The Good Wife’s Brave, Bold Move


Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Do you watch The Good Wife? You should watch The Good Wife. It’s brilliant. It’s amazing. Oh my God, it’s so good. Why aren’t you watching it? Maybe you are watching it. If you are watching it, good. You are smart and you have good taste. But a lot of you aren’t watching it. Do you not like law shows? Who doesn’t like law shows? If you’re not watching it because you don’t like law shows, you should watch The Good Wife because The Good Wife isn’t actually about the law. Or at least not really. It’s about people who happen to be lawyers. Every episode has a case that the cast tackles, but it isn’t important to the overarching plot. It’s simply a vehicle for the melodrama. And the melodrama! Oh how sweet and wonderful the melodrama on The Good Wife is! I think a lot of you don’t watch The Good Wife because it’s on CBS, the Perry Como of American broadcast networks. A certain set of bright young things thinks that anything that comes from Les Moonves’ top-rated network is stale, stodgy, and old. And they aren’t wrong, in general. But they do themselves a disservice when it comes to The Good Wife. If it were on FX, it would be live-tweeted with the gusto of Justified, Mad Men, Homeland and the Queen’s Crown of high-brow pop culture, Game of Thrones.

So if you aren’t watching it, go watch all five seasons right now. Forget your job. Forget your family. Forget your personal hygiene. Go and mainline all of it now.


Ok, if you have been watching The Good Wife, we need to talk about last night.



He’s dead! They killed him! He’s dead! Shot to death in a courtroom! The blond kid he was defending took the gun from the bailiff and shot a bunch of people and Will is dead!

Will! Will, the male lead. The good wife’s boss. The good wife’s lover. One-third of the central tension of the show! He’s dead. He’s dead. He’s dead. I have no coherent thoughts here. Save this: Brave, bold move, The Good Wife. It takes courage to kill off the second most important character on the show. Josh Charles’ deal was up after the fourth season and he signed on for this limited 15 episode run because he loved the show and wanted to give the character a proper signoff.*  This seems like a good out for everybody, but wow! Bold.

Last night’s episode was one of the few genuinely shocking things I’ve seen happen on a fictional TV show.

As Robert and Michelle King, the show’s creators, write in a letter posted on the show’s website, they could “have sent Will to Seattle,” the way ER handled the departure of George Clooney. A weak, sentimental part of me wishes they had done that so Will could come back at some point, but that’s stupid. The bold move was undoubtedly the right one, at least in the short term. Last night’s episode was one of the few genuinely shocking things I’ve seen happen on a fictional TV show. In the long term, who knows what it means for the show and the daily dynamic. I’m sure the writers will be able to convert the old Good Wife into the new Good Wife. And that’s what it will be. The Good Wife 2.0. Because The Good Wife was definitionally about Alicia being pulled in two separate directions, one by Peter and one by Will. What Will represented—independence, vengeance,  the road not taken—remains, but Will is gone.

Will is gone. 🙁

In the letter the Kings explain, “We chose the tragic route for Will’s send-off for personal reasons. We’ve all experienced the sudden death of a loved one in our lives. It’s terrifying how a perfectly normal and sunny day can suddenly explode with tragedy.” This is true and also heartbreaking when you think about Tony Scott, one of the original executive producers, who died in August of 2012.

RIP Will. Long live The Good Wife.

Here’s a video of the cast and crew talking about Will’s death and Josh Charles’ departure.


Correction: An earlier version of this post speculated that Josh Charles was let out of a longer contract early. That is not the case.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend