Mad Men, the main character was already the boss and he did not seem to be desperate for a promotion. He WAS a veteran but of a different war. Characters from the book like the doctor, the lawyer, Hopkins, and the nannyish woman never made an appearance. The main character did not seem to question the meaning of everyday life, and his goals seemed to be different than the goals of the flannel man.
HAVING SAID THAT, I feel like I'm looking at it the wrong way and we weren't supposed to watch this with the mindset that it was a direct adaptation of the flannel man book. It seems more like an adaptation of a time period, lifestyle, and culture. If I look at it that way, it seems to be much more accurate. The images in the show were similar to the images I was generating while reading the book. There was a certain dissatisfaction, but each respective medium took a different view of it. Mainly, the flannel man seemed to be way more obsessed with money. The mad man seemed to be more uncertain as to what it was he wanted.
In conclusion, I feel like I missed something and I'm writing about the complete wrong thing because Mad Men and The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit do not seem related at all, or maybe just slightly vaguely coincidentally related.
Norman Rockwell(?)
Personally, I love Mad Men. I think it's a great show and I definitely see how it can relate to Gray Flannel. I think when someone mentions the 1950's/early 60's, you mind tends to go to rock-n-roll, poodle skirts, and Happy Days - the quintessential Norman Rockwell painting. Yet this two pieces speak to the discontentment of the middle-class masses.
In both examples there really is a sense of the discontented gap between one's work life and one's home life. Tom Rath wants to have that pulling desire to spend time with his family, but he is rather complacent towards them. At the end of the book, he makes a conscious decision to choose the job that will keep him closer to his family, but as I stated in class, I didn't really buy the ending to the book. I would have been happier to see him accept his unhappiness and move on.
Anyway, I think this disconnect is portrayed elegantly in the Mad Men pilot. When you first see Don Draper, he is in a bar, smoking and drinking, his only care what to pitch at the Lucky Strikes meeting. As the episode goes on, you see that all of the secretaries in the office worship him and he has a convenient "relationship" with a greeting-card designer in the village (while simultaneously flirting with a Jewish department store heiress). I assume from a male perspective, this life would be "the dream." But at the end of the episode, you see the silhouette of a man getting off the train at Ossining, driving up to a picturesque white Colonial house, and Don Draper walks through the door. He goes upstairs to kiss his beautiful wife, and checks on his two children asleep in bed. As the camera pans out, you see mother, father, and children framed in a Norman Rockwell look-alike. Does this count as the ideal model of 50's family life when we have been privy to his disconnected "city behaviors"?
In both examples there really is a sense of the discontented gap between one's work life and one's home life. Tom Rath wants to have that pulling desire to spend time with his family, but he is rather complacent towards them. At the end of the book, he makes a conscious decision to choose the job that will keep him closer to his family, but as I stated in class, I didn't really buy the ending to the book. I would have been happier to see him accept his unhappiness and move on.
Anyway, I think this disconnect is portrayed elegantly in the Mad Men pilot. When you first see Don Draper, he is in a bar, smoking and drinking, his only care what to pitch at the Lucky Strikes meeting. As the episode goes on, you see that all of the secretaries in the office worship him and he has a convenient "relationship" with a greeting-card designer in the village (while simultaneously flirting with a Jewish department store heiress). I assume from a male perspective, this life would be "the dream." But at the end of the episode, you see the silhouette of a man getting off the train at Ossining, driving up to a picturesque white Colonial house, and Don Draper walks through the door. He goes upstairs to kiss his beautiful wife, and checks on his two children asleep in bed. As the camera pans out, you see mother, father, and children framed in a Norman Rockwell look-alike. Does this count as the ideal model of 50's family life when we have been privy to his disconnected "city behaviors"?
(Un)Happy Endings
Reading the end of The Man in the Flannel Jacket completely changed my understanding of the novel and my loyalties to its characters. The novel attempts to resolve issues surrounding capitalism, masculine identity and labor relations, but ends without giving any genuine solutions. Tom does seem to integrate his life during war and his current existence by supporting his son, but this simply uses the post-war prosperity and relies on his well-paid labor rather than human connection. To me, the end of the novel read like a masturbatory male fantasy, where Tom got everything he wanted: a well paying position at a meaningful job, time to spend with his family, approval to use his grandmother's estate, integration with the war and even his wife's quick acceptance of his affair during the war. Although Tom sort of stands up to his boss and owns up to the past, he does it in a safe environment where there is no real fear of failure, and no real bravery in his actions. Tom is a long way from Karkow.
Another thing that did not sit well with me about the ending of the novel was the continued division of home and work life within the novel. Even when Betsy stands to speak at the town meeting regarding the new school, she is addressed as “Mrs. Rath” and joking uses her position as a woman to have the last word in the debate. Although Tom's job may move closer to his home, it never integrates with his home life, continuing the Victorian concept of separate spheres for men and women: Betsy dominates the children and the home, while Tom goes off and does whatever he does at his job. While he does have a genuine home life, unlike his boss, Tom continues to unquestioningly go to work to support his leisure time (and cocktail time) at home, while his wife does the majority of the domestic labor. Far from rebelling against the oppressive system of labor that Tom sees around him, he finds that the real solution is complaining about it to Betsy and honestly opening up about his feelings. While this is a step, it is far from the solution that I was hoping for.
Another thing that did not sit well with me about the ending of the novel was the continued division of home and work life within the novel. Even when Betsy stands to speak at the town meeting regarding the new school, she is addressed as “Mrs. Rath” and joking uses her position as a woman to have the last word in the debate. Although Tom's job may move closer to his home, it never integrates with his home life, continuing the Victorian concept of separate spheres for men and women: Betsy dominates the children and the home, while Tom goes off and does whatever he does at his job. While he does have a genuine home life, unlike his boss, Tom continues to unquestioningly go to work to support his leisure time (and cocktail time) at home, while his wife does the majority of the domestic labor. Far from rebelling against the oppressive system of labor that Tom sees around him, he finds that the real solution is complaining about it to Betsy and honestly opening up about his feelings. While this is a step, it is far from the solution that I was hoping for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)