by Conor Friedersdorf

I'm a big fan of the show – and having just read an essay critiquing it, I'm struggling to articulate why I disagree.

Here's an excerpt:

We are currently living in a new golden age of television, a medium that has been liberated by cable broadcasting to explore both fantasy and reality with greater frankness and originality than ever before: as witness shows as different as the now-iconic crime dramas The Sopranos and The Wire, with their darkly glinting, almost Aeschylean moral textures; the philosophically provocative, unexpectedly moving sci-fi hit Battlestar Galactica, a kind of futuristic retelling of the Aeneid; and the perennially underappreciated small-town drama Friday Night Lights, which offers, among other things, the finest representation of middle-class marriage in popular culture of which I’m aware.

With these standouts (and there are many more), Mad Men shares virtually no significant qualities except its design. The writing is extremely weak, the plotting haphazard and often preposterous, the characterizations shallow and sometimes incoherent; its attitude toward the past is glib and its self-positioning in the present is unattractively smug; the acting is, almost without exception, bland and sometimes amateurish.

If you're a Mad Men watcher read the rest – it's a well written essay – and tell me what you think. (Email conor.friedersdorf@gmail.com with "Mad Men" in the subject line.)

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.