NOVA University of Newcastle Research Online nova.newcastle.edu.au

Gibb, Dirk. ‘Flying to a quiet mountain town upon a dung beetle: Aristophanic elements in South Park’. Originally published LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken, Germany. ISBN: 9783659505348 (2013)

Available from: https://www.lap-publishing.com/catalog/details//store/gb/book/978-3-659- 50534-8/flying-to-a-quiet-mountain-town-upon-a-dung-beetle

Accessed from: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1041237

Flying To A Quiet Mountain Town Upon A Dung Beetle:

Aristophanic Elements in South Park

By Dirk Gibb.

1

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements 4

CHAPTER ONE; INTRODUCTION TO ARISTOPHANIC ELEMENTS IN SOUTH PARK 7

CHAPTER TWO; ANALYSIS; ARISTOPHANIC ELEMENTS IN SOUTH PARK

2.1: STRUCTURE 9

2.2: FANTASTICAL ELEMENTS 16

2.3 “RECREATIVITY” AND DECONSTRUCTIONIST AWARENESS

20

2.4 STEREOTYPICAL DEPICTIONS OF NATIONALITIES AND WOMEN 27

2.5: BAWDY HUMOUR AND EXPLICIT LANGUAGE 40

2.6: PUNS/WORDPLAY 50

2.7: PARRHESIA/FREE SPEECH 54

2.8: RELIGION 64

2.9: POLITICS 72

2.10: PARA-TRAGEDY AND INTERTEXTUALITY 83

CHAPTER THREE; CONCLUSION TO ARISTOPHANIC ELEMENTS IN SOUTH PARK 96 2

APPENDIX: LITERATURE REVIEW

1 Aristophanes and South Park 99

2 Aristophanes 100

3 South Park 108

Bibliography/Works Cited 120

3

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My thanks, first of all, go to Conjoint Professor Michael Ewans, of the School of Humanities and Social Science at the University of Newcastle, my friend and supervisor. Over the course of the last three years, he has been a tireless and patient font of advice, encouragement and information – including enabling the University to obtain a copy of the 2012 book Deconstructing South Park, edited by Brian Cogan - and my gratitude knows no bounds. An undergraduate course of his that I took in 2010, pertaining to the Aristophanic tradition within dramatic and cinematic comedy, was the initial inspiration for my thesis, and I hope that I have given my expansion upon the connection between Aristophanes and the creation of Trey Parker and Matt Stone justice. As if this was not enough, Professor Ewans also enabled correspondence with Ms. Cathryn Vasseleu, Dr. Alan Cholodenko and Dr. Jodi Brooks, which was of extreme aid in helping me finish my paper. Ms. Vasseleu, of the University of Technology, Sydney, kindly led me in the direction of the complete bibliography of Professor Paul Wells, of the School of the Arts, Loughborough University, England, which was of great help to me in the initial stages of my research. Dr. Cholodenko, of the Department of Art History and Film Studies at the University of Sydney, provided some extremely helpful pointers on animation theory, as pertaining to South Park, and was instrumental in eliciting bibliographical recommendations, as regards academic discourse upon South Park, from Dr. Lisa Bode, of the School of English, Media Studies and Art History at the University of Queensland, Dr. Amy Ratelle of the Department of Communication and Culture at Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada and Professor Wells. All of them have my genuine gratitude. Dr. Brooks, of the School of English, Media and Performing Arts at the University of New South Wales, offered 5 valuable tidbits on thinking about cable television (especially cult television) within an academic framework, and allowed me to think outside the box as relates to the structure of an Honours thesis, without which I would have felt more helpless during my initial Honours year. Dr. Gillian Arrighi, Emeritus Professor Victor Emeljanow and Mr. Brian Joyce, of the School of Drama, Fine Art and Music at the University of Newcastle, organised, during the first half of 2012, a weekly meeting for all Honours, Masters Degree and Ph.D students in CAPA, which permitted valuable trading of ideas about the continuing scholarly process, along with feedback concerning all of our research, and they have my grateful appreciation. None of my findings would have been possible, however, without the talented and tireless efforts of the staff at the University’s Auchmuty Library – long may they thrive.

Fellow Arts students of mine at the University of Newcastle, past and present, all of whom I count amongst my dear friends, proved themselves to be ports in a storm. John Wood provided me with copies of both the Season Four episode of South Park, “Trapper Keeper”, and the 2011 Comedy Central documentary 6 Days To Air: The Making of South Park. Myles Ashley, Rebecca Apps, Matt Baird, Mike Butcher, Hannah Cashman, Dean Blackford, Luke Carroll, Tim Chaston, Mitchell Cox, Greg Gorton, Carl Gregory, Cassie Hart, Cathy Heyne, Peter Hoolihan, Melissa Howarth, Rachel Jackett, Glen Johnson, Simone Price, Emily Roberts, Jesse Robertson, Owen Sherwood, Michael Waples, Kel White, Nicholas Williams, Leezee Wilson and Ashlee Woolnough were all instrumental in not just providing an environment of support and validation, but also allowed me to have a home away from home, of sorts, for rest and relaxation when a well-deserved break was needed. They have my deepest love and thanks. Dr. Carl Caulfield (free-lance scholar) and Ms. Felicity Biggins of the School of Design, Communication and IT at the University 6 of Newcastle, straddled both camps, in their gracious sociability and words of reinforcement and advice concerning both this project and plans for future post-graduate work. Finally, a great debt of love and gratefulness goes out to my parents, Paul and Linda Gibb, my siblings, Melissa and Jason Gibb, my grandparents, Peter and Julie Gibb and Nancy Marchant, my uncle and aunt, Ron and Michelle Bijen and my cousins, James and Gordon Bijen and Heather Walker, for their backing, interest, patience, understanding and general being there for me. To everyone herein mentioned, I could not have done this without you, and I alone bear full responsibility for any accidental omissions (along with my honest apologies) in these acknowledgements.

7

CHAPTER ONE; INTRODUCTION TO ARISTOPHANIC ELEMENTS IN SOUTH PARK

Aristophanes, the renowned ancient Athenian comic playwright, and Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of the contemporary American animated television program South Park, lived and worked over 2000 years apart. Despite this, I shall argue that South Park is firmly positioned within the lineage of Aristophanic humour. While Parker and Stone, in interviews, public statements and audio commentaries for DVD releases, have never claimed a direct Aristophanic influence (or even acknowledged an acquaintance with the poet), the spirit of Aristophanic comedy, and Aristophanes’ aims to educate and challenge spectators at Attic festivals, as well as amusing them, are indirectly to be found in South Park, from its first season (1997-8) up to and including its current sixteenth season (2012).

My topic is significant because it is largely unrepresented in academic literature, with the exception of Katrina Bondari, and passing references in the works of Toni Johnson-Woods and Paul A. Cantor. This is in contrast to the Francois Rabelais/Mikhail Bakhtin influence of the “carnivalesque” in South Park, which has achieved much more scholarly attention from writers such as Johnson-Woods.

The research method is based on the an assumption that a close viewing of individual episodes of South Park, together with a studious analysis of Aristophanes’ eleven extant comedies, will allow kindred forms of humour, story/thematic content and literary/televisual approaches to be proved. 8

These elements encompass structure, fantastical elements, “recreativity” and deconstructionist awareness, stereotypical depictions of nationalities and women, bawdy humour, wordplay, parrhesia/free speech (including lampoons of notable personalities), religion and political satire. Additionally, mythical/literary inspiration for Aristophanes, in the form of tragic playwrights such as Euripides and Sophokles, will be included to showcase para-tragedy. This is relevant, I feel, because parody and tragic pastiche served the same purpose in Aristophanes as Parker and Stone’s deployment of their popular cultural context: intertextuality serves to subversively treat elements of the familiar in a humorous manner, permitting greater pleasure for audiences, and encouraging them to engage with stories, plays, films, television programs and video games in new and interesting ways. Such common practices will comprise a substantial portion of my thesis, and highlight that Parker and Stone are at one with Aristophanes in being uncompromisingly irreverent, politically incorrect and daring in their artistic approaches, and allows us to view late twentieth- and early-twenty-first century United States comedy through the prism of ancient Greek drama

9

CHAPTER TWO; ANALYSIS; ARISTOPHANIC ELEMENTS IN SOUTH PARK

2.1: STRUCTURE.

Aristophanic structure; the ‘Great Idea’

Aristophanes’ comedies have a particular structure. This structure, however, was malleable, and provided scope for variation in specific comedies (Ewans: 2012: 8-9). The hero (in Lysistrata and Assemblywomen the heroine) has a “Great Idea”, which aims to rectify an unpalatable aspect of the protagonist’s environment (Arrowsmith: 1973: 137). For instance, in Acharnians, Dikaiopolis, a rural dweller, misses his prior existence, before the Peloponnesian War (de Ste. Croix: 1972: 50 & 64) between Athens, Sparta and their respective confederates forced him behind Athens’ walls (26-36)1.

After this “Great Idea” is identified, the hero, with resolve, seeks to solve the problem through fantastical means, rendered as entirely plausible in the context of the play (Robson: 2009: 11-12). For example, Dikaiopolis manages, after being stymied by corrupt Assemblymen (40-173), to broker a separate peace with Sparta via a thirty-year treaty, represented by a wine bottle proffered by a Demigod (175-203)2.

The Aristophanic Agōn

1 Cf. Peace (93-4, 103 & 105), Lysistrata (26-41 & 99-112) and Frogs (66-103).

2 Cf. Peace (150-78), Lysistrata (119-238) and Frogs (180-270). 10

In an episodic structure, an agōn (contest) pitted the hero against obstacles to achieving his aim, before he emerged victorious (Cartledge: 1990: 17; McLeish: 1980: 50) – an “argument”, as McLeish also terms it (McLeish: 1980: 51). These were linked to continuing episodes featuring parties conniving to either ruin or exploit the hero’s goal (some plays, such as Knights, Clouds and Frogs, had further agōnes in these sections). After Dikaiopolis tastes the appropriate treaty, a choros (or chorus) of elderly Acharnians, whose town, Acharnai, had been ravaged by the Spartans in 431 (MacDowell: 1995: 48), chastise the hero as a ‘traitor” (290; tr. Ewans 2012, 54) for his concessions (280-324), before Dikaiopolis employs a bucket of charcoal as a hostage (331-51) (the Acharnians made their living from charcoal extraction from the forests around Mount Parnes [MacDowell: 1995: 48]), and utilises rhetoric (with the aid of Euripides, 405-479) against the choros and the general Lamachos (490-627), managing to change the Acharnians’ opinions in his favour3.

The Parabasis in Aristophanes

A parabasis was typically performed about half way through the play. It allowed the choros to directly address spectators, in character but independent of the actual scenario; this device gave poets the option of disseminating their “authentic voices.” Such voices could delve into current events, or state a claim for the poet’s artistic worth (Dover: 1972: 49-52). In the case of Aristophanes, his earlier works, such as Acharnians, contain notable examples. In Acharnians (625-718) Aristophanes highlights his worth in honestly enlightening the city, voices defiance against the demagogue Kleon’s litigation against himself (Cartledge: 1990: xvi), and

3 Cf. Peace (197-219, 371, 458-519, 1051-1125 & 1210-64), Lysistrata (486-612, 708-61 & 980-1188) and Frogs (606-72 & 830-1471). 11 demonstrates concern for the situation of survivors from the “Good Old Days” against the Persian Empire (Robson: 2009: 92-6 & 172)4.

The concluding Kōmos in Aristophanes

At the conclusion, kōmoi of satisfied celebration mark the significance of the achievement of the hero’s aims. For example, Acharnians juxtaposes Dikaiopolis’ triumphant procession, at the “festival of wine” (1211; tr. Ewans 2012, 87), complete with two girls (they are asked to hold his [presumably erect] prick ‘about midway’ at 1217; tr. Ewans 2012, 88) with Lamachos’ pain over his wounded body and deflated military pride (1172- 1233)5.

The ‘Great Idea’ in South Park

South Park has also featured individual episodes that possess a similar structure, whether or not this is a deliberate decision on the part of creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. However, the variation in this structure is, arguably, even more considerable than in Aristophanes. “Death” (S1E6, 1997), has two “Great Ideas.” One of them is personal, with extreme ramifications for the hero’s family – Grandpa Marvin Marsh, having reached the age of 102, decides, at his birthday, to end his life, and wants his grandson, Stan, to kill him. The other “Great Idea” is done from a misguided sense of altruism and social betterment. Carol Broflovski (later renamed Sheila) catches her son, Kyle, watching Terrance and Phillip, and is appalled by its constant scatological humour. She organises the parents of South Park to boycott Cartoon Central6.

The agōn and parabasis in South Park

4 Cf. Knights (507-610), Peace (729-818 & 1127-90), Lysistrata (mini-example, 638-58) and Frogs (673-737). 5 Cf. Peace (1318-63), Lysistrata (1215-1320) and Frogs (1481-1532). 6 Cf. also “Red Sleigh Down” (S6E17), “Smug Alert” (S10E2) and “Sexual Healing” (S14E1). 12

Agōnes are represented in various ways in South Park7, frequently pitting two opposing factions of unequal worth against each other – like the “lopsided” agōn in Lysistrata, (Ewans: 2010: 237) - and are not always structured in a rhetorical set-piece. “Death” sees Stan initially refuse to euthanize his grandfather, and the old man’s taunts of his grandson and his friends (“pecker”, “you pompous son-of-a-whore!”) are reminiscent of verbal battles of abuse, such as those between Agorakritos and Paphlagon in Knights (lines 279-301 & 361-81), although in “Death” the effect is one- sided, as Stan doesn’t curse Marvin in response. Marvin brings Stan around to his way of thinking by playing him a “terrible […] cheesy, but lame and eerily soothing” tape of Irish Celtic singer Enya, (“now you know what it feels like to be Grandpa”), but, before the boys can put Marvin out of his misery, Death arrives to both claim Kenny and convince Marvin of the error of his ways, via a plea from Marvin’s grandfather, stuck in limbo, whom Marvin had euthanized as a boy. Meanwhile, the lethal slingshot (after the President of the network reads out his prepared statement: “Fuck you!”) combines both the fantastical means and the agon for this episode, before Cartoon Central accedes to the protestors’ demands8.

Kyle’s parabaseis are not always straightforward, in the sense that they are sometimes delivered in an unusual manner that lends them an extra comic weight. In “Starvin’ Marvin in Space” (S3E13, 1999), the boys manage to transport starving Ethiopian Marvin and his fellow villagers via an abandoned spaceship to the lush planet of Marklar, where the inhabitants have replaced, in their otherwise English speech, all nouns with the word “marklar” – to demonstrate that this isn’t confusing to the race, Marklar, leader of the Marklar, calls out the assembled throng of Marklars, “Hey, Marklar!” only to have an orange-robed member of the throng respond “Yes?” During the course of the episode, the boys and Marvin’s village

7 Cf. “Douche and Turd” (S8E8) and “I’m a Little Bit Country” (S7E4). 8 Cf. “Red Sleigh Down” (S6E17), “Smug Alert!” (S10E2) and “Sexual Healing” (S14E1). 13 have been pursued by Christian missionaries, who have previously tried to convert the Ethiopians, and US government agents, who wish to possess the space craft. At the conclusion, interrupting an argument between the zealous missionaries (who wish to spread the word of Christ to the Marklars) and the boys, Kyle convinces Marklar to welcome the Ethiopians to their new home:

“Wait. Wait. I think I can explain this whole thing. Marklar, these marklars [indicating the missionaries] want to change your marklar. They don't want Marklar or any of these marklars [the Ethiopians] to live here because it's bad for their marklar [the work of the missionaries, and/or the salvation of the Ethiopians’ souls, according to the Christians’ dogma]. They use Marklar to try and force marklars to believe they're marklar. If you let them stay here, they will build marklars and marklars. They will take all your marklars and replace them with Marklar. These marklar have no good marklar to live on Marklar, so they must come here to Marklar. Please, let these marklars stay where they can grow and prosper without any marklars, marklars, eh or marklars.”

While silly, this exchange demonstrates that Kyle can tailor his moral consciousness; he can accommodate the host population of (in this instance) a civilisation of alternate intelligent life, as opposed to the intransigent faith of the missionaries, whose terrestrial history of often- culturally chauvinistic preaching and conversion in the context of empire (Cox: 2008: 3-6; Robert: 2009: 87-93) will, at least for now, not be spread beyond the stars.

Kōmoi in South Park

At the conclusion of “Red Sleigh Down” (S6E17, 2002), all those gathered at the town celebration cheer for the freed Santa’s relighting of the Christmas tree and dedication of the preservation of the holiday to the 14 memory of Jesus, who was killed by the Iraqis. In this public context, Santa speaks:

“Christmas is a very special time of year, but... this year it almost didn't happen. There's a man named Jesus who gave his life to save me. And so I declare that every year on Christmas Day, we should remember Jesus for what he did, and thank him for it. From now on, Christmas will be a day for remembering a brave man named Jesus.”

The holy, New Testament origins of Christmas, and the symbol of the festive season – combined with the consumerist ethos of Christmas that emerged in the United States from the end of the nineteenth century (Restad: 1996: vii & 155-7) – are here reversed, highlighting, in public rhetoric, the priorities for many people in late December of every year (Bondari: 2010: 67).

Reconciliations are a vital aspect of comedy (Aristotle, Poetics 1453a35), but, as has been outlined, these reconciliations can be complicated, and characters do die by the hands of others. Kenny is perhaps the most iconic example – although, after staying deceased for nearly a whole season, until the conclusion of “Red Sleigh Down”, his deaths became less frequent (although still occasionally occurring, as at the conclusion of “The Poor Kid” (S15E14, 2011) and “I Should Have Never Gone Ziplining” (S16E6, 2012). His slayings are famously followed by his friends’ outcry:

STAN: Oh my God, they/you/he/she/I/we killed Kenny!

KYLE: You bastard/s!

The choros

The equivalent in South Park of Attic drama’s choros is usually the media (in this case, the television news), which not only contextualises individual episodes “in the public interest” and tracks the progress of issues – from 15

South Park’s first episode “Cartman Gets An Anal Probe” (S1E1, 1997), through “Child Abduction Is Not Funny” (S6E11, 2002), “Two Days Before The Day After Tomorrow (S9E8, 2005)”, “Smug Alert!” (S10E2, 2006) and “The F Word” (S13E12, 2009) – but also prods characters into plot progressions, via seeming to address viewers personally. This is usually attained through the hysterical nature of broadcasts. In “Child Abduction Is Not Funny”, the anchors narrow down suspicious parties liable to abduct children from strangers to family friends to parents themselves9.

Conclusion

In summary, South Park uses each of the main structural features of Aristophanic comedy as follows. The fantasy idea is often rooted in societal fears over morality, and attempts to regulate it (a la the parents’ lobbying in “Death”). At other times, the overzealous following of a “righteous cause” by an unthinking population (the paranoid parents in “Child Abduction is Not Funny”) has unintended consequences. During all of these events, the pre-pubescent boys of South Park are thrust into roles and situations well beyond their years, which would be unlikely, or impossible, to come to pass in reality. The agōn, as opposed to the rhetoric- based contests between opposing parties in Aristophanes, advocating their viewpoints, may employ insults (on the part of Grandpa Marsh, one-sided, in “Death”, and the dismissal of Enya in the same episode), but is more often a site for fantastical elements featuring physical displays of stupidity or bravery (the slingshot martyrs and Death in “Death”).

The parabasis is employed noticeably by Kyle, as for example in “Death” (partnered with Stan), and this voices Parker and Stones’ viewpoints concerning issues that are raised during the relevant episodes. In the kōmos,

9 Cf. “Two Days Before The Day After Tomorrow” (S9E8). 16 however, the adults, however, such as the parents in “Death” (thwarted by the irony of She’s The Sheriff [1987-9]), fail to grasp the appropriate lesson. Celebrations take place inside private homes, or in public in the case of “Red Sleigh Down”, but, with the exception of the children, there is no real sense that a progression in collective wisdom has occurred; on the contrary, there is a real sense that the dysfunctions inherent in the world of South Park will continue come the next episode. As for the choros, the media in “Child Abduction Is Not Funny”, and social/town meetings in “Cartoon Wars Part 1” (S10E3, 2006), contextualise, track the progress of and shape reactions to issues relevant to the town, even if the end result (“Cartoon Wars Part 1”) is absurd. Aristophanes cocooned his comedies in a structure of a “Great Idea” leading to an agōn, parabasis and kōmos, with a choros taking an integral part in commenting upon the action, although such components weren’t set in stone, and could be varied. Likewise, Parker and Stone borrow certain Athenian traditions in plotting their scenarios, but leave plenty of space for variety before the kōmos (or lack thereof).

2.2: FANTASTICAL ELEMENTS.

Fantastical elements are firmly embedded in Aristophanes’ oeuvre. Trygaios’ interaction with Hermes and War in Peace, after reaching Olympos upon his dung beetle, and Dikaiopolis’ enjoyment of his liquid treaty in Acharnians have already been mentioned. However, Aristophanes employed choroi in other plays that were replete with characteristics aside from those of mortal humans, especially the twenty-four different species of Bird in Birds. When South Park employs fantastical settings or creatures, allegory co-exists with more overt politics and re-workings of popular-cultural tropes. “Do The Handicapped Go To Hell?” and its sequel “Probably” (S4E9-10, 2000) depicts a Hell where new arrivals are 17 bureaucratically welcomed (Bondari: 2010: 65-7), and treated to special events such as “Luau Sunday”, and Satan has to contend with his feelings for his ex-lover, Saddam Hussein, while in a new relationship with extra- sensitive Chris10. Metrosexuality, as encouraged by Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (2003-7) (S7E8, 2003), is revealed in “South Park is Gay!” to be a distraction allowing an ancient race of “Crab People” (masquerading as the hosts of Queer Eye) to subjugate humanity, before the Crabs are killed by the South Park wives. (Later, in “Two Days Before The Day After Tomorrow”, the government blamed these creatures for the Beaverton flooding, before Stan’s admission.)

An engagement with “low comedy” (and the intersection of Rabelaisian- via-Bakhtin “bodily excess” with South Park [Thompson: 2009: 221]) marks the first appearance in South Park of “outer space/science fiction” settings and characters, in the inaugural episode, “Cartman Gets An Anal Probe” (S1E1, 1997). This is a reflection of the popularity of science- fiction texts since the nineteenth century, initially through the fiction of writers such as Jules Verne and H. G. Wells, then through the medium of motion pictures and television up until the present day (Stableford: 2003: 20-1 & 24-6; Bould: 2003: 85-95), and also through twentieth-century conspiracy theories about “visitors”, such as a supposed US government cover-up of an alien spaceship crash-landing in Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947 (Birnes: 2010: 150-4). In “Cartman Gets An Anal Probe”, elongated, white aliens kidnap a sleeping Cartman, insert a massive satellite dish into his anus (his farts also cause objects and people near him to burst into flame) and kidnap Ike, Kyle’s baby brother. At the conclusion of the episode, after the satellite dish attracts the aliens’ spacecraft, Ike returns to his family and the visitors communicate with South Park’s cows, complimenting them as the Earth’s most intelligent creatures.

10 Cf. South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut and “A Ladder To Heaven” (S6E12). 18

Such an attitude towards humanity either posits the inhabitants of South Park as symptomatic of humanity’s unappealing traits, or puts them front and centre in influencing the remainder of Earth’s population to shape alternative life forms’ opinions of the human species11.

South Park’s fantastical element can be expanded, due to its being an animated television program, rather than a play reliant upon the physical, “grounding” components of masks (in the original Attic context), costume and stagecraft (Henderson: 1996: 15-20) . While there are special-effects set pieces in Aristophanes, such as Trygaios’ flight upon his dung-beetle in Peace, these sequences in various South Park episodes are more frequent and greatly expanded. Their presence reflects the ubiquity of “summer blockbuster” in US cinematic culture, extravaganzas so beloved by Hollywood since the 1970s (King: 2007: 49-59; Langford: 2010: 233-42). Demonstrations of animated special effects, in a destructive mode, began as far back as the first season, with the volcanic eruption in “Volcano” (S1E2, 1997) interrupting the hunting expedition undertaken by the boys, under the guardianship of Stan’s uncle Jimbo and Jimbo’s Vietnam War buddy, Ned. The “disaster” movies Dante’s Peak and Volcano (both 1997) show as strong influences on this episode, in the reactions of the townsfolk (including Randy, as a geologist) to the impending disaster, and the actions of those caught up in the disaster (the hunters) in order to survive - the creators also wanted to be irreverent against what they considered sub-par film-making (Parker and Stone: 2007)12.

Conclusion

South Park utilises fantastical elements in the following manner. Interactions with sexuality, framed through the prism of popular cultural

11 Cf. “Starvin’ Marvin In Space” (S3E13), “Cancelled” (S7E1), “Pinewood Derby” (S13E6) and “A History Channel Thanksgiving” (S15E13). 12 Cf. “Mecha-Streisand” (S1E12), “Pandemic” (S12E10) and “Pandemic 2: The Startling” (S12E11). 19

“fads” (“South Park is Gay!” [S7E8]), allow for politics and of popular- cultural tropes to be more explicitly handled and tweaked than in Aristophanes, just as the stand-alone sub-plot of “Do The Handicapped Go To Hell?” (S4E9) and “Probably” (S4E10) questions societal constructions of Heaven, Earth and Hell. Anthropomorphised creatures are divested of their “cuteness”, in such episodes as “Woodland Critter Christmas”, and infused with “adult” (often negative) human traits such as psychopathological tendencies, working against assumptions about animated creatures.

Science-fiction themes, in such episodes as “Cartman Gets An Anal Probe”, posit the adult residents of South Park as exhibiting unattractive aspects of their species, at times influencing other humans to follow their example, and deterring alien life forms from positive relations with Earth. Lastly, South Park takes advantage of its electronic medium, as opposed to Aristophanes’ live theatre, to utilise grand special effects sequences in such episodes as “Volcano.” These sequences echo similar scenes of spectacle in contemporary Hollywood blockbuster product, and Parker and Stone employ these techniques to pass judgement on popular culture, condemning contemporary commercial product that they consider inferior in the case of “Volcano”. Parker and Stone prove that, although they do employ tropes of realism, and close in upon “factual” specifics in their satirical thrust, they are not always “down to Earth.” Aristophanes makes great use of fantastical elements, in his dealings with mythology and the gods, as a process of increasing his comic arsenal and sustaining dramatic interest. In the same vein, Parker and Stone employ the freedom of the animated form (often inspired by, yet, at the same time, travestying, popular culture) to let their satirical imaginations run wild, incorporating realms (such as science fiction) that were, naturally, unexplored by the Attic comic poets.

20

2.3 “RECREATIVITY” AND DECONSTRUCTIONIST AWARENESS

Discontinuity of characterisation refers, in fiction, to lapses in the “believability” of a character, where conversations and actions on their part that would be met with puzzlement or indignant responses in reality are ignored, treated as ordinary conversation or set up as “feeds” for humour (Dover: 1972: 59; Robson: 2009: 65). This is related to the concept of “recreativity”, where thoughts/motivations pertaining to “real” people are avoided by Aristophanes’ dramatis personae (Silk: 2005: 212; Robson: 2009: 77-82). There are numerous examples of character discontinuity in Aristophanes’ surviving plays. In Lysistrata, before the women summoned by the heroine assemble, there is this exchange between Lysistrata and Kalonike:

LYSISTRATA: Kalonike, my heart is burning/and I’m very upset with us women/because all the men think we are very devious –

KALONIKE: - and they’re right –

LYSISTRATA: - but when I told them to come here to make plans about something really important/they’re sleeping in; they are not coming (9-15; tr. Ewans 2010, 55).

For a supposed confederate, Kalonike reveals a distinct lack of faith in Lysistrata’s frame of mind that leads to her eventual sex-strike, but, rather than silence on Kalonike’s part, or interrogation on Lysistrata’s part, the scene continues, with the aside being overlooked. In Wasps, an extended scene of absurd, physical comedy sees Lovecleon attempt to escape from his confinement at the hands of Loathecleon and the slaves by hiding under a donkey that the younger man intends to sell at the market (169-82). Uncovered by Loathecleon and Xanthias, Lovecleon, instead of being 21 immediately reprimanded, is delayed in his scolding by a routine that parodies Odysseus’ lie to the Cyclops in Homer’s Odyssey (Homer: Book 9, 407-60), with the older man claiming to be “Noman, the Ithakan, Son of Escapides”, and acting more bemused than livid that his escape has been thwarted (183-95; tr. Henderson 2000, 245-7).

Recreativity is also apparent in South Park. In “Something You Can Do with Your Finger” (S4E8, 2000), Randy is shown, via flashback, as an eighteen-year old boy band member during the 1980s. However, in “Die, Hippie, Die” (S9E2, 2005), Randy and Sharon are depicted, again via flashback, as young hippies at Woodstock in 196913.

A lack of stability in the ages of characters is not the only element of recreativity in South Park. A lack of commitment by characters to their motivations is apparent in “Ass Burgers” (S15E8, 2011). In “Ass Burgers”, Stan, after being mistakenly diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, discovers that his Group Therapy Centre is actually a front for guerrillas, based upon characters in The Matrix (1999), intent on proving that the world has really turned into fecal matter and postulating that a supernatural force is fooling the world’s population. The complicated explanation of the situation in The Matrix is parodied, however, by the freedom fighters presenting, not a fully-fleshed, unswerving belief in their cause, but rather, a surly indifference in their ignorance:

MORPHEUS: We are the Secret Society of Cynics. [He walks off a bit and sighs] Everything looks like shit to you, right? What if I were to tell you... that you're seeing the world the way it actually is?

STAN: Huh?

13 Cf. “You Have O Friends” (S14E4), “You’re Getting Old” (S15E7) and “Cash for Gold” (S16E2). 22

MORPHEUS: The world around us has all completely turned to shit. But aliens are putting out a brainwave that keeps most people seeing a false reality.

STAN: Aliens?

MORPHEUS: Or robots from the future, whatever. The point is they need to keep everyone in a blissful state of ignorance.

NEO 2: Yeah. Everything used to be awesome and cool, but now everything's gone to shit and nobody knows except us!

NEO: Yeah!

STAN: Because of aliens? [He crosses his arms]

MORPHEUS: Or genetically altered humans, whatever, fuck you! All that matters is that you are the key to bringing this whole thing down14.

Apart from recreativity, factual inaccuracies relating to cultural trends and politics represent another lapse in the “believability” and “reality” of South Park’s world view, which is surprising, considering Parker and Stone’s normally sharp eye on their socio-cultural/political context (Arp: 2007: 1). “Pinewood Derby” (S13E6, 2009) puts Randy in the position of negotiating with the leaders of the world, including the Prime Minister of Australia. Here, John Howard filled that role, but by the time the episode aired in 2009, Howard had been replaced by Kevin Rudd for over 16 months. Howard’s public profile in the United States as a vocal supporter of President George W. Bush’s “War On Terror” (Johnston: 2007) may have been the reason for this decision15.

14 Cf. “A History Channel Thanksgiving” (S15E13). 15 Cf. the instructional video illustrating the dangers of “Tebowing”, dated to 2010, a year before the craze began (Jones: 2011; Barry: 2012), in “Faith Hilling” (S16E3). 23

Deconstructionist dialogue is common in Aristophanes. As a breaking down of the theatrical illusion, it was almost never practised in Greek tragedy. It was, however a frequent feature of comedy (Ewans: 2010: 7). Clouds has Strepsiades complaining to Socrates that he cannot see the choros “on the march”, until the sophist points them out “In the wings!” (324-6; tr. Henderson 2000, 51-3), thereby acknowledging the theatrical playing space16.

Deconstructionist dialogue is less noticeable in South Park, as an episode isn’t a “live” performance as was an Athenian comedy. From Seasons 6 until 11, the opening credits commenced with a pair of live-action hands constructing characters and backgrounds, first over a writer’s easel and board, then over the backgrounds. Deconstructionist dialogue in South Park is confined to acknowledging the typical structure of an individual episode.

For example, in “Butt Out” (S7E13, 2003), the boys, after being caught smoking, blame the tobacco companies for influencing them, so as to escape punishment for accidently burning down their school. Kyle, however, recognises that the situation – conflict between South Park and a wider issue – will spin out of control, and he tries to get his friends to confess the truth:

KYLE: You guys, maybe we should come clean right now and tell everyone that it wasn't the tobacco companies that made us want to smoke.

Stan: Hwat??

CARTMAN: Why? It's perfect. If everyone's blaming the tobacco companies, then nobody's blaming us.

STAN: Yeah, what's the problem?

16 Cf. Frogs (1-20) and Peace (173-4). 24

KYLE: Well it's just that, eh, this seems like another one of those times when things are gonna get way out of hand, you know? It's been happening a lot lately. How about this time we just put a stop to it right now?

CARTMAN: Dumbass, you don't wanna be grounded for three weeks, do you?

STAN: Yeah, don't worry dude. Things aren't gonna get out of hand.

The anti-tobacco campaign, spearheaded by actor and filmmaker Rob Reiner, does reveal itself as a fascist abridging of individual liberties, with the corpulent spokesperson willing to kill Cartman and blame his death on second-hand smoke. Later in the episode, Kyle predicts the outcome of the episode’s climax:

“This is just startin' to look like another one of those times where it, it's gonna end up with the whole town turning out, it's a big showdown happening, and us havin' to talk about what we learned, and I say we just stop right now, and go play cards or something.”

After Reiner is vanquished, and the boys are grounded, Stan adds, philosophically, and in an about-face, “Well, we guess we learned our lesson.” Kyle’s prediction – as – response, “No we didn’t, dude! No we didn’t”, is an admission that the characters in South Park will not fundamentally change, and will repeat their same patterns of behaviour in future episodes17.

In Acharnians, Aristophanes gave audiences a preview of the vitriolic attack upon Kleon that would constitute Knights – “I hate you even more than Kleon, whom/I’m going to flay to make shoe leather for our Knights” (300-1; tr. Ewans 2012, 54). Euripides’ In-Law, in The Women’s Festival, performs a parody of the child hostage scene in Euripides’ Telephos (689-

17 Cf. “Pandemic” (S12E10) and “You’re Getting Old” (S15E7). 25

759), with a wine bladder, which is very similar to Dikaiopolis’ burlesque with a bucket of charcoal in Acharnians; but there is no indication, via dialogue or action, that there is any knowledge of the link between these two parodies, 14 years apart. There are no recognitions of déjà vu, or “call- backs”, in the scenarios of Aristophanes’ extant comedies. Euripides does appear in three play, but he acts in the last of these, Frogs, as if Dikaiopolis’ interruption, and his own schemes to rescue his In-Law, – his past in his theatrical “context” – never happened. South Park, on the other hand, is an animated satire whose large group of characters, titular and recurrent setting – despite all the geographical wandering that occurs – and action/humour based on characters and situation lends the show the qualities of both drama and situation comedy, although South Park is much more fantastical and surreal than many other “sitcoms.” After 16 years and counting, it is obvious that many links can be made to realising that the residents of South Park have a dysfunction – they are unable to truly learn from their mistakes.

Conclusion

Discontinuity of character, or “recreativity”, is highly prevalent in the dramatis personae of Attic Old Comedy. While it made characters less “realistic” (in a psychologically plausible manner), it gave great scope for comic possibilities, and added to the fantastical nature of Aristophanes’ oeuvre. Kalonike, in Lysistrata, contradicts her loyalties out loud. In Wasps, Lovecleon attempts to escape underneath a donkey, before being uncovered by Loathecleon and Xanthias, thereby permitting the groundwork to be set for part of the ancient Greek literary canon to be satirised. These examples are dialogue-based – even the business with the donkey in Wasps leads up to verbal sparring.

South Park’s discontinuity of characterisation could, like that of Aristophanes, be classified as continuity errors. The ages of the parents in 26

“Something You Can Do with Your Finger” (S4E8) and “Die, Hippie, Die” (S9E2) fluctuate, alongside character motivations. Unstable character motivations in “Ass Burgers” (S15E8) parody complicated conspiracy theories in films such as The Matrix, and provide a topsy-turvy site for humour. Despite Parker and Stones’ famous keen observation of politics and popular culture, occasional anachronisms/mistakes can pop up - in the case of “Pinewood Derby” - in politics.

Deconstructionist dialogue is commonly found throughout Aristophanes, breaking down the theatrical illusion. For example, Clouds acknowledges the relevant stage area and props. With the exception of the hands over the title sequences of five seasons, South Park, instead of visual means, utilises deconstructionist dialogue to highlight the structure of a typical South Park episode. Such episodes as “Butt Out” (S7E13) remind viewers of the trials and tribulations of South Park versus the world, or a character taking something to excess, without ever really learning the appropriate lesson.

Finally, South Park is a situation comedy that has lasted, so far, for sixteen years, with the same core group of characters moving from episode to episode – unlike the plays of Aristophanes - although some of the dramatis personae may be more prominent than others at times. Even when characters are absent from individual episodes, their presence inside the world of South Park is still assumed. Inside its recurring cast and settings, there may be lapses and gaps in the believability of characters, but the constant harking back to previous incidents reminds us that the residents of South Park stay fundamentally the same and familiar creatures, even if that means an absence of personal/communal growth. The comedies of Aristophanes utilise “recreativity”, and constructivist awareness, to further engage with the audience and humorously remind them that they are watching a play, but such an approach also demonstrates that the playwright’s characters aren’t “well-rounded.” While South Park less often 27 directly acknowledges viewers through dialogue, it does acknowledge structure, and, in increasing the comic quotient, also reveals lapses in logic, and unrealistic behaviour, in its dramatis personae.

2.4 STEREOTYPICAL DEPICTIONS OF NATIONALITIES AND WOMEN

Aristophanes and South Park both acknowledge themselves as part of a wider world. For Aristophanes, ethnic/national characters reflected the political and geographical situation of Athens as the leader of the Delian League, coastal and island city-states in the Mediterranean whose position changed from being part of a defensive alliance against Persia to paying duties to Athens (Meiggs: 1972: 1; Ewans: 2012: 10). Trade between regions also brought Attic citizens into contact with other nationalities (de Ste. Croix: 1972: 214-20; Hornblower: 1983: 179) – in terms of dialects, Athens was a fairly multicultural centre (Halliwell: 1998: liii).

As MacDowell has pointed out, however, Athenians often manifested a cultural chauvinism that patronised people who didn’t speak Greek “properly” - i.e in the Attic fashion - as inferior (MacDowell: 1995: 271). The Triballian (barbarian) god emissary in Birds, who speaks a form of pidgin Greek (“Di luvli tawli girli Princi-cinsi. Di birdi handi ova” [1678; tr. Halliwell 1998, 76]), and displays an ignorance of the correct way to wear a cloak (1567-72), is a figure of fun, but also a site of “uncivilised” lust, as Triballoi in Greek literally translates as “three rubbers”, and thereby overtly heralds unchecked sexual prowess (Henderson: 1975: 49 n. 77; Meineck: 1998: 398). Meineck’s 1998 translation changes the Triballian’s name to the modern equivalent “Jerkoffalot” (1529; tr. Meineck 1998, 368), further supporting Eubolis’ opinion that “all barbarians are lustful and 28 perpetually erect” (fragment 75.3, in Liddell, Scott, Jones & McKenzie: 1953: 1816)18.

Acharnians, on the other hand, features a Megarian and a Theban/Boiotian, whose lines are not meant to be ridiculous due to their accents per se, as these dialects were familiar to Attic audiences, but serve more of a “documentary” purpose to instantly pigeon-hole characters (Halliwell: 1998: liii-liv; Olson: 2002: lxx-lxxv; Ewans: 2012: 34). Megarians were believed by the Athenians to enjoy low, “childish” and lewd humour (Henderson: 1975: 227), and this is represented by the Megarian’s successful scheme to sell his daughters to Dikaiopolis, in a scene replete with much sexual humour, to buy food in the form of salt and garlic (729-833).

South Park positions foreign characters as sites of stereotypes, looking at the world through the prism of a world power, and reflecting the complacent ignorance about the rest of the globe shared by many Americans (Allen: 2007: 40; Bageant: 2009: 11 & 69-70). Many more nationalities and ethnicities are mis/represented, due to the expansion of the world since the age of Aristophanes, and the positioning of South Park in internationally broadcast media, reaching over 15 countries (Johnson- Woods: 2007: 8-9). Even Australia has been shown as a “sadistic backwards Third World country” in “Starvin’ Marvin in Space” (S3E13, 1999), where the inhabitants of the “fine planet of Australia” speak in ridiculously broad accents, use endearing figures of speech such as “Chippy chip”, and welcome Marvin and his fellow villagers to a mission identical to their hated example back in Africa. Whether Parker and Stone were conscious of Australian history or not, this gesture in the script

18 Cf. The Women’s Festival (1102-4 & 1179-1209) 29 alludes to past Australian practices of “protectionism” with its indigenous inhabitants (Broome: 2002: 105-23)19.

The Japanese in “Chinpokomon” (S3E10, 1999), as one prime example, are still imperiously fighting their own experience of twentieth-century imperialism – the War in the Pacific (Coox: 1988: 340-73) - which impacted directly upon the United States with the bombing of Pearl Harbour in 1941. In “Chinpokomon”, the children of South Park become infatuated with the animated program, Chinpokomon (a thinly-veiled version of the current Pokemon [1996-present] craze [Allen: 2007: 38-9]), oblivious to the franchise’s subliminal anti-American messages, and unknowingly allow themselves to be brainwashed, at the authorised Chinpokemon camp, to become kamikaze fliers against Pearl Harbour. In order to keep the suspicious parents distracted, the representatives of the Chinpokomon brand assure the males of the town (and then-president Bill Clinton) that they have nothing to fear:

PRESIDENT HIROHITO (of the company!): We cannot achieve much with so small penis. But you Americans, wow penis so big. So big penis.

Those fluent in Japanese will realise the importance of this strategy, as “chin-chin” and “chimpo” are slang terms for the penis in Japan (Allen: 2007: 43 & 54 n. 23). This appealing to the phallic nature of power brings to the thematic table the stereotype of male Asian sexual impotency (Fung: 1991: 146-8; Hoang: 2004: 224; Allen: 2007: 44), and appears to work, leaving the vacuum open for a Japanese victory, until the parents engage in reverse psychology. They pretend to be newly converted fans of Chimpokomon, which robs the fad of its aura of “coolness” for the boys20.

19 Cf. “Prehistoric Ice Man” (S2E18) and “The New Terrance and Phillip Movie Trailer” (S6E5). 20 Cf. “Whale Whores” (S13E11) and “City Sushi.” Aso, cf. Mexicans in “D-Yikes” (S11E6), “Free Willzyx” (S9E13), “The Last of the Meheecans” (S15E9) and “Cherokee Hair Tampons” (S4E6), Native Americans in “Cartman’s Mom Is a Dirty Slut” (S1E13) and “Red Man’s 30

Just as fifth-century Athens had its various dialects, so does the contemporary United States, and regional groups of Americans have been pilloried in various South Park episodes. The tough, streetwise New Yorkers in “World Wide Recorder Concert” (S3E17, 2000) are hoodlums in the making, referring to the South Park boys as “redneck queefs”, and exhibiting anti-social tendencies that have manifested themselves as tropes in crime/gangland films from Once Upon A Time in America (1984) to Sleepers (1996)21. The smug, “progressive” San Franciscan neighbours of the Broflovskis, in “Smug Alert!” (S10E2, 2006), represent, with their coffee, wine, cheese and flatulence appreciation, an arrogant self-separation from the rest of the nation (Godfrey: 1988: 5-7). While the McDonahue- Beaumont McCallahans and their ilk are depicted as more bourgeois than the Haight-Ashbury hippy counterculture of the 1960s (Stern: 1990: 148- 52), the “superior” existence of these characters, whose own children escape from their reality through LSD, is lumped in with the remainder of San Francisco’s left-wing stereotypes by the decidedly conformist Cartman and a television anchorman.

Slaves – quite often from areas outside of Athens (Morris: 2001: 201-2) - serve as comic relief in the plays of Aristophanes, especially in Frogs22. A conspiratorial side of the relationship between master and slave allows for a cheekiness and cockiness in some Aristophanic comedies, and this is arguably most prominent in Frogs, where Xanthias serves as Dionysos’ travelling companion to Hades. The entrance of the two characters sees their hierarchy reversed, with Xanthias atop a donkey being led by the god. Xanthias points out his master’s ridiculous manner of undertaking his quest, and behaviour unbecoming a deity (478-93). Despite the liberties

Greed” (S7E7), Arabs in “Tom’s Rhinoplasty” (S1E11), “Osama Bin Laden Has Farty Pants” (S5E9) and “The Snuke” (S11E4) and Ethiopians in “Starvin’ Marvin” (S1E8) and “Starvin’ Marvin in Space” (S3E13). 21 Cf. New Jerseyites in “It’s A Jersey Thing” (S14E9). 22 Cf. Karion in Wealth, Nikias and Demosthenes in Knights and 1st and 2nd Slave in Peace. 31 taken by Xanthias, such as getting his master whipped by the Doorkeeper while their social identities have been reversed – the cowardly Dionysos has given Xanthias his lion-skin beforehand for the purpose of masquerading as Herakles (616-69) - such naughtiness, although not outright insubordination, was accepted by Athenian slave-owners as a check upon complacency (MacDowell: 1995: 278). There had been slave revolts in the mid-fifth century in Sparta (Ewans: 2010: 309), but none in Athens during Aristophanes’ active years of writing, and the fantasy-idea of slaves progressing from a certain amount of leeway in an inferior relationship to grasping the reins of power, however unpalatable to Athenian audiences, seems not to have been considered.

There are no slaves in South Park, although Cartman does stir up negative aspects of the American heritage by attempting to recruit from the all-black University of Colorado basketball team in “Crack Baby Athletic Association” (S15E5, 2011), attired as an antebellum southern planter – complete with drawl, and trying to negotiate the purchase of “slaves” from the President, in an uncomfortable comment upon long-standing white exploitation of African-American athletic prowess (Hawkins: 2010: 94- 101)23.

Women play prominent roles in both Aristophanes’ oeuvre and South Park. Female characters in Aristophanes do reflect their status as another inferior group in Athenian society (Henderson: 1996: 21) via their status in the eyes of “red-blooded” heroes, whose lusts verge on the misogynistic. In the earlier plays, female characters either say very little – like the Daughters in Acharnians – or are rendered far from fully dimensional as silent “prizes”

23 Cf. Mexican “wage slaves” in “The Last of the Meheecans” (S15E9). 32 for the victor at the conclusion - Dikaiopolis gets Two Girls at the end of Acharnians (1198-1231), for example24.

Even in the trio of “women’s plays” (Lysistrata, The Women’s Festival and Assemblywomen), where the “citizen-wives” are permitted meatier roles in the plot, the female characters are unflatteringly exposed as being nymphomaniacs, alcoholics and adulterous. Lysistrata’s would-be confederates are reluctant to do without, in Kalonike’s words, “the prick/There’s nothing like it” (134-5; tr. Ewans 2010, 59), a sentiment echoed by an Athenian Woman and Lampito (137 & 144-5).

The groups of women in Lysistrata and Assemblywomen both crave to consume wine; in the latter play a Woman, donning a garland in Praxagora’s practice for the takeover of the Assembly, reveals that she only did so to obtain a drink before raising a motion, an act encouraged by the warmth of her artificial beard! (130-46)25. As for adultery, the In-Law in The Women’s Festival (disguised as a woman) takes the speaker’s garland and delivers a long speech listing the misdeeds of women, including “herself” (468-519; tr. Ewans 2010, 126-8), such as using the excuse of a “tummy-ache”, necessitating a trip to the “loo”, to have an affair with her first lover (who deflowered the In-Law-as-woman when “she” was seven), “fucked head down/Beside the altar of Apollo, clutching at the laurel bush” (488-89). Tellingly, the women, led by Mika, do not protest the truth of the In-Law’s speech, but only her “shamelessly and openly…insult[ing]” of “her” gender (520-64; tr. Ewans 2010, 128-30).

Certain scholars, such as Robson and Cartledge, have postulated that a patriarchal fear of the sexual behaviour of wives manifests itself in derogatory literary views of Athenian citizen-wives (Cartledge: 1990: 35-6;

24 Cf. The Two Sexy Girls in Knights (1388-94), Harvest in Peace (1331-64), and Iris and the Princess in Birds. 25 Cf. The Women’s Festival (628-32 & 689-761). 33

Robson: 2009: 84). It is true that women were not granted the full rights of citizenship – in fact, they had no political entitlements, and were in essence wards of males throughout their lives (Garland: 1998: 47 & 54). As childbearers, women had the responsibility of continuing the legitimate existence of an oikos (household) through the birth of male heirs (Robson: 84), and illegitimate children not of the husband’s seed could be an economic drain, and a cause for male peers to lose their respect for the cuckolded individual (Cartledge: 1990: 35-6). Adultery was hardly unknown, and it was severely punished, up to and including the death penalty for adulterers, and the acquittal of husbands who killed them in the act (Cohen: 1994: 101, 105, 113 & 124).

Nevertheless, post-feminist scholarship since the 1960s, seeking to rescue the “silent voices” (Cartledge: 1990: 32) of women, cannot change the fundamental fact that ancient Athens was misogynistic, and unswervingly, unapologetically so, since it rated the intelligence and logic of women as inferior (Ewans: 2010: 12). Adultery was a matter for the private sphere – in the public sphere of politics and administering the city, the idea of women taking charge of public affairs was exactly what it is in Lysistrata and Assemblywomen, a fantasy idea tailor-made for comic possibilities (Konstan: 1995: 48-54)26.

Nevertheless, alongside Athens’ spiritual protector being the goddess Athena, it was socially acceptable for women to participate in religious ceremonies, such as Dionysian and death-cults, on spaces such as the Acropolis (Cartledge: 3, 35 & 37: 1990; Robson: 2009: 87), and this may account for Lysistrata’s difference from her female friends. Her dialogue contains the hint of ritual and rite, such as her opening lament - “a celebration of the love goddess” (2; tr. Ewans 2010, 55)27 - which posits a

26 Cf. The Women’s Festival (785-829). 27 Cf. Lysistrata (62). 34 priestess-like position for the titular heroine. Indeed, her personality and command of her “troops” is contrasted against the ineffectual efforts of pillars of patriarchal authority, such as the Bureaucrat and his Policemen (430-613), who are despatched by overpowering female physical force (the Policemen [460-1]) and the force of Lysistrata’s rhetoric (the Bureaucrat [486-598]). Despite the reputation of Athenian women, and the aforementioned temptations, they bring the current war to an end (at least upon the stage) proving that they can rein in their “natural” urges, and utilise their positive, communal traits to shatter a context of macho betterment at the expense of others (Ewans: 2010: 21)28.

South Park emanates from a contemporary context of greater freedom for Western women, who are no longer considered mere chattels of males and have greater autonomy in sexual matters (Wiederman: 2010: 663-6). However societal disapproval, in some quarters, of independent female sexual discovery seeps into the representation of Cartman’s mother. Liane Cartman is the equivalent par excellence, in South Park’s Colorado context, of the Athenian citizen-wives as portrayed in Aristophanes’ comedies.

Despite her initial wholesome, June Cleaver appearance, redolent of 1950s innocence, duty and devotion (Meyerowitz: 1994: 1), Liane is a burgeoning fountain of promiscuous sexuality, offering herself to males and females alike, without hesitation – this portrayal puts itself squarely inside the bounds of the US “Culture Wars” of the late 1990s (Thomson: 2010: 3-12). In “Trapper Keeper” (S4E13, 2000), Liane ends up bedding Bill Cosby, one of many celebrities to pass through the sleepy mountain town (see the later discussion upon the image of celebrities in 2.7)29. As for “Pinkeye” (S1E7, 1997), Liane’s denigrated status as a “crack ‘ ho” is proved to be

28 Cf. Lysistrata (575-86) and Praxagora in Assemblywomen (215-20, 226-8 & 613-29). 29 Cf. “The Death of Eric Cartman” (S9E6), “Cartman’s Mom Is a Dirty Slut” (S1E13) and “Something You Can Do with Your Finger” (S4E8). 35 true by the discovery that she is a casual crack-cocaine-smoker and model for Crack Whore magazine, much to Cartman’s astonishment30. By the time of “The Poor Kid” (S15E14, 2011, however, Liane had refrained from her previous hedonism for a long time, making her legal removal from the care of Cartman, after drinking one Pabst Blue Ribbon beer (depicted in the episode as capable of turning otherwise “decent” folk onto their “feral” side), all the funnier.

Alongside this, Parker and Stone seem to take pleasure in sexualising the experience of pre-pubescent female characters, such as the idolising, by the town’s girls, of Paris Hilton’s “whore” line in “Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset” (S8E12, 2004)31. Coupled to these examples are instances where women have a certain degree of power, such as Oprah Winfrey in “A Million Little Fibers” (S10E5, 2006). In this episode Oprah’s vagina, Minge, compels the talk-show hostess, against her will, to take hostages outside the First National Bank of Chicago, in order to take Oprah away from the demands of her talk show and off to Paris for a holiday (Minge and Gary, Oprah’s anus, feel neglected in their relationship with the talk show queen)32.

However, such a view ignores the episodes where women’s issues are explored, their male detractors are castigated and the female characters are ultimately triumphant. In “The Breast Cancer Show Ever” (S12E9, 2008), Wendy Testaburger attempts to draw attention to research into breast cancer. Finding herself cruelly taunted by Cartman at every turn, her resolve appears, initially, tenuous, until Principal Victoria inspires Wendy to persevere with this clever exchange:

30 Cf. “Jakovasaurs” (S3E4). 31 Cf. “Raisins” (S7E14), “Butter’s Bottom Bitch” (S13E9) and “Bebe’s Boobs Destroy Society” (S6E10). 32 Cf. “The Snuke” (S11E4) and “Chef Aid” (S2E14). 36

PRINCIPAL VICTORIA: I've noticed all the things you've done for Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Did you know I'm a breast cancer survivor?

WENDY: Ma'am?

PRINCIPAL VICTORIA: I was diagnosed seven years ago. Cancer is... pure evil. It is a fat little lump that needs to be... destroyed. (Turns and faces Wendy. Outside is the faculty parking lot) When there is a cancer, you have to "fight" it. You can't reason with cancer, you can't wish it away. Cancer doesn't play by the rules, so neither can you […] And you can't listen to what anybody else tells you. (Turns back to the window) You have to be willing to give up everything, because the cancer will (Turns back to Wendy) take everything. Do you understand? […] When you have cancer you fight, because it doesn't matter if you beat it or not. You refuse to let that fat little lump make you feel powerless!

Cartman is, of course, also a “fat little lump”, which enables the humour in this exchange to issue from double-entendres. In the end, Cartman ends up beaten, in terms of stratagem and corpus, out in the playground by the end of the episode33.

While, it is true, the mothers of Stan, Eric, Kyle and Kenny (especially Kenny’s welfare-receiving mater) appear to be unemployed, there are definite female success stories and role models inside the world of South Park, such as Mayor McDaniels, a politician, and Victoria, the principal of South Park Elementary. Relations between the boy and girl school students of South Park are meant to dramatize the reality of 8-10 year olds colliding with the increasing knowledge of themselves, their bodies and their relations with other people, against an adult refusal to be frank about sexuality (Gournelos: 2009: 48-9).

33 Cf. “Eat, Prey, Queef” (S13E4). 37

Utilising humour as a weapon against political correctness, Parker and Stone appear to be critiquing the increasing sexualisation, even the porning, of younger and younger generations of American girls in a herd mentality (Sarracino and Scott: 2008: 22-9). They also show that both genders are equal, and concede no ground to the other gender, in episodes such as “Cartman’s Silly Hate Crime 2000” (S4E1, 2000), where the girls and boys insult each other vociferously and mercilessly. In South Park, young men and women are depicted as being as flawed as each other, and while Cartman’s misogynistic outbursts in episodes such as “An Elephant Makes Love To A Pig” (S1E5, 1997) may be shocking, his reprehensible views are strongly insinuated to be the product of conditioning by his elders in society, and this does not prevent him from loving his mother (even if he uses her to get what he wants) and being friends – of a kind – with selected female schoolmates, such as Wendy. Although South Park sees women assuming a stature for themselves in society that Athenian women – and Aristophanes’ heroines, for that matter – could only dream of attaining, the men of the Colorado town, in one example, still exploit their wives’ love of musical theatre for oral sex in “Broadway Bro Down” (S15E, 2011)34. This realistic unveiling of the complicated relationships between the sexes merely adds to the complex nature, and appeal, of South Park’s societal commentary.

Conclusion

South Park is like Aristophanic comedy in its inclusion of foreigners, slaves and women amongst the dramatis personae, as in many other respects. Athenian Old Comedy acknowledged the presence of “foreigners” inside its empire, but patronisingly used them as comic relief, hence the

34 Cf. “Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset” (S8E12). 38 presence of the “barbarian” Triballian god in Birds; they mangle the Greek language and generally display a high degree of ignorance. Greeks from outside Athens, such as the Megarian and Theban/Boiotian in Acharnians, are definitely not the same, linguistically, as Athenians; but they are fellow Greeks, and so fun is not made of their dialect.

Political correctness, however, doesn’t seem to bother Parker and Stone inordinately when it comes to ethnic groups. From the Australians in “Starvin’ Marvin in Space” (S3E13, 1999) to the Japanese in “Chinpokomon” (S3E10, 1999), South Park treats ethnic foreigners in a manner that reflects the often shocking ignorance that the United States – the world’s dominant power - has about the rest of the planet. But the show does cleverly integrate examinations of national tropes, characteristics and histories, in order to satirise the relationship of the United States to its neighbours, allies and enemies. Differences between the States are unveiled, through the prism of popular culture, in episodes such as “World Wide Recorder Concert” (S3E17, 2000) (New York City) and “Smug Alert!” (S10E2, 2006) (San Francisco), to showcase the regional differences inside the United States that, at times, can be just as paramount as those between nations.

Slaves are cheeky voices expressing ideas relevant to the demos, although they are not on the same socio-economic level as the demos, in Aristophanes’ Frogs, where Xanthias has a greater amount of leeway than earlier slaves in Aristophanes. Insubordination in Athenian slaves, however, was probably felt by slave-owning theatre-goers to be inevitable, and unlikely to lead to uprising. While slavery per se is not a current issue, or societal problem, in South Park, historical acknowledgements of guilt over slavery, and contemporary exploitation, in “Crack Baby Athletic Association” (S15E5, 2011), point to a United States that still breaches human dignity and security upon the issue of race. 39

Women, along with slaves an inferior group in ancient Athenian society (even if free), play a major role in Aristophanes’ philosophy/politics/world view. Although initially appearing as silent eye-candy, and rewards, for the triumphant heroes in such plays as Acharnians, female characters became the “stars” of Lysistrata, The Women’s Festival (alongside Euripides and the In-Law) and Assemblywomen, showcasing their vices, such as alcoholism, nymphomania and adultery. Such traits were a mixture of fact and exaggeration, but scholarship by such writers as Robson and Cartledge that suggests a communal anxiety amongst the patriarchal status quo about its proximity to disenfranchised groups is flawed, as Athens was a defiantly misogynistic place, and women in control of the polis was just a fantastical Great Idea for Aristophanes. Nevertheless, Aristophanes does display a degree of respect for Lysistrata’s mission, and he decries the arrogance and misguidedness of those continuing the war in Lysistrata.

In South Park, Liane Cartman is the nearest equivalent to Athenian citizen- wives as parodied by Aristophanes, sex-mad under her squeaky-clean, housewife exterior. She is sexually promiscuous in “Trapper Keeper” (S4E13, 2000), and a drug addict in “Pinkeye” (S1E7, 1997). In South Park we also see the actions of sexualised pre-pubescent girls in episodes such as “Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset” (S8E12, 2004). Coupled with the diminution of powerful female celebrities’ worth to their vaginas – Oprah Winfrey in “A Million Little Fibers” (S10E5, 2006) – this view of women becomes decidedly misogynistic.

However, the positive treatment of issues such as breast cancer awareness (“The Breast Cancer Show Ever” [S12E9, 2008]) reveal that Parker and Stone’s attitudes toward feminist issues are deeper and more complicated than a surface glance would suggest. There are definite female role models and success stories inside the town of South Park, and relationships between the male and female students at South Park Elementary are 40 depicted realistically, with both genders giving as good as they get in episodes such as “Cartman’s Silly Hate Crime 2000” (S4E1, 2000). Although the influence that the older, male generation of South Park has upon the younger generation may, at times, be questionable, especially in the instance of Cartman, it seems reasonable to assume that the sisterhood won’t feel too oppressed inside the mountainous Colorado patriarchy any time soon. Overall, stereotypes of foreigners, women and slaves in Aristophanes serve the point of referencing Athens’ superiority as the centre of an empire and add a gloriously politically incorrect edge to the humour. Although working in a period post-Western slave trade, Parker and Stone also unleash a libertarian assault upon political correctness with the stereotyping in South Park.

2.5: BAWDY HUMOUR AND EXPLICIT LANGUAGE

Bawdy humour and explicit language are to be found in all of Aristophanes’ comedies, although not so much in the proto – New Comedy Wealth. For the ancient Athenians, as opposed to ancient Romans and modern Western audiences, obscenity (a word bequeathed to the English language from the Latin obscenus, rather than the Grecian city-states [Ewans: 2012: 32 n. 102; Henderson: 1975: 2]), was not something to be ashamed of and hidden, but embedded in necessary passions and motivations against which resistance was futile, and related to the concept of mankind’s physical form, and sexuality, as healthy and normal. Shame over public revelations of intimate matters was due to deference and modesty (the concept of aidōs), not to feelings of “unclean” embarrassment (Henderson: 1975: 2 & 32-3; Robson: 2009: 121). Sex is described joyously by Trygaios when fantasising about Festival:

“And then now that you’ve got her, you 41 can hold some games tomorrow – wrestle her to the ground, stand her up on all fours, anoint yourself, and join the all-in fight – fuck her both front and back, with fists and prick” (895-9; tr. Ewans 2012, 178)35.

Bodily functions – namely, excretion - are employed by Agorakritos, in Knights, as representing the general unpleasantness surrounding Paphlagon. The sausage-seller describes the fear that the tanner instills:

“All the rich are terrified of him,

And all the poor men shit themselves when he comes near” (223-4; tr. Ewans 2012, 101).

Urination enters the biological fray when the Two Boys, the sons of Lamachos and Kleonymos, relieve themselves against a wall before Trygaios’ wedding (1265-6). Dionysos, in Frogs,in keeping with his cowardly and buffoonish nature, loosens his bowels in fear after the Doorkeeper’s outburst (479)36.

Such “dirty” comedy was aligned with the frequent use of profanities as literal terms, rather than as swear words or “intensifiers” (Halliwell: 1975: 40; Robson: 2009: 121-2) – Halliwell has proposed that obscene words and juvenile sexual feelings were not repressed as taboo during the time of Aristophanes, and, therefore, epithets and expletives against enemies were divorced from sexuality and excrementality; instead the Greeks invoked the names of gods and using insults such as “Ball’ es korakas” (“Go to the

35 Cf. Lysistrata (953-67). 36 Cf. Assemblywomen (311-27 & 356). 42 crows!”) (Halliwell: 1975: 35-40; Robson: 2009: 122). When the 1st Athenian Ambassador says of Reconciliation in Lysistrata, “I’ve never seen a cunt more beautiful” (1158; tr. Ewans 2010, 98), for example, he is referring, literally and anatomically, to the female vagina37.

Actual defecation or urination – with the exceptions previously mentioned – was shied away from upon stage, and while sex was much discussed (especially in Lysistrata, The Women’s Festival and Assemblywomen), actual simulated copulation was avoided. This was due to social decorum where citizen wives and adultery were concerned (Henderson: 1996: 27).

Aristophanes’ frank inclination towards bawdy humour and explicit language led to the censorship and bowdlerisation of his works by translators over the centuries. One of the most famous examples was Benjamin Bickley Rogers (1828-1919), who gave up his career as a barrister and published his translations of all of Aristophanes’ plays between 1902 and 1916. Obscenities were omitted, sanitised or replaced with euphemisms (Robson: 2009: 190). In Lysistrata, for example, where Lysistrata declares “we must give up the prick” (124; tr. Ewans 2010, 59), Rogers has the titular character say “We must abstain – each – from the joys of Love” (124; tr. Rogers 1911, 165). Rogers’ sanitisation is unsurprising given his Introduction to his translation, where he laments “It is much to be regretted that the phallus-element should be so conspicuous in the present Play” (Rogers: 1911: ix).

As regards performances of Aristophanes’ plays, they were often either greeted with civic outrage – Gilbert Seldes’ 1934 adaptation was targeted by a subpoena in Los Angeles, calling for the prosecution of Aristophanes himself! (Robson: 2009: 192) – or government bans. One famous example was Karolos Koun’s 1959 staging of Birds in Athens, where the

37 Cf. The Women’s Festival (488) and Birds (507). 43 controversy, admittedly, had less to do with vulgarity than with political/religious/social critique (a priest, clad in Orthodox dress, chanting in a manner that guyed the Byzantine church liturgy, was deemed a poor fit for the conservative ideology of Greece under the authoritarian regime of Konstantinos Karamanlis [Van Steen: 2000: 125; Van Steen: 2007: 158- 62]). It would not be until after the efforts of scholars in the more permissive climate of the 1960s and 1970s, such as Whitman (1964: 77, 94 & 204), Wit-Tak (1968: 359-64), Dover (1972: 39-41, 63-5, 148, 153 & 155) and, especially, Henderson in 1975 (Ewans: 2012: 255 n. 26), that a re-emergence of the authentic, unexpurgated Aristophanes was possible, as in the Ewans translations of 2011 and 2012.

South Park, as opposed to Aristophanes, has employed profanity in both senses. In fact, the misunderstandings over the differing contexts of swear words have provided Parker and Stone with some of their best verbal humour. In “T.M.I” (S15E4, 2011), various residents of South Park, including Cartman (all of who have issues with their penis sizes), end up rioting against the Federal Government, and take over a Federal Express building (under the mistaken belief that it is government property). The so- called “Pissed-off and Angry Party” present several demands to a national television, including Cartman’s exhortation (as always, stemming from his anti - Semitism) to “fuck Kyle” – the fat fourth-grader means to “screw Kyle over.” Aides to the Surgeon-General, Dr. Rebecca Turnod (a major source of the angry males’ grievances, as she has calculated a national penis size average that makes the “Party” feel inadequate) prepare to give in to their demands – other “pissed off and angry” groups around the nation have hi-jacked Federal Expresses, American Airlines and American Apparels. Her second Aide asks “Is the team standing by to fuck that little boy Kyle?” to which the third Aide responds, “Team is standing by, sir.” Before the little Jewish boy can be “fucked”, however, Dr. Turnod is 44 persuaded to modify the formula for the “adjusted penis size”, or “T.M.I” of the title, to arrive at a national average size of 1.5 inches (down from 6 inches). This remedy ends the stand-off38.

Parker and Stone, since the premiere of South Park, have had to deal with the in-house recommendations of Standards and Practices while simultaneously creating the show (Johnson-Woods: 2007: 82), unlike the censorship of Aristophanes’ comedies, which was a later cultural necessity. Indeed, when South Park was sold for syndication upon network television stations in 2004, certain profanities had to be amended: “asshole” became “ass” and “spooge”, “goddamit”, “Jesus Christ!” and “ass rammer” were nixed (Albiniak and Higgins: 2004; Johnson-Woods: 2007: 84). Nevertheless, South Park has featured decidedly syndication-unfriendly episodes, such as “It Hits The Fan” (S5E1, 2001). In this episode, the word “shit” is uttered, uncensored, on the popular program Cop Drama, which leads to the word’s widespread acceptance, even inside the classroom – this is a reference to the controversy over the phrase “Shit happens” being uttered in the Chicago Hope episode “Vigilance and Care” (S6E4, 1999) (Lowry: 1999; Keller: 1999). Throughout “It Hits The Fan”, a counter in the bottom-left corner of the screen tallies the 162 utterances of “shit”, in every possible permutation. Its loss of shock-value leads to an epidemic of South Park residents spewing up their intestines and expiring, so the boys, with Chef in tow, discovered that “shit” is actually a literal “curse[d] word” from the time of the Black Death, and the excessive use of the profane word has led to a resurgence of the plague. The HBC network (upon which Cop Drama is broadcast) nevertheless goes ahead with its “Must Shit TV” special, where episodes of television standards are recorded live with “shit” receiving maximum coverage. A battle ensures between the Knights of Standards and Practices and HBC’s managers, leading to the deaths of the

38 Cf. “HumancentiPad” (S15E1) and Cash for Gold” (S16E2). 45 actors present, before HBC’s head invokes a demonic dragon against the knights via constant repetition of “shit” (thus boosting the on-screen counter!). Kyle saves the day, however, with an ancient rune stone belonging to one of the knights, which vanquishes the dragon, and everyone agrees to “watch their language”, saving “shit” for maximum effective use.

Bodily functions, apart from the festive and jovial Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo, are depicted graphically in South Park, such as in “Something Wal-Mart This Way Comes” (S8E9, 2004), where Cartman bets Kyle $5 that when people die they “crap their pants.” Indeed, throughout the episode’s examination of the hypnotic hold that Wal-Mart’s specials have on the residents of South Park, driving local businesses out of business, representatives from Wal-Mart are asked to close the store down. The local manager tells South Park’s shoppers to meet him outside his office in five minutes, before hanging himself from his office window. Wal-Mart’s president directs the boys to the “heart” of Wal-Mart (which turns out to be a small mirror behind a plasma television screen in the South Park Wal-Mart), before committing suicide via a bullet to the head. In both instances, Cartman is proved correct, as in the climax, where the boys’ smashing of the mirror causes the local Wal-Mart to collapse and fold in upon itself in bright light, before it “craps out faeces.” All the while, the jeering Cartman demands his money from Kyle.39

Sexual intercourse is not just described, but actually portrayed, in some specific episodes of South Park. There is a tradition of depicting the sex act in animation, despite public perceptions of the medium being children’s

39 Cf. also (during Chef’s demise) S10E1 and S11E9, and (for Terrance and Phillip) S1E6, S6E5 and S13E4.In S11E9, during which Randy excretes the world’s largest turd, Bono, lead singer for Irish band U2, is revealed to be an actual “piece of shit” – this is the true motive for Bono’s attempt, in boasting of his even larger turd, to not be “number two” (a euphemism for defecating) at anything . This is a reference to Bono’s supposedly massive ego and “crap” motives for his humanitarian work (Cogan: 2011: 59-60). 46 fare, going back to 1920s “stag films” (Wells: 2002: 6), and manifesting itself today in such sub-genres as the frequently grotesque and fantastically exaggerated “hentai” films from Japan (Napier: 2001: 63-5). Such “subversion”, while very much in keeping with the aims of Parker and Stone, also takes advantage of the “imaginary”, and the lack of limitations in depictions in a non-live action medium. Gerald and Sheila Broflovski, for example, are revealed making love in the missionary position at the commencement of “Dead Celebrities” (S13E8, 2009), before being interrupted by Ike, terrified due to a visitation by one of the “dead celebrities” of the title40.

As previously mentioned, syndication of South Park upon commercial television stations has resulted in censorship and omission of bawdy humour and explicit language. Even Internet websites where episodes can be freely downloaded, such as http://www.allsp.com, retain the aural bleeping, along with the official DVD releases of South Park Seasons 1 to 11 (with the exception of “201” [S14E6, 2010]), although the program’s official website - http://www.southparkstudios.com/ - does not aurally censor its legal streaming. Interestingly enough, the “pilot” short films that Parker and Stone created before South Park, both containing prototypical versions of Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Kenny – The Spirit of Christmas or Jesus vs. Frosty (1992) and The Spirit of Christmas or Jesus vs. Santa (1995) – contain very strong, uncensored language. In Jesus vs. Santa, to quote some sample dialogue, Kyle, who has called Cartman “fatboy” in retribution for Cartman’s belif that Hanukkah “sucks”, is told by an indignant Cartman, “Don’t call me fat, buttfucker!” Kyle shouts back his reply, “Then don’t belittle my people, you fucking fat-ass!” Cartman is enraged, and reveals the first signs of sensitivity about his weight:

40 Cf. “Mr. Garrison’s Fancy New Vagina” (S9E1), “Go God Go” (S10E12), “Go God Go XII” (S10E13), “D-Yikes!” (S11E6) and “Proper Condom Use” (S5E7). 47

“Goddamnit, don’t call me fat, you buttfucking son of a bitch!”

Later, once Jesus has arrived, seeking directions to the mall, Kyle steps upon Cartman’s foot while hurrying to escort Jesus to his destination. Cartman lashes out:

CARTMAN: Goddamnit, you stepped on my foot, you pigfucker!

STAN: Dude, don’t say ‘pigfucker’ in front of Jesus!

CARTMAN: Ah, fuck you!41

Such liberal use of language is understandable, however, especially for the theatrically released (and R – rated [Weinraub: 1999]) Bigger, Longer, & Uncut, as, under the Motion Picture Association of America (MPPA), the United States has ratings designed to keep “impressionable” minors, in this case under the age of 17 (unless accompanied by an adult guardian), away from certain films (Ebert: 2010).42 Such a development is influenced by the puzzling historical trend, especially in America, of societal tolerance for representations of lurid violence and the carnage of warfare, yet outrage over “naughty words” and the sexual instinct (Ewans: 2012: 255; Hewitson: 2012: 113-4).

Conclusion

Aristophanes, Trey Parker and Matt Stone all employ bawdy humour and explicit language to great effect in the service of their comedy. For Aristophanes and his fellow Athenians, obscenity was not a taboo source of shame (as with the Romans and contemporary Western audiences), but

41 Cf. South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut (1999) and Imaginationland: The Movie (2008). 42 In this context, it is interesting to note that censorship even played a role in the final choice of the title for the film, as Parker and Stone’s original choice was South Park: All Hell Breaks Loose, which the MPAA rejected on religious grounds (the ‘Hell’ in the title) (Ebert: 1999). Despite the sexual double-entendre in the release title, and the MPAA’s notorious fixation upon sexual matters (Bowles: 2007), Bigger, Longer, & Uncut was approved. 48 linked with necessary passions and motivations, and aligned with a view of mankind’s physical form, and sexuality, as healthy and normal – shame over intimate matters made public was due to deference and modesty (aidōs), not to embarrassed feelings of “uncleanliness.” As Trygaios celebrating the prospect of sex in Peace demonstrates, sexuality was acknowledged as being embedded greatly in local society. Bodily functions, such as defecating, served comedic purposes of unpleasantness and competitive contempt at the hands of Agorakritos in Knights, for example. Even urination enters the fray with the pissing of the two boys before Trygaios’ wedding in Peace.

Such situations made use of literal profanity, rather than swear “words”. Obscene words and juvenile sexual feelings were not repressed as taboo, and therefore epithets and expletives against enemies were not related to sexuality and excrementality; instead the ancient Greeks invoked the names of gods and non-obscene insults. “Fuck”, in such plays as The Women’s Festival, refers to sexual intercourse, for example. Despite much discussion of sexual matters, especially in Lysistrata, The Women’s Festival and Assemblywomen, actual depictions of sexual activity were shied away from, in part because of social decorum around citizen-wives and daughters. Until at least the 1960s and 1970s, the texts of Aristophanes were heavily censored and bowdlerised for publication by translators such as Benjamin Bickley Rogers. When it came to live performances as well, the powers- that-be either prosecuted - Gilbert Selde’s 1934 version of Lysistrata – or banned - Karolos Koun’s 1959 production of Birds – for unsuitable thematic content.

South Park reflects Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s desire to give audiences a taste of how pre-pubescent humans, when alone, really converse, and such profanity encompasses both literal and “intensifier” connotations. Indeed, as the aides preparing to act against Kyle in “T. M. I” (S15E4, 2011) 49 demonstrate, the misunderstandings over competing definitions of curse words (in this case, “fuck”) offer much comedic potential. Censorship is reflected in the ubiquitous utterances of “shit” in “It Hits The Fan” (S5E1, 2001). But graphic depictions of defecation form the basis of Cartman’s bet with Kyle in “Something Wal–Mart This Way Comes” (S8E9, 2004), for example.

Unlike Aristophanes, South Park, following in a tradition of “subversive” animation, allows the audience to witness the sexual act. The Broflovskis enjoy the missionary position in “Dead Celebrities” (S13E8, 2009), to utilise one example. Such frankness of language and physicality in South Park has resulted in in-house censorship at Comedy Central and further cuts on commercial networks in syndication. Even Internet download websites and DVD releases have preserved this bowdlerisation. In contrast, the medium of film has seen uncut strong language in The Spirit of Christmas or Jesus vs. Frosty (1992), The Spirit of Christmas or Jesus vs. Santa (1995) and South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut (1999). Such a permissive stance can be explained, in Bigger, Longer, & Uncut’s case, by the MPAA’s ratings system. Aristophanes worked in a climate where “obscenity”, as we know it today, didn’t exist, and he took advantage of the heightened atmosphere of the Festival to include uninhibited bawdy humour in his plays, which, unfortunately, has often suffered in translation. South Park has emanated from a far different moral climate, and has had to undergo bowdlerisation both inside Comedy Central and during the process of syndication, yet its production context on cable television gives it greater, more explicit freedom in matters of sexuality and coarse language than shows on free-to-air television.

50

2.6: PUNS/WORDPLAY

Aristophanes, when writing his dialogue, took advantage of verbal humour – puns and wordplay. These puns, written originally in Attic Greek, are not always immediately fruitful in English, without knowing some of the context behind them, or adopting a lateral approach that isn’t closely faithful to the original text (Robson: 2009: 71; Ewans: 2012: 32). Sometimes, this was aligned with bawdy humour, as with the routine between the Megarian (and his daughters) and Dikaiopolis in Acharnians, in which the daughters are disguised as “pussycats” (729-836; tr. Ewans 2012, 69-73) – originally, the girls were “piglets”, playing on the similarity between he choiros (pig) and ho choiros (“cunt”) (Robson: 2009: 71). The Megarian attempts to sell his “pussies” to Dikaiopolis, and the jokes revolve around the double – entendres between “pussy” and “cunt”:

DIKAIOPOLIS: But it’s a human being’s pussy.

MEGARIAN: Yes, of course,

It’s mine. Whose did you think it is?

Would you like to hear her say meow? […]

DIKAIOPOLIS: Yes, right now it’s a pussy – but

When it grows up it will become a proper cunt! […]

But I can’t offer it to any god.

MEGARIAN: Why not? 51

Why can’t you?

DIKAIOPOLIS: It has got no tail.

MEGARIAN: It’s young. When it’s grown up

It will have one that’s long and thick and red.

(773-5& 782-87; tr. Ewans 2012, 70-2).

At other times, puns were “clean”, and used to add comic colour to scenes, as when Trygaios ponders an appropriate manner of installing Peace in Athens. He suggests “offerings of pots” (922; tr. Ewans 2012, 179), which the 1st Farmer rejects. The following exchange occurs:

TRYGAIOS: What would you like? A fatted ox?

1 FARMER: No way; we’d need to carry out an oxpedition! (925-6; tr. Ewans 2012, 179).

Ox in Greek is bous, which is similar to boethein (“to aid” or “come to help”), often employed in the context of relieving military actions, such as sieges (Robson: 2009: 70)43.

South Park also makes use of puns in exploiting various character traits, with little need for translation in an English-speaking context. Ethnic misunderstanding is behind the results of the boys’ cheating upon their homework in ‘D-Yikes!” (S11E6, 2007) Assigned essays upon Ernest Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea (1952) over the weekend, Cartman suggests hiring local unemployed Mexicans to read the novel and write the assignments in their stead. Returning for “their” work on Monday morning, the boys discover that the Hispanics believed that their orders were to write

43 Cf. Peace (453-4), Acharnians (269-70 & 331-3) and Knights (74-8). 52 to their eses - a slang term in Chicano Spanish that means “friend”, or “guy” (Vigil: 1988: 435) – about the novel.

The childish simplicity in coming up quickly with a pun assumes an importance in the plot of “How to Eat with Your Butt” (S5E10, 2001), as it restores Cartman’s sense of humour. He meets a Wisconsin couple, Martha and Stephen Thompson, who are searching for their lost son. Martha and Stephen were born with a fictitious condition (“torsonic polarity syndrome”) that makes their faces resemble human buttocks, and Cartman finds this so funny that he cannot find anything funny anymore – as he explains to Mr. Mackey, it is a case of “blowing his funny fuse.” At the conclusion of the episode, it turns out that actor Ben Affleck is the Thompsons’ missing son – Mr. Garrison mentions that he can “definitely see the resemblance now.” Cartman adds his opinion, “I guess now we'll have to call him Ben Assfleck.” The joke, while far from clever, does prove, to quote Johnson-Woods, that “Toilet humour saves Cartman’s humanity” (2007: 100)44.

Finally, “Blue” wordplay is also apparent in Wendy’s audition piece for “Something You Can Do with Your Finger” (S4E8, 2000). The boys are seeking to inaugurate a boy band, called “Fingerbang”, but, realising that all successful boy bands seem to have five members, hold auditions for their fifth member. Wendy, to the tune of “The Merry – Go – Round Broke Down”, enthusiastically delivers this number:

“Miiis-suuus Landers was a health nut. She cooked food in a wok. Mr. Harris was her boyfriend, and he had a great big- Cock-a-doodle-doodle, the rooster just won't quit. And I don't want my breakfast, because it tastes like- Shih tzus make good house pets. They're cuddly and sweet.

44 Cf. “Reverse Cowgirl” (S16E1). 53

Monkeys aren't good to have, because they like to beat their- Meeting in the office or meeting in the hall, The boss, he wants to see you so you can suck his - Balzac was a writer, he lived with Allen Funt Mrs. Roberts didn't like him, but that's 'cause she's a- Contaminated water can really make you sick. Your bladder gets infected, and blood comes out your- Dictate what I'm saying, 'cause it will bring you luck. And if you all don't like it, I don't give a flying fuck!”

While initially dumbfounded, the boys, with the exception of Cartman, vote Wendy into the group.

Conclusion

Aristophanes and South Park both savour the use of puns and wordplay. Aristophanes’ puns are not always readily apparent to those unfamiliar with the original Greek. Nevertheless, bawdy puns in Aristophanes include those which underpin the sequence between the Megarian (and his daughters) and Dikaiopolis in Acharnians (the similarities between “pussy” and “cunt”), and “clean” puns mark the discourse between Trygaios and the 1st Farmer in Peace.

South Park, while including humour based in ethnicity (the aural resemblance of the Spanish ese to “essay” in “D-Yikes!” [S11E6, 2007]), also features puns and wordplays that are immediately obvious to English- speakers inside the territory of its country of creative origin – the United States of America. Many of Parker and Stone’s plays on words are “blue” by nature. From Cartman’s topical jibe at celebrity and unusual physiognomy in “How to Eat with Your Butt” (S5E10, 2001) to Wendy’s risqué audition song in “Something You Can Do with Your Finger” (S4E8, 54

2000), such humour attracts both youthful and more adult audience members to South Park, and both raises and lowers the overall tone, resulting in its approachability, if not always its appropriateness for certain viewers! Aristophanes’ frequent usage of puns and wordplay links into bawdy humour, but can also be of a “cleaner” nature, in engaging with characters and the storyline. Parker and Stones’ adventures in verbal humour are perhaps less commented upon, but they are no less willing to make plays on words and the like that can either be blue, or appropriate for an audience of the same age as the South Park quartet.

2.7: PARRHESIA/FREE SPEECH

In the context of Ancient Athenian dramatic festivals, parrhesia, a communal form of outspoken criticism of aspects of the dēmos, was a prominent trait of the democratic system (Henderson: 1996: 13; Robson: 2009: 123). The only caveat was that the goddess Athena was off-limits for satire (Ewans: 2010: 6). Kleon prosecuted the young Aristophanes over the lost Babylonians (426), accusing the play of denigrating elected and allocated officials (including Kleon) before foreign spectators at the Dionysia, but the dēmos, with the possible exception of a relatively inexpensive fine (Ewans: 2012: 15 n. 48), declined to take further action (MacDowell: 1995: 31 & 42-4; Henderson: 1996: 14). The choros of Acharnians accused Kleon of being “known to every citizen for cowardice and buggery!” (663-4; tr. Ewans 2012, 67), and Kleon again, allegedly, attempted prosecution (Olson: 2002: li), under rulings against specific incorrect allegations concerning citizens (MacDowell: 1995: 25)45.

45 Cf. Knights and Wasps (970-2 & 1029-31). 55

Other public figures were also ridiculed. Kleisthenes, or The Queen, in The Women’s Festival, an obese, beardless politician in reality (Henderson: 2000: 59 n. 29), is an effeminate, cross-dressing “ally” of the Festival, greeting the assembled women with this monologue:

“Dear ladies, you are just like me. My cheeks

Make plain how similar I am to you; I’m mad

On all things feminine, and I am always there for you.” (574-6; tr. Ewans 2010, 130)

The Queen’s lack of the facial marker of masculine virility (Ewans: 2010: 31), coupled with the “disrespectable” status in society of cross-dressing, licentious “pathics” (Henderson: 1975: 219; Dover: 1989: 144-5), made Kleisthenes an easy target46.

Occasionally, the dēmos muzzled freedom of speech when it was felt to be in the best interests of the polis. For instance, in 415, censorship was put into place after the Eleusian Mysteries of Demeter were treated impiously by up to 65 individuals – including three comic poets - to the extent of the Hermai being vandalised and general profane guying of the Eleusian rites ensuing (Sommerstein: 1986: 104-5 & 107; MacDowell: 1995: 25 n. 57; Henderson: 1996: 14). When The Women’s Festival received its first performance in 411, the political climate of the time – the lead-up to the oligarchical coup d’état by the Four Hundred – led Aristophanes to follow an appropriately de-politicised course in the thematic concerns of the parabasis (Ewans: 2010: 22-3). Nevertheless, Kritylla‘s and the choros’ denunciations of tyrannical changes to the democracy (334-39 & 357-68), the In-Law’s justification for his opinions (540-1) and the choros’ paean to Athena (1143-4) prove that Aristophanes supported democracy and was

46 Cf. Kleonymos in Peace (672-8) and Birds (1470-1 & 1473-81) and Ariphrades (a cunnilinguist) in Peace (885) and Knights (1281, 1283-6 & 1288-9). 56 opposed to those advocating an oligarchy (Dover: 1972: 168-72; Ewans 2010: 23).

When Old Comedy was in fully satirical bloom, however, non-political personalities of Athens were also pilloried. Lamachos, the pugnacious general in Acharnians, is damned by Dikaiopolis as one of those “men who’ve defaulted on their debts” (615; tr. Ewans 2012, 65), and ostracised in terms of trade by the countrymen (623-6 & 964). Near the conclusion of Acharnians, Lamachos is forced to mount an expedition to guard the snowy mountain passes against the Boiotians, and his cheerless preparations, away from the next festival, are contrasted with Dikaiopolis’ jubilant orders for the height of edibles and wine (1073-1141). Whether Lamachos was as war-mongering in reality as he is in the play is questionable, although he no doubt favoured a continuation of the war (MacDowell: 1995: 70; Olson: 2002: 149-50 n. 266-70), and Dikaiopolis’ accusations of Lamachos being well-paid as a foreign envoy (601-19) are unfounded in the surviving evidence (MacDowell: 1995: 68-9). However, the fact that ‘mach’ in his name has affinities with mache, the Greek for ‘battle’, may have been irresistible for a satirical poet (MacDowell: 1995: 70; Robson: 2009: 61)47.

Socrates, as depicted in Clouds, is an eccentric sophist philosopher who believes in the natural elements, rather than polytheistic religion (365-424), and oversees the victory of the Better Argument, who espouses a traditional mode of living (961-83 & 986), over the Worse Argument, whose motto is unfettered self-interest and profligacy (1038-40). The resulting “unnatural” treatment of Strepsiades by Phidippides (1410-29) is only reversed when Strepsiades burns down the Thinkery, after the Clouds reveal their true character (1458-60). There has been a school of thought, from Plato’s Apology (18-19d) to Cartledge (1990: 24-5), that the representation of

47 Cf. Euripides in Acharnians (398-9 & 410-64), The Women’s Festival and Frogs (alongside Aischylos, 940-1471). 57

Socrates in Clouds aided in bringing the sophist to trial for impiety – where he was condemned to death – many years later, in 399 (Kerferd: 1981: 56- 7). However, it is essential to look at the differences between Socrates in reality and Socrates upon the stage – Socrates the historical figure did not manage an institution of boarders, charge for his teachings, lecture upon the physical sciences, grammar, music and rhetoric or deny the existence of the traditional deities (Kerferd: 1981: 56; MacDowell: 1995: 131-2; Storey: 1998: 5), yet such exaggerations and distortions in the dramatic picture of Aristophanes serve the purpose of an archetypal/generic member of a profession (intellectual), with selected real-life characteristics embellished for comic purposes (McLeish: 1980: 91; Cartledge: 1990: 26).

South Park is produced and distributed in the context of a Western democracy, whose Constitution, by the First Amendment, protects the concept of “free speech”, although the legal system and community customs have long set boundaries for obscenity (Koepsell: 2007: 134). Comedy Central, the station upon which the program is broadcast, is a cable network, where censorship standards, overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), are not as strict as on free-to-air television; instead, regulatory control is in the hands of in-house network “Standards and Practices” (Johnson-Woods: 2007: 82; Weinstock: 2008: 10-11). In light of this, over 200 celebrities have so far been depicted upon South Park in a manner that satirises and ridicules them. While political figures have been featured – from an incongruously American-accented, imperialistic Saddam Hussein in “Terrance and Phillip in Not Without My Anus” (S2E1, 1998) and South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut (1999) to a clueless George W. Bush in “A Ladder to Heaven” (S6E12, 2002) – the focus tends to be on personalities from the realm of popular culture, such as music and motion pictures. Such an extensive acknowledgement of the cult of celebrity was even reflected in the title and scenario of “200” (which 58 was also the 200th overall episode of the series), where all the celebrities who had previously been mocked by Parker and Stone banded together to file a class-action lawsuit against the town. Parker and Stone’s approach in ribbing celebrities is extremely unflattering and disrespectful, taking a jaundiced view of the ubiquity of celebrity in the contemporary world (Leverette: 2008: 210; Sturm: 2008: 211-3; Cogan: 2012: 56-60), in contrast to The Simpsons’ famous approach of allowing celebrities to be “in” on the joke, and demonstrate a good-natured sense of humour without hurting the “brand” (Sturm: 2008: 214-7; Cogan: 2012: 59).

Occasionally, however, especially in its earliest seasons, South Park featured the voices of celebrities as themselves, or playing different characters. This is in spite of the disclaimer that appears before every episode featuring the tongue-in-cheek words “All celebrity voices are impersonated…poorly”; indeed, the great majority of celebrity voices are impersonated by the South Park cast (Sturm: 2008: 214). However musicians, in particular, were favourite guests for Parker and Stone, and were treated relatively favourably, as overt ridicule was mitigated through a concentration on their performances (Sturm: 2008: 216). In “Mecha- Streisand” (S1E12, 1998) Robert Smith, lead singer/guitarist for The Cure, changes into a Mothra-like robot, and successfully defeats Mecha- Streisand’s greedy quest for the Diamond of Pantheos, In line with Parker’s request, as a fan of The Cure, for Smith to guest-star in the episode (Parker and Stone: 2007), Kyle calls out “Disintegration [1989] is the best album everrr!” as Smith departs in triumph48.

Another form of celebrity interaction with South Park during its earliest years was celebrities playing fictional characters. George Clooney, an admirer of Parker and Stone’s work from the days of their pre-South Park

48 Cf. Elton John, Ozzy Osbourne, Rick James, Joe Strummer, Meat Loaf, Ween, Devo et al in “Chef Aid” (S2E14) and Korn in “Korn’s Groovy Pirate Ghost Mystery” (S3E10). 59 animated shorts (Tomashoff: 1997: 17), provided the barks and growls for Sparky, Stan’s gay dog, in “Big Gay Al’s Big Gay Boat Ride” (S1E4, 1997). This is another subversive tack concerning guest stars in South Park, as the role is less substantial than Clooney’s stature would presuppose (Sturm: 2008: 215). Clooney later lent his vocal talents to Dr. Gouache in South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut (1999). While his medical role in the film hearkened back to his portrayal (from 1994 to 1999) of Dr. Doug Ross on ER (1994-2009), Dr. Gouache unfortunately cannot prevent Kenny, who succeeded in lighting his own farts, from going to Hell, especially as the boy’s heart was replaced by a baked potato49.

No celebrity has yet sued Parker, Stone or Comedy Central. This is due to courts tending to protect clearly-designated satire as “constitutionally protected speech” (Johnson-Woods: 2007: 194; Cogan: 2012: 66). Indeed, there have been a surprisingly large number of public figures who have been amused by their caricatured appearances in individual episodes. The film critic Leonard Maltin, for example, after first warning the boys of Barbra Streisand’s designs upon the Diamond of Pantheos, turns into a giant robot, in order to combat Mecha-Streisand’s plans for global domination, in “Mecha-Streisand” (S1E12, 1998), before being trounced by the titular creation. Maltin informed Parker and Stone that his children, especially, enjoyed their father’s science-fiction antics (Parker and Stone: 2003)50.

There have even been celebrities who have been non-condemnatory, but also non-committal in their responses, claiming not to have seen the episodes in question. Paris Hilton’s sexualised image of an heiress/entrepreneur is taken to extremes within “Stupid Spoiled Whore

49 Cf. Natasha Henstridge in “Tom’s Rhinoplasty” (S1E11) and Jennifer Aniston in “Rainforest Shmainforest (S3E1). 50 Cf. Russell Crowe concerning “The New Terrance and Phillip Movie Trailer” (S6E5) (Johnson-Woods: 2007: 194). 60

Video Playset” (S8E12, 2004), where she is perpetually attired in the skimpy outfit of a “slut”, her left eyelid drooping from “a whole lot of partying last night with a LOT of different guys” and constantly hacking up what looks suspiciously like semen. Hilton is depicted as a talentless, spoiled, ennui-ridden bimbo, utterly contemptuous of her “hick” fan-base, who flock to purchase her Stupid Spoiled Whore Playset (aimed at pre- pubescent girls). Despite the blatant character assassination, Hilton was “flattered” by her portrayal in the episode, leading the dumbfounded Parker and Stone to opine that she must have a “fucked up” case of narcissism (Gilchrist: 2005; Otto: 2005; Johnson-Woods: 2007: 194).

Many celebrities have gone on the record as being displeased by their treatment on South Park. Sally Struthers’ depiction as a hoarder of food that she appeals to be sent to starving Africans in “Starvin’ Marvin” (S1E8, 1997) – a pitiless send-up of her activism for ChildFund (Parker and Stone: 2003) – reportedly drove her to tears (Johnson-Woods: 2007: 189). While Parker and Stone had nothing against the actress personally, they saw an absurdity in a woman of Struthers’ size making a public plea for food (Parker and Stone: 2003), and they ended up lampooning Struthers in an even harsher manner in “Starvin’ Marvin in Space” (S3E13, 1999) as a Jabba the Hutt-type creature51.

Perhaps the most famous example of a disapproving celebrity who came into the sights of Parker and Stone, not least for its consequences for the show, was Tom Cruise, who reacted strongly to “Trapped in the Closet” (S9E12, 2005). A savage dissection of the Church of Scientology, the episode sees Stan declared the re-incarnation of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder and prophet of Scientology. Shortly afterwards, Tom Cruise, a famous member of the religion (Helmore: 2005), breaks into Stan’s room

51 Cf. Barbra Streisand concerning “Mecha-Streisand” (S1E12) (Dreifus: 1998) and Robert Redford over “Chef’s Chocolate Salty Balls” (S2E9) (Johnson-Woods: 2007: 194). 61 and pleads with Stan, genuinely believing him to be Hubbard’s reincarnation, for his opinion of Cruise’s acting. Upon being told that he is “okay”, but not as good as other actors, Cruise, heartbroken, locks himself in Stan’s closet, and stays in there, believing himself to be “a failure in the eyes of the Prophet.” As for the creation myth of Scientology, involving the alien overlord Xenu’s trapping and destruction of innumerable alien souls inside a volcano 75 million years ago (this sequence is accompanied by the caption “This Is What Scientologists Actually Believe”), Stan, seeking to write a continuation of Hubbard’s writings, is warned off by the President of the organisation from announcing free new memberships, as the President reveals that Scientology is a global cult designed to bring money into the organisation’s coffers. The episode ends with Stan, disillusioned, denouncing Scientology to his followers outside his home. As a tongue-in- cheek gesture, after Stan dares his attackers to do so, all the closing credits acknowledge not the usual creative staff, but “John or Jane Smith.”

Cruise is alleged to have applied pressure upon Viacom to pull the episode from re-runs the following year, threatening to cancel his promotional duties for Mission Impossible III (2006), whose production company, Paramount, is a division of Viacom, along with Comedy Central, and thereby costing Viacom much publicity, if his demands weren’t met (Johnson-Woods: 2007: 29; Cogan: 2012: 63). Parker and Stone, whose aim in creating the episode was to prove that Scientology wasn’t above criticism (Itzkoff: 2010), issued a humorously unrepentant statement, claiming that “you [organised Scientology and Cruise] may have won THIS battle, but the million year war for earth has just begun!” (Cogan: 2012: 63). As a result of “Trapped in the Closet”, however, Isaac Hayes, the voice of Chef, and, like Cruise and Travolta, a member of the Church of Scientology (Hanley: 2007: 23), quit the program before the 10th season, citing offence at the levity aimed at his faith (Cogan: 2012: 63). Despite the 62 fact that Chef’s appearances were becoming less and less frequent, the loss of Chef’s jovial and soulful personality (he was killed off in “The Return of Chef” [S10E1, 2006]) was a blow to the legacy of the show. Nevertheless, Hayes’ departure, as Parker and Stone moved on, did not see any diminution in less than favourable treatment of celebrities.

Conclusion

Parrhesia, in an Athenian dramatic context, was a communally accepted form of free speech, but maligning Athena was off-limits. Kleon attempted to prosecute the young Aristophanes several times, and the demagogue quickly became a favourite target of the poet’s. Kleon brought actions against Aristophanes over Babylonians and Acharnians, yet he was not the only satirical target of the playwright. Kleisthenes was ridiculed in The Women’s Festival, for example.

Old Comedy’s lampooning thrust was occasionally blunted by the authorities, as in the aftermath of the profanation of the Eleusinian Mysteries of Demeter in 415. At other times, the political climate, as during the lead-up to the oligarchic takeover by the Four Hundred in 411, when The Women’s Festival was receiving its debut performance, resulted in a lessening of overt political comment – although the characters still make it abundantly clear that they, like Aristophanes, are opposed to tyranny. Nevertheless, the breadth of Aristophanes’ targets for gibes ran to non- political personalities such as the war-mongering general Lamakhos in Acharnians.

South Park is a program that, due to emanating from a Western democracy whose First Amendment protects “freedom of speech”, and being produced upon a cable network that is not subject to the same FCC censorship as commercial networks, heavily showcases Parker and Stone’s attitudes towards the cult of celebrity. Over 200 celebrities (especially those from 63 popular culture) have been pilloried in a fashion that is extremely unflattering and disrespectful, casting doubt upon the validity of stardom in society. Selected celebrities, however, especially in South Park’s earlier seasons (despite its disclaimer), did portray themselves, especially musicians, such as Robert Smith in “Mecha-Streisand” (S1E12, 1998). Other celebrities have played fictional characters other than themselves, such as George Clooney as Sparky the dog in “Big Gay Al’s Big Gay Boat Ride” (S1E4, 1997) and Dr. Gouache in South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut (1999).

Despite the temptation for famous personalities to sue Parker, Stone or Comedy Central, no one has yet done so, possibly due to the courts’ protection of satire. Indeed, a fair number of celebrities have reacted positively to their caricatured appearances. There are celebrities who have expressed flattered but non-committal opinions, claiming not to have viewed the relevant episodes, such as Paris Hilton over “Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset” (S8E12, 2004). On the other side of the coin, some celebrities have been offended by their presence on South Park, such as Sally Struthers after “Starvin’ Marvin” (S1E8, 1997).

Famously, although without resorting to litigation, Tom Cruise did manage to halt repeats of “Trapped in the Closet” (S9E12, 2005). Although this was a short-lived victory, a more significant blow came with the departure of Isaac Hayes, over – at least publicly – his outrage due to his faith being derided. Although there may be more controversy – and even the threat of legal action – in future, it seems certain that Parker and Stone, despite being celebrities, will continue to demonstrate a hostile, “outsider” attitude towards contemporary fame. Parrhesia allowed Aristophanes a great amount of freedom, and artistic power, to satirise famous personalities and their actions (especially if the poet disagreed with them), although not without limits and legal consequences. Similarly, Parker and Stone have 64 used constitutionally protected free speech in South Park as a platform with which to savage the entire cult and priority of celebrity.

2.8: RELIGION

As has previously been mentioned, Athena was off-limits for satire by comic poets in Athens. Additionally, when the choros and Trygaios offer their sacrifice of a sheep to Lady Peace in Peace (974-1015), despite the 1st Farmer’s joke at the expense of “wives who like to play the field” (980; tr. Ewans 2012, 181), there is a seriousness and respect to their devotion. Nevertheless, individual deities, in the uninhibited spirit of parrhesia, were ridiculed in what may strike us today as a rather ungodlike fashion, as a momentary, wish-fulfilling, equal-opportunity exploration of the possibilities of depicting divinities who were believed to have human forms (Cartledge: 1990: 4; MacDowell: 1995: 221).

Hermes, in Peace, may be the messenger god, and escort the deceased to Haides’, but he also demonstrates an easy propensity for changing his mind, in the face of Trygaios’ persuasions over the Moon and Sun’s treachery, over whether to aid Trygaios and the choros or not. His decision is finalised when Trygaios bribes Hermes with a golden libation bowl, to which Hermes responds “I’ve always been a sucker for gold plate” (425; tr. Ewans 2012, 162), thus proving the deity’s susceptibility to inducement52.

Religious figures presented as satirical targets aren’t very common in Aristophanes, but there is the oracle-monger/collector (khresmologos)

52 Cf. Herakles in Birds (1583-5, 1602-3 & 1690-1) and Dionysos in Frogs (1-33, 165, 285-310 & 466-80). 65 guyed in Knights. Bakis is never seen, but his oracles are read aloud by Paphlagon in hopes of assuring Demos’ support. Paphlagon mentions, to Demos, that a “sacred dog with jagged teeth […] barks his fearful bark to guide you, and provides your pay” (1017-19; tr. Ewans 2012, 128). This dog, Paphlagon assures Demos, is himself (1023-4). Agorakritos, however, contemptuously turns the oracle against the tanner, reciting his oracle (from “Glanis”, the [fictional] older brother of Bakis), that warns Demos against “Kerberos […] who’ll fawn on you and wag his tail while you are eating, wait for his chance, and gulp your food while you are looking elsewhere” (1030-3; tr. Ewans 2012, 128-9). Rather than being a watchdog of the demos, Kleon is likened to the hell-hound Kerberos, who guards the entrance to the Underworld, and it is suggested that he will purloin Athenian profits (MacDowell: 1995: 102; Morford, Lenardon and Sham: 2011: 375). Rather than being sacrosanct, such oracles are shown, in this competition, to be subject to comparison and multiple interpretations53.

In South Park, deities also live amongst, visit or otherwise interact with mortals, often in ways that contradict their pious image. During the first six seasons of South Park, Jesus Christ hosted a public-access cable television show Jesus & Pals, receiving on-air calls from guests. Jesus & Pals’ popularity ends up being rivalled by Jimbo Kern (Stan’s uncle) and Ned Gerblansky’s Huntin’ and Killin’ in “The Mexican Staring Frog of Southern Sri Lanka” (S2E6, 1998). In order to boost ratings, the producer arranges for its guests – including Jimbo, Ned and the boys – to lie and make wild accusations, in the manner of “trash TV.” Such dysfunction results in a riot amongst the studio audience, and Jesus initially calmly encourages the audience to return to their seats. When this fails, an exasperated Jesus screams out “SHUT THE FUCK UP!” causing the stunned audience to cease their anarchy. The humour here derives from the

53 Cf. Hierokles in Peace (1051-1124). 66 contrast between Jesus’ extreme measure to reinstitute control and Jesus’ teachings, according to James in the Christian Bible, to the effect that “Above all, my brothers, do not swear - not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your “Yes” be yes, and your “No” no, or you will be condemned” (James 5: 12)54.

Contemporary gods, “superheroes”, divorced from a divine context of prayer and ritual, yet still possessing superhuman powers and strengths, and/or the ability to aid humankind, are also a fixture of three episodes of South Park. Their representation has a precedent in Aristophanes, as Herakles, son of Zeus and the mortal woman Alcmena (Halliwell: 1998: 266 n. 1652), is featured in both Birds and Frogs. However, rather than being celebrated for his Twelve Labours, (Morford, Lenardon and Sham: 2011: 565-72), Heracles is pilloried for gluttony55, and it is the limitation on Herakles’ powers in Birds – his illegitimacy, under the laws of Solon and Perikles (MacDowell: 1995: 220; Lewis: 2007: 73-4) - that finally convinces Herakles to acquiesce to Peisetairos’ demands (1650-74). Superheroes, as opposed to their often awesome/unblemished image in traditional scenarios, are ridiculed, and depicted in a darker light, in episodes such as “The Coon” (S13E2, 2009). The Coon, Cartman’s alter ego – so called because of his racoon disguise - attempts to keep South Park safe from criminals by attacking evil-doers with his claws. However, all of the “crimes” he reports are misinterpreted by his overactive mind (for example, men kissing women upon dates are mistaken for “rapists”). In contrast, Mysterion, another child-crime fighter, is actually having much more success in keeping the peace, and the jealous Coon seeks Mysterion’s arrest for vigilantism via his unmasking. In an especially disturbing moment, The Coon threatens to detonate a hospital unless Mysterion

54 Cf. Gautama Buddha in “200” (S14E5) and Satan in South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999), “Do the Handicapped Go to Hell?” (S4E9) and “Probably” (S4E10). 55 Cf. Frogs (468 & 553-60). 67 reveals his identity. Coon/Cartman’s greedy lust for fame, as opposed to altruistically aiding his fellow citizens, takes on traits of the super-villain, such as the Joker’s similar scheme in The Dark Knight (2008). Mysterion and The Coon – who fights alongside Mysterion in order to seem a hero – defeat villains Professor Chaos (Butters) and General Disarray (Dougie), but, after Coon claims that more threats to public safety will ensure, Mysterion reveals his true identity, and is hauled off to prison. Having eliminated his competition, and (outwardly) preserved his image, The Coon, at the conclusion of the episode of the same name, feels that “Every town needs…a Coon”.56

Trey Parker and Matt Stone are not religious – Stone, in particular, has atheistic leanings (Swanson: 2011), although he is “ethnically” Jewish through his mother (Raphael: n.d) – but, while Parker has gone on record as viewing the Big Bang theory of creation as “the most ridiculous explanation ever” (Tapper and Morris: 2006), both creators maintain a sceptical, but fascinated, attitude towards faith. Even the absence of faith is ripe for their equal-opportunity satire. “Go God Go” (S10E12, 2006) and “Go God Go XII” (S10E13, 2006) features rival factions of atheist humans and sea-otters ridiculing the “militant” anti-theism of experts such as author Richard Dawkins – prominently featured in the episodes - and their armed resistance against each other demonstrates that a belief in no religious system – such as the philosophical debates over positive (rigid) versus negative (timid) atheism - can be just as divisive as slavishly adhering to a faith, when discourse turns into armed conflict (Flew: 1976: 14; Martin: 2006: 2).

Later, in “The Poor Kid” (S15E14, 2011), the Weatherhead family receive children from dysfunctional family situations via the foster care system,

56 Cf. “Coon 2: Hindsight” (S14E11), “Mysterion Rises” (S14E12) and “Coon vs. Coon and Friends” (S14E13). 68 including Kenny and Cartman. The Weatherheads are unshakeably agnostic, which permeates every aspect of their (and their charges’) lives. They forbid their children from expressing any notions of certainty, force them to drink the soft drink Dr. Pepper (“what flavour is it?! It is neither root beer nor cola! Nobody is sure what flavour it is, and nobody can be sure!”), appear to be strict upon household chores, while allowing their wards some leeway (“Cleanliness is next to godliness, so make it kind of clean but not too much! Amanda! More ambiguous on the dusting!”) and they have, in pride of place upon the communal bedroom wall, a plaque with the Agnostic Code:

“We cannot know for certain if God or Christ existed. They COULD. Then again, there COULD be a giant reptilian bird in charge of everything. Can we be CERTAIN there isn't? NO, so it's pointless to talk about.”

For Parker and Stone, like the Monty Python team in The Life of Brian (1979), spirituality itself isn’t at fault, but the dogma and hypocrisies of organised religion (Lipoma: 2009: 18-25). Their position is encapsulated in “Red Hot Catholic Love” (S6E8, 2002), which was originally aired in the wake of more cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests becoming public, as a consequence of the Boston Globe’s Pulitzer Prize-winning journalism upon the subject (Burkett and Bruni: 2003: 336; Cox: 2003). The parents of South Park, believing that they can no longer trust the church (including Fr. Maxi) resolve to become atheists. Cartman misinterprets the query of a counsellor – “Did Father Maxi, at any time, ever try to put something in your butt?” – and resolves to attempt to consume food through his anus, with the aim of achieving defecation through the mouth. He succeeds, and the process, known as intro-rectogestion, is adopted by the parents as healthier than orthodox eating methods, and a form of rebellion against traditional, status quo behaviour. In a scene that reworks the reversal of bathroom etiquette observed in The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie 69

(1972), they hold a meeting of the newly-formed South Park Atheist Club, with attendant quesadillas as nourishment, and declare their freedom from the outmoded construct of religion.

As DeLashmutt and Hancock have pointed out, the parents of South Park have exchanged one narrow-minded form of fundamentalism (albeit secular) for another, reduced to literally uttering “shit”, and, in their impressionability, have epitomised “precisely the sort of phoniness that Parker and Stone rage against” (DeLashmutt and Hancock: 2008: 182). Meanwhile, Fr. Maxi has railed against sexual misbehaviour amongst his fellow clerics, urging reforms to dissolve the policy of priestly celibacy, but has been stonewalled by lustful priests, desiring to continue molesting young male parishioners, and the unchangeable Holy Document of Vatican Law, which is revealed, at a Vatican summit, to be under the guardianship of “the Highest Source”, the Great Queen Spider. Incensed by the disregard for the contemporary situation, Fr. Maxi ruptures the Document in two, causing the Vatican to collapse and burn.

Casting a less than kowtowing eye towards pet shibboleths of Catholicism has resulted in controversy and protests aimed at Parker, Stone and South Park. “Red Hot Catholic Love” sparked the ire of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, who issued a peculiar statement lambasting the episode for distorting the statistics of clerical sexual abuse – 66% of US cases involved males over the age of 11 (Reese: 2004) – and claimed that the episode was part of a plot, on the part of “intellectually dishonest elites”, to lend aid and comfort to homosexuals (Violanti: 2001: A12; Johnson-Woods: 2007: 29)57.

Outside of Christianity, the outrage directed by certain Muslim groups towards the climactic high point of “Cartoon Wars Part II” (S10E4, 2006)

57 Cf. the controversy over “Bloody Mary” (S9E14) (Kaplan: 2006: 83; Jardin: 2006; Kiong and Johnston: 2006a & b; Johnson-Woods: 2007: 29 & 83). 70 is noteworthy. By this stage of the episode, a showdown has emerged between Cartman, who wants Family Guy off the air due, ostensibly, to its potential to inflame Muslim anger over depicting Muhammad (in reality, Cartman hates the program, and wishes it to be canned) and Kyle, who speaks passionately in defence of satirical freedom of speech. The president of the Fox Network, with only five seconds until airtime, decides to run the contentious episode. In the fictional Family Guy episode, Muhammad hands a salmon helmet to Peter, but a black screen with a title card appears in lieu of the cutaway gag:

“Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network.”

In the wake of the Jyllands-Posten controversy (Dawkins: 2006: 24-7), Comedy Central elected to follow the current political/religious climate and respect fundamentalist Islamic sensibilities (MSNBC.com: 2006; Weinstock: 2008: 91-3; Gournelos: 2009: 137 & 144). According to Anne Garafino, Parker and Stone, chose the title card as a way of “owning” the controversy, and explaining Comedy Central’s decision in their own words (Lindgren: 2006; Marx: 2012: 175). Despite this spanner thrown into the works of Parker and Stones’ freedom to cast a jaundiced eye over any and all religions, they have continued to deride religion in South Park. In a country where most people have religious faith (‘U.S Stands Alone In Its Embrace Of Religion Amongst Wealthy Nations’: 2002), this is, ironically, a miracle.

Conclusion

In the context of Aristophanes’ comedies, alongside Athena being exempt from ridicule, there was a serious quality to choros worship in Peace. Nevertheless, individual deities were ribbed in the comedies, as, for the limited scope of the Festival, it was felt that they could take a joke. The 71 cowardly Dionysos in Frogs, for example, demonstrates, under parrhesia, an equal-opportunity style of satire. Aristophanes does exhibit an antipathy towards oracle-sellers, such as the (unseen) Bakis in Knights, as charlatans.

In a similar manner to Aristophanes, Parker and Stone depict “immortal” deities interacting with “mortal” humans, but in a “disrespectful manner.” Amongst these figures of faith is Jesus Christ cursing in “The Mexican Staring Frog of Southern Sri Lanka” (S2E6, 1998). These divinities are just one type of “immortal” in South Park. Secular “gods”, or superheroes, in contrast to their often awesome/ unblemished image in popular culture, are ridiculed (and darkly depicted) in “The Coon” (S13E2, 2009).58 In this saga, the imagination of The Coon/Cartman leads to a jealous struggle with Mysterion over prestige inside the town, as opposed to altruistically helping those in trouble.

Most religions have been mocked by South Park, but Parker and Stone – while not religious themselves - have found spirituality itself admirable, while taking issue with the dogma and hypocrisies of organised religion. Indeed, in their treatment of Richard Dawkins and the various atheist alliances in “Go God Go” (S10E12, 2006) and “Go God Go XII” (S10E13, 2006), and the agnostic Weatherheads in “The Poor Kid” (S15E14, 2011), they find intolerance even in an absence of faith, or an uncertainty about the whole issue. Their position upon religion is encapsulated in the orally defecating, newly-atheist parents, and the defiant speech by Fr. Maxi amidst the ruins of the Vatican, in “Red Hot Catholic Love” (S6E8, 2002). Parker and Stone’s position is that, while a religious ideal can be comforting, and even a positive influence, for humankind, the hierarchical structure of “man-made” religion, with “rules and regulations”, can distort the original principles of faith, and alienate people who see no connection

58 Cf. Herakles, in Birds and Frogs, is a precedent, although his heroics are downplayed. 72 with everyday experience. In other words, their approach is heretical, rather than blasphemous.

Nevertheless, protests have emanated over what has been interpreted as flippant blasphemy in episodes such as “Red Hot Catholic Love” and, from Muslims (indirectly), “Cartoon Wars Part 2” (S10, E4, 2006). While the controversy, in the aftermath of the Jyllands-Posten scandal over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, forced Parker and Stone to censor the latter episode, it was done on their terms, and the team have continued to lampoon religious themes to this day. Aristophanes exploited the comic mileage inherent in poking fun at the gods, and condemning humans who abused religion for their own nefarious purposes, while still respecting faith per se. Likewise, Parker and Stone find much at fault with organised religion (and question atheism and agnosticism); they also treat various symbols of faith in a less than pious fashion, but still show their fascination with and admiration for spirituality.

2.9: POLITICS

Aristophanes was a young man when he started writing comedies. Although the dates of his lifespan vary amongst scholars (Dover: 1972: 13- 4; Cartledge: 1990: xiv; Robson: 2009: 1-2), it is believed that the poet was born around 447 or 446, and died between 385-380 (Ewans: 2012: xi-xiii). Therefore, when his first play, Banqueters, was produced at the Lenaia in 427 (Ewans: 2012: xi), Aristophanes would have been nineteen or twenty years old. Due to his being the scion of Philippos, a man whose name meant “he who loves horses”, Aristophanes would have grown up inside a well-off environment, sociologically speaking, as only wealthy Athenians could possess and breed equines (Cartledge: 1990: xv-xvi). Such an 73 upbringing could conceivably have coloured the political content of Aristophanes’ plays, which, as Silk has pointed out, demonstrates “solidarity with the official culture of fifth-century Athens […] in its negative treatment of radical politicians such as Cleon and its tacit support of the contemporary representatives of a more traditional leadership” (Silk: 2005: 307).

While taking the opportunity to ridicule any topic of interest, Aristophanes appreciated and exploited the pungent satirical possibilities of, for example, demagogues such as Kleon (as Paphlagon) in Knights (774-8, 852-7 & 923- 6; tr. Ewans 2012, 119). Paphlagon’s “surplus in the treasury”, posse of labouring thugs and links to the leather trade all mark him out as a political “other”, as opposed to those politicians who are mentioned positively in the plays59.

The grievance aired by the choros, in Acharnians, over the treatment of the elderly by glib, youthful demagogues (676-718), is echoed by the plight of the choros of old jurymen in Wasps. They criticise those who never served in defence of their-city state (as veterans of combat) for profiting from their own long-ago aid in establishing a system of tribute from the Athenian empire (1060-1121)60. Such a sympathetic treatment of these aged choroi showcases Aristophanes’ nostalgic hankering for the “Good Old Days”, as opposed to the “unmanly”, and verbally cunning, machinations of the younger generation (Robson: 2009: 171-2, 175-6 & 179-80), a sentiment which is also prevalent in the utterly divergent figures of Aischylos and Euripides during the second half of Frogs (Ewans: 2010: 14).

As regards the Peloponnesian War, the playwright exhibited a pronounced lack of antipathy towards Sparta, with the peaceful desires of Lysistrata

59 Cf. Knights (324-7, 794-6 & 408-10), Acharnians (703-7) and Wasps (946-8). However, cf. also Alkibiades in Acharnians (716) and Wasps (41-5). 60 Cf. Wasps (300-11 & 655-724). 74

(alongside her female allies from all over Greece) winning out over any “contemporary”, patriotic ideal of victory at all costs (Halliwell: 1998: xxvii; Robson: 2009: 181). There is no nationalistic jingoism when the Spartan and Athenian Ambassadors make peace in Lysistrata (1072-1188), and in the celebratory Finale (kōmos) between the former enemies (1215- 1320), Spartan songs are sung and danced in the centre of Athens. Indeed, the Athenian aristocracy had customarily been sympathetic towards Sparta (Robson: 2009: 181). While Aristophanes did have to take into account the opinions of his audiences, plus the ten judges representing each of the polis’ “tribes” (Cartledge: 1990: 9-10), in order to have a strong chance of winning during the festivals (McLeish: 1980: 27 & 34-6), he was not adverse to taking risks, such as airing the highly unfashionable view (Ewans: 2012: 5), during Dikaiopolis’ address to the Acharnians in Choros 4, part one, that the Athenians also shared some of the responsibility for the current war:

“Why do we blame the Spartans for the war?

It was some of us […] low life grubs gone crazy […] who started to denounce Megarian fleecy overcoats.

And if they saw a cucumber, a little hare, a piglet, or some garlic or some chunks of salt, they said that it was “enemy goods” and confiscated it that very day.

That was a small affair […] But some hoons, drunk after many games of dice, went off to Megara and stole the tart Simaitha. 75

Then the Megarians, all garlic-primed and furious,

Stole for revenge two of Aspasis’s whores.

That was the reason why this war has torn the Greeks apart – all for three blowjob whores” (513-5 & 517-29; tr. Ewans 2012, 61-2).

While exaggerated, such an argument does have affinities with Thucydides’ account of the events which sparked the Peloponnesian War (1.67 & 139), and lies inside the scope of Aristophanes’ pedagogical sense of duty towards his audience (Acharnians [640-59]). Such a desire to “teach” the citizen body, of course, permeated his plays with topical content, which, in turn, has led to much discussion about Aristophanes’ politics ever since.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone were also in their twenties (Parker was born in 1969, and Stone in 1971), when South Park first aired in 1997 (Becker: 2008: 148), and, therefore, come from a post-“baby boomer” “Generation X” age cohort that has exhibited an extreme weariness and cynicism towards the left-wing values of the 1960s (Wild: 2004: 68; Becker: 2008: 153). This is due largely to a conviction that the alliance of hippie ideals with popular culture resulted in nothing effectively tangible in terms of change for future generations (Starr: 1985: 244-8; Becker: 2008: 152-3), aligned with a disillusionment over corruption inside the U.S. government and disparities, in terms of education and wealth, between socio-economic groups (Owen: 1997: 89; Hanson: 2002: 11 & 58; Becker: 2008: 158). This largely accounts for Cartman’s vitriol against hippies, especially many of the movement “selling out” and hypocritically engaging with capitalism from the 1980s on (Lattin: 2004: 74; Gurvis: 2006: 108-10, 119 & 133), expressed in such episodes as “Cartman’s Silly Hate Crime 2000” (S4E2, 2000), where he rants: 76

“I hate hippies […] I mean, the way they always talk about ‘protectin’ the earth’ and then drive around in cars that get poor gas mileage and wear those stupid bracelets – I hate ‘em! I wanna kick ‘em in the nuts!”

Parker is a registered member of the Libertarian Party (Brownfield: 2001: F1), while Stone is unrepentantly not even registered to vote (Brownfield: 2001: F1; Wild: 2004). Yet both subscribe to a libertarian philosophy, which in a concrete political manner (i.e the Party), opposes taxation, bureaucratic interference in people’s lives and non-interventionism in foreign affairs, yet supports the separation of religion and politics, drug liberalisation, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights, lax cross-border migration policies and, importantly, civil liberties (Gurvis: 2006: 57; Cantor: 2007: 99-102; Libertarian Party Platform: 2012). Such an approach takes pot-shots at the sacred cow of political correctness by invoking, for humorous purposes, politically-incorrect laughter (Cantor: 2007: 99-100; Becker: 2008: 150). Such a public stance may position Parker and Stone as more liberal than Aristophanes, but that hasn’t stopped conservative commentators, such as Brian C. Anderson and blogger Andrew Sullivan – who coined the term “South Park Republicans” (people who are against political correctness, and in favour of interventionism when appropriate, but who tend to endorse liberalism in social matters) – from claiming the creators of South Park to be firmly right-wing (Anderson: 2003; Anderson: 2005: 75-6 & 99; Rich: 2005; Gournelos: 2009: 198-9).

Pointing to quotes such as Parker’s “we avoid extremes but we hate liberals more than conservatives, and we hate them” and Stone’s “I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals” as evidence (Anderson: 2005: 75-6 & 178 n. 1; Becker: 2008: 147), such an analysis of South Park as inherently conservative is constructed by writers such as Anderson to foreground an intolerance against the on-going debate over anti- 77 discrimination lawsuits and alternative lifestyles (Anderson: 2005: 78-9; Vitagliano: 2007; Tilcsik: 2011: 586-96).

“The Death Camp of Tolerance” (S6E14, 2002), for example, is cited in depth by Anderson for its increasingly absurd attempts by Mr. Garrison and his leather-clad lover, Mr. Slave, to exploit anti-discrimination legislation in order to reap lucrative compensation from Garrison’s being “wrongly” fired from South Park Elementary for being gay (Anderson: 2005: 78-80). In a town going through a tremendously tolerant period, however, his self- flagellations and insertion of Leminwinks the gerbil up Mr. Slave’s rectum only manage to offend his students. Their parents, remorseful over their childrens’ “intolerance”, award Mr. Garrison a prize for being “Courageous”, but when his inappropriate entry at the ceremony fails to bring on the expected outraged responses, the staggered Garrison explodes at the audience:

“Goddamnit, don't you people get it?! I'm trying to get fired here! […] this kind of behaviour should not be acceptable from a teacher! […] just because you have to tolerate something doesn't mean you have to approve of it!”

Other scholars, such as Bradley Evans, have accused Parker and Stone of endorsing “compassionate” conservatism in their treatments of characters such as Big Gay Al, Mr. Garrison and Mr. Slave, creating them with an attitude of (at-times begrudging) acceptance and tolerance, but without love or affection, and with a mind-set that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality (Evans: 2009: 98-103). Indeed, the emphasis upon Big Gay Al and Mr. Slave’s lisps, effeminate behaviour and outlandish gestures, and Mr. Slave’s penchant for sado-masochism, in the series and the film South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut, at times makes the men into figures not that far removed from Kleisthenes in The Women’s Festival. 78

It is not only LGBT issues that are lampooned in South Park. Capitalistic business practices of the free market, as opposed to their generally harsh treatment in Hollywood product due to anxieties over the permanence of fame and popularity (Mises: 1957: 30-3; Lavoie and Chamlee-Wright: 2000: 84; Anderson: 2005: 84-5; Cantor: 2007: 103), are endorsed in “Gnomes” (S2E17, 1998). Mr. Tweek’s small coffee business, pitted against a new “Harbucks” chain store, engages in an even more ruthless advertising campaign, trading on small-town, public service values (Rhodes: 2002: 302) – a television advertisement featuring the four boys intones “Vote yes on Prop 10 [a regulation that would ban Harbucks from South Park] or else you hate children.” At the conclusion, after having corporations explained to them by the titular gnomes, the boys, represented by Kyle and Stan, unveil their changed stance in this parabasis:

KYLE: Big corporations are good. Because without big corporations we wouldn’t have things like cars and computers and canned soup.

STAN: Even Harbucks Coffee started off as a small, little business. But because it made such great coffee, and because they ran their business so well, they managed to grow […] And that is why we should all let Harbucks stay61.

On the other hand, scholars such as William J. Savage Jr. have highlighted the program’s “oppositional” politics against conservative values, especially those pertaining to the family (Savage Jr.: 2004: 208-9; Becker: 2008: 158-9; Keller: 2009: 170). Stone acknowledged as much in a 2006 interview, saying that “you could easily write a book called South Park Liberals, because we’ve attacked a lot of funny stuff that conservative people and institutions do in America” (Poniewozik: 2006: 8). Family values are given a jaundiced treatment in South Park. Children, rather than

61 Cf. “Spontaneous Combustion” (S3E2), “ManBearPig” (S10E6), “Cartman’s Mom Is Still a Dirty Slut” (S2E2), “Rainforest Shmainforest” (S3E1) and “Trapper Keeper” (S4E12). 79 being depicted as innocents who require protection and control by their elders (Savage Jr: 2004: 200-1, 208-9 & 217-8; Keller: 2009: 167-70 & 178-9), are often depicted as being wiser than their parents, who can be even deleterious to their off-spring’s health and well-being (Becker: 2008: 159), as in the case of Stephen and Linda Stotch’s exaggerated tendency to punish their son. They are possibly the most misguided and mismatched (for Butters) family inside the town. Linda, for example, after finding out about her husband’s bi-curious liaisons in “Butter’s Very Own Episode” (S5E14, 2001), becomes deranged, and attempts to drown Butters by locking him in her car and dumping it in a river62.

LGBT issues are handled with sympathy in episodes such as “Two Guys Naked in a Hot Tub” (S3E8, 1999), in which Randy and Gerald experiment with their sexuality each by masturbating in front of the other in a hot tub at a party. When Randy, embarrassed and remorseful after the act, blurts out the truth to the other guests, he discovers that the other males present have done the same thing – Jimbo reassures Randy with “we’re all a little gay.” Such bi-curiosity is depicted as normal, and far from shameful, in this context, harkening back to Alfred Kinsey’s research on sexual orientation during the 1940s (Jones: 1997: 423-6)63.

With reference to U.S. party politics, Parker and Stone have referenced “Douche and Turd” (S8E8, 2004), as their answer to queries about their stance on the Republican Party versus the Democratic Party in general, and the 2004 Presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry in particular (“Pushing the Envelope”; Becker: 2008: 161). This episode has the children of South Park Elementary jokingly endorsing a giant douche and a turd sandwich for the election for their school mascot – their

62 Cf. “Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset” (S8E12), “Marjorine” (S9E9) and “City Sushi” (S15E6). Also, cf. “Child Abduction Is Not Funny” (S6E11) and “Cherokee Hair Tampons” (S4E7). 63 Cf. “Big Gay Al’s Big Gay Boat Ride” (S1E4) and “Follow That Egg!” (S9E10). 80 traditional mascot, a cow, has been picketed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). But the town’s campaigning and sloganeering get out of hand, and Stan is banished from South Park for deciding not to engage in a pointless exercise. However, towards the conclusion of the episode, a member of PETA informs Stan that “every election since the beginning of time has been between some douche and some turd”, because they are the only people who “suck up enough to make it that far in politics.” Stan casts his vote for the turd sandwich, but, in the meantime, the PETA activists are discovered murdered, and the cow is reinstalled. South Park has, however, revealed a certain bias in individual episodes dealing with the two major political parties. Democrat Bill Clinton is lampooned as a sybaritic sex addict in both “Cartman’s Mom Is Still a Dirty Slut” (S2E2, 1998) and “Sexual Healing” (S14E1, 2010), and Democrat Barack Obama is ridiculed as leaping (along with the Centre for Disease Control) to a ridiculous explanation, involving a “wizard alien” in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, for sexual addiction amongst male celebrities in the latter episode; but the real satirical thrust is reserved for the Republican administration of George W. Bush.

In “A Ladder to Heaven” (S6E12, 2002), U.S. military intelligence reports to Bush indications of weapons of mass destruction being built in Heaven by Saddam Hussein (evidenced by black marker circles around such objects as seagulls). Not only does Bush believe in this conspiracy, but he also attempts to justify bombing Heaven to the United Nations, recounting the love triangle between Satan, Chris and Saddam from “Do The Handicapped Go To Hell?” (S4E9, 2000) and “Probably” (S4E10, 2000). An incredulous UN ambassador asks Bush, “Are you high, or just incredibly stupid?” to which Bush responds, “I assure you, I am not high.” This exchange parodies Bush’s presentation of grievances against Iraq to the UN General Assembly in September 2002 (General Assembly: 2002), 81 six months prior to the invasion of Iraq. However, even here, audiences’ expectations are undermined with the revelation, in the final scene, that Saddam is actually producing weapons in Heaven, utilising the front of a chocolate chip factory64.

Scepticism about conservative policies is demonstrated in other episodes as well. “Good Times with Weapons” (S8E1, 2004) casts a jaundiced eye over U.S. gun culture, when the boys, under a ruse, obtain ninja weapons from the County Fair, and accidently wound Butters in the eye with a shuriken. However, as the shocked response to Cartman’s public nudity later on in the episode demonstrates, the parents of South Park are more concern over the fat boy exposing his genitals than possessing arms, a nod towards accusations of bias in the M.P.A.A. (Cruz: 2008)65. While this ideological underpinning, fluctuating between conservative and liberal, may make South Park politically ambivalent, (Becker: 2008: 160-1) such a libertarian stance strongly demonstrates that the creators of South Park believe in the adage of there always being two sides to every story.

Conclusion

Aristophanes, Trey Parker and Matt Stone were all in their twenties when they started creating the texts that they will be best remembered for. All three satirise both left- and right-wing concerns. To a degree, however, Aristophanes was more conservative. Coming from an aristocratic background, he exhibited bias against changing modes of politics (Knights). Acharnians and Wasps, in their criticism of the exploitation of veterans by the legal/jury system, demonstrate the poet’s fondness for the “Good Old Days” of united Grecian defence against the Persian Empire, which was expanded upon by the sympathetic attitude towards Spartans

64 Cf. “Best Friends Forever” (S9E4), “Osama Bin Laden Has Farty Pants” (S5E9) and “I’m a Little Bit Country” (S7E4). 65 Cf. “Medicinal Fried Chicken” (S14E3) and “The Last of the Meheecans” (S15E9). 82

(the enemy of Athens during the Peloponnesian War) in Lysistrata; the aristocratic class had traditionally shown sympathy with Sparta. Although his plays were performed in the context of a competition, meaning that the opinions of the audience and judges had to be taken into account, Aristophanes, nevertheless, was not opposed to airing unpopular viewpoints to “teach” the polis, as in Acharnians and Frogs.

Parker and Stone, as members of the post “baby-boom”, “Generation X”, inherited a post 1960s malaise with their socio-cultural-economic context, partially due to the failings of the hippie counterculture and its alliance with popular culture. They adopt a libertarian stance. Such a stance, against governmental intervention in people’s lives but endorsing social liberalism, has nevertheless, in its attack upon political correctness, been claimed as conservative by writers such as Brian C. Anderson and Andrew Sullivan. Such “South Park Republicans” (a label coined by Sullivan), point to quotes from the creators, and episodes such as “The Death Camp of Tolerance” (S6E14, 2002) and “Gnomes” (S2E17, 1998).

However, other writers, such as William J. Savage Jr, have observed an “oppositional”, progressive ideology in South Park, a mindset downplayed by Anderson, but apparent in the on-the-record views of Stone and the concentration upon dysfunctional (and harmful) familial relationships in episodes such as “Butter’s Very Own Episode” (S5E14, 2001). Episodes including “Two Guys Naked in a Hot Tub” (S3E8, 1999) are more “gay affirmative” than compassionately conservative. On the political front, “Douche and Turd” (S8E8, 2004) can be said to represent Parker and Stone’s cynical lack of faith in the Democratic-Republican two-party system, but episodes including “A Ladder to Heaven” (S6E12, 2002) reveal an overt preference for ridiculing the religious righteousness and hawkish warmongering of the Republicans, although the Democrats do not escape mockery in “Cartman’s Mom Is Still a Dirty Slut” (S2E2, 1998) and 83

“Sexual Healing” (S14E1, 2010). Branching out, episodes such as “Good Times with Weapons” (S8E1, 2004) question the relationship between various social realities and rightist government policies. Aristophanes, in his aim of comic skewering, takes pot shots at both the right and the left sides of politics, but clearly feels a greater affinity with traditional values, while still being influenced by public opinion. Parker and Stone, while also enjoying much red-blooded fun at the expense of liberal, left-wing causes, operate in a different era and context than the ancient Attic playwright, and, in their libertarian sympathies, take a more tolerant and open-minded approach to society, while still always being sure to keep politicians and their policies (especially Republicans) in line.

2.10: PARA-TRAGEDY AND INTERTEXTUALITY

Para-tragedy is rife throughout Aristophanes. This term, as used by Robson and Silk, is an umbrella description for the manner in which tragedy is depicted in comedy, including parody (a simulation of tragic features intended to highlight the defective qualities therein in a hyperbolic/rebellious manner) and tragic pastiche (a mimicry without mocking levity) (Silk: 1993: 477-82; Robson: 2009: 105, 108 & 114). Audiences were not normally expected to be familiar with specific aspects of texts being satirised (Cartledge: 1990: 72; MacDowell: 1995; 58 & 266- 7).66 Rather, the overall, generic signposts of the tragic genre were mined for humorous potential (Harriott: 1962: 1-8; Rose: 1993: 36-45; MacDowell: 1995: 58). At the same time, though, individual tragedies

66 The exception is The Women’s Festival, which closely parodies Telephus (689-760), Palamedes (769-84), and two of the plays which Euripides had exhibited the previous year; Helen (849-925) and Andromeda (1009-55 & 1099-1137). 84 could be guyed in detail through the medium of comedy, as shall soon be examined.

Such parody is heavily represented in Acharnians where, in order to see their plans through and best his opponents, Dikaiopolis repeatedly evokes Euripides’ Telephus against the choros (326-59, 430-48 & 497-9) (MacDowell: 1995: 53-62). For instance, Telephus’ speech, while holding the infant Orestes hostage after the King’s disguise is breached, “Do not resent it, topmost men of Greece, if I, a beggar, speak to noblemen” (fr. 109; tr. MacDowell 1995, 56), is the basis for Dikaiopolis’ tone of justification:

“Spectators, don’t be angry with me if, although I am a beggar, I presume to speak to the Athenians about the city when composing comedy” (497-9; tr. Ewans 2012, 61).

Tragic pastiche was showcased by Aristophanes when he endeavoured to create “high-style” lyrics (Robson: 2009: 115). For instance, in Birds, the Hoopoe (the metamorphosed Tereus [Halliwell: 1998: 4]), serenades his nightingale “wife”, Procne (Robson: 2009: 115) with this chant, designed to rouse her from slumber:

“Come, nest-mate of mine, wake up from your sleep!

Issue forth all the strains of the sacred chants

In which you lament, with a mouth that’s inspired,

For the child of us both, oh piteous Itys!

Let your voice thrill the air with its liquid notes,

Through your vibrant throat! For your song is so pure 85

As it echoes around, through the rich-leaved trees,

Till it reaches the throne of lord Zeus up above,

Where Phoibos as well, golden-tressed god of song,

Hears your grief and responds on his ivory lyre,

As he summons the gods to take part in the dance.

Then is heard from above an immortal choir,

All in unison clear,

As the gods cry in grief for your plight” (209-21; tr. Halliwell 1998, 22).

The beauty of the imagery in this passage may seem jarring when set against the myth which serves as the basis for this cry. The Thracian king Tereus, whose sexual assault and mutilation of Philomena was avenged by Tereus’ unknowing act of cannibalism – consuming his son, Itys, killed by Phiomena’s sister, Procne, as a meal. He was afterwards transformed into a hoopoe, while Philomena became a swallow and Procne a nightingale (Halliwell: 1998: 4; March: 2000: 121). Indeed, while the rancour between the couple appears to have been largely extinguished, Procne’s grief for her son (211-2) cannot be ignored. It was likely that Sophokles’ Tereus (414) was Aristophanes’ primary source (March: 2000: 122), due to the response the Hoopoe gives to Euelpides’ stifled laughter at the Hoopoes’ bill:

“Well, this is the sort of outrage Sophokles

Inflicts on me in those tragic plays of his” (100-1; tr. Halliwell 1998, 18)67.

Aristophanes’ comic rivals’ and predecessors’ plays only survive in fragments (Dover: 1972: 210-2). Therefore, the poet’s commentary on and criticism of these plays allows an extra glimpse into their styles. In Clouds,

67 Cf. Acharnians (26-7) and Lysistrata (125-8). 86 he criticised the “hack” Eupolis (active from 429 to his death in circa 411 [Henderson: 2000: 85 n. 43]) for attaching to his Maricas (421), “a drunken crone for the sake of the kordax” [an acrobatic, leg-oriented masked dance linked with alcoholics and comedians (Gredley: 1981: 26); Henderson: 2000: 84 n. 39] (553-5; tr. Henderson 2000, 85). But his main objection was to Eupolis, in his view, plagiarising Knights in Maricas (553-4 [Storey: 1998: xv])68.

Aristophanes also had a habit of hypocritically engaging with aspects of his competitors (Dover: 1972: 212-3; Robson: 2009: 6 & 120). Utilising a rich example, he had the choros in Clouds describe the play as “naturally decent […] she [the play] hasn’t come with any dangling leather stitched to her, red at the tip and thick” (537-9; tr. Henderson 2000, 83), which, while true of Clouds, is not a description that can generally be used for Aristophanic humour, especially considering the prominence given to the bawdy business between Lovecleon and Dardanis in Wasps, for example (1341- 7)69.

It is more appropriate to speak of intertextuality, rather than para-tragedy, when discussing South Park’s appropriation of other cultural texts. In Parker and Stone’s post-modern world, the fields of “high” and “low” culture, expanded greatly since the age of Aristophanes, are a ripe target. As Louise Noble has pointed out, classical literature, such as the legend of Tereus and Procne and William Shakespeare’s play Titus Andronicus (1594), has informed and shaped such episodes as “Scott Tenorman Must Die” (S5E4, 2001) (Noble: 2012: 145-50). In this episode, Cartman takes revenge upon the titular character, a ninth-grade boy who tricks Cartman into buying pubic hair from him – Cartman foolishly believes that this act

68 Cf. Magnes in Knights (524-5), Kratinos in Knights (526, 529-30 & 531-6) and Krates in Knights (537-40). 69 Cf. Wasps (1496-1537), despite Clouds (540 & 555); Clouds (1294-1302), despite 541-3; Clouds (1490-1505), despite 544; Frogs (236-8 & 479), despite 1-20; Herakles in Birds, despite Peace (741-2) and Wasps (1292-6 & 1307) despite Peace (743-7). 87 will make him reach puberty. The revenge takes the form of Scott’s parents being told of an abandoned pony on Mr. Denkins’ farm, and, upon their rescue attempt, being shot by the farmer for trespassing. Cartman purloins the corpses, dissects them and serves up the hideous concoction, in the form of a bowl of chilli, to the unknowing Scott, who only gains awareness when he discovers his mother’s finger. Such “incestuous cannibalism” (Noble: 2012: 145) is a clear reworking (Booker: 2006: 148) of Titus serving Chiron and Demetrius in a pie to Tamora (5. 3. 26-62), as a form of vengeance for various atrocities, including the rape of Lavinia (2. 3. 182- 91). Indeed, Titus’ glee in revealing to Saturnius, “Why there they are, both bakéd in this pie” (5. 3. 59), is echoed by Cartman’s chilling “Na, na, na, na, na. I made you eat your parents!”70

“Low culture” has been parodied in South Park by “cinematic” approaches. In other words, the cinematography in the program directly copies the film being satirised – a “shot by shot” homage. Parker and Stone echoed the disappointment many fans felt at Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) (Elsworth: 2008) in their usual controversial style, by having Stan, Kyle, Kenny, Clyde and Jimmy, in “The China Problem” (S12E8, 2008), suffer from nightmares after watching the film. In these dreams, Indiana Jones is repeatedly raped by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, the creators of the character. These violations copy the sexual assault in Deliverance (1972) – Spielberg and Lucas enact the parts of the hillbillies who sodomise Bobby (Ned Beatty) – and The Accused (1988) – the film makers play the roles of the bar patrons who gang-rape Sarah Tobias (Jodie Foster) on a pinball machine. The simulation of the editing and visuals of the aforementioned films was actually so shocking to some viewers and commentators that they complained, although Paramount

70 Cf. “Terrance and Phillip: Behind the Blow” (S5E5). 88

Pictures and Dreamworks pictures preferred to ignore the issue, rather than launch any official action (Elsworth: 2008)71.

It is not just films that have been pilfered for their visuals and performances, however. YouTube videos were spoofed in “Canada on Strike” (S12E4, 2008) – here the website is thinly disguised as “YouToob” - as part of the scenario of Canada, feeling unappreciated internationally, staging a general strike, with the aim of gaining “more money!” from Internet viral videos. The boys, in order to raise the funds, upload a video of Butters singing Samwell’s “What What (In The Butt)”, but they must contend with a long line of other “Internet sensations” at the Colorado Department of Internet Money. Each “celebrity” is introduced before a brief clip, taken from their videos, acts as the proof of their authenticity. As a result, we see such “stars” as Laughing Baby (a Swedish infant who engages in peals of giggling) (“Laughing baby”: 2006); Chris Crocker (a Tennessee teenager, wearing a blonde bob and mascara, who posted a tearfully profane defence of Britney Spears after her controversial performance at the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards (“Leave Britney alone!”) (“LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!”: 2007; Jafari: 2007) and Afro Ninja (an African-American martial artist, clad all in black and sporting an Afro haircut, whose skill with a nunchaku is undercut by his loss of balance) (“afro ninja”: 2006). Eventually, the Internet artists squabble amongst themselves over their popularity, and an all-in brawl eventuates. The Baby guffaws at Chris Crocker’s trauma over the ensuing violence, and his attempts to protect all of the combatants, and Afro Ninja fails to backflip successfully, and groggily stumbles out of view, after initially managing a few successful blows with his weapon. All of the celebrities

71 Cf. “Imaginationland Episode I” (S11E10), “Pandemic” (S12E10), “Pandemic 2: The Startling” (S12E11) and “City Sushi” (S15E6). 89 end up either dead or missing, thereby allowing the boys to receive their ten million “theoretical dollars” – a worthless plastic cheque72.

Parodies of individual television programs often serve to flesh out Cartman’s egotistic sense of “autoritah.” In “Chickenlover” (S2E4, 1998), Cartman is deputised as a police officer, along with Kyle Stan and Kenny, to take some of the workload off of Officer Barbrady, who is learning to read in order to solve the mystery of a pervert molesting chickens in the town. The television show COPS (1989-present) follows Cartman around upon his Big Wheel bicycle, and captures his wanton brutality with a baton against Randy’s “exceeding” the speed limit (Randy was actually obeying the law), a man soliciting a prostitute (Cartman in drag, as part of a “sting” operation) and Stuart and Carol McCormick’s domestic disputes. The trademark, hand-held camera pursuit of criminals, and “thoughtful” interviews by police officers to camera, in COPS, is travestied by Cartman’s sense of righteous upholding of the law (“Yeup. Sometimes upholding the law is messy. But you get by. One day at a time”) incongruously taking place before and after a child is shown, with official justification under law, abusing that trust with the public (White: 2007: 66- 8)73.

Individual episode titles have knowingly referenced other cultural texts. “The Red Badge of Gayness” (S3E14, 1999), details how South Park Civil War re-enactors, under the influence of Schnapps and Cartman’s desire to win a bet (if the Confederacy wins the war, then Stan and Kyle will be Cartman’s slaves for a month, or vice versa), refight the conflict all the way to Washington, D.C. The title takes its inspiration from Stephen Cranes’ classic novel The Red Badge of Courage (1895), and therefore, acts as a

72 Cf. “Faith Hilling” (S16E3). 73 Cf. “Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy” (S10E10) and “The Snuke” (S11E4). 90 gateway into a satiric, “what if?” interrogation of US history74. At times, the plots of entire episodes of South Park send up popular-cultural phenomena. “Insheeption” (S14E10, 2010) is a burlesque of Inception (2010), where Stan and Mr. Mackey, both compulsive hoarders, are hooked up to a machine that will reveal the root cause of their hoarding by tapping into their subconsciousness. Eventually, as the dream state reveals that Mackey, in his youth, was sexually abused on a field trip by Woodsy Owl, a mascot whose tagline is “Give a hoot, don’t pollute”, the cast of Inception, a group of fire-fighters, a pizza delivery person and Freddy Krueger have to infiltrate the dream (whose power has transported Stan and Mr. Yelman, a sheep herder, into it) in order to rescue Stan, Mackey and Yelman by conjuring up a “dream inside a dream.” The plotline, along with character tics – hoarding expert Dr. Chinstrap beat-boxing the musical theme from Inception during assistant Dr. Pinkerton’s explanation – has strong (although lampooned) links to Inception’s corporate espionage by subconscious infiltration.

Alternate/rival styles of animation have been referenced in the program, and, due to these texts still existing today, viewers can compare and contrast between the source films/episodes and the South Park episodes that betray their influences. Amongst these examples are Japanese anime in “Chinpokomon” (S3E10, 1999) and “Good Times with Weapons” (S8E1, 2004); after the boys procure Oriental weapons, they transform into ninja- like characters75. Even computer gaming, centring around the multiplayer online role-playing game World of Warcraft (2004-present), forms the basis of “Make Love, Not Warcraft” (S10E8, 2006), in which the boys, as their World of Warcraft alter-egos (treated through the machinima, or real time 3D computer graphics rendering, process for the fourth-graders’ point-

74 Cf. “The Passion of The Jew” (S8E3). 75 Cf. “Osama bin Laden Has Farty Pants” (S5E9), “Korn’s Groovy Pirate Ghost Mystery” (S3E10), “Super Best Friends” (S5E3), “Woodland Critter Christmas” (S8E14) and “The Ring” (S13E1). 91 of-view shots) embark upon a two month, 21 hours a day gaming binge in order to beat Jenkins, a “griefer” (an on-line gamer who slays team mates or interferes with game objectives [Davies: 2006]).

The differing attitudes of Parker and Stone towards The Simpsons and Family Guy, two of their chief competitors in the field of animated satirical programming, can be analysed through the treatment of the two programs in individual South Park episodes. “Simpsons Already Did It” (S6E7, 2002) referenced the longevity and ubiquitousness of The Simpsons, in terms of story ideas (Weinstock: 2008: 89), when Butters’ (in the guise of Professor Chaos) plans to cause havoc in South Park are thwarted by his assistant, General Disarray’s (Dougie) observations that all of Chaos’ schemes were already featured in episodes of The Simpsons. Even Chaos’ original conspiracy of constructing a machine to replace the cherry centres of chocolate-coated cherries with sour mayonnaise is stymied by an advert for The Simpsons previewing Bart’s similar actions in the next episode. This leads to Butters having a nervous breakdown, and picturing the town, and its inhabitants, as drawn in the Simpsons animation style (including yellow skin and catchphrases such as Bart Simpson’s “Don’t have a cow, man”, delivered by Dougie). Once Butters points out that Cartman’s desire to have a tank full of Sea People worshipping him as a deity was originally showcased in the Simpsons episode “Treehouse of Horror VII” (S8E1, 1996), Mr. Garrison and Chef provide these words of wisdom:

GARRISON: Every idea's been done, Butters, even before the Simpsons.

CHEF: Yeah. In fact, that episode was a rip-off of a Twilight Zone episode [“The Little People” (S3E28, 1962)].

Realising that, despite the cleverness of the writing on the Simpsons, everything is based, at least to a degree, upon a cultural precedent, thus 92 diluting claims for total originality (Weinstock: 2008: 91), Butters is now content to “go back to tryin' to destroy the world again76.”

The Simpsons staff has long had a friendly relationship with Parker and Stone, culminating in their sending flowers to the South Park studios after the treatment meted out to Family Guy in the “Cartoon Wars” two-part episode (Marx: 2012: 175). Several episodes of The Simpsons have even referenced South Park, in return77.

In contrast to their admiration of The Simpsons, Parker and Stone exhibit a dim opinion of Family Guy in “Cartoon Wars Part I” (S10E3, 2006) and “Cartoon Wars Part II” (S10E4, 2006). Parker aired the view, on the audio commentary for the first episode, that the scripts for Family Guy, while “smart”, over-used “gag humour” that was only tenuously connected to the main storyline (Parker and Stone: 2007). This reliance upon cutaway non- sequiturs (Weinstock: 2008:91; Gournelos: 2009: 143 n. 26) was ridiculed in a succession of jokes inside flashbacks in “Cartoon Wars Part I” (observed at Kyle’s house courtesy of TIVO), where Peter Griffin prompts a memory (“Remember when I?”), follows through with a ridiculous statement (“auditioned to be David Hasselhoff’s car?”) and the audience is shown the frequently surreal and/or fantastically experience (Peter metamorphosing into the Pontiac Firebird KITT, complete with glowing teeth, while Michael “Knight Rider” Knight sits atop Peter’s shoulders, in a parody of Knight Rider [1982-6]). In “Cartoon Wars Part II”, the creative brains behind Family Guy are revealed to be manatees, which, inside their tank, choose “idea balls” from a pile (all containing different nouns, verbs and popular cultural references written upon them) and deliver them, in groups of five, to a “joke combine” machine that transforms indiscriminate concepts into haphazard Family Guy material. Although Cartman removes

76 Cf. “Cartoon Wars Part II” (S10E4). 77 Cf. “The Bart of War” (S14E21), “Oh Brother, Where Bart Thou?” (S21E8) and “The Squirt and the Whale” (S21E19). 93 a ball from the tank, thus causing the mammals to go on strike, and leading the President of FOX to consider the “writers” as spoiled, and in need of a lesson (refusing to allow the latest controversial episode to be broadcast), Kyle saves the day with his rhetoric78.

In the aftermath of the “Cartoon Wars” episodes, along with the Simpsons and King of the Hill (1997-2010) staffs sending supportive messages of appreciation (Gillespie and Walker: 2006; Gournelos: 2009: 141 n. 23), Seth MacFarlane, the creator of Family Guy, addressed Harvard University graduates, in character as Stewie Griffin, with these tongue in cheek words; “...cutaways and flashbacks have nothing to do with the story. They're just there to be 'funny'. That is a shallow indulgence that South Park is quite above, and, for that, I salute them” (“Seth MacFarlane’s Harvard Class Day Speech STEWIE (3 of 4)”: 2006). Tellingly, however, in 2009 MacFarlane turned down an offer from Britney Spears to make a cameo in Family Guy (the singer wanted revenge against South Park for its guying of her personal problems in “Britney’s New Look” [S12E2, 2008]), because he wished to avoid an onscreen feud with, and retaliation from, Parker and Stone (‘Family Guy Opts Out Of Britney Spears Cameo’: 2009). Such an attitude makes a compelling point about South Park’s relationships with its rival television shows, especially when there is no guarantee of admiration.

Conclusion

Para-tragedy is widespread throughout Aristophanes. It can take either the form of parody (intended to mock by highlighting defects) or tragic pastiche (a delicately balanced imitation, devoid of levity). Generic stylistic devices of Greek tragedy were guyed in Acharnians, for example. Tragic pastiche served to allow Aristophanes to practise his skill at “high-style” lyrics, be it the Hoopoe’s song (taking as its source the myth of Tereus and

78 Cf. “Canada on Strike” (S12E4). 94

Procne, channelled through Sophokles’ Tereus), or brief passages of dialogue.

Parker and Stone also quote from the popular-cultural landscape, although it is more appropriate to use the term intertextuality in this case. “High culture”, such as the Tereus and Procne myth and the plays of William Shakespeare, such as Titus Andronicus, has permeated episodes such as “Scott Tenorman Must Die” (S5E4, 2001). “Low culture” has been parodied by a “cinematic” approach, mimicking scenes films that are the subject of satire in a “shot by shot” manner. As a result, Deliverance and The Accused shape portions of “The China Probrem” (S12E8, 2008). It is not just motion pictures that have been put under a jaundiced microscope, however – “Canada on Strike” (S12E4, 2008) has examined Internet viral videos’ 21st century addition to the “cult of celebrity”, and their reception in society.

Individual television programs have served to add more dimension to Cartman’s authoritarian nature. “Chickenlover” (S2E4, 1998) is partially influenced by COPS, for example. A knowing form of humour is present in the acknowledgement of other texts in the titles of individual episodes, such as “The Red Badge of Gayness” (S3E14, 1999) alluding to Stephen Crane’s The Red Badge of Courage. At other times, entire episodes have burlesqued the plots of popular-cultural phenomena, such as “Insheeption” (S14E10, 2010) sending up Inception.

Alternate/rival styles of animation have been frequently present in episodes of South Park, which, can be compared and contrasted with the source texts. Anime is a major factor in “Chinpokomon” (S3E10, 1999) and “Good Times with Weapons” (S8E1, 2004), for instance. Even computer gaming, specifically World of Warcraft, is the central plot device (complete with machinima shots) around which “Make Love, Not Warcraft” (S10E8, 2006) is framed. 95

South Park’s chief competitors in the field of animated satirical programming, The Simpsons and Family Guy, feature in individual episodes, but are granted differing receptions. A respect for The Simpson’s longevity and cleverness of scenarios (even if they are recognized as not being entirely original) is to be found in “Simpsons Already Did It” (S6E7, 2002). Due to the dim opinion that Parker and Stone have of Family Guy’s mode of scripting, they maligned the show as the random brainchild of manatees and “idea-balls” in “Cartoon Wars Part I” (S10E3, 2006) and “Cartoon Wars Part II” (S10E4, 2006). Seth MacFarlane, the creator of Family Guy, took the jibes with good (though tongue-in-cheek) grace, but, fearing retaliatory tactics from Parker and Stone, has not yet returned fire at them on his own program.

Aristophanes commonly parodied, or mimicked, specific and general content from his popular-cultural context (Athenian tragedy, myths and legends) for humorous purposes, to demonstrate his opinion of, and knowledge of, other dramatists and to practice his literary skills. Similarly Parker and Stone pick and choose from their much wider popular-cultural canvas (novels, motion pictures, television, electronic games) to demonstrate that South Park, along with much of the contemporary world, is part of the digital information age, as well as to provide laughter and to prove their engagement with, and feelings towards, the cultural Zeitgeist.

96

CHAPTER THREE; CONCLUSION TO ARISTOPHANIC ELEMENTS IN SOUTH PARK

Although there are definite differences between the eleven surviving comic plays of Aristophanes, from Acharnians to Wealth, and the sixteen seasons so far of Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s animated television program South Park, a close analysis of both artistic canons proves a similar satirical purpose. Both Aristophanes and Parker and Stone exhibit a fearless desire to be daring, controversial and fearlessly subversive in their works, and the latter creators’ program exhibits not merely a clear, if indirect, debt to Attic 97

Old Comedy, but stands as possibly the closest television show within the contemporary US televisual context to the spirit of Athenian Old Comedy.

As this thesis has demonstrated, the structure of Aristophanic comedy – the “Great Idea”, the heroic resolve, the agōn, the kōmos etc – have parallels within the scenarios of episodes of South Park. The fantastical elements that the heroes within the plays encounter are similar to the alien encounters and rampaging monsters that terrorise the boys (and their families) in the mountain town of South Park. Discontinuity of characterisation, or “recreativity”, affects the behaviour of characters in both Old Comedy and South Park, but also offers expanded scope for comic possibilities (alongside deconstructionist acknowledgement of theatrical conventions in Aristophanes and of story conventions in South Park). Stereotypes of various ethnic groups/nationalities abound within both canons, thus commenting on the relationship of the Athenian Empire and the United States to the rest of the world, yet a deeper analysis of texts such as Lysistrata and “Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset” reveals a more complicated comment upon gender politics. Aristophanes and Parker and Stone both revel in bawdy humour and verbal comedy, a preference which has resulted in both condemnation and censorship from various quarters. Parrhesia for the era of Aristophanes allowed for the comic ridicule of notable personalities, yet legal repercussions sometimes ensured – the concept of free speech for South Park has also unmercifully pilloried celebrities, yet, so far, litigation hasn’t ensured. Faith itself is treated with respect in the comedies and South Park, yet individual deities and aspects of organised religion (charlatan soothsayers and out-dated dogmas) are ripe for ribbing. As for politics, Aristophanes, Parker and Stone all veer towards conservatism, although South Park, without losing its politically-incorrect edge, is more libertarian in tone. Finally, para-tragedy and intertextuality play with audience expectations of the cultural contexts of the oeuvre of 98

Aristophanes, Parker and Stone. They take potshots at other creative artists, and this adds to the overall sense of no topic being off-limits for the purposes of comedy.

In summing up, I hope to have shown that South Park is America’s televisual equivalent to Aristophanes.

99

APPENDIX: LITERATURE REVIEW

N.B. Unless otherwise stated, instances where connections are drawn between the work of the writers discussed (upon Aristophanes in section 2 or South Park in section three) and aspects of the other text are mine, drawn from a close study of Aristophanes’ extant comedies, and the 16 (so far) seasons of South Park, between 2011 – 12.

1 Aristophanes and South Park

Bondari, Katrina. ‘Oh My God, They Killed Socrates! Teaching Aristophanes via South Park’ in Cutchins, Dennis, Laurence Raw and James M. Welsh. The Pedagogy of Adaptation. Lanham, Toronto & Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc, 2010. 63-74.

Bondari’s chapter, out of all the texts listed here, is the only one to directly investigate the links between Aristophanes and South Park. As part of this direct investigation, all coupled examples of elements of Aristophanes and Parker and Stone’s animated satire treated in this section are Bondari’s own inferences (as distinct from the following texts whose subject is either Aristophanes or South Park). As the title of the omnibus suggests, the focus here is on a practical comparative study of the two canons. Amongst the factors covered are the fantastical/ mythological settings found in Aristophanes (Frogs) and the episodes “Do The Handicapped Go To Hell?” and “Probably” [S4E9-10, 2000]), the unorthodox treatment of religious figures by both Aristophanes and Parker and Stone (Dionysos in the former play, Jesus Christ as the host of Jesus & Pals etc.) and the mockery of famous personalities – Euripides and Kleon in Acharnians and Knights, respectively (under parrhesia), and celebrities such as Rosie O’Donnell in “Trapper Keeper” (S4E12) (under free speech). Bondari makes especially pertinent points when discussing, firstly, the utilisation of 100 inanimate objects, such as the choros of Clouds or Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo, to put forward the underlying message, or parabasis, that the creators wish to impress upon spectators. Secondly, Bondari interrogates the use of disenfranchised individuals within Aristophanes (women in Lysistrata) and South Park (Cartman, Kenny, Kyle and Stan) to showcase the flaws in the logic of the status quo, via the process of “defamiliarization of reason.” Bondari ends her article with a look at para- tragedy (Telephus in Acharnians) and intertextuality (“Simpsons Already Did It” [S6E7, 2002]), as a means of unveiling the cultural influences upon Aristophanes, Parker and Stone, and how parody works as commentary. Bondari writes in a lucid manner that clearly reveals her passion for her topic, and, in writing about her own teaching experiences, leads readers to consider novel ways of engaging with classical literature and contemporary U.S. satire. Unfortunately, Bondari incorrectly labels “Do The Handicapped Go To Hell?” and “Probably” as being the 10th and 11th episodes of South Park’s fourth season, and has Satan, in the extract from the latter episode on pages 66-7, welcoming newcomers to Hell, alongside the Hell Director, when Satan is actually absent from this scene. Such factual errors aside, this chapter is extremely valuable for its insights into how Aristophanic comedy and South Park are forms of art that are not too far removed in purpose.

2 Aristophanes

Cartledge, Paul. Aristophanes And His Theatre Of The Absurd. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1990.

Cartledge’s book may be the shortest of the works cited here but, as a placement of the comedies inside their civic, religious and dramatic contexts, it is no less valid than longer works. The introduction (xiii-xviii) 101 does not only serve as a brief biography of Aristophanes, but also introduces his political leanings (based upon his aristocratic upbringing) – this is a topic that forms the basis of Chapter 5 (43-53), where Kleon/Paphlagon in Knights and the jurors in Wasps are examined for the playwright’s reflecting reactionary opinions of the dēmos. Similarly, Parker and Stone, in their jaundiced view of hippies in “Cartman’s Silly Hate Crime 2000” (S4E2, 2000) and anti-discrimination legislation in “The Death Camp of Tolerance” (S6E14, 2002), radiate a Generation X cynicism about perceived failings of the liberal movements of the 1960s. The poet’s views upon Socrates, and the sophist movement, in Chapter 3 (22-31) is a fine example of Cartledge blending analysis of the comedies with the Athenian historical backdrop but, while rightly pursuing his argument through the prism of parrhesia/personal comic abuse (just as South Park employs Tom Cruise as a celebrity jumping-off point for ridiculing Scientology in “Trapped in the Closet” [S9E12, 2005]), too strong a case is made for Clouds as part of the factors leading to Socrates’ trial. A similar misguided interpretation permeates Chapter 4 (32-42), which deals with the depiction of women within the comedies. A post-feminist debate that male fears of being cuckolded lead to the stereotypes to be found within Lysistrata, The Women’s Festival and Assemblywomen ignores the unapologetic misogyny of the era – although this thesis does relate to the modern anxieties over female sexual agency, as represented by Liane Cartman, and the power of celebrity women in a capitalistic context, such as Oprah Winfrey in “A Million Little Fibers” (S10E5, 2006), that I have discussed earlier. Finally, the postscript (72-6) offers up examples of nineteenth and twentieth century examples of popular culture with affinities to Aristophanes (from The Great Dictator [1940] to Waiting for Godot [1953]), just as South Park, itself heavily influenced by popular culture, has been acknowledged in several episodes of The Simpsons. Despite Cartledge’s ideological bias in the aforementioned chapters, Aristophanes 102

And His Theatre Of The Absurd is a lucid and populist introduction to Aristophanes, whilst never forgetting its scholarly duty.

Dover, Kenneth. Aristophanic Comedy. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd, 1972.

Dover’s monograph on the elements of Aristophanic comedy was one of the first studies of Aristophanes to include explicit examples of bawdy humour in the comedies (especially on pages 38-41), in line with Grecian attitudes towards sexuality and Festival conduct that differed from contemporary British standards, yet, compared to later works on Aristophanes and South Park, in terms of script extracts, Dover’s approach is rather tame. The volume, early on, contains a chapter on the structure of Aristophanes’ plays, including discontinuity of character and deconstructionist awareness (49-66). Examples cited by Dover, such as the escape of Lovecleon in Wasps and the revelation of the choros in Clouds, are precedents, in my estimate, for Parker and Stone’s inconsistency with character ages and in-episode acknowledgement of scenario conventions. A dissertation on parody in Aristophanes (72-7), such as the burlesque of Telephus within Acharnians, is echoed, for me, by the spoof of YouTube videos in “Canada on Strike” (S12E4, 2008), and a look at Aristophanes’ contemporaries (210-20), which offers a fascinating glimpse into how the poet viewed the work of his rivals, has parallels, according to me, to the complicated attitude and relationship of South Park towards The Simpsons and Family Guy (in episodes, and on the public record). Most of the book, however, consists of analyses of each of the extant comedies, so that the thematic concerns of such plays as Knights (89-100; public reaction to changing modes of democratic, and demagogical, government), Clouds (101-20; the depiction of the sophist Socrates – faithful or not - and how it reflected Athenian attitudes to new modes of perceiving the world) and Lysistrata (150-61; the ability of disenfranchised and easily tempted women to, nevertheless, right wrongs within a patriarchal system) are 103 clearly linked, aided by quotes and character scrutiny, to their context. In a familiar fashion, many episodes of South Park are hard to separate from, and are better understood through, their context. Dover, despite his stated aim not to write for professional scholars in the Preface, writes in prose that can be more drily academic and technical than, say, Robson. Nevertheless, Aristophanic Comedy is important for its attention to literary detail and its pioneering study of various comic aspects that, as I have proved, are shared by Aristophanes, Parker and Stone.

Henderson, Jeffrey. The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language In Attic Comedy. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1975.

As the title makes plain, this book was the true beginning of a more frank discussion of Aristophanic content in the 1970s. Most of the book is a list of all the examples to be found of obscenity in the comedies, arranged in an index encompassing the male (108-30) and female (130-50) sexual organs, the sexual act (151-86), scatological humour (187-203) and homosexuality (204-22). Such a comprehensive approach has been matched by no other book dealing with Aristophanes or, indeed, South Park. Henderson’s thesis – that the Ancient Greeks lacked the sense of “filthiness” or “harmfulness” that was later developed by the Romans, Victorians etc (2-12 & 30-5) - may differ, in my understanding, from the moral climate of much of the current United States, but the notion of freedom of speech, and the less- constrained context of cable television, allows for the actual depiction of sex (“Dead Celebrities” [S13E8, 2009]), bodily functions becoming a motif (“Something Wal-Mart This Way Comes” [S8E9, 2004]) and gay sexual debauchery (“The Death Camp of Tolerance” [S6E14, 2002]) in South Park, alongside coarse language that act as intensifiers. An overview of the dramatic function of obscenity in Aristophanes’ plays (56-107) shows the integral nature of such humour to their plots (the shorthand of Dionysos’ defecation in Frogs for his cowardice, for instance) just as obscenity (the 104 plethora of “shit” in “It Hits The Fan” [S5E1, 2001]) drives the events of certain South Park episodes. Finally, the discussion of homosexuality, especially the risible attitudes towards effeminate pathics, such as Kleisthenes in The Women’s Festival, is fascinating, in a society where bi- sexuality was acceptable within society, to compare, as I have, with the treatment of homosexuality in South Park. Characters such as Big Gay Al and Mr. Slave may be figures of ridicule, but other episodes, such as “Two Guys Naked in a Hot Tub” [S3E8, 1999] provide more dimensionality to LGBT issues than Aristophanes (regardless of the struggle between politically-correct tolerance and a long Judeo-Christian history of viewing homosexuality as a perversion). Henderson is indeed thorough in his research and examples, providing much historical background for Aristophanic bawdy comedy. Unfortunately, although he does provide translations for many Greek terms (and, of course, excerpts from the plays), Henderson is not always consistent in this regard, leaving much terminology in the Greek alphabet frustratingly out of comprehension by all save experienced scholars, despite his stated aim in the introduction (xi- xii). Despite this, The Maculate Muse is an excellent reference point for a particular theme of Aristophanes’ output.

MacDowell, Douglas M. Aristophanes and Athens: An Introduction to the Plays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

MacDowell, like Dover, devotes the majority of his book to in-depth examinations of each of the comedies. Nevertheless, these chapters are book-ended by more general discussions of thematic concerns. Chapter 2 (7-26) outlines the audience expectations for Attic comedy, including religion (individual deities being guyed), obscenity (Lysistrata’s plot) and personal ridicule (e.g. Lamakhos in Acharnians) – all of which have parallels in South Park. Chapter 15 (350-6) interrogates Aristophanes’ 105 political preferences in his plays, including his aversion to Kleon and radical democracy, along with a fondness for the older generation and the “Good Old Days”, while reminding readers that Aristophanes would satirise both sides of the civic coin, as Parker and Stone, in their libertarian fashion, have, in my belief, so frequently done. Concerning the chapters encompassing the individual comedies, MacDowell is extremely thorough in setting out their components, so that in Clouds (113-49), the distorted image of Socrates embodying generic traits of sophists, and the discouragement of atheism in Athens, is explored (rather like atheism being pilloried alongside fundamentalism in South Park); in Peace (180-98), the fantastical device of Trygaios ascending to heaven upon a dung beetle is examined in terms of stagecraft (similar to the freedom of animation allowing Parker and Stone to feature other realms, such as Hell in “Do The Handicapped Go To Hell?” and “Probably” [S4E9-10, 2000]) and The Women’s Festival (251-73) (in this book given the literally translated title Women at the Thesmophoria, just as Knights is here translated as Horsemen) is analysed for its patronising jests at the expense of women as alcoholic adulteresses (also evident , according to my analysis, in the hedonistic promiscuity of Liane Cartman and Paris Hilton in “Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset” [S8E12, 2004]). While MacDowell is clearly sympathetic to the status of Athenian women, he remains, objectively, orthodox in his acceptance of the historical reality of the situation, and does not come to any radical conclusions such as those proposed by Cartledge. Aristophanes and Athens is exceptionally straightforward and reader-friendly in its exposition and, coupled with its extensive footnotes (often relating to the sizeable bibliography), allows for an increased, although indirect, understanding, for those undertaking a comparison, of the humorous links between Aristophanes and South Park. 106

McLeish, Kenneth. The Theatre Of Aristophanes. Bath: Thames and Hudson, 1980.

McLeish’s book upon Aristophanic humour veers between concentrating upon the literary qualities of the comedies, such as the structural expectations of plots (50-62 & 64-78), and the more overt practicalities of staging, such as special effects – Trygaios’ flight in Peace, for example (79-92). This relates, within my study, to the common progressions of South Park plots, and spectacular set pieces in such episodes as “Cartman Gets An Anal Probe” (S1E1, 1997). The chapter on bawdy (93-108), while nowhere near as comprehensive as Henderson’s work, is longer, and much more explicit, than Dover’s corresponding writings, taking care to distinguish between more unambiguous obscenities, such as the lusting over reconciliation in Lysistrata (or the more aggressive cursing, as I have already covered, in Jesus vs. Santa [1995]), and double-entendres, including the Megarian scene in Acharnians (corresponding to Wendy’s audition piece in “Something You Can Do with Your Finger” [S4E8, 2000]). Finally, the chapter on characterisation in Aristophanes (127-43) includes a discussion on the role of “stereotyped” characters – in terms of their development - as representative of a serious theme (Kleon/Paphlagon in Knights), just as clichéd, ethnic characters in South Park (for example, the Japanese in “Chinpokomon” [S3E10, 1999]) allow for satirical commentary upon Japan’s culpability in World War Two and international capitalism. McLeish employs a prose style much like Dover’s, but with a greater use of, and repetition of, essential Athenian terms pertaining to comedy, which allows readers, when definitions are provided, to have an increased familiarity with the aesthetics of Aristophanes’ plays. As a consequence of attempting to review Aristophanes’ oeuvre from a dramatically critical perspective, a detailed, almost semiotic, recounting of the comedies results in new ways of thinking about the poet, especially 107 when examples from twentieth century popular culture are employed (such as on pages 82 and 130) to ease engagement with the comic nature of the plays.

Robson, James. Aristophanes: An Introduction. London: Duckworth, 2009.

Robson’s biography/overview of the comedies examines Aristophanes’ plays from both a literary and a practical standpoint. After an analysis of the conventions of Old Comedy (whose “Great Ideas”, agōns, parabaseis and kōmoi have parallels, in my outlook, with the stylistic devices of South Park episodes), the reader is treated to chapter-length studies of factors in Aristophanes which are relevant to the similarities between Aristophanes, Parker and Stone. Amongst these are explorations of the “recreativity” of characters (such as, Lysistrata and, as I have demonstrated, Morpheus in “Ass Burgers” [S15E8, 2011]) in Chapters 4 (48-76) and 5 (77-102) and the importance of puns to Aristophanic humour (such as the double – entendres between “pussy” and “cunt” in Acharnians) in the former chapter – Parker and Stone, similarly, have used risqué puns, as in “Something You Can Do with Your Finger” (S4E8, 2000). Chapter 5, additionally, looks at the reasons behind the “drunken, lying tarts” (84) in the comedies, while also interrogating the acknowledgement of feminine concerns in plays such as Lysistrata, just as South Park contains complex attitudes towards women in episodes as diverse as “A Million Little Fibers” (S10E5, 2006) and “The Breast Cancer Show Ever” (S12E9, 2008). Chapter 6 (103-19) is a detailed investigation of para-tragedy in Aristophanes (especially the works of Euripides), just as South Park utilises intertextuality in its engagement with everything from Titus Andronicus to Inception (the topic of my final sub- section). Chapter 7 (120-40)’s revelations about obscenity within Aristophanes not only, in its extracts from plays such as Peace, permits more context for Henderson’s 1975 research, but underlines the continuing 108 fascination with the bawdy within comedy, as demonstrated by South Park episodes such as “It Hits The Fan” (S5E1, 2001). Chapter 9 (162-87) focuses upon the politics of the poet, which, in its mockery of politicians such as Kleon (in Knights) and nostalgia for the “Good Old Days” (witness Wasps), proves an anti-democratic, conservative bias. This is a tack also shared by Parker and Stone’s cynical take on issues such as anti- discrimination lawsuits in “The Death Camp of Tolerance” (S6E14, 2002), yet the South Park creators, overall, have a more Libertarian view of society, as can be seen in episodes such as “Douche and Turd” (S8E8, 2004). Lastly, Chapter 10 (188-218) is a performance history of Aristophanes, which includes examples of the bowdlerisation of the comedies (such as Rogers’ translations). This has an echo, of course, in the censoring of South Park via syndication and Comedy Central’s Standards and Practices board. It is a shame that, in this final chapter, Robson, while mentioning stage adaptations such as Lisa’s Sex Strike (2007), doesn’t take the opportunity to analyse the Aristophanic comic tradition over the last four centuries. Apart from this omission, however, Robson’s book is excellently researched, full of pertinent examples and extracts and written in a style that, while appropriately academic, never alienates those who are new to Aristophanes’ oeuvre.

3 South Park

Anderson, Brian C. South Park Conservatives: The Revolt against Liberal Media Bias. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2005.

Despite the title, Anderson’s book really deals with South Park only in the chapter ‘South Park Anti-Liberals’ (75-100). Anderson’s slightly rant-filled thesis is that Parker and Stone, from a political standpoint, are passionately 109 anti-liberal iconoclasts, selecting episodes to bolster his quote from Matt Stone that “I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals.” Such episodes include “Rainforest Shmainforest” (S3E1, 1999), which guys environmental activism. The second half of the chapter, from page 88 onwards, also explores the tradition of the “comic as weapon” – such parody with a social message is exemplified, on page 87, by satirists from Aristophanes to Tom Wolfe (this connection is actually made by Anderson, although without mentioning any of Aristophanes’ specific plays). However, Anderson neglects to include quotes from Stone or Parker such as Stone’s “you could easily write a book called South Park Liberals, because we’ve attacked a lot of funny stuff that conservatives and institutions do.” Although the maligning of the right – such as redneck gun rights – by South Park is acknowledged upon page 88, the program’s satirical barbs against organised religions are ignored, and also excluded are episodes that display a more left-wing attitude, such as “Two Guys Naked in a Hot Tub” (S3E8, 1999), concerning homosexual experimentation. South Park Conservatives is fascinating for the insights that it gives into how South Park is situated as part of the “Culture Wars” of the United States, but it is definitely a polemic.

Arp, Robert (ed.). South Park And Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today. Malden, Massachusetts, Oxford, UK, Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007.

Arp’s collection of philosophical essays on South Park is in the same vein as Hanley’s book. William W. Young’s ‘Flatulence And Philosophy: A Lot of Hot Air, or the Corruption of Youth’ (5-16) links criticism of South Park to charges against Socrates for being a corruptor of youth, which relate, in my opinion, to the literature over the relationship of Clouds (and its satire upon sophistry) to the sophist’s trial, and the depiction of notable personalities, under parrhesia, in Aristophanes. David R. Koepsell’s ‘They 110

Satirized My Prophet…Those Bastards! South Park And Blasphemy’ (131- 40) investigates episodes, such as “Red Hot Catholic Love” (S6E8, 2002) and “Trapped in the Closet” (S9E12, 2005), where organised religion’s influence is ridiculed, while free speech/individual faith is endorsed. An overview of the First Amendment’s “freedom of speech”, court cases involving “obscenity” and “profanity” and the self-censoring reaction of Comedy Central to such episodes as “Cartoon Wars Part II” (S10E4, 2006) reflects, in my belief, the occasions in Athenian history where parrhesia was restricted for the common good of the demos. The libertarian philosophy that is extremely evident within South Park forms the area of discussion of Paul A. Cantor’s ‘The Invisible Gnomes And The Invisible Hand: South Park and Libertarian Philosophy’ (97-111). Cantor uses the precedents of Plato’s Symposium and, on page 99, Aristophanes (Clouds, specifically the explanation of thunder as a natural phenomenon) as classical comic mixtures of the philosophical and the vulgar in the literary canon (although Greek philosophical thought is often dealt with, this is the only time in South Park And Philosophy where the poet is explicitly addressed by, in this case, Cantor). Utilising a close interrogation of “Gnomes” (S2E17, 1998), the politics of Parker and Stone are unveiled as willing to take on both conservative and liberal points of view, although left-wing concerns are pilloried especially often, just as Aristophanes exhibited a bias against radical democracy in plays such as Knights. Lastly, Ellen Miller’s ‘Raisins, Whores, And Boys: Gender and Sexuality in South Park’ (177-88) raises questions about whether overt female sexuality in South Park (such as the whore-store in “Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset” [S8E12, 2004]) empowers or degrades women. Similarly, the readings of female characters in Aristophanes by writers such as Cartledge, MacDowell and Ewans reveal a mixed and complicated message. Arp’s omnibus, in common with Hanley’s, is clearly written prose which, while at times in keeping with the carnivalesque spirit of Aristophanes, 111 sometimes goes too far in its colloquialisms and obscenities. The opportunity to develop more links between Aristophanes and South Park, in the context of the prism of Attic philosophy, is unfortunately missed. In spite of this, South Park And Philosophy raises some valid, from my inference, points about the similarities, in humour and politics/ideology, between Aristophanes, Parker and Stone.

Cogan, Brian (ed.) Deconstructing South Park: Critical Examinations of Animated Transgression. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 2012.

Cogan’s volume of collected essays on aspects of South Park is the most recently published of all the texts listed here, yet, unfortunately, it progresses no further, in the seasons of South Park surveyed, than the books published between 2007-10, with the exception of references to “200” (S14E5, 2010) and “201” (S14E6, 2010) on pages 67-8. Louise Noble’s “I Made You Eat Your Parents!”: South Park and Literary History’ (145-61) examine South Park’s intertextuality, as part of the Western cultural context, since the days of the Ancient Greeks. Noble unveils how “Scott Tenorman Must Die” (S5E4, 2001) is related to William Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus and the Attic myth of Tereus and Procne in thematic concerns of revenge and cannibalism – the latter tale was featured, lyrically, in Birds. Comparisons between excerpts from Titus, Tereus and Procne and “Scott Tenorman Must Die” make the para-tragic/intertextual family tree clear. Cogan’s “But I’m Not in the Closet!” Or, “Oh My God It’s George Clooney as the Voice of the Dog!”: South Park, Celebrity, and Thank God Fair Use Laws Are Not as Tough as They Are in England!’ (55-71) examines the tradition of personal abuse, and celebrity critique, in South Park, with “Trapped in the Closet” (S9E12, 2005) and “200” and “201” granted their own emphasis in separate sub-chapters. The legality of parody and “fair use of likeness” is given an overview, along with selected 112 reactions to Parker and Stone, which stands, in comparison with Kleon’s actions against Aristophanes for apparent breaches of parrhesia. Martha Daas’ ‘The Devil Went Up to Colorado: “Satan Comedy” in South Park’ (87-105) undertakes an analysis of the transgressive, but not totally blasphemous or anti-religious, overtones in South Park, despite the mixed feelings and offence over vulgarity felt by critics including Roger Ebert (88). It finds that individual ties to spirituality are respected, while organised religious hypocrisy is lambasted, just as individual deities and oracle-sellers were lampooned in Knights and Peace, but polytheism and Athena herself were held as sacrosanct. Satan is zeroed in upon by Daas as an ultimately sympathetic figure, as a symbol of stereotypes overturned for audiences, alongside, in my judgement, the cowardly Dionysos in Frogs. Finally, MJ Robinson’s ‘The Feminine Mistook: Carnival, Feminist Humor, and South Park’ (179-94) expands upon the conservative social construction of “childhood” being trampled upon, in giving a knowing voice to the contemporary voiceless “outsiders”, children. Relationships between children in the “quiet mountain town” reveal politically-incorrect gender politics (similar to the laughs engendered by Lysistrata et al), yet also a chance for women to empower themselves, thereby shattering stereotypes, and the innate wisdom of children to overcome adult prejudices, recalling the pedagogical aims of the parabasis towards the demos. Deconstructing South Park is appropriately academic, with a welcome selection of articles upon South Park’s popular-cultural precedents, a somewhat predictable fixation upon the religious and celebrity elements of the program and, as usual, an almost total omission of the Aristophanic humour present in South Park. The juxtaposition of Parker and Stone’s colloquial, cynical dialogue with erudite, theoretical academic writing is fitfully clever, and an appropriately snarky gesture. 113

Gournelos, Ted. Popular culture and the Future of Politics: Cultural Studies and the Tao of South Park. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto & Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 2009.

Gournelos’s book investigates South Park as a prime example of shows that offer views on “oppositional politics.” ‘Puppets, Slaves and Sex Changes: Mr Garrison and South Park’s Performative Sexuality’ (101-22), looks at societal reactions to homosexuality through Mr/s. Garrison, whose “hyperbolic” sexuality works as a form of displaying gay stereotypes, as also evidenced, in my observation, by the presence of Kleisthenes in The Women’s Festival. In “Muhammad’s Ghost: Religion, Censorship, and the Politics of Intimidation’ (123-45), the contrast, in my appraisal, between Athenian toleration of the mocking of individual deities with contemporary community standards is made manifest in the recounting of Scientology, Catholic and Muslim protests, and the attendant struggle between artistic integrity and commercial considerations. The position of the United Sates against the remainder of the planet is highlighted in ‘Ambivalent Opposition: South Park’s Racial Discourse’ (165-95) via the South Park stereotypes of different nationalities and races, in much the same manner that the Athenian Aristophanes displayed against rival Greek city-states and barbarians, such as the Triballian god in Birds. Finally, ‘A Neo-Con Parade: South Park and Post 9/11 Politics” (197-222), queries the claims of right-wing pundits, such as Brian C. Anderson, that South Park is, inherently, politically conservative, with reference to selected scenes, scenarios and dialogue in various episodes of South Park that point to libertarian beliefs and philosophies. The book features all of this information in an academic and scholarly, but extremely readable and savvy manner. 114

Hanley, Richard (ed.) South Park and Philosophy: Bigger, Longer, and More Penetrating. Chicago and La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company, 2007.

Hanley’s edited collection of essays, like Arp’s omnibus of the same year, analyses South Park philosophically. Parker and Stone’s satirising of religion highlights the mocking of individual deities, as a permissible context of, in my estimation, parrhesia, in Richard Hanley’s ‘Team America: World Pussies, or This Is Not a Picture of Mohammed’ (13-22), which utilises the examples of “Bloody Mary” (S9E14, 2005), “Cartoon Wars Part I” (S10E3, 2006) and “Cartoon Wars Part II” (S10E4) to remind readers of the societal censorship to protect religious sensibilities, thereby inhibiting free speech. Hanley’s ‘Die, Hippie, Die! South Park Liberals’ (53-64), examines the politic ideology of South Park, stressing the program’s libertarian bent in episodes such as “Butt Out” (S7E13, 2003) against governmental paternalism and political correctness run amok. Hanley is quick to point out, however, that Parker and Stone tackle hypocrisy on both sides of the political fence (just as Aristophanes spared nobody in his comedies). Finally, Hanley’s ‘Start the Evolution Without Me’ (189-97), mixes the fields of science and religion via proving the superiority of the theory of evolution over creationism, taking “Go God Go” (S10E12, 2006) as a jumping-off point. This is the polar opposite of the moral of Clouds. This book approximates the diction and tone of South Park’s dialogue within its writing style, with much profanity and colloquialism. Such an approach, at times, blunts the academic thrust of the articles. Also, there are some inaccuracies in the details, such as Hanley’s not only mixing up the “Go God Go” episodes at the beginning of ‘Start the Evolution Without Me’, but also using the incorrect title – he uses “Go, God, Go! Part II.” Nevertheless, South Park and Philosophy: Bigger, 115

Longer, and More Penetrating raises many worthwhile philosophical points.

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

This book briefly refers to Aristophanes on page 91, when Johnson-Woods discourses about precedents for scatological humour – the opening fart joke in Clouds. Several chapters also stand out as very relevant to the links between Aristophanes and South Park. ‘Warping Fragile Little Minds: The Show’ (75-88), discusses censorship on pages 82-4, in terms of South Park’s existence upon cable television as being free from the Federal Communications Commission’s standards concerning free speech, but still privy to in-house objections from Comedy Central. Similarly, Aristophanes’ parrhesia-fueled frankness met with bowdlerised translations and performances, when Aristophanes was staged in the early twentieth century, before a more permissive rehabilitation. ‘Barnaby Jones as Cultural Text: Reference, Allusion, and Intertextuality’ (104-18) examines parody/satire/caricature (pertaining to parrhesia/free speech) and para-tragedy/intertextuality in South Park, highlighting Parker and Stone’s broader popular cultural canvas, as opposed to, in my view, the mythical and tragic artistic context of Aristophanes. ‘Teaching Children to Despise Paris Hilton: The Celebrities’ (187-99) unveils Parker and Stone’s jaundiced assault upon the self-important egotism of celebrities, such as Paris Hilton in “Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset” (S8E12, 2004), just as Aristophanes deflated the status of those who he had issues with, such as Socrates in Clouds. Chapter 13 ‘Democrats Piss Me Off: Politics’ (203-15) acknowledges the debate over South Park’s political ideology, while conceding that the creators are equal-opportunity, libertarian offenders. Aristophanes, in his nostalgia for the “Good Old Days”, was arguably more conservative than Parker and Stone, finding “liberal” elements in society, 116 such as demagogues, ripe for pinpricking. Chapter 14 ‘Tolerance, Not Stupidity: Difference’ (216-26) places the treatment of minorities/ regional groups in South Park as reflective of United States/international history, and a Generation X-style cynicism towards political correctness (where Aristophanes put foreigners [“barbarians”] into his plays, it was to reinforce Athenian superiority towards those not fluent in Greek). Chapter 15 ‘Blessed Art Thou: Religion’ (227-42) challenges and condemns the faults and dogma of organised religion, as in “Bloody Mary”, but respects faith itself, just as ancient Athenians looked askance at atheism or religious scepticism. Finally, ‘South Park Is Totally Gay: Sex and Gender’ (243-55), examines female sexual agency as a source of humour, just as citizen wives in Lysistrata etc were depicted as nymphomaniacs. Johnson-Woods writes in a clear, well-informed prose that is colloquial, but not as “crass” as Hanley’s omnibus, although there is an abundance of vocabulary related to excrement, and this is overdone, even if it does show an engagement with the “low brow” and ribald energy of South Park. While the book is well researched, many facts and observations go unreferenced, and quotes from South Park are either misquoted or paraphrased. Nevertheless, Blame Canada! is a very valuable and worthwhile text for examining South Park as an overt example of the televisual carnivalesque.

Stratyner, Leslie and James R. Keller (eds.) The Deep End of South Park: Critical Essays on Television’s Shocking Cartoon Series. Jefferson, North Carolina, and London: McFarland & Company Inc., Publishers, 2009.

Stratyner and Keller’s omnibus acknowledges South Park as following in a line of satirists with a “higher purpose” (unfortunately, Aristophanes’ approach isn’t singled out by the editors), in Stratyner and Keller’s “Introduction” (1-14). Next, Anne Gossage’s “Yon Fart Doth Smell of Elderberries Sweet”: South Park and Shakespeare’ (42-62) demonstrates that the appropriation and travesty of Titus Andronicus in “Scott Tenorman 117

Must Die” [S5E1, 2001] argues that South Park presents intertextual engagement with the literary canon in ways which in my view have Aristophanes as the precedent, with his parodies of Athenian tragedy and inversions of ancient myths. ‘Bridging the Cultural Divide: Moderation and Tolerance of GLBT Communities’ (98-123), by Bradley Evans, argues that Parker and Stone’s position against homosexuality, manifested through Mr Garrison, Big Gay Al and Mr Slave and their interaction with the town, is fundamentally anti-acceptance and merely positive of tolerance. This echoes Aristophanes’ mirroring of Athens’ bi-sexual culture in character intrigue and denouncing in, for example, the character of Kleisthenes in The Women’s Festival. Evans’ conclusion, however, may be regarded as too conservative, as Parker and Stone work with a much more compassionate, libertarian ethos. As for Daniel Keyes’ ‘Canada and Saddam in South Park: Aboot Allah’ (139-56), an animated, exaggerated and stylised approach to relations between the United States, Canada and Iraq is argued in relation to the program’s containing of Saddam Hussein and Terrance and Phillip, thereby alluding to US paranoia over “the other.” Such a xenophobic viewpoint – as a source of hilarity - is also to be found in such plays as The Women’s Festival, by the native of a city-state where Athenian democracy and literacy in Greek was considered to be superior. This book is critical and studious, whilst remembering to include selected quotes and popular-cultural reference points amongst all the literary/philosophical theory.

Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew (ed.) Taking South Park Seriously. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008.

Weinstock’s editing of essays on South Park, just like Stratyner and Keller’s opus, is introduced, via ‘Introduction: Taking South Park Seriously’ (1-20, authored by the editor), with a look at Parker and Stone catching the zeitgeist in their work (as Aristophanes did in the Theatre of 118

Dionysos) and taking full advantage of cable television to escape FCC prurience (as Aristophanes deployed parrhesia). Such boldness, however, was met with the consequences of societal censure in the form of community and religious protest, with prosecution by aggrieved individuals and bowdlerisations and moral panics as the unintended side effects. Weinstock’s own chapter, “Simpsons Did It”: South Park as Differential Signifier’ (79-96), illustrates that South Park can be the target of representatives of a religion over “Cartoon Wars Parts I and II” (S10E3-4, 2006), just as Aristophanes was met with litigation and the changes carried out by changing societal mores. Weinstock also looks to South Park’s interaction with its rival, the cultural behemoth and inspiration called The Simpsons, and the wry and satirical appropriation of aesthetics and tics closely associated with the latter program. This emphasises, to me, that the importance of The Simpsons to Parker and Stone, and the surrounding cultural firmament, is equal to that of Aristophanes’ para-tragic borrowing of Euripides in Acharnians, The Women’s Festival and Frogs. Matt Becker’s “I Hate Hippies”: South Park and the Politics of Generation X’ (145-64) demonstrates that South Park is the humorous creation of cynical members of Generation X, railing against the politically correct ethos of 1960s hippies and the countercultural alliance with the entertainment industry. Such an approach (typified by Cartman’s hostility towards hippies, for example) could be seen to be conservative, just as Aristophanes’ aristocratic nostalgia for the “Good Old Days” could be asserted as proof of Aristophanes being right wing. However, the article is careful to expand upon South Park’s mockery of right-wing passions, such as the zealous American gun culture in “Good Times with Weapons” (S8E1, 2004). Finally, “Omigod, It’s Russell Crowe!”: South Park’s Assault on Celebrity’ (209-25), by Damion Sturm, addresses the issue of South Park’s castigating, via free speech, the societal importance placed upon celebrities due to (mostly) refraining from allowing celebrities 119 themselves to be in on the joke, with often almost libellous results in the cases of such icons as Paris Hilton. Such an undermining of the (self -) importance of “being famous” was predated by Aristophanes’ maligning of the real-life personage of, for example, Kleon in Knights. This book is certainly dedicated to “taking South Park seriously”, and the chapters are well researched and thorough in matching expanded theories with evidence from the episodes themselves.

120

BIBLIOGRAPHY/WORKS CITED

‘afro ninja.’ YouTube.com. Uploaded on January 17th, 2006. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEtIoGQxqQs (accessed August 9th, 2012).

Alberti, John (ed.) Leaving Springfield: The Simpsons and the Possibility of Oppositional Culture. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2004.

Albiniak, Paige and John M. Higgins. ‘Restraining Order: We know how South Park, Sex and the City are cleaned up for station sales.’ Broadcasting & Cable (15th March, 2004), http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA403637.html?display=Top+o f+the+Week&promocode=SUPP (accessed June 18th, 2012).

Allen, Matthew (ed.) ‘South Park does Japan: Going global with Chimpokomon’ in Allen, Matthew and Rumi Sakamoto (eds.) Popular Culture, Globalization and Japan. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2007. 36-55.

Allen, Matthew and Rumi Sakamoto (eds.) Popular Culture, Globalization and Japan. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2007.

Anderson, Brian C. ‘We’re Not Losing the Culture Wars Anymore.’ City Journal (Autumn 2003), http://www.city- journal.org/html/13_4_were_not_losing.html (accessed July 20th, 2012).

- South Park Conservatives: The Revolt against Liberal Media Bias. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2005. Aristophanes. The Comedies of Aristophanes. Volume IV. VII The Lysistrata. VIII The Thesmophoriazusae. Edited, Translated, And 121

Explained By Benjamin Bickley Rogers. London: G. Bell And Sons, Limited, 1911.

- Three Plays by Aristophanes: Staging Women. Translated and Edited by Jeffrey Henderson. New York and London: Routledge, 1996. - Birds, Lysistrata, Assembly-Women, Wealth. Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Stephen Halliwell. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. - Aristophanes I: Clouds, Wasps, Birds. Translated, with Notes, by Peter Meineck. Introduced by Ian C. Storey. Indianapolis/Cambridge, 1998. - Clouds, Wasps, Peace. Edited and Translated by Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: Harvard University Press, 2000. - Birds, Lysistrata, Women At The Thesmophoria. Edited and Translated by Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: Harvard University Press, 2000. - Acharnians. Edited With Introduction And Commentary By S. Douglas Olson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. - Aristophanes: Lysistrata, The Women’s Festival, and Frogs. Translated and with Theatrical Commentaries by Michael Ewans. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2010. - Aristophanes: Acharnians, Knights, and Peace. Translated and with Theatrical Commentaries by Michael Ewans. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2012. Aristotle. Poetics. Translated by M. E. Hubbard, in Russell, D. A. and M. Winterbottom (eds.) Classical Literary Criticism. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. 51-80. 122

Arp, Robert (ed.). South Park And Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today. Malden, Massachusetts, Oxford, UK, Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007.

- ‘Sucking Balls and Fucking Off: An Introduction to the Bothersome South Park and Philosophy’ in Arp, Robert (ed.). South Park And Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today. Malden, Massachusetts, Oxford, UK, Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007. 1-2. Arrowsmith, William. ‘Aristophanes’ Birds: The Fantasy Politics of Eros.’ Arion 1(1973): 119-67.

Bad Object Choices (ed.) How Do I Look? Seattle: Bay, 1991.

Bageant, Joe. Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches From America’s Class War. Scribe Publications Pty Ltd: Carlton North, Victoria, Australia, 2009.

Barry, Dan. ‘He’s A Quarterback, He’s A Winner, He’s A TV Draw, He’s A Verb.’ The New York Times (13th January 2012), http://www.webcitation.org/mainframe.php (accessed April 12th, 2012).

Becker, Matt (ed.) “I Hate Hippies”: South Park and the Politics of Generation X’ in Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew (ed.) Taking South Park Seriously. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008. 145-64.

Birnes, William J. Aliens in America: A UFO Hunter’s Guide to Extra- terrestrial Hotspots Across the U.S. Avon, Massachusetts: Adams Media, 2010.

Bondari, Katrina (ed.) ‘Oh My God, They Killed Socrates! Teaching Aristophanes via South Park’ in Cutchins, Dennis, Laurence Raw and James M. Welsh (eds.) The Pedagogy of Adaptation. Lanham, Toronto & Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc, 2010. 63-74. 123

Booker, M. Keith. Drawn to Television: Prime-Time Animation from The Flintstones to Family Guy. Westport, Connecticut & London: Praeger Publishers, 2006.

Bould, Mark (ed.) ‘Film and television’ in James, Edward and Farah Mendlesohn (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 79-95.

Bowles, Scott. ‘Debating the MPAA’s Mission.’ USA Today (10th April, 2007), http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-04-09-movie- ratings-main_N.htm (accessed June 19th, 2012).

Broome, Richard. Aboriginal Australians: Black Responses to White Dominance 1788-2001. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2002.

Brownfield, Paul. ‘Fitting Square Pegs in an Oval Office.’ Los Angeles Times (April 4th 2001), F1.

Burkett, Elinor and Frank Bruni. A Gospel of Shame: Children, Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church. New York: Viking, 1993.

Cantor, Paul A (ed.) ‘The Invisible Gnomes and the Invisible Hand: South Park and Libertarian Philosophy’ in Arp, Robert (ed.). South Park And Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today. Malden, Massachussetts, Oxford, UK, Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007. 97-111.

Cartledge, Paul. Aristophanes And His Theatre Of The Absurd. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1990.

Chicago Hope. Created by David E. Kelley. CBS. 1994-2000.

Cogan, Brian (ed.) Deconstructing South Park: Critical Examinations of Animated Transgression. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 2012. 124

- “But I’m Not in the Closet!” Or, “Oh My God It’s George Clooney as the Voice of the Dog!”: South Park, Celebrity, and Thank God Fair Use Laws Are Not as Tough as They Are in England!’ in Cogan, Brian (ed.) Deconstructing South Park: Critical Examinations of Animated Transgression. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 2012. 55-71. - Law, Sexuality, And Society: The enforcement of morals in classical Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. COPS. Created by John Langley and Malcolm Barbour. Fox, 1989 – present.

Coox, Alvin D (ed.) ‘The Pacific War’ in Duus, Peter (ed.) The Cambridge History Of Japan: Volume 6 – The Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. 315-82.

Cox, Jeffrey. The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700. New York: Routledge, 2008.

Cruz, Gilbert. ‘Happy 40th Birthday, Movie Ratings.’ Time (30th October 2008), http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1854732,00.html (accessed July 25th, 2012).

Cutchins, Dennis, Laurence Raw and James M. Welsh (eds.) The Pedagogy of Adaptation. Lanham, Toronto & Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc, 2010.

Dante’s Peak. Directed by Roger Donaldson. Universal Pictures, 1997.

Davies, Martin. ‘Gamers don’t want any more grief: Players who abuse others in online games may soon be ostracised as virtual communities start to police their own environments.’ The Guardian (15th June 2006), http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jun/15/games.guardianweeklyt echnologysection2 (accessed August 14th, 2012). 125

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London, Toronto, Sydney, Auckland, Johannesburg: Bantam Press, 2006.

De Ste. Croix, G. E. M. The Origins of the Peloponnesian War. London: Duckworth, 1972.

DeLashmutt, Michael W. and Brannon Hancock (eds.) ‘Prophetic Profanity: South Park on Religion or Thinking Theologically with Eric Cartman’ in Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew (ed.) Taking South Park Seriously. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008. 173-91.

Deliverance. Directed by John Boorman. Warner Bros. Pictures, 1972.

Dover, Kenneth. Aristophanic Comedy. London: B.T Batsford Ltd, 1972.

- Greek Homosexuality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1989. Dreifus, Claudia. ‘The Way She Is.’ Mirabella (May 1998), http://barbra- archives.com/bjs_library/90s/mirabella_streisand.html (accessed July 2nd, 2012).

Ebert, Roger. ‘Movie Answer Man.’ Chicago Sun-Times (18th July 1999), http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990718/ANS WERMAN/907180302 (accessed July 31st, 2012).

- ‘Getting Real About Movie Ratings.’ The Wall Street Journal (11th December 2010), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487037667045760093 43432436296.html (accessed June 19th, 2012). Elsworth, Catherine. ‘South Park episode angers viewers with scenes of Hollywood titans raping Indiana Jones.’ The Telegraph (11th October 2008), http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3179812/So 126 uth-Park-episode-angers-viewers-with-scenes-of-Hollywood-titans-raping- Indiana-Jones.html (accessed August 8th, 2012).

ER. Created by Michael Crichton. NBC, 1994-2009.

Eupolis. Fragment 75.3, in Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Sir Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953. 1816.

Euripides. Euripides: Medea, Hippolytus, Electra, Helen. Translated and Edited by James Morwood. Introduction by Edith Hall. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Evans, Bradley (ed.) ‘Bridging the Cultural Divide: Moderation and Tolerance of GLBT Communities’ in Stratyner, Leslie and James R. Keller (eds.) The Deep End of South Park: Critical Essays on Television’s Shocking Cartoon Series. Jefferson, North Carolina, and London: McFarland & Company Inc., Publishers, 2009. 9 - 123.

Ewans, Michael. ‘Introduction’ in Aristophanes: Lysistrata, The Women’s Festival, and Frogs. Translated and with Theatrical Commentaries by Michael Ewans. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2010. 3-49.

- ‘Lysistrata Theatrical Commentary’ in Aristophanes: Lysistrata, The Women’s Festival, and Frogs. Translated and with Theatrical Commentaries by Michael Ewans. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2010. 227-50. - ‘The Women’s Festival Theatrical Commentary’ in Aristophanes: Lysistrata, The Women’s Festival, and Frogs. Translated and with Theatrical Commentaries by Michael Ewans. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2010. 251-75. - ‘Glossary Of Proper Names’ in Aristophanes: Lysistrata, The Women’s Festival, and Frogs. Translated and with Theatrical 127

Commentaries by Michael Ewans. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2010. 303-18. - ‘Chronology Of Aristophanes’ Life And Times’ in Aristophanes: Acharnians, Knights, and Peace. Translated and with Theatrical Commentaries by Michael Ewans. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2012. xi-xiii. - ‘Introduction’ in Aristophanes: Acharnians, Knights, and Peace. Translated and with Theatrical Commentaries by Michael Ewans. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2012. 3-37. Family Guy. Created by Seth MacFarlane. Fox Broadcasting Company. 1999-2002 & 2005-present.

‘Family Guy Opts Out Of Britney Spears Cameo.’ Starpulse.com, 2009. http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2009/01/27/family_guy_opts_ou t_of_britney_spears_ca (accessed August 14th, 2012).

Flew, Antony. The Presumption of Atheism, and other Philosophical Essays on God, Freedom, and Immortality. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1976.

Fung, Richard (ed.) ‘Looking for My Penis: The Eroticised Asian in Gay Video Porn’ in Bad Object Choices (ed.) How Do I Look? Seattle: Bay, 1991: 145-68.

Garland, Robert. Daily Life Of The Ancient Greeks. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc, 1998.

General Assembly. ‘Session 57, meeting 2.’ 12th September 2002, http://www.undemocracy.com/generalassembly_57/meeting_2 (accessed July 21st, 2012).

Gilchrist, Todd. ‘House of Wax: An Interview with Paris Hilton.’ blackfilm.com (April 2005), 128 http://www.blackfilm.com/20050429/features/parishilton.shtml (accessed July 2nd, 2012).

Gillespie, Nick and Jesse Walker. ‘South Park Libertarians: Trey Parker and Matt Stone on liberals, conservatives, censorship, and religion.’ Reason.com (December 2006), http://reason.com/archives/2006/12/05/south-park-libertarians (accessed August 14th, 2012).

Godfrey, Brian J. Neighbourhoods in Transition: The Making of San Francisco’s Ethnic and Nonconformist Communities. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1988.

Gournelos, Ted. Popular culture and the Future of Politics: Cultural Studies and the Tao of South Park. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto & Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 2009.

Gredley, Bernard (ed.) ‘Dance and Greek Theatre’ in Redmond, James (ed.) Drama, Dance and Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. 25 – 30.

Gurvis, Sandra. Where Have All the Flower Children Gone? Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2006.

Halliwell, Stephen. ‘Introduction’ in Aristophanes. Birds, Lysistrata, Assembly-Women, Wealth. Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Stephen Halliwell. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Iv-lxvi.

- ‘Birds Introduction’ in Aristophanes. Birds, Lysistrata, Assembly- Women, Wealth. Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Stephen Halliwell. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. 3-13. - Notes to Birds’ in Aristophanes. Birds, Lysistrata, Assembly-Women, Wealth. Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Stephen Halliwell. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. 254-67. 129

Hanley, Richard (ed.) South Park and Philosophy: Bigger, Longer, and More Penetrating. Chicago and La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Press, 2007.

- ‘Infidel Liberation’ in Hanley, Richard (ed.) South Park and Philosophy: Bigger, Longer, and More Penetrating. Chicago and La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Press, 2007. 23-32. Hanson, Peter. The Cinema of Generation X: A Critical Study of Films and Directors. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2002.

Harriott, R. M. ‘Aristophanes’ audience and the plays of Euripides.’ Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 9 (1962): 1 – 8.

Hawkins, Billy. The New Plantation: Black Athletes, College Sports, and Predominately White NCAA Institutions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

Helmore, Edward. ‘What’s Eating Tom Cruise?’ The Guardian (5th June 2005), http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/05/usa.film (accessed July 2nd, 2012).

Henderson, Jeffrey. The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language In Attic Comedy. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1975.

- ‘Introduction’ in Aristophanes. Three Plays by Aristophanes: Staging Women. Translated and Edited by Jeffrey Henderson. New York and London: Routledge, 1996. 3-30. Hewitson, James (ed.) ‘The South Park Apocalypse: Smaller, Shorter, and Undercut’ in Cogan, Brian (ed.) Deconstructing South Park: Critical Examinations of Animated Transgression. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 2012. 107-19.

Hoang, Nguyen Tan (ed.) ‘The Resurrection of Brandon Lee: The Making of a Gay Asian American Porn Star’ in Williams, Linda (ed.) Porn Studies. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2004. 223-70. 130

Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by Robert Fagles. Introduction and Notes by Bernard Knox. London: Penguin Books, 1996.

Hornblower, Simon. The Greek World 479-323 B.C. London and New York: Methuen, 1983.

Inception. Directed by Christopher Nolan. Legendary Pictures, Syncopy Films and Warner Bros. Pictures, 2010.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Directed by Steven Spielberg. Paramount Pictures, 2008.

Itzkoff, Dave. South Park’ at 200: Trey Parker and Matt Stone Apologise to No One.’ The New York Times (10th March 2010), http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/south-park-at-200-trey- parker-and-matt-stone-apologize-to-no-one/ (accessed July 2nd, 2012).

Jafari, Samira. ‘Leave Britney Alone Guy Is New Web Star.’ The Washington Post (21st September 2007), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101280.html (accessed August 9th, 2012).

Jardin, Xeni. ‘South Park “Bloody Mary” an immaculate deletion, says Comedy Central.’ BoingBoing (9th January 2006), http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/09/south-park-bloody-ma.html (accessed July 11th, 2012).

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

Johnston, Tim. ‘Ally of Bush is Defeated in Australia.’ The New York Times (25th November 2007), 131 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/world/asia/25australia.html?pagewant ed=print (accessed April 12th, 2012).

Jones, James H. Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public, Private Life. New York & London: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997.

Jones, Lindsay. ‘The story behind the “Tebowing” craze.’ The Denver Post (27th October 2011), http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2011/10/27/the- story-behind-the-tebowing-crazy/10368/ (accessed April 12th, 2012).

Joshel, Sandra R. and Sheila Murnaghan (eds.) Women & Slaves in Greco- Roman Culture. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2001.

Kaplan, Don. ‘“South Park” Defends Bloody Cut.’ New York Post (10th January 2006), 83.

Keller, James R (ed.) “Among School Children”: Lacan and the South Park Felt Board Lesson Set’ in Stratyner, Leslie and James R. Keller (eds.) The Deep End of South Park: Critical Essays on Television’s Shocking Cartoon Series. Jefferson, North Carolina, and London: McFarland & Company Inc., Publishers, 2009. 167 – 92.

Keller, Julie. ‘Chicago Hope in Deep S-t.’ E!online (14th October 1999), http://au.eonline.com/news/chicago_hope_in_deep_s--t/38847 (accessed June 18th, 2012).

Kelso, Tony and Brian Cogan (eds.) Mosh the Polls: Youth Voters, Popular Culture and Democratic Engagement. New York: Lexington, 2008.

Kerferd, G. B. The sophistic movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

King, Geoff. New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction. London & New York: I. B. Tauris Publishers, 2007. 132

Kiong, Errol and Martin Johnston. ‘TV chief rejects bishops’ boycott over ‘tasteless’ cartoon.’ The New Zealand Herald (11th July 2006a), http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=1036921 2 (accessed July 11th, 2012).

- ‘Church outrage as cartoon to air tonight.’ The New Zealand Herald (22nd July 2006b), http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10 369513 (accessed July 11th, 2012). Knight Rider. Created by Glen A. Larson. NBC, 1982 – 6.

Koepsell, David R (ed.) ‘They Satirised My Prophet…Those Bastards! South Park And Blasphemy’ in Arp, Robert (ed.). South Park And Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today. Malden, Massachussetts, Oxford, UK, Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007. 131-40.

Konstan, David. Greek Comedy And Ideology. New York & London: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Langford, Barry. Film Genre: Hollywood and Beyond. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010.

Lattin, Don. Following Our Bliss: How the Spiritual Ideals Of the Sixties Shape Our Lives Today. New York, HarperCollins, 2004.

‘Laughing baby.’ Youtube.com. Uploaded on August 25th, 2006. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HttF5HVYtlQ (accessed August 9th, 2012).

Lavoie, Don and Emily Chamlee-Wright. Culture and Enterprise: The Development, Representation and Morality of Business. London and New York, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2000. 133

‘LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!’ Youtube.com. Uploaded on September 10th, 2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc (accessed August 9th, 2012).

Leverette, Marc (ed.) ‘Just Don’t Bother to Vote or Die, Bitch! A Giant Douche, a Turd Sandwich, Hardcore Puppet Sex, and the Reinvention of Political (Un)Involvement’ in Kelso, Tony and Brian Cogan (eds.) Mosh the Polls: Youth Voters, Popular Culture and Democratic Engagement. New York: Lexington, 2008. 205-38.

Lewis, John David. Early Greek Lawgivers. London: Bristol Classical Press, 2007.

Libertarian Party Platform. May 2012, http://www.lp.org/platform (accessed July 20th, 2012).

Lindgren, Jim. ‘Comedy Central Censored out of Fear, Not Tolerance.’ Volokh Conspiracy, (13th April 2006), http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_04_09- 2006_04_15.shtml#1144984968 (accessed October 5th, 2012).

Lipoma, Lori (ed.) ‘Kierkegaard, Contradiction, and South Park: The Jester’s View of Religion’ in Stratyner, Leslie and James R. Keller (eds.) The Deep End of South Park: Critical Essays on Television’s Shocking Cartoon Series. Jefferson, North Carolina, and London: McFarland & Company Inc., Publishers, 2009. 15 – 27.

Lowry, Brian. ‘CBS Allows Four-Letter Word on ‘Chicago Hope.’’ Los Angeles Times (13th October 1999), http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/13/entertainment/ca-21668 (accessed June 18th, 2012).

MacDowell, Douglas M. Aristophanes and Athens: An Introduction to the Plays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. 134

March, Jenny (ed.) ‘Vases and tragic drama: Euripides’ Medea and Sophokles’ lost Tereus’ in Rutter, N. Keith and Brian A. Sparkes (eds.) Word And Image In Ancient Greece. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000. 119 - 39.

Martin, Michael (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

- (ed.) ‘General Introduction’ in Martin, Michael (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 1-10. Marx, Nick (ed.) ‘Respecting “Authoritah”: Trey Parker, Matt Stone, and Authorship in South Park and Beyond’ in Cogan, Brian (ed.) Deconstructing South Park: Critical Examinations of Animated Transgression. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 2012. 165-77.

McLeish, Kenneth. The Theatre Of Aristophanes. Bath: Thames and Hudson, 1980.

Meineck, Peter. ‘Birds: Endnotes’ in Aristophanes I: Clouds, Wasps, Birds. Translated, with Notes, by Peter Meineck. Introduced by Ian C. Storey. Indianapolis/Cambridge, 1998. 382-400.

Meiggs, Russell. The Athenian Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.

Meyerowitz, Joanne (ed.) Not June Cleaver: Women and Gender in Postwar America, 1945-60. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994.

- ‘Introduction: Women and Gender in Postwar America, 1945-60’ in Meyerowitz, Joanne (ed.) Not June Cleaver: Women and Gender in Postwar America, 1945-60. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994. 1-16. 135

Mises, Ludwig Von. The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality. Princeton, New Jersey, Toronto, New York and London: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc, 1957.

Morford, Mark P. O, Robert J. Lenardon and Michael Sham. Classical Mythology. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Morris, Ian (ed.) ‘Remaining invisible: The archaeology of the excluded in Classical Athens’ in Joshel, Sandra R. and Sheila Murnaghan (eds.) Women & Slaves in Greco-Roman Culture. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2001.

MSNBC.com. ‘South Park’ takes on own network over ban’ (18th April 2006), http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/12303873 (accessed July 11th, 2012).

Napier, Susan J. Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Anime. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

Noble, Louise (ed.) “I Made You Eat Your Parents!”: South Park and Literary History’ in Cogan, Brian (ed.) Deconstructing South Park: Critical Examinations of Animated Transgression. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 2012. 145 - 61.

Olson, S. Douglas. ‘Introduction’ in Aristophanes. Acharnians. Edited With Introduction And Commentary By S. Douglas Olson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. xxvii-xcix.

- ‘Commentary’ in Aristophanes. Acharnians. Edited With Introduction And Commentary By S. Douglas Olson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 61-365. Once Upon A Time in America. Directed by Sergio Leone. The Ladd Company/Warner Brothers Pictures, 1984. 136

Otto, Jeff. ‘Interview: Trey Parker and Matt Stone.’ IGN (May 13th 2005), http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/612/612094p1.html (accessed July 2nd, 2012).

Owen, Diana (ed.) ‘Mixed Signals: Generation X’s Attitudes toward the Political System’ in Craig, Stephen C. and Stephen Earl Bennett (eds.) After the Boom: The Politics of Generation X. New York: Rowan and Littlefield, 1997. 85-106.

Parker, Trey and Matt Stone. ‘Audio Commentary for “Starvin’ Marvin.” South Park: The Complete First Season (CD). Comedy Central, 2003.

- ‘Audio Commentary for “Mecha-Streisand.” South Park: The Complete First Season (CD). Comedy Central, 2003. - ‘Audio Commentary for “Volcano.” South Park: The Complete First Season. Comedy Central, 2007. - ‘Audio Commentary for “Cartoon Wars Part I.” South Park: The Complete Tenth Season. Comedy Central, 2007. Plato. Apology. Translated by G. M. A. Grube. In Plato: Complete Works. Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by John M. Cooper. Associate Editor D. S Hutchinson. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997. 18-36.

Poniewozik, James. ‘10 Questions for Matt Stone and Trey Parker’ Time (13th March 2006), 8.

“Pushing the Envelope.” Interviewer: Jake Tapper. Nightline. ABC News, September 9th 2006.

Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Created by David Collins, Michael Williams and David Metzler. Bravo, 2003-7.

Raphael, Rebecca. ‘Who is Kyle Broflovski? Jewish kid hits big time in TV’s ‘South Park.’ Jewish News of Greater Phoenix (n.d), 137 http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/980522/kyle.shtml (accessed July 10th, 2012).

Reese, Thomas J. ‘Facts, Myths and Questions.’ America: The National Catholic Weekly (22nd March 2004), https://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3497 (accessed July 11th, 2012).

Restad, Penne L. Christmas in America: A History. Cary, North Carolina: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Rhodes, Carl (ed.) ‘Coffee and the Business of Pleasure: The Case of Harbucks vs. Mr. Tweek.’ Culture and Organization 84. 2 (2002): 293 – 306.

Rich, Frank. ‘Conservatives ♥ South Park.’ The New York Times (1st May 2005), http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/opinion/01rich.html (accessed July 20th, 2012).

Robert, Dana L. Christian Mission: How Christianity Became a World Religion. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2009.

Robson, James. Aristophanes: An Introduction. London: Duckworth, 2009.

Rogers, Benjamin Bickley (ed.) ‘Introduction [Lysistrata]’ in The Comedies of Aristophanes. Volume IV. VII The Lysistrata. VIII The Thesmophoriazusae. Edited, Translated, And Explained By Benjamin Bickley Rogers. London: G. Bell And Sons, Limited, 1911. ix - xlvi.

Rose, Margaret A. Parody: ancient, modern, and post-modern. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Sarracino, Carmine and Kevin M. Scott. The Porning of America: The Rise of Porn Culture, What It Means, and Where We Go From Here. Boston: Beacon Press, 2008. 138

Savage Jr, William J (ed.) “So Television’s Responsible!”: Oppositionality and the Interpretive Logic of Satire and Censorship in The Simpsons and South Park’ in Alberti, John (ed.) Leaving Springfield: The Simpsons and the Possibility of Oppositional Culture. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2004. 197-224.

‘Seth MacFarlane’s Harvard Class Day Speech STEWIE (3 of 4).’ YouTube.com. Uploaded on June 8th, 2006. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLt73xSJlAM (accessed August 14th, 2012).

Sex and Society, Volume 3. Tarrytown, New York: Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 2010.

Shakespeare, William. Titus Andronicus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

She’s The Sheriff. Created by Dan Guntzelman and Steve Marshall. Lorimar Productions, 1987-9.

Silk, M. S (ed.) ‘Aristophanic paratragedy’ in Sommerstein, Alan H, Stephen Halliwell, Jeffrey Henderson and Bernhard Zimmermann (eds.) Tragedy, Comedy And The Polis: Papers from the Greek Drama Conference, Nottingham, 18-20 July 1990. Bari, Italy: Levante Editori, 1993. 477 – 504.

- Aristophanes and the Definition of Comedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. The Simpsons. Created by Matt Groening. Fox Broadcasting Company. 1989 - present.

Sleepers. Directed by Barry Levinson. Warner Brothers, 1996. 139

Sommerstein, Alan H. ‘The Decree Of Syrakosios.’ The Classical Quarterly 36. 1 (1986): 101-8.

South Park. Created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Comedy Central. 1997 - present.

South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut. Directed by Trey Parker. Comedy Central, Paramount Pictures and Warner Brothers, 1999.

Stableford, Brian (ed.) ‘Science fiction before the genre’ in James, Edward and Farah Mendlesohn (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 15-31.

Starr, Jerold (ed.) Cultural Politics: Radical Movements in Modern History. New York: Praeger, 1985. 244-8.

- ‘Cultural Politics in the 1960s’ in Starr, Jerold (ed.) Cultural Politics: Radical Movements in Modern History. New York: Praeger, 1985. 244-8. Stern, Jane and Michael. Sixties People. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990.

Storey, Ian C. (ed.) ‘General Introduction’ in ‘Clouds: Introduction’ in Aristophanes I: Clouds, Wasps, Birds. Translated, with Notes, by Peter Meineck. Introduced by Ian C. Storey. Indianapolis/Cambridge, 1998. vii – xxxv.

- Aristophanes I: Clouds, Wasps, Birds. Translated, with Notes, by Peter Meineck. Introduced by Ian C. Storey. Indianapolis/Cambridge, 1998. 2-7. Stratyner, Leslie and James R. Keller (eds.) The Deep End of South Park: Critical Essays on Television’s Shocking Cartoon Series. Jefferson, North Carolina, and London: McFarland & Company Inc., Publishers, 2009. 140

Sturm, Damion (ed). “Omigod, It’s Russell Crowe!”: South Park’s Assault on Celebrity’ in Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew (ed.) Taking South Park Seriously. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008. 209-25.

Swanson, Carl. ‘Trey Parker and Matt Stone Talk About Why The Book of Mormon Isn’t Actually Offensive, and the Future of South Park.’ New York Magazine (11th March 2011), http://www.vulture.com/2011/03/trey_parker_and_matt_stone_tal.html (accessed July 10th, 2012).

Tapper, Jake and Dan Morris. ‘Secrets of ‘South Park.’ ABC Nightline (22nd September, 2006), http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Entertainment/story?id=2479197&page=1 -4 (accessed June 18th, 2006).

The Accused. Directed by Jonathan Kaplan. Paramount Pictures, 1988.

The Dark Knight. Directed by Christopher Nolan. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2008.

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie. Directed by Luis Bunuel. 1972.

The Holy Bible: New International Version. Colorado Springs, Colorado: International Bible Society, 1984.

The Matrix. Directed by Larry and Andy Wachowski. Village Roadshow Pictures & Silver Pictures, 1999.

The Twilight Zone. Created by Rod Serling. CBS, 1959 – 64.

Thompson, Ethan (ed.) ‘Good Demo, Bad Taste: South Park as Carnivalesque Satire’ in Gray, Jonathan, Jeffrey P. Jones, and Ethan Thompson (eds.) Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-Network Era. New York and London: NYU Press, 2009. 213-32. 141

Thomson, Irene Traviss. Culture Wars and Enduring American Dilemmas. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2010.

Thucydides. History Of The Peloponnesian War. Translated by Rex Warner, with an Introduction and Notes by M. I. Finley. London: Penguin Books, 1972.

Tilcsik, Andras. ‘Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States.’ American Journal of Sociology Vol. 117, No. 2 (September 2011), 586-626.

Tomashoff, Craig. ‘Kids Behaving Badly.’ People Weekly (11th August 1997): 17.

‘U.S Stands Alone In Its Embrace Of Religion Amongst Wealthy Nations.’ PewResearch Centre/Global Attitudes Project (19th December 2002), http://www.pewglobal.org/2002/12/19/among-wealthy-nations/ (accessed October 5th, 2012).

Van Steen, Gonda. Venom in Verse: Aristophanes in Modern Greece. Ewing, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000.

- ‘From Scandal to Success Story: Aristophanes’ Birds as Staged by Karolos Koun’ in Hall, Edith and Amanda Wrigley (eds.) Aristophanes in Performance, 421 B.C-A.D 2007: Peace, Birds and Frogs. London: Legenda, 2007. 155-78. Vigil, James Diego. ‘Group Processes and Street Identity: Adolescent Chicano Gang Members.’ Ethos 16.4 (December 1988): 421-45.

Violanti, Anthony. “South Park” Angers Catholic League.’ Montreal Gazette (14th July 2002), A12. 142

Vitagliano, Ed. ‘How ENDA could begin an Uncivil war.’ American Family Association Journal (September 2007), http://www.afajournal.org/0907ENDA.asp (accessed July 20th, 2012).

Volcano. Directed by Mick Jackson. 20th Century Fox Pictures, 1997.

Weinraub, Bernard. ‘Loosening a Strict Film Rating for ‘South Park.’ The New York Times (29th June, 1999), http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/29/movies/loosening-a-strict-film-rating- for-south-park.html (accessed June 19th, 2012).

Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew (ed.) Taking South Park Seriously. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008.

- ‘Introduction’ in Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew (ed.) Taking South Park Seriously. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008. 1-20. - “Simpsons Did It!”: South Park as Differential Signifier’ in Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew (ed.) Taking South Park Seriously. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008. 79-96. Wells, Paul. Animation and America. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2002.

White, Mark D (ed.) ‘Respect My Authorita! Is Cartman “The Law”, and Even If He Is, Why Should We Obey Him?’ in Arp, Robert (ed.). South Park And Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today. Malden, Massachussetts, Oxford, UK, Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007. 66 – 76.

Whitman, Cedric H. Aristophanes and the Comic Hero. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1964.

Wiederman, Michael (ed.) ‘Premarital Sex’ in Sex and Society, Volume 3. Tarrytown, New York: Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 2010. 663-6. 143

Wild, David. ‘Puppetmasters: South Park Bad Boys Take on Terror with Potty-Mouthed Puppets.’ Rolling Stone (28th October 2004), 66-8.

Williams, Linda (ed.) Porn Studies. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2004.

Wit-Tak, Thalien M. de (ed.) ‘The Function of Obscenity in Aristophanes’ Thesmophorizusae and Ecclesiazusae.’ Mnemosyne 21. 4 (1968): 357-65.