I'm going to deviate from my normal drooling love-fest for a minute. You all know what I mean. Usually I wax on for paragraphs about my love for the furniture, the ad campaigns, and of course the deeply layered writing. But I want to take a moment and ask a very important question: Are we giving writer and show creator Matthew Weiner too much credit? In last night's outing, there was very little depth; for the most part there was an overabundance of soap-opera pathos. Let me give some examples: Allison's love for Don is exposed; Peggy (and apparently every other woman in New York) only wants to get married; Cosgrove returns from the shadows to accuse Pete; Pete and Trudy are going to have a baby, causing Peggy and Pete to have a touching moment; Pete must find a way to reconcile his account with Freddy's. These are daytime television plots, totally meaningless. On the other hand, Peggy ventures out into the world to see what's "really" going on. The date is roughly March 1, 1965, based on the comment that El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (known to history as Malcolm X) was assassinated "last week." Peggy ends up at an auteur's party, one who bitterly claims that commercialism in art was killed by Andy Warhol. The party is raided and Peggy narrowly escapes. It's not clear why the party was raided, except that there is marijuana there. From then on, Peggy assumes an almost instant air of relevance, and at the final moment, she looks at the room full of grey flannel behind the doors and the fun crowd outside, and chooses the fun crowd. Is Mad Men commenting on its own lack of relevance? Is it saying that all the characters we know and love are simply useless caricatures? Is Mr. Weiner saying that to experience life, we need to leave Sterling, Cooper, Draper and Pryce behind? He certainly seems to be. Or are we simply giving him too much credit? Maybe the writing isn't as sharp this season. Maybe the show is simply crumbling under the weight of three previous brilliant seasons. Maybe it is time to walk away and join the party. I had suggested that the show take a leap to 1967 or 1968 and really show that era as unflinchingly as it showed 1960. Maybe that would be better than leaving the characters in mid-decade purgatory. So the question becomes, is Mr. Weiner giving us a drab, soapy episode to intentionally show how unimportant the Mad Men generation was becoming to the baby boomers? Or was it simply lazily written? That's the question, and depending on the answer, it will be a great season or it won't. At the end of the episode, Don walks past an older couple in the midst of presumingly endless bickering. He seems to consider them unimportant. Are they the metaphor for me and the rest of the bloggers who obsess over every detail, or are they simply a bit of window dressing to remind us of time and place? In the end... who are "The Rejected" to which the title refers? Certainly most of the characters were rejected by someone, but perhaps we are the rejected. We who want nothing more than to luxuriate in mid-century minutia are the ones being told to pack our bags and join the revolution. I guess it's still a good show if it's worth discussing whether or not it's a good show. Let's see if it's good on purpose, or simply out of habit.