The Zen of South Park

Finding the Middle Ground in American Religion

“South Park differs from its contemporaries in that by having characters inside the show get the point of the show, it can have a moral or social message, whereas the others are limited by their form to what I would call social commentary. A social message tells us what to do or be, whereas a social commentary just tells us what not to do or be (1).”

    South Park is one of the most remarkable shows on television. Not only is it one of the most successful, with the most fan generated web sites of practically any television show (2), over half a billion dollars in merchandising sales (3), and twelve continuous seasons of one of the highest rated shows on television – and in over a dozen countries at that – but it consistently delivers important social and moral messages in practically every episode (4). South Park has a vision of the world: what it should look like, how people should behave and treat one another, and how we can all function together harmoniously. While most major political parties have attempted to associate South Park with their own agendas, the creators of South Park have repeatedly eschewed any political labels (despite their notable Libertarian Party affiliations), insisting that they hate both the left and the right and want to stand between the two sides, laughing at both of them. Trey Parker, one of the show’s creators, said, “We find just as many things to rip on the left as we do on the right. People on the far-left and the far-right are the same exact person to us (5).” South Park is a battle against extremism – not against the beliefs themselves but against the believers who insist that their way of viewing the world is the only right one. Moderation and tolerance mixed with scorn and skepticism for those who try to tell us how to live our lives is just part of South Park’s regular message. What makes South Park particularly unique is not the message itself but the way the show manages to convey that message to its audience.

    South Park is an animated television show about four eight year old boys in elementary school. In each 22 minute episode, a controversy is established, the boys must learn about the issues surrounding this controversy, and then they must somehow thwart the negative consequences of the controversy’s more extreme adherents from bringing utter destruction and ruin to their home town. Finally, they must summarize what they learned.6 Because it is animated, South Park is not bound by reality when it creates the outrageous problems and scenarios surrounding any controversy. This format also allows the show to incorporate numerous poorly impersonated celebrity guests. For example, the children are forced to confront Barbra Streisand’s ego before she transforms into an enormous monster and tries to conquer the world, Rosie O’Donnell’s self-righteousness before she is consumed by a mutated Dawson’s Creek Trapper Keeper, and John Edwards’ douchiness before he wins the award for Biggest Douche in the Universe after being taken to an Academy-Awards-like ceremony populated by thousands of alien celebrities. While these conflicts might seem ridiculous and pointless, they are entirely germane to one of the show’s primary messages: celebrities are just like everyone else. They do not know better, and they should not pretend to be such great specimens of the human race, guiding and saving the American people. Each is targeted by the show for a specific reason.

Streisand was lampooned after insisting that she would cease using her Colorado vacation home if the state legislature passed anti-gay marriage legislation. South Park wanted to show that no one cares what Streisand thinks and that she is not doing anyone any favors by blessing Colorado residents with her occasional presence. Despite the fact that the show’s creators favor gay marriage, they nonetheless remain convinced that obnoxious celebrities like Barbra Streisand have no right to try to influence matters in places that do not concern them. Rosie O’Donnell was in an episode about a kindergarten class’s voting – a class that included her nephew, who she defended in a run-off. After heinously interfering in favor of her nephew and ignoring the rights of the opposing candidate’s supporters, the class’s teacher, Mr. Garrison, harangues, “You don’t give a crap about them because they’re not on your side. People like you preach tolerance and openmindedness all the time, but when it comes to Middle America you think we’re all evil and stupid country yokels who need your political enlightenment, but just because you’re on TV doesn’t mean you know crap about the government!”7 This episode was aired during the Bush-Gore run-off controversy when celebrities ruthlessly backed one or the other candidate (although mostly Gore). Finally, John Edwards, a man who claims that he talks to people’s dead relatives, is lambasted for this fallacy, for giving people false hope and for telling them lies. After an episode spent examining why people are so gullible and why he is such a douchebag, Edwards is given his galactic award. Again, each of these celebrities’ demise is fantastic and imaginary, but such are the benefits of using a cartoon. The show is not bound by the constricting confines of reality and is free to create the most outrageous scenarios in order to demonstrate the writers’ feelings on certain matters. Notice too, that in each of these cases the beliefs themselves – in gay-marriage rights, for the election of a specific candidate, or in supernatural communication – are not the issues under scrutiny. It is the believers and people who are attacked and ridiculed for insisting that others should operate as they do and be subject to their nonsense.

The distinction made by Aaron Fortune above, between social messages and social commentary, is useful for understanding South Park’s unique approach when shedding light on America’s disturbing, hypocritical, and outrageous culture. An interesting parallel worth exploring – one that also employs hyperbole to get people’s attention and prompt societal change – is the example of the biblical prophet.8

Classical prophecy, that which existed from the rise of the Assyrian Empire in the middle of the eighth century BCE to approximately the time of Ezra in the middle of the fifth century BCE, acted as one of the foremost social message transmitters in ancient Israel. Classical prophets delivered God’s messages to the people of Israel – messages that were always relevant to the particular problems of the time. For instance, when the people acted radically immoral – oppressing the poor, the widow and the orphan, raping and pillaging unnecessarily and generally behaving despicably towards one another – the prophet would deliver a message about the pointlessness of sacrifice in light of such wantonness,9 tell of a future destruction resulting from God’s wrath at people’s wretchedness, and perhaps even speak of a harmonious future when Israel’s once great ruler, David, would be properly restored to his thrown in order to lead the people to a better future.

Prophets railed against the corrupt and incompetent political establishment that the people mimicked for lack of better leadership, against the worthless aristocratic priests that perfunctorily performed their duties while feeding off the impoverished masses, and against the false prophets who claimed to know the truth and profess it in the name of God. Although classical prophets often spoke about the past, using it to warn the people of their own imminent future,10 or spoke of the future, whether a destructive or redemptive one, they never really cared about any time other than the present. Their messages of doom were meant to have a corrective effect on the present population; such outrageously frightening words were intended to cause the people to see the errors of their ways, change, and lead better lives. Although many believe that the prophets’ messages extend to their own times and have resounding relevance throughout the ages,11 prophecy was nonetheless a message delivered to and intended for the people of that prophet’s day. South Park is no different.

South Park began in 1997, and is scheduled to run through the beginning of 2009. That is twelve years and twelve seasons. The messages of South Park are meant for those living between 1997 and 2009: the episodes pertain to specific issues of that period. Just like the prophets’ problems, those addressed in South Park undeniably permeate many times and places; they are issues of morality, the establishment, relationships between man and man, etc. In that way, both the classical prophets and South Park have messages deemed relevant to more than just their own day. This does not change the fact, though, that each is delivered in its own time with the contemporary population as its intended audience. That said, we are the ones that South Park hopes to reform. Prophets and South Park creators alike do not want their messages to be relevant for a future audience because if they are, it means they failed to reform the people of their own time in any permanent fashion.

Just like the prophets, South Park speaks about being a good, moral person, about treating others with respect, and about bettering ourselves in order to create a better future. Just like the prophets, South Park constantly speaks out against the corrupt and incompetent government, the moronic elite (celebrities) with their sense of entitlement and misguided notions that they should lead the foolish rabble, and the false prophets: those who claim to know the unwavering truth with the conviction that everyone should follow them and their ways or else perish (religious and political figures, environmentalists, etc.). The prophets castigated the same people in their own day in an attempt to bring a valuable message of change and improvement to the people, and in our time, South Park does the same. Moreover, it is the flexibility and extremity provided by its genre that allows the show to do this so skillfully.

The prophets did not sit calmly, saying that they disapproved of the people’s actions and recommending that they change their ways.12 Mild critiques and polite suggestions do not get people’s attention. Classical prophets knew this as well as Trey Parker and Matt Stone (the creators of South Park). You grab people by being obstreperous, exaggerating and shocking them. Thus, the prophets preached mercilessly of God’s wrath and fury, his past actions like the intentional destruction of the Northern Kingdom as a warning to Judah, and a future filled with mayhem, havoc, and chaos: that is, the destruction of Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple. They told detailed stories, describing the wretchedness of the people. They told of a horrible fate should reform not come, and they railed about an impending doom: the encroaching armies of the great empires of the east like the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Their stories were loud, hyperbolic and terrifying.

By using animation, South Park is able to have the most outrageous events imaginable occur to its characters in an attempt to convey its particular message to those already grappling to understand the world around them. Animation means that God can speak in South Park, that supernatural events do not need justification, and that nearly anything goes. With real people, viewers tend to question the occurrence of ‘impossible’ events, but in a cartoon, we all know that it’s not real anyway. While the prophets may not have wanted similar conclusions drawn about their work and statements (that they are making stuff up, to be blunt), they nonetheless stretched their imaginative faculties (a quality some considered essential to becoming a prophet) in order to convey the proper message to the people of ancient Israel. Thus, as far as goals and methodology are concerned, the prophets and South Park share many noteworthy similarities.

    South Park’s success as an animated satire follows in the footsteps of The Simpsons. The Simpsons was one of the first cartoons not intended for children and not aired on Saturday morning. Rather, it was a groundbreaking show about an animated American family from Anywhere, USA – that is, Springfield, a town that exists in every single state – aired during primetime on Fox, an upstart network with little to lose by taking chances.13 As animation, crazy things could happen to the Simpson family. They could travel all over the world, have three-eyed fish because of the local nuclear power plant, have characters fall down mountainsides without permanent damage, bring in the occasional alien for Halloween episode specials, and so much more than what was limited to real life families like those on Full House14 and Married with Children. The Simpsons broke with convention and opened up a different world. Like many family comedies with real people, though, the show’s target audience was not children. The Simpsons was a sophisticated satire with savvy cultural references and serious situations.15 Younger children would never have understood the crude humor and adult situations, puns and cultural commentary. There was even the occasional curse word.

The Simpsons was still bound by the family-structured show, with issues tending to focus more on interfamily problems such as love, communication and the family dynamic. The particular composition of the family (nuclear, gay parents, divorced with uncles hanging around, multiple children, etc.) allows other issues to become relevant in shows like this: school, maturing, dating and relationships, and more. Family shows are usually driven by the antics of the father (Fred Flinstone, Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin and Al Bundy), and the other characters often have generic roles: the mother holds the family together, one child is the smart one, the other the rebellious one, a family pet adds to the mix and maybe there is an important neighbor (the Darcys, the Flanders, Barney Rubble). The Simpsons had all this and even more because it was animated. That meant the shows writers could invoke crazy scenarios (without risking life, limb or property), and after 18 years on the air none of the has aged. This animated show for adults opened that genre and made way for shows such as South Park.

    Unlike The Simpsons, South Park is not a show centered around a family. It is about four eight year old boys, which offers an entirely different dynamic. The idea is that these boys are constantly confronted with complicated situations that should actually be handled by adults. However, all of the adults in their town – parents, educators and law enforcement – are total buffoons, and so ingrained are they in their current habits and beliefs and so susceptible are they to the nonsense around them that it is the children who must constantly save the day. Because they are children the boys are naturally inquisitive, questioning everything and demanding to know more than the robotic garbage adults spew at them. They don’t know many definitions and words (circumcision, clitoris, etc.) and must ask around to find out. This allows them to learn and critically judge everything that confronts them, whether whacky religious beliefs, government lies or celebrity nonsense. So, the show is different because it is about children and not adults or a family. Aside from access to unreal situations, why animate children rather than film live ones, though?

The issues under investigation in South Park are for an adult audience that thinks constructively. Real children could not talk about these issues, and that is why South Park tells the story of four animated children, written and voiced by the adults who created them. In this way, the children can say anything they like about adult experiences. They can curse, vomit, crap, fart, die, kill, or do anything else because they are animated. Moreover, when situations must become out of control – like flying into space, getting abducted by aliens, using Moses and Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha as characters, and much more – in order to make a point with dripping satire, animation is not inhibiting in the least.

    Other animated shows also came in the wake of The Simpsons, but they functioned similarly to that show and have not matched the communicative nature of South Park. For instance, Family Guy and King of the Hill are also successful, animated shows about a nuclear family (and are also both on Fox). While Family Guy is infinitely more crude and silly than King of the Hill, with far more outrageous plots and scenarios, both shows are bound by their family structure and can only show us characters behaving in a particular way – that is, telling stories about them – leaving the decision up to us about what should and should not be emulated. Even Futurama (by the creator of The Simpsons) functions similarly. While like Family Guy and King of the Hill in that it is not necessarily meant to teach us lessons about life but more to entertain and let us watch what happens to its particular cast of characters (not a family but a group of friends who have an intergalactic delivery service), all three shows are nonetheless filled with cultural references and do contain occasional messages about good and bad behavior. Again, though, these must be teased out by watching the show. South Park acts differently.

    Its main characters are entirely aware of their position in the show. They know that they will be confronted with ridiculous situations, that no one else will be able to solve them, and that they will have to figure out what to do and provide summary lessons at the end. Each episode concludes with one of the boys stating, “You know, I’ve learned something today,” followed by his new understanding. In recognition of this pattern, in a fifth season episode, the little Jewish boy says, “All my life I was raised to believe in Jehovah, to believe that we should all behave a certain way and good things will come to us. I made mistakes, but every week I try to better myself. I’m always saying, ‘You know, I learned something today (16).’” Most of the time these concluding messages are telling extremists to calm down, asking people to let everyone lead their own lives as they see fit, and demanding that the world play nice and that people be good and moral – whatever that means. The show’s self-awareness of its constant preaching and status as an adult cartoon is best demonstrated by a two part episode in the tenth season entitled, “Cartoon Wars.”  Ostensibly, these episodes of South Park are about Family Guy.

In this saga, there is a national concern that a Family Guy episode featuring an image of Mohammed should not be broadcast. Fortunately, according to this episode of South Park, Fox Network censors the image of Mohammed – an image that is not tied to the plot, nor relevant to anything, nor offensive to Islam or the prophet himself. Indeed, Family Guy is known to be an incredibly random show, packed with obscure cultural references, and replete with jokes that have nothing to do with the immediate situation. An adult in South Park explains to the boys that this censorship is part of a necessary sensitivity to Muslims and in response to the Danish cartoons that featured Mohammed and offended Muslims around the world. Thus, the Family Guy cartoon had to be censored. We learn, however, that this episode of Family Guy is a two-parter (just like this episode of South Park, interestingly enough), and that Mohammed’s image will be shown again – uncensored! – in the second episode. In response, Muslim leader, al-Jawari, threatens America with retaliation, claiming that Family Guy isn’t even that well written of a show because all of the jokes are so entirely nonsequitor.

Talking to his friends just after the first episode, Cartman claims that showing an image of Mohammed is offensive and insensitive to the Muslim religion. Kyle challenges his sincerity, asserting that Cartman does not care at all about offending others’ religions (Cartman constantly mocks Kyle for being Jewish), and Cartman retorts that Family Guy is a cartoon while he is just a little boy. Cartman then argues that it is simply not worth airing the show if it could result in terrorist attacks. Cartman vows to go to Fox’s studios and fight for this episode to be removed. Although initially skeptical of Cartman’s intentions, Kyle eventually believes that his motives are honest, and agrees to help him have the episode pulled. However, on their journey to Fox Network, Kyle discovers that Cartman actually hates Family Guy and is trying to have the entire show taken down by beginning with the removal of one episode; he believes that if one subject becomes taboo then any other can be considered taboo as well. Such is the belief of South Park’s creators: everything must be up for discussion or we make it okay for nothing to be.

Cartman’s hatred of Family Guy stems from having his own humor compared to the humor of Family Guy. Cartman insists that he makes situational jokes entirely relevant to plot and character development – not random digressions designed to elicit a laugh (he sounds like he is speaking on behalf of South Park). Kyle tries to stop Cartman, believing that censorship is wrong and that people must stand up for free speech and not succumb to terrorist threats. Cartman manages to thwart Kyle’s attempts and persist alone with his mission, leaving Kyle bleeding and injured on the side of the highway.

Arriving at Fox’s studios, Cartman learns that another little boy also wishes to have Family Guy removed. This boy is a crude representation of Bart Simpson. The creators of South Park, then, believe that The Simpsons – another adult cartoon whose jokes are based on plot development and relevant character interactions – would also be bothered by Family Guy. Cartman asks Bart to let him handle the situation with the Fox producers. Bart explains that he is a pretty bad kid and should be able to take care of the problem. In response, Cartman asks Bart what the worst thing he ever did was, and Bart responds that he cut the head off of a statue (this is from a real Simpsons episode). Cartman tells the story of Scott Tenerman, an older boy that once picked on him. Cartman had his parents murdered, ground them up into chili and fed them to Scott while his favorite band, Radiohead, watched and laughed at him for being a giant crybaby (this was also a real episode of South Park in which Radiohead actually starred). Bart agrees that Cartman is much more extreme and lets him handle the producers. Extrapolation yields South Park’s comparison of itself to The Simpsons at large: the former is simply more extreme. In fact, this is a common complaint among those attracted to the genre: they simply cannot enjoy The Simpsons anymore because it is too tame compared to South Park and the way that show dares to make its points. If you can believe it, the multiple layers of meaning persist.

    As the first episode ends, the following questions are asked as a trailer for the next episode:

Will the cartoon be allowed to appear uncensored?

Will Family Guy be destroyed?

Will television executives fight for free speech?

Or will Comedy Central puss out?

Tune in to see part two of Family Guy next week on South Park!17

This summarizes only a fraction of the issues being dealt with in this episode: censorship, free speech, whether Comedy Central will air the image of Mohammed (not Fox since this is not really about them) and the silly notion of one cartoon’s next episode being aired on the other. Neglected here are other notions covered in this episode, including terrorism, religious respect, and tolerance.

Returning to our story, Kyle eventually arrives at Fox Studios, having been given a ride by a nice man, who explains that he likes Family Guy, including its random jokes, because “At least it doesn’t get all preachy and up its own ass with messages.” This is South Park’s way of digging at itself. This episode is drowning in serious, preachy messages (like so many others), and South Park recognizes that some people like disconnected jokes irrelevant to the plot and may get annoyed by South Park’s unwavering insistence upon delivering philosophical, moral and socially constructive messages in every episode. Despite some people’s problem with Family Guy humor (Cartman and Bart Simpson as synecdoches of their respective shows, for instance), South Park realizes that it too is disliked for its particular style.

As Kyle tries to get to the Fox President to convince him to air Family Guy, Cartman learns the dark secret about the Family Guy writing staff and why they are so insistent that the image of Mohammed be aired. As it turns out (brace yourself), the Family Guy writers are actually manatees who pick thought-balls out of their giant tank, each with a different word written on it: verbs, nouns and pop culture references. When enough balls are picked, other writers sling the words together in whatever fashion they can in order to create a random joke. These are manatee-jokes. This, South Park believes, is how a show like Family Guy gets its pointless and entirely un-germane humor.18 Cartman learns that if the image of Mohammed is censored, the manatees will stop working – something Fox does not want as Family Guy is their most popular show.19 The manatees firmly believe that either everything is okay to write about or that nothing is – an attitude South Park’s own writers highly respect. Manatees are the animal kingdom’s most ethical writers, we learn. Thus, censoring one Family Guy episode really will result in the destruction of the whole show.

As this takes place at Fox’s studios, all of America has literally started burying their heads in sand, fearing the Muslim response to a cartoon that features Mohammed. They believe that if their heads are in the sand they can disavow all knowledge of Family Guy’s insensitivity and distance themselves from all responsibility. South Park repeatedly emphasizes that people will believe in free speech but that they will not fight for it. It is easy to believe in something when no one challenges it, but when it comes time to defend what’s right, America is backing down.

    The episode climaxes after Kyle and Cartman fight and wrestle their way into the office of the Fox president. During this brawl they journey through Fox studios, past the writing staff of King of the Hill, another of the animated adult Fox television shows mentioned above. The two eventually find themselves standing before the president, trying to convince him that he should either cancel the show (Cartman) or air it uncensored (Kyle). Cartman threatens him with violence – terrorism, Kyle asserts – and Kyle explains that to do what is right, the president must resist threats and stand up for free speech, ultimately airing the image of Mohammed. Either everything is okay to write about, Kyle explains, or nothing is. This is, in fact, the hard line of South Park creators and writers, Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Numerous times during controversies of censorship, they contend that this is their firm belief. Indeed, when Kyle addresses the Fox president he calls him “Doug,” the actual name of the Comedy Central president, because South Park is trying to tell one of the men instrumental in getting their show on the air back in 1997 that he cannot cave into political pressures and censor their show. He must defend the first amendment and not “puss out.” Talk about getting preachy and up your own ass with messages.

In the name of what is right, the Fox President agrees to show the episode of Family Guy uncensored. When this fake episode actually airs on South Park the picture of Mohammed (handing a salmon-helmet to Peter Griffin) is censored by South Park’s own network, Comedy Central! Where Mohammed is supposed to be are the words, “Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network.” Comedy Central has officially pussed out.

    Interestingly, in the fifth season of South Park, Mohammed was an important character in an episode called “Super Best Friends” in which he shot fire from his hands and teamed up with Jesus, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Joseph Smith and Moses to defeat evil cult leaders with dishonest intentions. This episode was never censored. Moreover, the opening of South Park always pictures every character that has ever appeared on the show and therefore, from the fifth season on, a tiny image of Mohammed buried amidst hundreds of other characters has appeared at the start of every South Park episode. Those images were not censored before and have not been censored since. Comedy Central was simply scared to show an image of Mohammed in fear of potential backlash. Because within the context of that episode of South Park Family Guy did indeed air the image of Mohammed, we still get to see the response of an angry Muslim leader. In retaliation the Muslims broadcast a cartoon of Americans, including President George W. Bush and Jesus, shitting all over each other and on the American flag. This was not censored. Al-Jawari insists that his cartoon is funny, unlike Family Guy, because it is in context.

    The layers of meaning in this episode go beyond what has been recapped here. What we see, however, is more than enough to get a sense of South Park’s self awareness. They satirize three other animated adult shows – The Simpsons, Family Guy, and King of the Hill. This episode even mocks a show that appears within South Park, Terrance and Phillip; an episode of this fake show has an image of Mohammed censored as well! It is clear that South Park is picking on the big players in their genre. They differentiate themselves from Family Guy by emphasizing the style of humor and the fact that South Park has clear messages for every episode. Other than noting that South Park is a lot more extreme in the way it makes its point, South Park distances itself from other shows like The Simpsons and King of the Hill in a more subtle way. As Aaron Fortune says, South Park, rather than simply being a social commentary, is a show filled with social and moral messages. In other shows, we watch stories unfold about characters – the trials and tribulation of Homer Simpson and his crazy family, for example – and we learn by their actions and behaviors that this is a messed up family and that we do not want to be like them. If this is the all-American family, we are to think, we should strive to do better. Indeed, The Simpsons is a satire of the American family, emphasizing Americans’ lesser qualities and mocking them thoroughly. Thus, it is a social commentary.

    On the contrary, South Park is not presented in this fashion. It is true that we are taught not to emulate certain people. For instance, the moronic adults in the town who do not think or reason properly are portrayed as foolish and silly. Moreover, Cartman, the most evil of the boys, is clearly not a character to imitate.20 While this is one element of the show’s lessons, this is not the way it differentiates itself from other programs in this genre. The boys are constantly confronted with dilemmas and complicated adult situations: is stem cell research okay, should smoking be banned in all public places, must we vote in all elections, etc. In a Socratic fashion, the boys find themselves confronted with both extremes of any issue. They question back and forth between the poles, drawing out the fallacies of either side, often arriving at a moderate and centrist position – not one that equivocates, but one that shuns extremism and a claim on truth.21 Again, it is not the actual ideas that are eschewed but the extremists who propound them and who try to force others to live and believe as they do. Thus, the characters in the show are aware of the point of the show itself. They want us to get the point, and if we have missed anything, one of the boys will look straight into the camera at the end of the show and utter the ever familiar line, “You know, I’ve learned something today.” While occasionally spoofing themselves (like when the boys try desperately to derive a moral from a particularly confused and unclear situation), these messages are often profound and insightful.

    I believe that an animated television show is one of the only media in which one might successfully do what South Park does: comment upon so many issues in such an outrageous fashion while providing so many moral lessons about them. It is true that Trey Parker and Matt Stone could have just written a philosophy book or a book that was, effectively, a social commentary. They could have discussed all those issues they believed needed discussing, written what they thought and published a book. But who would have bought it? And how would their messages have come across? It is not necessarily that South Park has such a unique message. It doesn’t. It’s that it has found a medium that allows it to express its message in such a way that millions of people cannot help but pay attention. Television provides a potentially massive audience – numbers difficult for a book to reach (except for Harry Potter, apparently). Moreover, in a book, these lessons would not be derived from situational conflict (most likely) but simply written out as morals and thoughts. That is, philosophy, not satire. True, many people write satire successfully, thereby commenting upon their societies and expressing their beliefs. Think of Mark Twain, Jonathan Swift, and more recently, George Orwell. However, these books are like The Simpsons more than South Park.

By reading stories about the characters we can understand what is wrong with society, rather than working with characters that are aware of developments and seek for our sake to become better and more moral individuals. To echo the sentiments of Aaron Fortune, these books show us what should not be rather than what should. Moreover, such books are stuck in time. Sure, like the classical prophets, they continue to have relevance in our own day – who doesn’t still enjoy The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? – but they cannot be easily expanded when new and exciting issues arise in society that pose difficult challenges. An author could write another book, but not quickly and maybe not with the same characters (depending upon what happened to them in the previous work). South Park allows us to learn week to week with the same characters, further ingraining their patterns and habits so as to better teach us. South Park, as a computer animated television show, can also be written, produced, and ready for broadcasting within days. When Saddam Hussein was found in a rat hole, South Park aired an episode about that four days after his capture. Books don’t have this ability. Matt Stone has noted, though, that as far as satirizing specific events, timeliness is not South Park’s largest concern. He leaves that to another genre of television: late night talk shows. “The real timely stuff,” he says, “is more the Letterman/Leno, that's more their territory. We try to just take something that's going on and make this whole thing. I think that's kind of what makes those things impressive is like, 'Wow, that looks like something that could come out anytime and it just happens to do with [the news] this week.' It's not just like Terry Schiavo jokes, like Late Night in an animated form.”22

    In the world of print, certainly newspapers have a faster turnout, often publishing daily, but newspapers are not filled with moral lessons, and even when they are such lessons are not found in elaborate and satirical stories. Newspapers cover the news in a different way than South Park; newspapers are more concerned with the volume of news delivered than emphasizing one issue to make a greater point. The closest section to moralizing in a newspaper might be the editorial section.

Magazines are the only print media I can imagine that might be able to do something comparable to what South Park does. They can be published weekly, bi-weekly or monthly, which allows them to keep up with current issues. Moreover, they have the variety and depth to cover enough different topics. They still, however, generally lack interesting and engaging fiction stories with consistent moral lessons (except for perhaps Highlights, the greatest non-parental guidance a child can have). Magazines such as Mad Magazine or Crack, which constantly spoof celebrities, Hollywood and other segments of American society are the closest magazines to a social commentary, but even they do not use the same characters issue to issue – nor do they moralize. The issue of readership – like with a philosophy book – also arises with magazines. Television reaches millions instantly. Magazines simply do not.

    A final medium worth mentioning is the internet. Blogs are an exciting new forum that millions of people can access at once (although they rarely do, if ever), and they can be filled with whatever content the writer wishes. If she wants to tell stories and moralize, she can do so. However, this is probably not done visually (like in the form of an animated cartoon) and is again something that must be read. Fortunately, blogs at least overcome the issue of timing; since they can be updated any second, all issues can be covered.23

    In the end, though, South Park, as an animated television show aimed at adults, is able to outshine each of these other media. South Park is aired multiple times a day to audiences of millions of viewers. It is available on DVD and any episode can be found on the internet. Indeed, the creators encourage downloading their episodes off the internet, preferring that people see them that way rather than not at all. But a large audience and properly chosen platform are still not enough for success. It is the idea and approach behind South Park that make it so different. Using four boys instead of a family and animating them rather than filming real people is a winning combination, especially when those inquisitive children know that it is up to them to solve their problems and that they must learn valuable lessons in the process. Rather than being straightforward and realistic, the animated nature of the show allows outrageous things to happen so that we can laugh and have no doubts about the flaws in the arguments that are being presented to us. The boys’ awareness of their situation allows us to learn along with them and to investigate the problems of our society and how we might go about changing them. In the end, we must learn that extremism is often the wrong path, that we should never push our views on others, and that a little tolerance could go a long way. Sure, it may be a simple and trite message, but nobody conveys it like South Park.

Work Cited

Donnelly, Kevin, “Adult Animation (The Simpsons/South Park).” In The Television Genre Book,     edited by Glen Creeber, 73-75. London: British Film Institute, 2001.

Fortune, Aaron. “I Learned Something Today: South Park and the State of the Golden Mean in     the Twenty-First Century.” In South Park and Philosophy: Bigger, Longer, and More     Penetrating, by Richard Hanley, 259-269. Chicago: Open Court, 2007.

Hanley, Richard. South Park and Philosophy: Bigger, Longer, and More Penetrating. Chicago:     Open Court, 2007.

Hirsch, Paul M. and Newcomb, Horace M. “Television as a Cultural Forum: Implications for     Research.” In Interpreting Television: Current Research Perspectives, ed. by Willard     D. Rowland, Jr. and Bruce Warkins, 58-73. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1984.

Johnson-Woods, Toni. Blame Canada! South Park and Contemporary Culture. New York:     Continuum International Publishing Group, 2007.

Mittell, Jason. Genre and Television: From Cop Shows to Cartoons in American Culture New     York: Routledge, 2004.

Neale, Steve and Turner, Graeme. “Introduction: What is Genre?” In The Television Genre Book,     edited by Glen Creeber, 1-7. London: British Film Institute, 2001.

Blog

Donate

Home          Contact          FAQ          Buy          Blog          Mailing List

Get The Zen of South Park

Copyright © 2009 The Zen of South Park 2009. All rights reserved.