The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel Celebrated Selfishness as a Virtue
The show's final season boldly declared that success requires putting yourself first and accepting the trade-offs.

After years of toiling against a culture that refused to recognize or celebrate the value of our hero's unique gifts, there was a possible breakthrough. A chance was seized. A microphone was commandeered. The nation's airwaves were unexpectedly filled with a message about the value of selfishness, individuality, and ambition.
I'm talking, of course, about the finale of The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, which concluded its five-season run on Amazon Prime last week.
"I want a big life. I want to experience everything. I want to break every single rule there is," Miriam "Midge" Maisel (Rachel Brosnahan) said, near the end of her final set, in a moment that effectively summed up the character's first principles over the course of the show's arc. "They say ambition is an unattractive trait in a woman—maybe. But you know what's really unattractive? Waiting around for something to happen. Staring out a window, thinking the life you should be living is out there somewhere, but not being willing to open the door and go out there and get it, even if someone tells you you can't."
It was a bit more terse than another famous speech delivered at the climax of a story that celebrates many of the same themes. Or perhaps it was a more verbose version of Howard Roark's famous declaration in The Fountainhead, after being informed that it's unlikely anyone will let him design buildings in the way he wanted: "That's not the point," he said. "The point is, who will stop me?"
Over the course of five seasons, no one stopped Midge Maisel. Not when she stormed onto the stage at New York City's famous Gaslight Cafe in a bathrobe to deliver her first impromptu set after discovering her husband's infidelity in the show's premiere. Not when she similarly broke away from an interview to deliver that monologue in the finale. It wasn't all smooth sailing in between—indeed, one of the show's strengths was its willingness to let Midge struggle, even seem to fail at times—but that's not the point, is it? The point is, no one stopped her.
More than most other shows on television, Mrs. Maisel celebrated the selfishness that is essential to success in comedy and show business at large. Midge was always a selfish character, but the show's final season leaned into that trait in a refreshing way. Rather than having her grow to be a better mother or romantic partner, or learn some self-sacrificial lesson about helping others succeed, the showrunners (Amy Sherman-Palladino and Daniel Palladino) put the spotlight on Midge's defining trait, while also acknowledging the trade-offs that come with it.
The final season culminated with Midge getting her long-sought-after break—a four-minute set on The Gordon Ford Show, which we're told is the highest-rated late-night program on television in the show's fictional version of 1962 America—and used various flash-forwards to leave no doubt that it was, in fact, the springboard to a wildly successful career in show business. She got there by breaking the rules and by demanding to be first in line, yes, but also by refusing to compromise on who she was.
The show's celebration of selfishness extended beyond Midge herself and did so in a way that fits with Ayn Rand's conception of the term. While there is nothing wrong—and plenty right—about putting one's own needs first, Rand emphasized that selfishness also indicated moral first principles: Being selfish means, essentially, being true to one's self and refusing to subvert the individual to the desires of others.
Throughout the show, Midge repeatedly encountered supposedly successful people whose showbiz fame was predicated on committing the Randian cardinal sin of subverting their individualism for mass appeal. First and most apparent was Sophie Lennon (Jane Lynch), a snooty Manhattanite who donned a fake accent and fat suit to perform stand-up as a crass housewife from Queens. There was also Shy Baldwin (Leroy McClain), the closeted homosexual who performed as a womanizing pop singer. Finally, there was Ford, the late-night host with a fake marriage who didn't write his own jokes or have as much creative control over his own show as he liked to think. As the lies those characters lived were peeled back, Midge (and the audience) discovered them to be—to varying degrees—pathetic, tragic, and pitiable.
Midge steadfastly refused to play that game, announcing early on that she would achieve fame on her own terms. Her comedy act was a reflection of that perspective, rooted as it was in the lived experience of a divorced Jewish mother from the Upper West Side. Her manager Susie Myerson (Alex Borstein) and real-life comic Lenny Bruce (Luke Kirby), fellow outsiders who disdained the phoniness of their industry, stood alone in recognizing and encouraging Midge's unique talent.
To be sure, there was plenty of the traditional form of selfishness in Midge's character too. Her big break came after she persuaded Myerson to apply a particularly nasty form of leverage over Ford so he would break his personal rule against allowing his writers to appear as guests on his show (which is, it should be said, a very reasonable rule). By doing so, she blatantly stepped to the front of the line ahead of other comedians who toiled in the obscurity of the writers' room far longer than she did.
But the show left no doubt that she deserved the break when it came. She wasn't just the one writer in Ford's bullpen who found the right leverage to make him break his rule—she was also the best of the bunch, and therefore the one most deserving of special treatment in the show's Randian-tinged perspective. Her selfishness, in all its forms, was duly rewarded.
Still, Mrs. Maisel also demonstrated that the selfishness necessary for success is not without its trade-offs. In the fifth season's flash-forwards, we learned that Midge's strained and distant relationship with her two children continued even after both reached adulthood. If Midge's success was the result of never compromising on her individualism, then that same character trait naturally made her a poor mother, a role where self-sacrifice is fundamental. Her relationship with her parents was similarly difficult, though one might note that strained or absent family ties only reinforce the similarities between Midge and Rand's heroes, most of whom lack children or relatives who aren't portrayed as losers and leeches.
The dark side of Midge's ambition and selfishness was always part of the show's award-winning formula. Her inability to separate her real life and stage persona cost her friends and opportunities along the way—most prominently getting her canned from a tour as Baldwin's opening act after she inadvertently outed him during a set. There were lessons to be learned, but Midge never abandoned her individuality in order to set things right.
Over its five seasons, Mrs. Maisel veered into other libertarian-adjacent themes, including casting a critical eye toward the obscenity laws that limited free speech in 1950s/'60s New York City—and which Midge got arrested for violating. The final season dealt in a small way with the tragic end of Bruce's career and placed the blame for his personal decline squarely on the persecution he suffered at the hands of government censors. "I can't step foot in any club east of the Grand Canyon," he lamented at the start of the final episode. Offered Myerson's help to get back on top, he selflessly declined, telling her to use her favors on someone else. There's a hint of a moral there.
But the hero and moral center of the show was always Midge—indeed, everything in the show revolved around her—who used her talents and shamelessly seized every favor offered to her. Even in flash-forwards to her later years, we saw her tireless work ethic continue. And while Midge would surely fall short of Rand's ideals about what defines an objectivist hero—despite her propensity for delivering diatribes into a microphone—The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel left little doubt that she'd never have succeeded without putting herself first.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
Join this most awesome and cool online home based job and start earning everyday more than $500 per day. i made $18521 last month, this is amazing and irecommend you to join and start your money making source from home.
.
.
Now Here ——————————————->> https://Www.Coins71.Com
In a shocking development, "greed is good" earns the seal of approval from a website kept afloat by its silver spoon billionaire sugar daddy in exchange for promoting his #OpenTheBorders / #EmptyThePrisons gimme-cheap-labor agenda.
BTW I'm sorry Mr. Koch isn't enjoying year 3 of the Biden economy like other leading American billionaires are.
Is it because he hasn't been permitted to import the entire population of Ukraine to work for poverty wages? Better get Fiona to write another column about that! 😛
Right? I wonder if the millions of Demunists who loved the show realize they are celebrating Ayn Rand?
Mrs. Maisel was a great show, but Gecko's speech was better. Greed, properly understood, is good. Greed to Geck (and Maisel) isn't about screwing other people, it's about having ambition and working hard to earn success, making the hard decisions that other people can't or won't (like sacrificing your family life to have a successful career, or laying off lots of people in an acquired company if that's where the economic value is.)
The bad kind of greed is wanting what isn't yours and what other people don't want to give you, which is pretty much where all the leftists and socialists and progressives come from.
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com
If Midge's success was the result of never compromising on her individualism, then that same character trait naturally made her a poor mother, a role where self-sacrifice is fundamental.
Kind of.
FYI, to young people just starting out, including but not limited to Reason's Barely Legal writing team: All things in life require 'self-sacrifice', especially to become successful at them. Being a fabulous entertainer requires a LOT of self-sacrifice.
Not true! Failure, crime, and government dependency do not require any self sacrifice.
Yes they do. Sacrifice of pride, independence, value as a human being.
Precisely! You just might be what Pooh needs to get unstuck from the Hunny Tree and learn some discipline in his eating habits. 🙂
Sacrifice means giving up a greater value for a lesser value. Thus, motherhood would be self-sacrifice only if the Mother does not value her children and her homemaking as great as something else. Same likewise with being a fabulous intertainer.
By the way, present company excluded, if the comments were in audio form, there are a whole lot of our more knuckle-dragging members I would be asking to say: "Marvelous" and "Fabulous," just to see how it sounds.
😉 🙂
Eh, that feels like much too simplistic a definition, but I can't really put into words why.
If sacrifice is giving up something for something else that's better, that's just describing good decision-making. There's some element missing there--either a substantial risk (but then it just becomes an investment, not a sacrifice) or some type of intrinsic value that isn't necessarily seen as a value.
Not sure what's missing, but sacrifice is usually seen as noble, and trying to figure out why it is seen as noble and feels noble if it is just trading something for something better.
You don't really have to put it into words, it's not only too simplistic, it's wrong. People sacrifice for lesser value, but the deep thinking one seems incapable of getting past what he (?) and other bitter people would do. The fact that the deep thought was included w/ yet another immature dig, this time at 'knuckle-dragging' members instead of at religion, makes it much more humorous.
Nice prognosis of "bitter" there, Shrink. I hope you're not charging a billable hour for it because I'm not a willing patient and I sure wouldn't pay for it.
I think you’ve reversed the meaning.
Sacrifice (especially in Randian terms) is giving up a greater value to gain a lesser value. It’s trading down. If you’re trading up, there’s no sacrifice.
The disconnect here is a social one. People make sacrifices for *social* reasons – give up things they’d rather have for things they care less about, because *other people* value those other things. But that tends to make the person making the sacrifice incredibly unhappy (because he actually wanted the thing given up more than the thing gained, and more than the social approval).
But the real monsters in a Rand novel don’t make sacrifices either. Rather, it’s their own greatest value that’s monstrous – they thrive on watching the sacrifices (and subsequent unhappiness) of others. Rand has a moral system she's arguing for, and pursuing evil makes you a villain, not a hero.
I don’t think motherhood requires sacrifice. It requires you to want to be a mother. If you would rather be a successful comedian, you’re not going to be a good mother. Being a good mother would be a sacrifice then, because you’d have to give up at least some of what you value more – being a comedian.
(There’s some optimal balance between things for most people. Marginal utility theory applies to values, too).
Very well summarized and expressed. You not only found a nut, but you most likely have a whole well-deserved pantry-full. 🙂
Your name doesn't do you justice, though. You are certainly no Mini-Me of SQRLSY. 🙂
Well, "feels" doesn't make it so.
Sacrifice is giving up a lesser value for a greater value. And a trade-off or more precisely a trade-up is giving up a lesser value for a greater value. The latter is good decision-making.
Celebrities having a shitty relationship with their kids seems to be the rule rather than the exception, even in fictional worlds where a 60s-era housewife gains fame and fortune by acting like a crass whore.
I watched the first two seasons hoping I would see Rachel Brosnahan’s titties again but was disappointed that I did not.
Truth
I wonder if the millions of Demunists who loved the show realize they are celebrating Ayn Rand?
There were a LOT of people before Rand who supported individualism, she's just a +1 in a long list of individualists lol
I started to not like her as much towards the very end.
They need to start stopping shows after one season. They just get worse the longer they stick around.
Mrs. Maisel as a demonstration of Ayn Rand’s half baked philosophy is rather amusing. While Randian Objectivism makes a valid point that personal ambition is important & even vital to human advancement, it neglects to acknowledge that civilization as a whole requires people to cooperate & collaborate in maintaining the structures associated with civilization & society.
No one succeeds as an individual in a vacuum. People succeed by developing their particular uniqueness within the context of a given society’s constraints. Mrs. Maisel could not have succeeded but for the cooperative efforts of numerous people that created the society in which she succeeded. Duffy’s Cut was probably more indicative of Randian objectivism than many actions but if such behavior became the pattern, which would be more likely than not in the Randian heaven (it certainly wouldn’t be objectionable to Ms. Rand), then I don’t think many of us would like the result.
When Obama said “you didn’t build that,” he was referring to the fact that was apparently lost on his adversaries, that we create wealth in an environment that possesses infrastructure which required collective action. The same wealth would not readily be created in Somalia no matter how talented the individual.
Life is so often paradoxical. We often achieve our greatest success by learning to express our particular uniqueness. If you look at the great minds throughout history, you will also note that they often rose in a community of similar great minds. We accomplish far more in cooperation & collaboration than we do in isolation. Too far to the extreme in either direction leads to destruction. Too much subsuming of self to larger structures destroys the individual. Too much narcissism leads to sociopathy & the destruction of the structures upon which self expression can be built.
Ayn Rand expressed an extreme viewpoint in response to her family's experience in communist Russia. Her Objectivist society would descend into financial or literal warlords recreating a modern form of feudalism (Oh, I’m sorry, that is what is happening anyway!). As with most things in human society, the healthiest outcome results when we work to balance the various drives between individualism & collectivism.
boo hoo hoo a dramedy show meant for entertainment doesn't meet your expectations. It's not a philosophy, it's just entertainment.
Individualism does not mean Atomism and isolation. It is taking the initiative to think and act for one's self to achieve one's rational values. In a society, when one's goals require efforts from others, an Individualist does so in a manner which respects the Individualism of others, i.e. by voluntary exchange of values to mutual benefit.
Individualism does not mean trampling others to get what you want, which Mrs. Maisel evidently did here. (I haven't seen the streaming series, so I'm going on what's said here.)
And Somalia is not a bastion of Individualism, since it is ruled by Islamic warlords and Islam (whose very name means "Submission" in Arabic) is a faith-based credo that is Anti-Individualism to the core, Here's sure sign: No Libertwrians or Capitalists are making a bee line to go there.
As for infrastructure, that is the next great project for future generations of Individualists to tackle and solve. Not impossible at all. People already build private wells, cisterns, septic tanks, roads on estates and developments, power generators, gas lines, etc. It's just a short step to taking them to bigger scales and doing so without Government contracts and direction.
Am going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't been to Somalia, or any east African nation. Further, that you have zero hands-on experience with how Islam, 'warlords,' tribal and family issues overlap in Africa. I will concede that your overweening dislike for the religious likely makes you believe you are an expert on those topics and areas.
The problem in Somalia isn't individualism, it's tribalism, a form of collectivism.
Cooperation between individuals is possible, has ample historical precedent, and is in no way opposed to an individualist philosophy. The key word is *voluntary*.
Collectivism makes "cooperation" non-voluntary. Because if it was voluntary, it wouldn't be collectivism, because each individual would agree to do it.
You don't have to be in a snake-pit to know that snakes bite. Articles on nations from credible almanac and historical sources as well as travel warnings usually suffice.
Islam's lack of Separation of Religion and State, as well as the pattern of Islamic nations having oppression within and conflicts with neighbors abroad are good enough reasons to stay away from Dar Al-Islam.
Except when Obama said "you didn't build that," he said it because he wanted his cut.
^^^
This. It was about supporting his collective.
So...Breaking Bad?
Just gotta love how Nazi-Leftards spin the word 'greedy' to mean not handing over your cash at the end of a Gov-Gun...
"Hey man. If your not going to let me ARMED-ROB you then you're 'greedy'"
Like WTF... How F'En greedy does one have to be to even pro-port such a criminal stance? Since when did keeping one's own **EARNINGS** become 'greed'???
I wouldn't call 'greed' a good thing; but in the narrative of LEFTARD PROJECTION (spinning things on their heads); if playing justly is 'geedy' then it definitely is a good thing.