Your second paragraph there is harsh Qs … it's not a definitive critique, he's just playing around with a couple of ways to look at the developmental dynamics of serial TV dramas.
We've raised a few of the same points on here before. Take Sons of Anarchy where the show's central conflict has been artificially prolonged to the point the whole thing has become contrived and unbelievable. The characters in that show have also killed so many people now it starts to feel ridiculous.
I reckon the comments about historical events being used as a prop to sustain repetitious or gradually unravelling period shows is highly applicable to Mad Men. It's been a couple of seasons since that show has had much new to say about any of its central characters.
And if you look at Breaking Bad, it's a wonderfully plotted show in many respects, but the final season is really troubled by the need to produce a new batch of minor antagonists for Walt after he liquidated the previous lot. They feel a bit tacked on, they feel cartoonish, and to me they actually get in the way of the resolution of the main arc.
Though one thing the essay gets wrong is to suggest that if it all makes sense, that's intrinsically better … sometimes it's pretty interesting the way long-running TV storylines get bent out of shape in ways that a novel never would.
