I already tackled Megan (now) Draper’s (winning) French-Canadianness when she sang “Il était un petit navire” to the Draperinos back at the end of season 4 of Mad Men. Further, the internet already melted down over the subsequent French song Jessica Paré chose to sing for the show, so I don’t need to touch on that. I will plug, however, this brief moment when she utters a “sacre” after Don’s surprise party is ruined.
What I would rather discuss here, briefly, is how bizarre I continue to find it that the character is named “Megan” in the first place. In my head, I imagine they named her before deciding she would become a main character complete with her own French-Canadian identity mirroring Paré’s own. I lie to myself in this way since the idea of a French-Canadian born around 1940 named “Megan” is, simply put, really unexpected.
During the 2000s, the French form of “Megan”—”Mégane”—was, in fact, one of the most popular names for newborn girls in Québec. As Louis Duchesne notes, “Megan” became a popular name in the 1970s in the US before fading away in the 1990s. About a generation later, the French form became popular in both France and Québec, though the French popularity cratered once Renault introduced the “Mégane” in 1995. The car is unavailable in Québec, and the popularity of the name continued to climb, reaching heights its American counterpart never enjoyed.
Yet no matter how popular “Mégane” has been in Québec over the past 15 years, it was not on the map as a name in 1940. Hence, I would surmise, its English version, and the name of Don Draper’s new wife, was completely unheard of. Maybe she really is as good an actor as her waitress friends suggest, having invented the whole québécois backstory as part of her long con of Don Draper. (Relax, Mad Men fanatics, I don’t believe in the Megan Draper long con conspiracy.)
Tags: Mad Men, Megan, onomastics, Québec
March 28th, 2012 at 15:39
We are all Lane Pryce
April 1st, 2012 at 18:22
Dear Mr. de Sá Pereira ,
I write to thank you for this very helpful expression of a tension I have sensed as I acquaint myself with popular television and the new insurgency of the so-called “digital humanities.”
As you may know, I’ve recently embarked on an analysis of the latter movement in my New York Times column (not to say, blog) and the fourth essay in the series — http://bit.ly/H4Suf4 — makes reference to your attempts to quantify the sublimity of Mad Men. It offers, needless to say, a challenge to the facile conclusions you draw.
Sincerely,
Stanley Fish
April 2nd, 2012 at 7:11
Meghan (or however she spells it) didn’t ring true as a name from the 1940s in any country. I was on a research quest to support my supposition when I saw your blog. Glad I’m not alone in questioning the presentism in the series that prides itself on getting fanatical about authentic period props. The series might have 1960s appropriate clothes and furniture , but they seem to not be as concerned about accurate cultural habits.
For example, the idea of hugging someone, other than family, when you greet them began in the early 1980s . When Peggy came to the office with her baby, all the women hugged her and the men kissed her on her cheek. For 1966, in NYC the more likely greeting would have been hellos and possibly a pat on her arm or even a slight handshake. Simarly, when Peggy confides to her boss about her personal problems, bosses weren’t counselors for the employees. More and more I see the show is set in 1966, but the cultural norms are from 2012. Disappointing really.