Joan did not return to Sterling-Cooper. She was one of the first hires of a new company with a somewhat similar name but entirely different ownership.
acsenray, Joan was gone from the firm and later reappeared at the department store when Pete “returned” the dress he fouled from the next door nanny. She was never “out of sight, out of mind”, she simply had a wealthy hubby who was going to care for her. She had many scenes in her home, arguing with her husband over how she could possibly get her job back after she’d left the way she did - to be a housewife. Vietnam came around, he wanted to be a surgeon, she was asked back, so it was all very fitting. It wasn’t as though he was a successful surgeon and she randomly came back out of the goodness of her heart.
Of course Weiner lied about her returning. Why not make people guess?
With essentially the same principals, coming into existence just as Sterling Cooper ceased to exist. It’s the same company in the sense that AT&T Inc. is the same company as AT&T Corp. The ownership is completely different, but the identity is continuous.
If your company is run by Smith, Jones & Doe and they fire you for being gay, and then after a series of corporate shenanigans, they reform as Jones, Doe & Smith, how likely are they to rehire you?
And I never made any such claim.
I haven’t missed an episode. I know what happened. Tell me, how often has something like this happened in your own life? How often do you think something like this happened during the Vietnam War? It’s a highly unlikely course of events. Realistic dramas should minimize the number of highly unlikely events. Now that this has happened with Joan, nothing even remotely similar should happen with any other character.
The point isn’t that he lied. The point is that his assumption, and the assumption of those asking him, was that Joan had left, and her rejoining the workplace would constitute a return.
He didn’t lie about her returning. He said she wasn’t returning to Sterling-Cooper, which was true. Sterling-Cooper-Draper-Pryce is not the same company as Sterling-Cooper. Different location, different owernship, different name.
Uh, it’s not a claim, it’s what happened. Her husband was a surgeon, he was going to make a lot of money, she didn’t have to work and could stay at home and make babies and do charity work. That was the course of events within the show, and was very realistic for the time.
How often do people have to come back, tail between their legs, because something didn’t work out as planned? In my experience, often. Especially in the economic crisis, I see people who used to flaunt their lifestyle do a 180 turn and have to seriously scrimp because they bought a house that was too big or spent way too much on lifestyle accessories. Lots of humble pie going around these days.
Skald is also right - it’s a different agency entirely.
So lemme ask you this: Your colleague quits. A while later, you decide your workplace blows and quit to start your own company, one with hookers and blackjack. You decide that you really need this former coworker to help you with your start-up and call him up to offer him a job. Has he been rehired? Of course not. He’s not working for the original company again, and he’s never worked for your brand-new company before, so how could it possibly be considered a rehire?
So your argument is a bit flawed. And them calling Joan makes absolute perfect sense. None of those men had the first goddamn clue about the nuts and bolts of how the place actually ran–where stuff is, how it’s organized, how to access it. They just wave their hands and say “Make it so,” and their secretaries take care of all that for them. They needed a secretary, desperately, one who wouldn’t freak out at what they were doing and tip their hand. Someone more loyal to them personally than to the company, someone discreet who doesn’t need the paycheck Sterling-Cooper provides, ideally someone who knows more about running the place than the average secretary. Gosh, whoever could they have called? Let me think a bit…
Joan leaving to be a housewife and working in the dress shop is ultimately irrelevant, really. Even if she’d still been at Sterling-Cooper, she still would have been the logical person for them to call. She knows more about the nuts and bolts of that place than pretty much anyone else, and they all know it, and Roger knows for a fact that she can and will keep her mouth shut.
This is a claim I never made.
Then our conceptions of “often” are very different. For this small group of people whose story we’re following, once is enough for at least 10 years.
Yeah, and it’s still rare for people to end up in the same job they left when times were better.
A company with the same bosses and the same key personnel. How often does that happen?
A lot of things make sense; that doesn’t make them likely. If it makes sense over and over and over again, verisimilitude is eroded.
I’ve known a lot of Sals. He’ll come out after his mother dies. 
Unfortunately, Sal being an adult in the early '60s – he might never be able to come out of his own accord.
Sal wasn’t exactly fired for being gay–he was fired because Lee Garner Jr. had a hissy cow, and what the Fuhrer wants, the Fuhrer gets. It’s not unthinkable that with LGJ out of the way, Sal could come back.
And verisimilitude be damned–anyone you’ve ever seen on this show can pop back up at any time. Freddy, Duck, Creepy Kid, Ken… It’s not like all of them came to work at SCDP (though Creepy Kid could probably write as good a slogan as Danny), but they’ve all been shuffled off, only to reappear without any warning. Sal coming back wouldn’t be any more of a bother than that, I think. And we may soon have an opening for a new principal character, with where it looks like Roger’s going…
Are you saying that it is in the realm of possibility for this show to be worse than it is? I see no reason to argue with that.
And how do these things bear on the topic of discussion?
Is it unusual for someone’s neighbour to remain a neighbour for a period of a few years? Is it pushing probabilities for an ex-colleague to end up working at a competitor and then getting fired from that job?
What exactly does your list demonstrate?
Well, Glen Bishop is played by Matt Weiner’s son so they can pretty much put him on the show whenever they want without having to worry about actor availibility.
That simply because someone has been gone for some time from the show is no particular reason to think that they won’t show up again if and when the plot demands it. That’s the case even if the circumstances of their departure seemed final–Freddie Rumsen pissed himself before a client meeting, after all. When, for reasons not entirely obvious–other than to have an AA member hanging around in a season about the ravages of alcohol on Don, I suppose–it suited them to bring him back, they did. While Weiner unquestionably strives for realism, this isn’t a documentary, it’s a narrative. Not that I expect to see anything that’s logically impossible–but it doesn’t bother me when the storyteller stacks the deck a little bit in the interests of the story.
Anyway, there’s no more reason to think that Sal has left the industry than there is to think that Creepy Kid left the state. Why does it so strain credibility to think that, with the only reason they had to fire him out of the way, SCDP might want to hire someone with a proven track record that quite a few people already know and get along with?
That’s true, but I think Matt Weiner has said that Sal is never coming back.
All I can say to this is to suggest you read my comments with mre attention.
Here’s what verisimilitude is, in Mad Men terms:
Roger/Don connive to arrange matters so as to get access to a fine honey.
Anything that contradicts this premise is counter to verisimilitude.
About as often as people sell off a company, stay on as employees for a while, then leave to start up a competing company, I’d guess. Poaching people you’ve worked with before who you know are good and work well together is absolutely what’s smartest to do in that situation. So really, it’s not them hiring Joan that’s fucking up your verisimilitude, it’s the fact that SCDP exists at all.
You should really respond to what ive actually said rather than strawmen. Joan represents one data point that should remain singular or rare. Singular has already been breached. The effect is cumulative. At some point if the staff of the current firm starts to resemble too closely the key staff in season 1, the camel’s back is broken. They’ve already reached that limit, in my view. If Sal or Paul is hired back, it will be gratuitous.
Maybe Sal will show up again here. That would be cool.
Can someone better explain how Faye violated the Chinese Wall dealie? As I understand it, she simply got Don a meeting with one of her clients – Heinz. She didn’t tell Don anything about them; she (I suppose) spoke to her contacts at Heinz, who she knows were unhappy with their ad folks, and suggested SCDP. How is this a violation of confidentiality?
(Or was Heinz not the client, but Heinz’s ad guys were? If Heinz’s ad company is her client, then I can understand how she might be violating their trust.)