Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature

Juraj Štyrák

When Jesters Do the Preaching Religious Parody and Satire in South Park

Bachelor‟s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Jeffrey A. Vanderziel, B.A. 2015

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………………………

Author‟s signature

I would like to thank my supervisor Jeffrey A. Vanderziel, B.A.

for his wise guidance, valuable feedback, and nerves of steel.

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... - 5 -

1. From Zeros to Heroes. History of “South Park” ...... - 7 -

2. I don‟t get it! Theoretical Groundwork of Comedy ...... - 15 -

2.1. Parody ...... - 15 -

2.2. Incongruity ...... - 17 -

2.3. Satire ...... - 18 -

2.4. Intertextuality ...... - 21 -

3. Laughing in the Face of God. Humor and Religion ...... - 26 -

4. Prophets, Philosophers, and Jesters. “South Park‟s” Place in Literary Tradition .. - 34 -

4.1. Waiting Is Over – Godot Found in “South Park” ...... - 34 -

4.2. Unintentional Prophecies ...... - 37 -

4.3. Carnival Comes to “South Park” ...... - 40 -

Conclusion ...... - 50 -

Works Cited ...... - 52 -

Episodes Referenced ...... - 56 -

Summary ...... - 58 -

Resumé ...... - 59 -

Introduction

Since its pilot was first aired, South Park has steadily been causing public turmoil with its controversial content. Both praised and criticized for their uncompromising satire, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of the show, have overcome a rough start to produce a work of a cult-like status – South Park is very probably the most offensive and vulgar show broadcasted on national television, and yet one of the most popular ones. Stone and Parker do not shy away from any topics in their satire, ranging from individual, to social, to religious critique. It is the last category that seems particularly popular with South Park‟s creators on one hand, and especially unsettling within the religious groups on the other. Considering its abusive language and disturbing imagery, one could ask, if South Park is not a mere bashing of religion, using its shock-factor to gain popularity. Is that really the case, or is there something more constructive to South Park?

The first chapter provides necessary background information on the cartoon, tracking its roots back to Parker and Stone‟s first collaboration. Since religious satire is one of the focal points of this work, ideological views of the two comedians are discussed. To conclude the chapter, the focus shifts to the show itself – its main formal and contentual features are examined.

The next part of the thesis is significantly more theoretical, examining the crucial concepts for the proper functioning of comedy, and thus of South Park as well.

Definitions of parody and satire are sought after, consulting the works of several authors devoted to this matter. To make the theoretical passages more understandable, the two terms are illustrated on particular instances from the show. Moreover, the

- 5 - second chapter includes examinations of the terms incongruity and intertextuality, both utterly essential for creating and proper understanding of comedy.

The next chapter deals solely with the relation between humor and religion, examining the public reception of some of South Park‟s most controversial religious satire. More specifically, the chapter includes a detailed commentary on the response of the catholic authorities of USA to South Park‟s particularly biting episode, resulting in a heated discussion. Subsequently, these happenings are compared with the show‟s controversies surrounding its depiction of the prophet Muhammad.

The thesis concludes with the chapter on South Park‟s place in literary tradition.

Three theories are analyzed – South Park as a secular prophecy, as a follower of the

Absurd Theater, and finally, the most compelling theory, South Park as a literary form inspired by the carnival of the Middle Ages. All of these theories are essentially a defense and justification of South Park‟s unconventional and controversial rhetoric, with the main focal point being the religious satire and parody. The chapter lays down the framework of these theories and comments on them, trying to find the show‟s literary predecessors.

- 6 -

1. From Zeros to Heroes

History of “South Park”

The year was 2006, and a widely popular television cartoon South Park just won a Peabody Awards for its “fearless lampooning of all that is self-important and hypocritical in American life” (Saunders). Fast-forward to 2015, and the show has been running for almost twenty years now, gaining a cult status in the process. However, its beginnings were far from easy.

This chapter examines how the sitcom came to existence. First, its creators are introduced (including their ideological attitudes), then the light is shed upon the history and character of their collaboration, and finally, a brief description of the sitcom‟s content is provided. Note, that in this chapter, the term satire is occasionally used. As it is one of the key concepts of this work, there will be an individual chapter dealing with its examination later in the paper. For now, its simplified meaning – „a humorous critique‟ should be sufficient.

The very roots of the show date back a long time before its actual premiere. Its creators, both born in Colorado, met each other as students at the University of

Colorado at Boulder.

“Trey [Parker] (the voice of Stan and Cartman) is the one people call the

“genius” of the pair, the self-directed hustler who won a Student Academy

Award […]. Matt [Stone] (who does Kyle and Kenny) is more practical and

business-savvy.”

(Marin 56)

- 7 -

Marin also promptly adds that Parker and Stone “are smart guys, who love acting stupid” (56). Indeed, Matt Stone was student of mathematics and film, fields in which he successfully majored, and Trey Parker studied music theory – he, however, never graduated, although he did create a film “Cannibal! The Musical” during his studies

(Weinstock 6). Considering the main theme of this thesis, it is of relevance to mention, that Stone, even though raised Jewish, says he is not religious, and Parker “considers himself religious” but in a complicated way, and both admit they believe in God

(Morris, Tapper). “I believe there‟s something going on that we don‟t know,” Parker explains what „believing in God‟ means in his case (Morris, Tapper). Despite the critical tendencies towards religion that their show undoubtedly features, Stone refutes any anti- religious accusations: “Neither one of us is anti-religious at all. I mean, I‟m fascinated by religion” (Morris, Tapper). However, they are clearly aware of malfunctioning features in religious concepts, and are quick to mock them. Parker claims:

“All the religions are superfunny to me. The story of Jesus makes no sense to

me. God sent his only son. Why could God only have one son and why would he

have to die? It‟s just bad writing, really. And it‟s really terrible in about the

second act.”

(Morris, Tapper)

However, as it turns out, it is not one of the world religions that Parker sees as the pinnacle of absurdity – it is atheism (even though he does call it a religion story):

“Out of all the ridiculous religion stories – which are greatly, wonderfully

ridiculous – the silliest one I‟ve ever heard is, „Yeah, there‟s this big, giant

universe and it‟s expanding and it‟s all going to collapse on itself and we‟re all

- 8 -

just here, just „cuz. Just „cuz. That to me, is the most ridiculous explanation

ever.”

(Morris, Tapper)

Granted, these are the worldviews of only of the creative duo. However, considering their long and relatively smooth collaboration, it is probably safe to assume that Matt

Stone sees the issue in a similar way. Having clarified their respective (and also mutual) opinions towards religiosity and God, let us return to the beginnings of their partnership.

They both went to a film class, where they got to know each other and eventually started their cooperation. Parker‟s musical caught the attention of FOX‟s executive Brian Garden, who tried to gain a producer for it, an effort, which turned out unsuccessful. The duo‟s first considerable breakthrough came just in the right moment, as Garden gave Parker and Stone $1,200 “to help them pay rent and food” and they were to produce a Christmas holiday card for Garden‟s business contacts in return

(Weinstock 7). However, what the pair produced was deemed not suitable for sending out to the business partners; even though Garden himself labeled it as “the funniest thing” he had seen (Collins 76). The card took a form of a short cartoon (some 5 minutes) named “The Spirit of Christmas”, starring four young boys, Jesus, Santa

Claus, and a couple of minor characters. This seemingly innocent cast puts on a vulgar, brutal and in many ways offensive performance (e.g. Jesus and Santa battling each other over the real meaning of Christmas, inadvertently killing a few children in the process).

Despite its controversial character (or maybe because of it), the short film found its audience and quickly became wildly popular – and “catapulted Parker and Stone to stardom” (Weinstock 7). It is noteworthy that the artwork of “The Spirit of Christmas”, which Marin very fittingly labeled “artfully artless”, resembles the one of South Park (it

- 9 - features an even more simplified and crude animation style than the first seasons of

South Park have), and even contains a few characters which would later be present in the sitcom: the four boys (however only Kyle and Kenny are given names), Jesus, and

Santa Claus too (56). Therefore, the Christmas video can be considered the birthplace of the trademark South Park‟s visual style, which has become a cult-like feature of the show, branching into other commercial spheres as well – e.g. marketing, or merchandising. Parker and Stone began to receive lots of offers, and ultimately, they decided to sign with Comedy Central. What helped them decide was Comedy Central‟s willingness to go aboard with their unorthodox and controversial visions. Parker mentions, that as a part of the business negotiations, the pair asked: “how do you feel about talking poo?”, and the answer they got at Comedy Central was: “We love it!” – a moment that Marin described as “another historic moment in the annals of American culture (Marin 56).

South Park‟s pilot episode, “Cartman Gets an Anal Probe”, aired on August 13,

1997 (“Season One – South Park Archives”). It was the first cartoon show to „boast‟ the

TV-MA rating, which labeled it suitable only for mature audiences (Weinstock 7). The first season caused a considerate medial uproar and received mixed reviews. For example, the Parents‟ Television Council was not exactly thrilled with the show (which is somehow understandable) and claimed that South Park “is so offensive it shouldn‟t have been made” (“Season One – South Park Archives”). But Comedy Central did not seem to take the reproaches too seriously. Instead, they built their advertising of the show around its controversial character, using slogans such as “Alien abductions, anal probes, & flaming farts: Why they invented the V–chip” (Weinstock, 7). Indeed, the very first episode is loaded with potty-humor, vulgar language, and violent images, and as a whole, the first season got gradually more controversial. Parker dismisses the

- 10 - remarks that the show is a mere display of distasteful jokes: “People think the show is just fart jokes. […] I wish. It wouldn‟t be so hard to find writers” (Marin 56). The creators of the show responded to the criticism in a manner quite characteristic of them.

That is, every episode starts with the following disclaimer, written in capitals, followed by the show‟s theme song:

“All characters and events in this show – even those based on real people – are

entirely fictional. All celebrity voices are impersonated….. poorly. The

following program contains coarse language and due to its content it should

not be viewed by anyone.”

However, none of the controversies prevented South Park from building a massive – even though rather specific – fan base.

“The Christmas episode that ran on December 17, 1997, drew a 51% share

among men age 18-24 in the 47 million homes receiving Comedy Central and

a 5,4 rating – the biggest rating in Comedy Central‟s history at that point and the

second highest rating on cable for that week (Ross).”

(Weinstock 8)

Marin describes South Park as a “grown-up show with irresistible kid appeal,” and in fact, despite its TV-MA rating, in 2006, “23 percent of the audience [was] under 18”

(Marin 56). Meanwhile, in the time of writing this work, South Park has released 257 episodes in eighteen seasons, and won various awards, most significantly Peabody

Awards in 2006, and five Emmy Awards in the years 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2013 for “Outstanding Animated Program” (“South Park – Awards”). The show‟s unique production process plays a big part in its undeniable success. What makes South Park able to satirically react to most recent events is the fact that the episodes have a “six day

- 11 - turnover rate from conception to airing on national television” (“„South Park‟ Behind the Scenes”). As the saying goes – South Park is striking the iron while it‟s hot. This has not always been the case, as the advanced animation technology has not been used to such an extent as it is now. Thompson accurately points out that due to its speedy creation process, South Park “may very well be the most current non-news (or non- news satire) program on television (218). To put it in contrast, the very first episode, made purely by cut-out technique, took over three months to make (“„South Park‟

Behind the Scenes”). This seems to have affected the content character of the show as well. While the first few seasons build more on seemingly autotelic, sometimes absurd, gags and plot lines, the later episodes venture into social satire significantly more frequently. Having said that, even the most recent episodes do not shy away from using

„fart jokes‟ just for the comedy‟s sake, and on the other hand, the pioneering episodes do contain satirical features – the shift should be considered a contentual tendency.

The product of this creative process is a crudely animated cartoon world, which mostly revolves around four pre-pubescent four young boys, living in a small mountain town South Park, Colorado, “named after a real Colorado county notorious for alien sightings and other rural myths” (Marin 56). The town seems to be the focal point of all-

American, but also worldwide happenings, therefore it “functions as synecdoche, a small part of the United States that reflects the essence of the whole” (Fallows 170).

The four fourth-graders Stan Marsh, Kyle Broflovski, Eric Cartman, and Kenny

McCormick stick together to face everyday struggles, as well as rare, and sometimes fantastic, or fantastically absurd adventures – be it a giant robotic Barbara Streisand, monstrous bloodthirsty guinea pigs, or, on the other hand, simply trying to avoid playing baseball (see episodes “Mecha-Streisand”, “Pandemic” and its sequel

“Pandemic 2: The Startling”, and “The Losing Edge”, respectively). To help them

- 12 - along, they developed a sharp tongue with a wide array of curse words, and a perverted sense of humor. I find Rick Marin‟s following description very apt and in tune with the show‟s tone:

“Their [the creators‟] colorful brood of minimally altered egos – Stan, Kyle,

Cartman and Kenny – are foulmouthed li‟l „bastards‟ (Stone and Parker‟s

favorite description of 9-year-old boys) who abuse each other, delight in dissing

authority figures and yet possess a dumb innocence that makes their bad

behavior forgivable to anyone with an honest memory of third grade.”

(Marin 56)

Above all, the notion of „dumb innocence‟ is very fitting, because as much as the four boys cope and interact with the mature world, they are only ten years old and occasionally fail to understand it, often comically so – e.g. when Kyle Broflovski misunderstands a sexual context, and tries to purchase an erection for his father in order to save his marriage (“Spontaneous Combustion” episode). As Marin puts it, they are

“raunchy but naively presexual” (56). The children of South Park are raised and educated by the adult population of the town, ready to eagerly follow the newest fad that happens to enter their town, however bizarre it might be – e.g. inserting food into one‟s rectum (see episode “Red Hot Catholic Love”). Mr. Garrison, the elementary school teacher, is perhaps the most illustrative example (even though very exaggerated) of South Park‟s unstable characters – he is a schizophrenic homosexual with a history of sex-change operations, using his hand „dressed‟ as a puppet as his racist and homosexual alter ego called Mr. Hat. He does get rid of Mr. Hat eventually, having come to terms with his own sexual orientation, however, only to substitute it for an assistant, Mr. Slave, who is the teacher‟s sex slave, as the name suggests. Within a broader spectrum of episodes, it indeed becomes obvious, that in South Park, it is often

- 13 - the children who are the more stable characters, and have a more rational attitude towards the affairs taking place, whereas the adults tend to react very radical and turn virtually blind to the other side of the issue.

The episodes‟ plots often feature a world-wide phenomenon projected onto the small town‟s scene. The town usually goes through dramatic events, ranging from small scale affairs to worldwide catastrophes. At the end of most episodes, a message addressing the previous events is delivered, and in the most cases, it is one of the boys

(usually Stan or Kyle) who do the „preaching‟. Even though the show often takes on pressing moral and social questions, it hardly ever seeks to provide clear answers.

Instead, it questions the unquestioned attitudes, and encourages a discussion in a “What do I think about this?” rather than “Which team are you on?” way (Thompson 214).

Nevertheless, taking into account that the show has been running for almost twenty years now, describing it on a couple of pages hardly does it any justice. Despite the creators‟ disclaimer recommending that no one should actually watch it, giving it a chance cannot do any harm, when the “What do I think about this?” critical attitude is applied.

- 14 -

2. I don’t get it!

Theoretical Groundwork of Comedy

In order to be able to talk about South Park and TV comedy in more detail, it is inevitable to lay out a theoretical background. Therefore, this chapter summarizes the most widely received theories of several authors, dealing with humor, and more specifically, with parody and satire. Subsequently, the focus will shift to the way in which comedy functions – essentially addressing the question „why is it funny?‟ – and what elements are crucial to understanding a satirical TV sitcom, namely incongruity and intertextuality.

For the purposes of this thesis, there is no need (nor space) for a detailed discussion about the definition of humor. However, the term will be used in a few instances and thus it should have its meaning clarified. I will use a very brief, but nevertheless sufficient, definition from Peter Berger‟s “Redeeming Laughter”, which claims that humor is “the capacity to perceive something as funny” (Berger 10). It is the forms of humor, particularly parody and satire, which stand in center of this thesis and therefore require closer attention. Many authors devoted their work to these phenomena and this chapter provides several of their definitions with a brief commentary.

2.1. Parody

Parody will be discussed first. Harries provides the following definition of this concept:

“[it is] the process of recontextualizing a target or source text through the

transformation of its textual (and contextual) elements, thus creating a new text.

This conversion – through the resulting oscillation between similarity to and

- 15 -

difference from the target – creates a level of ironic incongruity with an

inevitable satiric impulse.”

(Harries 6, emphasis in original)

This definition nicely highlights the most distinguishing characteristics of parody. First and foremost, parody is created upon the relation between two texts. However, I would argue that parody does not necessarily mean an actual textual transformation of the source text (as opposed to Harries), a contextual transformation and/or transformation of the means of the presentation of the text (e.g. mocking the serious tone of a text, and/or presenting it in a different context without changing actual words may very well be considered parody). Naturally, questions could be raised as to if the result of this process should be considered a new text or merely a presentation mode of the original text. Parody can be relatively easily mistaken with pastiche, which is a process of imitating a work of art – be it its stylistic or factual features (Hoesterey 2-5). However, parody is an attempt at mockery of the original text, whereas pastiche aims to celebrate it, which is a crucial difference. Having said that, this classification is problematic, as e.g. Henry in his work claims that parody “is a playful imitation or a humorous reworking of another text for comic effect, and is usually designed to either pay tribute to the original or poke fun at it” (Henry 9). Since the definitions vary among the researchers, a clear distinction between parody and pastiche cannot be made. It seems that parody can do serve both to ridicule and celebrate, nevertheless, in some of definitions I examined, the celebratory element of parody is present (see e.g. Henry,

Hutcheon: “[…] from scornful ridicule to reverential homage” (37)), but in other cases not very prominent or even completely absent, Gray, Harries).

- 16 -

2.2. Incongruity

Staying focused on Harries‟ definition of parody, there is another term that requires further elaboration, and that is incongruity. This concept is the key to the proper functioning of humor. Through “juxtaposing what is expected with unexpected” comical effect is created (Feltmate 6). However, as Feltmate promptly adds, comical effect is not achieved by means of random incongruity. The desired concept is called appropriate incongruity, which is “the perception of an appropriate relationship between categories that would ordinarily be regarded as incongruous” (Oring 1). I will demonstrate this notion on a particular scene from South Park from an elementary school class (note that this scene is actually from the South Park movie “Bigger, Longer

& Uncut”):

Mr. Garrison (teacher): OK children, let‟s start today with few new math

problems. What is five times two? [Writes the equation on the

blackboard] Come on children, don‟t be shy, just give it your best shot.

[A boy raises his hand] Yes, Clyde?

Clyde (the boy): Twelve?

Mr. Garrison: OK, now let‟s try and get an answer from someone who‟s not a

complete retard. Anyone?

The moment when Mr. Garrison reacts to Clyde‟s (a fourth-grader) wrong answer with an unexpected offensive comment suggesting that the boy is mentally handicapped, instead of an expected, more traditional teacher-like answer, is an example of appropriate incongruity. The insertion of an incongruent element into a text with a comical purpose could be colloquially labeled as a punch line.

- 17 -

2.3. Satire

Another concept standing close to parody is the one of satire. Again, there is not a clear distinction between the two terms and they overlap in many features.

Nevertheless, elements unique to satire can be defined. Consulting Berger‟s

“Redeeming Laughter: The Comic Dimension of Human Experience” again, a very straight-forward definition of satire is found. He claims that satire is “the deliberate use of the comic for the purposes of attack” (Berger 167). The word attack may seem a bit too strong, but when we look at a commonly accepted consensus, formed during the middle part of the 20th century, about the purpose of satire, (derived from works listed by Matthew Henry, such as Northrop Frye‟s “Anatomy of Criticism” (1957), Robert

Elliott‟s “The Power of Satire: Magic, Ritual, Art” (1960), Gilbert Highet‟s “The

Anatomy of Satire” (1962), etc.) we find out, that the main effort of satire is “to expose, censure, and reform” (Henry 8). In other words, satire‟s aim to emphasize and initiate a discussion in order to change (in another words „attack‟) negative features of its target seems unquestioned. To complete Berger‟s definition, he adds that “in satire, the aggressive intent becomes the central motif of comic expression” (167). To make the distinction between parody and satire clearer, we need to examine a few more definitions by other authors. The notions of Jonathan Gray provide a sufficient explanation – “while parody attacks form, and ideology through form, satire attacks ideology directly” (Gray 135, emphasis in original). Taking into account the definitions of parody stated previously, it is safe to say that both parody and satire overlap to a considerable extent – they aim to ridicule the text they refer to. However, where they split, is the way they achieve their goal. Parody, in its efforts, stays closely focused on the form of the source text, whereas satire is free to venture into means and forms it deems appropriate. Moreover, when we examine further definitions, we find that satire

- 18 - and parody are used with a different intention: “satire, […] unlike parody, is both moral and social in its focus and ameliorative in its intention” (Hutcheon 16). She then promptly goes on to add that parody, too, can be used with “ideological or even social implications” (16). As it seems, finding a distinctive features which are exclusive for either satire or parody, is more difficult than one might think. Nevertheless, it seems, that satire is bound to its ameliorative critique – it tries to emphasize the features it considers negative, question them, and start a discussion aiming at eventual improving of these features. Parody does not usually have ameliorative goals, but, as we seen in

Hutcheon‟s work, it might do. Furthermore, there is another important function of satire, related to its moral critique. It often seeks to attack the black-and-white perception of what is right and wrong, in the light of Manichaean philosophy (Henry 8).

This will be an important notion later in this work, when religion is examined as the target of satire in South Park. To demonstrate this very theoretical definition of parody and satire, and their respective differences, I provide an example from the sitcom for each of them.

“The body of Christ, sleek swimmer‟s body all muscled up and toned. The body

of Chris, oh what a body I wish I could call it my own. […] Whenever I see

Jesus up on that cross, I can‟t help but think that he looks kinda hot.”

These are the lyrics of a song, written by a fourth-grader Eric Cartman (one of the main characters of show) and the leader of the music band Faith + 1, labeled as Christian rock. To provide a brief context, the band was grounded only to sell as many records as possible via fooling Christians. The text of the song can be considered a parody. It is important to stress again, that parody works staying closely attached to the form of the text it targets, or, as Gray nicely puts it: “parody‟s jokes are at the expense of genre conventions” (47). In the light of this definition, and given the context of the episode,

- 19 - the lyrics from the example are parodying the genre of Christian song lyrics. In coherence with the definitions discussed previously, the parodying text stays closely related with the source text (taking its form). In this particular example, the celebratory or homage factor is obviously out of question, and Hutcheon‟s scornful ridicule seems an appropriate label for it. Another aspect from Hutcheon‟s theory applicable on this example is the claim that parody can carry social or ideological implications. Although every instance of revealing the alleged target of criticism is more or less only an interpretation, the implications in this case seem to aim at the tendency of Christian lyrics to evoke pious feelings through overzealous expressions describing the intimate – in a not perverted manner – relationship with Jesus. What South Park does in this example, is taking out the „not perverted‟ out of the equation, thus giving the lyrics utterly incongruent meaning, achieving comical effect in the process (although the comic element could be surely doubted because of its controversial character).

Following example of satire is again from a South Park classroom, with theory of evolution being the topic of the class:

Mr. Garrison (the teacher): And so you see, there is no God.

Stan (a fourth-grader): Well, there could still be a God.

Mr.Garrison: What?!

Stan: Couldn‟t evolution be the answer to how and not the answer to why?

Mr.Garrison: Uh-oh, [starts banging on a triangle], retard alert! Retard alert,

class! [to Stan] Do you believe in a flying spaghetti monster too, bubble

head?!

Stan: I wasn‟t talking about spaghetti.

- 20 -

Mr. Garrison: Come on you, you‟re gonna have to sit in the dunce chair. [Puts a

big white triangular hat on Stan’s head, with “I HAVE FAITH” written

on it].

This example was chosen because it contains many of the distinctive features of satire discussed previously. First, as opposed to the example of parody, even though this example works with a source text (or number of texts, since this example aims at the debate surrounding theory of evolution, which is after all a collection of various texts) it does not stay within the genre of these texts to achieve its goals. Second, it discredits the black-and-white dualistic stance in this debate – one either believes in evolution theory and rejects existence of any higher power (God), or believes there can be a God and gets labeled a „retard‟ (even though Stan, from the example, does not object to theory of evolution). And finally, exactly through attacking the dualistic tendencies present in the debate, this satiric text aims to fulfill its ameliorative function (see

Hutcheon 16), by emphasizing (and – for comical effect – exaggerating) the features of the source text seen by the authors of the satire as flawed. Again, a great deal of incongruity is to be find in this example, as it becomes obvious, the teacher is an incongruent character on his own. His use of extreme methods, his intolerance to the opinions he finds incorrect, are by no means qualities one would expect a teacher to have.

2.4. Intertextuality

It has been already illustrated in the previous chapters on humor, parody, and satire, how dependant these text forms are on others bodies of text. As this notion is of great importance to proper functioning of any TV sitcom (or any text, as will be

- 21 - demonstrated later) this chapter will provide the theoretical background behind the concept of texts interacting with each other.

The term intertextuality appeared relatively recently, approximately in the early

1970s (Gray 19). The historical development of this term and the various meanings it had are not very relevant for this thesis, and will be therefore not further discussed. If anyone should be interested in this topic, I recommend reading the chapter “Reading through Intertextuality” in the book “Watching with the Simpsons” by Jonathan Gray.

Gray sees Mikhail Bakhtin as a forefather of intertextuality in its modern form

(Gray 24). Bakhtin suggests a new way of looking at utterances, claiming that “the word wants to be heard, understood, responded to, and again to respond to the response, and so forth, ad infinitum” (Bakhtin 127, emphasis in original). This is new in the sense that an utterance stands always in a relation to other utterances. Bakhtin goes as far as to say that “the text lives only by coming into contact with another text (with context), […] joining a given text to a dialogue” (Bakhtin 162). This implies many things, but staying focused on the topic of this thesis, intertextuality is absolutely crucial for achieving any comical effect. As stated previously, all forms of comedy work with a body of interacting texts. Reading a new text always happen within a frame of all texts already read which inevitably influences the reading of the new text. “As we try to make sense of a text,” Gray claims, “we activate our (intertextual) genre literacies all the time.

Other texts are always there with us as we work our way through a text” (33). In other words, reader‟s perception of the new text is shaped by collective knowledge of all text they have read. However, this process is not strictly linear. In much the same way, the reception of new texts changes our understanding of the previous texts. Gray demonstrates this with following example:

- 22 -

“I reread Tolkien‟s Lord of the Rings trilogy, and in doing so, reactivated my

Lord of the Rings movie gestalt to make sense of the books, but simultaneously

the books caused a reappraisal of the films and of the books, but simultaneously

the books caused a reappraisal of the films and much of their contents. In

reading Tolkien, then, I was also reading the films once more.”

(Gray 34, italics in original)

I would like to emphasize that, in the citation above, Gray labels both books and films as texts. Therefore, every utterance in whichever form – be it written, spoken, sung, etc.

– is de facto a text. The entirety of the films seen, books read, discussions held, facts known, etc. or – the entirety of texts – „stored‟ in our (sub)consciousness is one‟s cultural knowledge. This knowledge is enriched upon every reception of a new text, but also, if the new text somehow relates to any of the knowledge, gets altered by the new text.

In so far, these ideas dealt mainly with text forms in general. I have stated that intertextuality is a crucial concept for any form of comedy. However, the extent of dependence of the comical element on the secondary text(s) varies. Taking as the examples the scenes from South Park previously used in this work, this quality of intertextuality can be nicely illustrated. Moreover, the examples show how diverse can the text forms related to intertextuality be.

If we look at the first example (the scene where Mr. Garrison calls a student of his a retard for not knowing the right answer to a math problem „5 x 2‟), we see, that the „punch line‟ of the scene – “OK, now let‟s try and get an answer from someone who‟s not a complete retard.” – is not necessarily dependant on any too specific cultural

- 23 - knowledge, except for the concept behind the negative use of the word retard, and the correct solution to the equation „5 x 2‟.

Examining the next example provided in the thesis (the lyrics of the song “Body of Christ” written by one of the South Park boys) we see a slightly different situation as far as the comical element is concerned. It is clear, that humor (as defined by Berger, in the previous chapter) is not an objective term – what one person finds funny, might seem completely dull, or even offensive, to another person. Subjectively speaking, the supposed comical effect in the lyrics from the example is achieved, again, by incongruity – expressions with a clearly sexual meaning directed towards the person of

Jesus Christ is by no means an element expected in a Christian song, and that is exactly what many (not only) Christians do not find funny in any way. However, this is not a concern when looking at the functioning of the joke, when examining the example from the point of intertextuality. To be able to recognize the attempted joke „hidden‟ in the text, one needs to have some knowledge of the basic notions of Christianity and their worship of Jesus Christ (including the respect and sanctity they ascribe to his body).

Furthermore, there is the sexual implication to be considered, expressed by using an alternative form to question the very widely used extensively muscular representation of

Jesus on the cross. This feature makes it obvious more than others (although in a similar way as in the case of the „2 x 5‟ feature), that the cultural knowledge directly relates to the social age of the recipient of a text, i.e. the familiarity with the fundamentals of basic social constructs and scholar disciplines.

The last example shows how specific the required cultural knowledge can be, in order for one to understand the context, and thus, the joke. The scene revolves around the question of the possibility of a God‟s existence in the light of the theory of evolution. The teacher offends a student of his because the student objects, that even

- 24 - with the theory of evolution, there could be a god. And so, to be able to make sense of this scene, a viewer must have quite a substantial amount of cultural knowledge – above all, at least partial familiarity with the uncompromising stance of creationists and the ideological and political debate surrounding the issue of teaching evolution in schools.

Although it might seem that the acquaintance with the basic ideas of Darwin‟s theory would be the most important here, it s rather the debate it caused that stands as the key concept in this scene. The teacher‟s behavior is in fact a radical exaggeration of the „the evolution theory disproves the necessity for God‟s existence‟ attitude. It is therefore necessary for a viewer to be familiar with this topic to considerable extent, if the scene is to be understood properly.

This chapter has provided a brief theoretical background of a complex linguistic concept, namely intertextuality. It has been discussed that the concept is crucial for the proper comprehension of any text, and – by examining three particular scenes from

South Park – its necessity in uncovering contextual comic elements has been highlighted.

- 25 -

3. Laughing in the Face of God

Humor and Religion

It has been hinted that the humor, as in Berger‟s understanding is a very subjective matter (10). That is mainly because of the notion of appropriate incongruity

– what one person finds appropriately incongruent and therefore funny, might another person see as downright offensive. This is often the case when religion becomes the target of satiric humor or parodies. It is quite understandable, that when a text ridicules a set of beliefs which are important and even sacred for a large amount of people, a reactive action can be expected. And since South Park has always seemed to indulge in poking fun at religious groups (be it Catholics, Jews, Scientologists, Mormons, etc.), it has been repeatedly labeled for its unforgiving satire with attributes such as “the most gratuitously offensive [satire] in the history of television“ by popular media

(Delingpole), or “vile” and “unbelievable” (in this case unbelievable without its good connotation) by religious organizations (Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

– from now on, Catholic League will be used). And so naturally, a question arises: Can

South Park actually do this? Interestingly, it was the Catholic League that took it a step further and took offense upon South Park‟s releasing an episode containing a blasphemous depiction of the Virgin Mary, which resulted in a temporary banishment of the episode. This chapter will provide a brief account of the debate surrounding this case, as well as the legal and theoretical principles involved.

“Today I viewed the South Park segment about our Blessed Mother. I found it an

appalling and disgusting portrayal of the Virgin Mary. It is particularly troubling

to me as a Roman Catholic that the segment has run on the eve and day of the

feast of the Immaculate Conception, a holy day for Roman Catholics. I have

- 26 -

talked to Tom Freston, the president and chief executive of the New Viacom,

and asked him to review this show and determine whether any action should be

taken. That decision is his.”

(“Vile „South Park‟ Episode Pulled”)

Mr. Califano is, according to Catholic League website, “a practicing Catholic and a distinguished public servant”, and, no less importantly, he is “on the board of directors of Viacom”, which is the company that owns Comedy Central – the channel broadcasting South Park (“Vile „South Park‟ Episode Pulled”). Before going to the case of the episode that accounted for Califano‟s statement, it is important to mention that it was not the last instance of a member of the group involved in the creation or (in

Califano‟s case) broadcasting the sitcom, reacting negatively towards the intriguing content of the show. A year later, in 2006, a member of the creative cast – Isaac Hayes, the voice actor of the Chef – left the show “due to religious intolerance towards his own religion, Scientology” (Koepsell 105).

Indeed, “South Park is a show born in blasphemy”, and it is its blasphemous humor more than anything other that prompted the Catholic League to wage war against the sitcom (Koepsell 105, italics in original). Seeking help with defining the word blasphemy, I turned to dictionaries and the works of other authors concerned with this topic. Oxford Dictionary defines blasphemy as “the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things” (see the entry for blasphemy, as of 15 March

2015). Similarly, Kevin Murtagh, using a dictionary definition, came up with a quite simple, yet sufficient definition for blasphemous humor:

“[It is] some sort of presentation that is intended to be amusing or funny, in

which something deemed sacred is portrayed in a disrespectful or irreverent

- 27 -

manner. By “some sort of presentation” I mean, for example, a joke, a skit, or a

television episode.”

(Murtagh 31)

However, not every form humor that contains religious implications is necessarily blasphemous. For example, when in one of the episodes the four boys start a business and of one them (Eric Cartman) says to another boy (Kyle Broflovski): “we need a Jew to do the bookkeeping,” it may be a joke containing a religious implication, but is based on a stereotypical quality of a group of people – Jews being good at dealing with money

– rather than mocking anything deemed sacred, and thus is not blasphemous.

As already mentioned, Mr. Califano‟s statement revolved around a scene degrading the Virgin Mary, one of the most celebrated saints of Catholicism. The scene is a part of the episode “Bloody Mary”, which first time aired on December 7, 2005.

Since this was a very important controversy in the show‟s history, the episode requires a more in-detail summary. The episode begins with Randy Marsh, the father of one of the four boys, gets caught while driving drunk, and is subsequently forced to give a

(de)motivational speech about the dangers of drunken driving at the local elementary school. As a part of recovery from his alleged alcoholism, he is required to visit the meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous. There, he is convinced that he has a sickness

(alcoholism) and is utterly powerless against it. Only by devoting himself to the higher power can he be cured. Upon hearing this, Randy‟s state gets drastically worse, as he loses all his hope and waits for a miracle. Curiously enough, a statue of Virgin Mary starts bleeding, apparently “out its ass.” Now pilgrims are swarming to the miraculous statue to be cured, and so is Randy. After being „washed‟ by the blood coming from the statue, he believes in his recovery. However, the Catholic pope, Benedict XVI, comes to

- 28 - investigate the alleged miracle, and after having blood splashed all over his face by the statue, he goes on to proclaim, that the occurrence is no miracle, because the blood is in fact coming out of the statue‟s vagina, and, in his words, “chicks bleed out their vaginas all the time”. The episode then goes on, but the rest of it is not relevant for the purposes of this work.

It is probably very safe to say, that the climactic scene with the Pope Benedict and the bleeding statue of Virgin Mary fulfils all the criteria set for an instance of blasphemous humor. Considering its graphic content and its vulgarity, it is not very surprising that it did not go unnoticed. Catholic League acted promptly, turning to their

„ally‟ in the ranks of Viacom, Joseph A. Califano, with a clear goal: “convince a prominent Catholic [Califano] on the board of directors to have the network pull the episode and have him publicly show that there is division and disagreement within the

Viacom camp over what the company‟s products are saying” (Feltmate 5). The Catholic

League succeeded and got the company to pull the episode from air, although only temporarily. The creators of the episode, Stone and Parker, did not even attempt to

“justify this attack on Catholicism” and stated that they could see why the believers got offended (Feltmate 5). Moreover, as Feltmate writes, this affair also “harmed their image as equal opportunity offenders”, and later served as a precedent, causing other religious groups to raise their censorship demands when they felt offended (e.g. the initiative by the Church of Scientology) (5). This shows that a large religious group can have a strong social influence and even impose its will upon a creative process, even in the times that boast a great deal of freedom of speech. In fact, the Catholic League exercised a similar strategy to achieve similar results several times, having censored the shows such as “Ally McBeal” or “The Simpsons” or cancelling a show altogether, in the case of “Nothing Sacred” (Feltmate 5). So what was it about the Catholic League that

- 29 - made it so powerful? The answer can be found in a letter “Demanding Respect”, released by the Catholic League‟s president, William A. Donohue, in which Donohue says that “[they] get respect, and that‟s because [they] demand it and others fear [them]

(but not for the same reasons that Muslims are feared)” (Donohue). Nevertheless, the

Catholicism would not stay untouched, despite the bold declarations released by

William Donohue, that they “exercised [their] First Amendment right to request that

Comedy Central not offend Catholics again!” (Donohue). Couple of months later, South

Park aired an episode “Cartoon Wars I”, which was a prequel to the part two, which was supposed to show a depiction of Muhammad. However, Comedy Central backed decided not to show the intended portrayal and censored the figure of Muhammad with a black panel reading a text: “Comedy Central refuses to broadcast an image of

Mohammed on their network.” Stone and Parker refuted the speculations that the company decided to censor the episode out of religious tolerance: “No you‟re not

[religiously tolerant], you're afraid of getting blown up. That's what you're afraid of.

Comedy Central copped to that, you know: „We're afraid of getting blown up‟” (Morris,

Tapper). The same episode did however contain a disrespectful portrayal of Jesus

Christ, namely a scene where Jesus defecates on the American president. In spite of

Donohue‟s statement after the Catholic League‟s success in the “Bloody Marry” affair,

Comedy Central did not censor or ban the episode. The already mentioned emphatic letter “Demanding Respect” ensued, with a notion of the double standard when it comes to religious criticism:

“The creators of “South Park,” Matt Stone and Trey Parker, admitted that they

can abuse Christians with impunity. Commenting on their cartoon which showed

Jesus defecating on the president, Stone said, “we kind of agree with some of

the people who‟ve criticized our show because it really is open season on

- 30 -

Jesus. You know, we can do whatever–we can do whatever we want to Jesus.”

In October, Parker confessed that fear of violence forces them to lay off

Muslims, so “if the Catholics don‟t want us ripping on Jesus anymore, they

should just threaten violence and they‟ll get their way.” In other words,

appeals to ethics don‟t matter to these guys–just the prospects of death.”

(Donohue)

If we now look at the statement about fear from the same letter, the difference between fear of the Catholic League and the fear of Muslims is apparently the fear for life.

Although, curiously enough, there are a few instances of South Park depicting

Muhammad that did not cause any similar public turmoil. One of them, “Super Best

Friends”, a fifth season episode aired in 2001, depicted Muhammad as a kind of superhero with fire-bending supernatural abilities, fighting alongside Jesus, Buddha,

Moses, Joseph Smith, Laozi, Krishna, and Sea Man, against an alleged dark magician

David Blaine. It was only after threats from the ex-leader of “Revolution Muslim” organization in April 2010 that South Park made the “Super Best Friends” episode unavailable on their website. The threats were a response to Comedy Central‟s further censorship of the episodes “200” and “201”, which were supposed to display

Muhammad again. These two episodes contained direct implications that there indeed is a depiction of Muhammad in an older episode (“Super Best Friends” episode), and both these episodes (“200” and “201”) got taken of the air and are not available on South

Park‟s official web page. The threat took a form of “a picture of the assassination of

Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim extremist in 2004 with the caption:

“Theo Van Gogh – Have Matt Stone and Trey Parker Forgotten This?” (Al-Amrikee).

However, the internet is hardly controllable and all of the mentioned episodes can be found online. Moreover, there is a figure of Muhammad to be found in many instances

- 31 - of the show‟s opening theme song, which are still publicly available, e.g. on the South

Park‟s official web page. It is important to say, that according to Stone and Parker

“[they] wanted to depict Mohammed”, but Comedy Central had the final word and imposed the censorship (Morris, Tapper). Considering that Parker and Stone probably knew the company would not allow the Muhammad depictions anyway, they could get out of the affair as seemingly oblivious to the threats. Thus, following statement might appear somewhat pretentious. Nevertheless, the creative duo seems very confident about where they stand on censorship:

“What we‟ve stood behind for 10 years is: It‟s got to all be OK or none of it is.

Because as soon as you start picking, „Well, OK, we won‟t do this,‟ then all of a

sudden the ones you did about that shouldn‟t be OK either.”

(Morris, Tapper)

Then they go on to make it clear that this statement is indeed aiming at the Muhammad depiction affair, saying that “people told [them] at the time, „You can‟t really draw an image of Mohammed,‟ and we were like, well, we can. We‟re not Muslim so it‟s OK.”

As this chapter shows, it turns out they can draw an image of Muhammad, they just cannot get the company to have it broadcasted when they want. However, this seems to apply only to the persona of Muhammad. For example, in the aforementioned episode

(“200”), Buddha is portrayed as addicted to cocaine. Examining the case of depicting

Jesus we see that his occurrences on the show are blasphemous more often than not, as has been already hinted in Donohue‟s letter. Here is how Stone and Parker see the issue:

“We can do whatever we want to Jesus, and we have. We‟ve had him say bad

words. We‟ve had him shoot a gun. We‟ve had him kill people. We can do

whatever we want. But Mohammed, we couldn‟t just show a simple image.”

- 32 -

(Morris, Tapper)

This chapter has illustrated on a few episodes (which really are representative for the whole show) that South Park is really awash with instances of humor with religious implications that some individuals might find offensive. But it is the show‟s blasphemous humor that has prompted quite a few religious groups to take to arms against South Park‟s creators and their overseeing company, Central Comedy. And mostly by imposing social pressure, exercising power politics, or even terrorism, they achieved – at least at times – surprisingly successful results. Given the number of complaints and the seriousness of the threats they received, one might wonder why anyone would keep creating a show with such a controversial content. Is the offensive

(and blasphemous) humor of South Park a mere bashing of its targets, or is there something more constructive to it?

- 33 -

4. Prophets, Philosophers, and Jesters

South Park’s Place in Literary Tradition

Now that we are familiar with the ideas that the concept of intertextuality evokes, it is understandable that every new text is a result of a literary history, or tradition. And South Park is no exception. Even though it has various unique characteristics, it is obviously not the first satirical television program around. Indeed,

American television has a rich tradition of long running sitcoms with satirical character.

However, tracking this line of satirical legacy is not the focal point of this chapter. More interestingly, there are tendencies to try and find a justification for South Park‟s vulgar rhetoric, and find its place in a literary tradition. Therefore, a discussion will now follow, concerning a few compelling theories trying to find such a tradition.

4.1. Waiting Is Over – Godot Found in South Park

Randall Fallows, in his chapter “South Park Heretics. Confronting Orthodoxy through Theater of the Absurd” in the book “Taking South Park Seriously”, finds an interesting parallel between the cartoon and a literary form that “reached its apex during

[a] period of extreme social duality, the early Cold War,” namely Theater of the Absurd.

His ground stone for his theory is, that what the creators of South Park try to achieve with their texts, is in its nature quite similar to what authors of absurd drama did. They both are trying to show that “no system is without flaws and thus one should be careful not to follow any as absolute orthodoxy” (Fallows 167). By system he means a political and/or ideological arrangement. Drawing links between the two text sorts, he sees the four main characters of South Park as animated versions of the four main protagonists

- 34 - from probably the most distinguished absurd play, Samuel Beckett‟s “Waiting for

Godot.”

“Stan and Kyle, like Vladimir and Estragon, seem to be waiting for something to

make sense out of their world, but what they encounter instead is a selfish bully

(Pozzo/Cartman) and an incomprehensible victim (Lucky/Kenny).”

(Fallows 167)

I find this comparison surprisingly accurate, above all in regard to the character of the bully, that is (in South Park) Eric Cartman. He is the most radical, malevolent, and hateful character of the show, who verbally and physically bullies and abuses multiple individuals (Butters, Kenny, etc.), and groups of individuals (Jews, ginger kids, etc.).

While the bully from “Waiting for Godot” Pozzo pales in vulgarity and malevolence compared to Cartman, it is the act of the bully‟s fall, the changing of fortune that makes them so alike. Indeed, Cartman often plans elaborate plots seeking financial profit, often hurting someone else in the process. However, in the end, more often than not, it is

Cartman who arrives at a bitter ending. Similarly, in Pozzo‟s case, whereas in the first act, Pozzo is seen treating Lucky almost like a dog on a leash for his own profit (Lucky is carrying Pozzo‟s suitcase), in the second act, Pozzo has gone blind and now needs to be lead by his servant. Let us illustrate the notion of the fall of the bully on the following example from South Park.

In the episode “Casa Bonita”, Eric Cartman does not get invited to the birthday party of Kyle Broflovski, one of his friends. The party is planned to take place at an entertainment park Casa Bonita, Cartman‟s dream place. He does not succeed in persuading Kyle to invite him – however, he is made a substitute for the party, in a case that someone already invited could not come. Cartman immediately comes up with a

- 35 - plan, using Butters, one of the invited boys. Cartman persuades Butters that an asteroid is going to destroy the earth, and there is no time to tell anybody else, therefore Butters must immediately hide in the near atomic shelter to save himself. However, the town is alarmed by Butters‟ disappearance and wants to search the surroundings of the town.

Carman now needs to relocate Butters, and he does so convincing him that there indeed was an apocalypse and having put a bag over Butters‟ head for protection from radiation, leads him to a junkyard and locks him in a fridge, supposedly for his own protection. Kyle‟s birthday comes and he indeed agrees to take Cartman because Butters is missing. Needless to say, arriving at Casa Bonita, Cartman is delirious. However, meanwhile, Butters has been found and Kyle‟s mom receives the message and so the truth is now clear to all. The police are now coming to get Cartman, but he takes Kyle as a hostage and in a brief moment runs through Casa Bonita, trying to enjoy as many attractions as he can, before the police finally get him. For his mischiefs, he is condemned to spend a week in a juvenile hall. Therefore, the bully‟s fortune has changed and the punishment arrives. However, note that when asked if the short moment of entertainment was worth the punishment, he says it indeed was. For other‟s examples of this pattern see episodes “AWESOMO-O”, “Christian Rock Hard” or

“Probably.”

The similarities between South Park and Absurd Theatre highlighted by Fallows do not end with the character of the bully. Even though some episodes of South Park do have sequels, or permanent implications for the following episodes, most of the time, the town of South Park and its characters are found in the beginning of each episode in the same condition. In Beckett‟s play, this status quo is also present – Vladimir and

Estragon, at the end of both acts, decide to leave their current positions, but, famously,

“they do not move”. In Fallows‟ words:

- 36 -

“As is the case with the end of each act of Godot, the lessons learned at the end

of each episode of South Park are never remembered and the kids wind up

in the same spot as they were the last time we saw the, confused and still

waiting for someone to make sense out of their small community.”

(Fallows 167, italics in original)

It needs to be add, that this feature – the status quo at the beginning of an episode/act/chapter – is not exclusive for South Park and “Waiting for Godot.”

Nevertheless, the parallels between the main protagonists of the two works, and their structural features, are really a keen observation with interesting implications.

4.2. Unintentional Prophecies

In regard to religion, it is difficult to find a place in the literary tradition for

South Park‟s vulgar and blasphemous manners. Michael W. DeLashmutt and Brannon

Hancock provide quite interesting insights into this topic. They explain South Park‟s vulgar rhetoric used in religious contexts as a “form of contemporary secular prophetic discourse” (DeLashmutt, Hancock 175). The authors illustrate their point on the example of the prophet Ezekiel from the Old Testament. In their view, a prophecy should fulfill the following criteria:

“First, prophecy seeks to jolt one out of the malaise of one‟s complicit

habituation to a cultural ethos so as to convey a call to self-reflexivity or critical

self evaluation. Second, one is encouraged to seek some form of transformation

or repentance. Third, the prophetic voice is a calling to authentic life, […]

where one no longer pursues a passive (unreflective) capitulation to unjust

social practices.

- 37 -

(DeLashmutt, Hancock 176)

It is true, that one of the show‟s trademark scenes is the one, present in almost every episode, where a moral message is delivered. It is usually one of the boys who shares the wisdom with the viewers, starting the message with a famous line – „You know, I learned something today.‟ And since religion is apparently one of the favorite topics of the show‟s creators, the messages are often concerned with religion – commenting on it, highlighting negative factors and pointing to a possible improvement. There are even episodes where the creators let religious authorities deliver the message, be it Father

Maxi or even God himself (see the episodes “Red Hot Catholic Love” and “Probably”, respectively). To give the reader an idea of this notion, an example from the episode

“Jewbilee” will follow, commenting on religious separatism. In this case, it is Kyle, the

Jewish boy, who does the preaching:

“You know, I think we all learned something today. It‟s fine to have your own

beliefs and your traditions, but as soon as you start excluding people from your

ways, only because of their race you become separatists and being a separatist

sucks ass.”

Such an utterance would indeed fulfill the aforementioned criteria for a prophecy.

Nevertheless, there seem to be a few questionable points in DeLashmutt and Hancock‟s theory – for example the fact, that whereas Ezekiel‟s prophetic texts are a part of Judo-

Christian religious tradition, Stone and Parker certainly do not consider themselves religious, as illustrated in the first chapter of this work. Indeed labeling every religion as

“superfunny” is undoubtedly a valid reason to question the authors‟ intentions when making a text dealing with religion (for the complete citation see the chapter “History of

South Park”). However, DeLashmutt and Hancock suggest an interesting explanation.

- 38 -

They argue that “the role of the prophet is simply to speak the truth, and it is often a truth even he fails fully to comprehend” (177). That would put the authors of South

Park in a position of a mere medium for God‟s purposes, not even requiring their awareness of that fact. As if suggesting, that God indeed works in mysterious ways. As for the controversial form and vulgar language of South Park‟s prophecies, DeLashmutt and Hancock actually see it as an inevitable part of the text form. It is here, where they use examples from Ezekiel‟s texts, quoting passages where he compares the city of

Jerusalem to a prostitute. The authors emphasize that the coarse language evoking disturbing images is in fact “the necessarily offensive element of the biblical prophetic voice, which is often accompanied by vulgar and scatological imagery” (176).

Necessary in the sense that it is inevitable to “offend the status quo” for the purposes of a prophecy (186). Now the verses from Ezekiel will follow, to give the reader a hint of the offensive element coming from a completely different era:

“Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she

played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her lovers there, whose

members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses.

Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled

your bosom and pressed your young breasts.”

(Ezk. 23: 19-21)

I find this theory a very creative defense of South Park‟s offensive satire, essentially turning its critique from within religious ranks on its head and putting it into the position of a „good guy‟. Although, it is difficult to imagine that Parker and Stone write their religious satire out of genuine concern with the religious structures, and the fact that their work has been often officially rejected by religious authorities does not help

- 39 - this theory either. However, DeLashmutt and Hancock seem to have an answer yet again. In their view, a prophet should not be concerned with the reception of his message: “In the end, the only responsibility of the prophet is to deliver the message, regardless of its reception” (177). So it would seem that Matt Stone and Trey Parker might be a pair of God‟s prophets, using every means necessary to make people see the truth, without them and almost everybody else even knowing it.

4.3. Carnival Comes to South Park

Last but not least, this work will examine an idea arguing that South Park, with its crude animation, coarse language and sharp humor, is a follower of the rich tradition of medieval carnivals, fulfilling their role in the modern times. This idea has been described in a couple of works – namely, Ethan Thompson‟s “Good Demo, Bad Taste” and Alison Halsall‟s essay “South Park and the Carnivalesque” on the South Park film project “Bigger Longer & Uncut”. In doing so, Mikhail Bakhtin‟s work “Rabelais and

His World” will serve as the theoretical ground, as it contains a detailed analysis of carnivals‟ forms, features, and purposes. Both Thompson and Halsall use Bakhtin‟s work nicely to illustrate their ideas, essentially trying to defend South Park‟s vulgarity – as was the case in the previous section of this work. Indeed, the unique features of medieval folk carnivalesque forms as described by Bakhtin seem strangely applicable to the cartoon, as will be further demonstrated. However, neither Thompson, nor Halsall seem to acknowledge that Bakhtin makes a substantial distinction between the medieval comic forms, and the modern ones. Instead, they present their ideas as compatible with

Bakhtin‟s theory, ignoring his dismissing notions on modern comic forms. In fact, if these notions turned out to be valid, they would make Bakhtin‟s theory incompatible with modern comic forms, and therefore, would discredit Thompson‟s and Halsall‟s theory. Therefore, examining these points of disagreement is the focus point of this

- 40 - chapter. It should also noted, that Thompson‟s and Halsall‟s ideas will not be discussed in detail. To give the reader a hint of their contents – Thompson‟s work looks at South

Park in the general light of Bakhtin‟s carnival and then applying it the show‟s episode with political context. Halsall works primarily with the film “South Park: Bigger,

Longer, & Uncut”, defending its vulgar content and coarse language by finding parallels in Bakhtin‟s theory. I do recommend reading both these works, should the reader be interested in this topic. To examine this in detail, let us dive into the issue.

Bakhtin sees laughter and comic forms as a central trait of the folk culture of the

Middle Ages, in a stark contrast to “the serous official, ecclesiastical, feudal, and political cult forms and ceremonials” (5). A time of the year, when laughter was absolutely omnipresent, was the time of carnival. As a festive form, standing against the official ceremonials,

“carnival celebrated temporary liberation from the prevailing truth and from the

established order; it marked the suspension of all hierarchical rank, privileges,

norms, and prohibitions.”

(Bakhtin 10)

In other words, carnival was an opportunity to escape the strict hierarchy of the Middle

Ages. As an unmistakable distinguishing feature of a carnival, masks have represented the notion of the liberation from “established order”, giving one a new identity. Very importantly, the laughter of carnival, in fact similarly to that of South Park, does not spare anything:

“Carnival laughter is the laughter of all the people. […] It is directed at all and

everyone, including the carnival‟s participants. […] This laughter is ambivalent:

- 41 -

it is gay, triumphant, and at the same time mocking, deriding. It asserts and

denies, it buries and revives.”

(Bakhtin 11-12)

It is obvious to anyone familiar with South Park‟s content that it does not hesitate to aim its satirical focus at any issue they think it deserving. That is also the case with the carnivals as described by Bakhtin. However, reading on in his work, Bakhtin is very clear that he sees a substantial difference between the carnival forms of past ages, and the forms of today:

“We must stress, however, that the carnival is far distant from the negative and

formal parody of modern times. Folk humor denies, but it revives and renews at

the same time. Bare negation is completely alien to folk culture.”

(Bakhtin 11)

First, it should be noted that Bakhtin apparently does not make a clear distinction between modern parody and satire, which is understandable, given that his work does not deal with the two concepts specifically. It is only important to bear this in mind, while in some passages he uses the term parody, in the others the term satire, but very probably meaning the same comic form – a text which main purpose is mockery of a certain target.

It has been illustrated that parodies are abundant in South Park. More importantly, examining the theoretical background of parody, it was noted that the concept is not restricted only to negative intentions. I would here like to turn to Linda

Hutcheon‟s work, where she states that parody, in its intentions, can range from

“scornful ridicule to reverential homage” (37). And even though parody can be

- 42 - prevalently negative at times, as illustrated on the example from South Park, in the chapter on parody, it is not a valid reason to discredit all parody and label it as “bare negation.” A problem also occurs, if we consider that a particular instance of parody can be perceived as negative by someone, whereas others can indeed see it as a form of paying homage to the original text. As for satire, it has been stressed in its definition, it is “both moral and social in its focus and ameliorative in its intention” (Hutcheon 16). It could be argued that this is a question of the concept‟s definition, and it partially indeed is. However, as it was illustrated, the satire of South Park mostly does aim at delivering an ameliorative message, in its „you know, I learned something today‟ moment.

Another demonstration that parody and satire are not necessarily created out of a solely negative initiative is found in the words of a satirist himself, namely Trey Parker.

South Park‟s character Randy Marsh, father of one of the four boys, was allegedly largely inspired by Parker‟s father. Importantly, Randy is one of the most scandalous characters. He is shown fighting with other dads at baseball games, he is frequently drunk, or practicing magic trick with his genitalia. However, Parker says he means no disrespect: “I hold my father very dear. But it doesn‟t mean I‟m not going to rip on him” (Morris, Tapper). Nevertheless, this does not seem to apply to all targets of South

Park‟s satire (or parody) – neither of the two satirist holds religion particularly dear (see the chapter on South Park‟s history).

Because of these reasons, Bakhtin‟s dismissal of any positive aspects of modern parody (and satire) seems exaggerated.

However, Bakhtin dwells on this point a bit longer. He sees the difference not only within a single text form, but rather in the character of the laughter it causes, clearly distinguishing the festive laughter from comedy of modern times:

- 43 -

“it is also directed at those who laugh. The people do not exclude themselves

from the wholeness of the world. […] This is one of the essential differences of

the people‟s festive laughter from the pure satire of modern times. The satirist

whose laughter is negative places himself above the object of his mockery, he is

opposed to it.”

(Bakhtin 12)

In addressing this remark, a passage from Halsall‟s work becomes very helpful. As was already mentioned, she deals predominantly with the South Park movie. I do not find a plot summary necessary in this case, however, there is a feature that requires closer attention. In the movie, taking place in South Park, there is a wave of negative criticism towards an animated television show called “Terrance and Philip Show.” The main reproach against the show in the eyes of the adult part of the town is the show‟s vulgar content and toilet humor. Throughout the film, the film is accused of having “all crappy” animation, and of being “nothing but immature fart jokes”. Thus, by the means of metafiction, “Parker and Stone deliberately produce a show that depends on bathroom humor – the same charge critics level at South Park itself” (Halsall 28, italics in original). Note that the “Terrance and Philip Show” is an integral part of the South

Park series as well. This act of self-satire speaks strongly against Bakhtin‟s notions on the modern satire.

There is another point where Bakhtin is quite vocal about the difference the several centuries make – the character of profane language. First, it needs to be mentioned that according to Bakhtin, in the time of carnival, “an ideal and at the same time real type of communication, impossible in ordinary life, is established” (16). By that he means a frequent use of profanities and abusive language. They should help the

- 44 - carnival‟s participants to complete their liberation from the established order, be it only for a few days: “profanities must also be considered a special genre with the same attributes as abuse – isolation from context and intrinsic character” (Bakhtin 17). He actually sees abusive language as a way of getting more intimate with a person, and a result of such a relation as well:

“when two persons establish friendly relations, the form of their verbal

intercourse also changes abruptly; they address each other informally, abusive

words are used affectionately, and mutual mockery is permitted.”

(Bakhtin 16)

Now, this could be easily applicable to South Park‟s rhetoric. The four main protagonists are surprisingly vulgar, and not only to characters outside their group. The boys address each other regularly with very offensive monikers, and even though an objection could be raised, that two of them – Eric Cartman and Kyle Broflovski – who are most eager to offend each other, are not actually friends, as they often remind the viewer, and therefore, the abusive language loses its endearing character. Indeed,

Bakhtin considers the modern forms of abusive language a mere shell of its predecessor:

“But obviously such familiar intercourse in our days is far from the free familiar

communication of the people in carnival time. It lacks the essentials: the all-

human character, the festivity, utopian meaning, and philosophical depth.”

(Bakhtin 16)

I cannot argue against Bakhtin‟s accusations, and it is indeed difficult to find any philosophical depth in South Park‟s liking of coarse language. South park‟s wide array of swear words often seems to have only pragmatic purpose – to shock and amuse. But I

- 45 - do agree with Thompson‟s ideas insofar, that the show‟s vulgarity, when used in a context of a social debate, does carry the element of isolation from the ordinary type of discourse, freeing the social debate from binding language restrictions. As Thompson puts it, “South Park also uses the carnivalesque to recapture the public sphere, reopening the discussion of “serious” affairs to a crude language that signals that anyone can participate in it” (223).

The last point to be discussed is how the principles of the medieval carnival comic work with the religious topics, and whether these principles are applicable to

South Park‟s humor. It has been stated that South Park thrives in religious satire.

Similarly, Bakhtin‟s carnival‟s often included spectacles dealing with religious content.

Bakhtin argues, that the festive character of carnival “frees [it] completely from all religious and ecclesiastic dogmatism, from all mysticism and piety. […] Even more, certain carnival forms parody the Church‟s cult” (7). These parodical forms are named

“parodia sacra [i.e.] „sacred parody‟” (14). The scope of this text form is really vast:

“There is a considerable number of parodical liturgies (“The Liturgy of

Drunkards,” “The Liturgy of the Gamblers”), parodies of Gospel readings, of the

most sacred prayers (the Lord‟s Prayer, the Ave Maria), of litanies, hymns,

psalms, and even Gospel sayings.”

(Bakhtin 14)

These texts were written both in Latin and the vernacular, and they come from within the religious background or from outside of it (Bakhtin 14). If we remember the example for parody used in this work – the parodical gospel song text – it suggests, that

South Park is also very creative in regard to sacred parody. Be it parodies of religious dogmas (“All about the Mormons”, “Red Hot Catholic Love,” or those of Scientology

- 46 - in “Trapped in the Closet”), parodies of religious rituals (in “Probably”), or even parodical depiction of religions‟ main protagonists (Jesus, in virtually every scene of his, Satan‟s being homosexual, God looking like a bizarre creature feeding on flies, etc.). However, Bakhtin seems to be quick with drawing yet another line between the parody of carnival, and the parody of modern times. He is convinced, that the main principle of all parodical carnival forms (including sacred parody), is “degradation,” which is “the lowering of all that is high, spiritual, ideal, abstract; it is a transfer to the material level” (19). It is not difficult to argue that South Park aims to do the same thing

– using the means of abusive language and crude imagery it liberates the religious topic from their sanctity and looks at them through all-human eyes. But Bakhtin states that carnival parody does not stop at degradation, and aims at renewal:

“Degradation here means coming down to earth, the contact with earth as an

element that swallows up and gives birth at the same time. To degrade is to

bury, to sow, and to kill simultaneously, in order to bring forth something

more and better.”

(Bakhtin 21)

The renewal is an element which he dismisses in the case of modern parody, arguing once again, that only the negative aspect remains (similarly as in the discussion about abusive language):

“This is the reason why medieval parody is unique, quite unlike the purely

formalist literary parody of modern times, which has a solely negative

character and is deprived of regenerating ambivalence.”

(Bakhtin 21)

- 47 -

A detailed comparison of carnival parody of the Middle Ages and the one of South Park would require a substantial further research, and thus it is difficult to make an argument against Bakhtin‟s remarks on modern parody. Nevertheless, „the solely negative character‟ does seem to be an exaggeration. Surely, if South Park‟s religious parody (or satire) can succeed in bringing a spiritual topic to the laic sphere in order to encourage a discussion on the given topic, it should be considered a positive aspect. On the other hand, it is questionable, to what extent is South Park‟s vulgarity efficient in this regard.

Granted, the so called shock-factor is a subjective element, but there are moments where

South Park clearly goes over the top – e.g. the already mentioned image of the pope having blood spilled all over his face, the blood coming from the rectum of the statue of

Virgin Mary. In such cases, it is very probable that the scene‟s shock-factor distorts, or completely destroys the attempted message, if there is one. Moreover, such instances can negatively affect the show‟s perception in religious spheres. Interestingly, Bakhtin provides us with a hint of how the Church reacted to the sacred parody several hundred years ago:

“All of [sacred parody] was consecrated by tradition and, to a certain extent,

tolerated by the Church.”

(Bakhtin 14)

It is doubtful that there has ever been a satire so vulgar in word and image, and yet so popular, as the satire of South Park. Curiously, the label „tolerated to a certain extent‟ could be actually used for South Park‟s sacred parody (and religious satire) as well. A few cases of public resistance against the show‟s offensive content have been mentioned in this work (see the chapter “Humor and Religion”), with Catholic League being the most illustrative example. However, compared to the volume of religious

- 48 - content of the show, the resistance seems really minute. It is unclear whether the religious authorities choose to ignore it, or rather to put up with it, despite the occasional victories of Catholic League which could, in theory, serve as a motivation and a precedent.

- 49 -

Conclusion

It is certainly not very common to turn to South Park for anything more than entertainment. Even though at first glance the show‟s vulgarity in word and image seems autotelic, seeing past this, we find that its humor – although not always – is actually constructive. Having examined substantial theoretical work of several authors and applying their ideas to the particular scenes from South Park, it is clear that both parody and satire can have ameliorative intentions, and labeling South Park as a mere bashing of various targets does not do it justice. The cartoon as a textual comic form works with a wide array of secondary texts, employing the principles of intertextuality.

Despite the fact, that its controversial content has caused a considerable public turmoil – above all within religious groups – the show does offer an alternative form of commentary on current happenings (mostly) in the USA, questioning the mainstream reasoning, an ability closely connected with South Park‟s unique and relatively speedy production format. Even in regard to religion, unlikely as it might seem, South Park can serve as a source of thought worthy insights. Although considering themselves equal opportunity offenders, it has been illustrated on the controversies surrounding the blasphemous depiction of Virgin Mary, and the depiction of Muhammad, that the show‟s creators are not completely free in their creative process – public pressure, and even threats from within religious ranks have been successful in achieving at least partial censorship.

It has been argued in a number of academic works, that the show employs a rich repertoire of textual forms and genres to achieve its goals. Formal similarities with

Theater of the Absurd have been identified, as they complement South Park‟s episodes structure well, and even certain characters and their relations seem to have been inspired

- 50 - by the drama masterpiece “Waiting for Godot”. Another theory argues that, when trying to deliver a moral message, South Park apparently engage features of prophetic discourse, and its vulgar rhetoric serves as a necessary shock to gain the attention of the audience and subsequently encourage critical thinking. Yet another body of academic work points out, that South Park vulgar rhetoric shares a great deal of contentual and formal characteristics with the concept of the medieval carnival, as described in

Bakhtin‟s work, making the coarse language only a means to an end – bringing all topics down to the all-human level, and thus opening the discussion to everybody.

Therefore, even though South Park‟s shock-factor can distort its moral messages and lead to misinterpretations (as it often does), it is an essential tool for the show‟s proper functioning as an alternative form of critical social commentary. Moreover, the complexity of the show‟s form and content demonstrated by its rich repertoire of textual and comic genres, as well as its substantial intertextuality, should not be ignored.

- 51 -

Works Cited

Al-Amrikee, Abu Talhah. “An Extensive Online Footprint.” Anti-Defamation League.

Anti-Defamation League, 2015. Web. 8 Apr. 2015.

talhah- al-amrikee-chesser.html>.

Arp, Robert, and Kevin S. Decker. The Ultimate South Park And Philosophy. Respect

My Philosophah!. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, c2013.,

2013. Print.

Bakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais and His World. Indiana University Press, 2009. Print.

Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. New York: Grove Press, 1982. Print.

Berger, Peter. Redeeming Laughter: The Comic Dimension of Human Experience.

Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. Portál elektronických informačních zdrojů

MU. Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Collins, James, and Jeffrey Ressner. “Gross And Grosser.” Time 151.11 (1998):

74. Print.

DeLashmutt, Michael, Brannon Hancock. “Prophetic Profanity. South Park on religion

or Thinking Theologically with Eric Cartman.” Taking South Park Seriously. Ed.

Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008.

173-191. Portál elektronických informačních zdrojů MU. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.

Delingpole, James.“South Park: The most dangerous show on television?” The

Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited, 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

dangerous-show-on-television.html>.

- 52 -

Donohue, A. William. “Demanding Respect.” Catholic League for Religious and Civil

Rights. Catholic League, 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

.

Fallows, Randall. “South Park Heretics. Confronting Orthodoxy through Theater of the

Absurd.” Taking South Park Seriously. Ed. Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew. Albany:

State University of New York Press, 2008. 165-172. Portál elektronických

informačních zdrojů MU. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.

Feltmate, David. “Cowards, Critics, and Catholics: The Catholic League for Religious

and Civil Rights, South Park, and the Politics of Religious Humor in the United

States”. Bulletin for the Study of Religion 42. 3 (2013): 2-11. Portál

elektronických informačních zdrojů MU. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

Feltmate, David. “It's Funny Because It's True? The Simpsons, Satire, And The

Significance Of Religious Humor In Popular Culture.“ Journal Of The

American Academy Of Religion 81.1 (2013): 222-248. Portál elektronických

informačních zdrojů MU. Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Feltmate, David. “The Sacred Comedy: The Problems and Possibilities of Peter

Berger‟s Theory of Humor.” Humor: International Journal Of Humor

Research 26, 4 (2013): 531-549. Portál elektronických informačních zdrojů

MU. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.

Gray, Jonathan, Jeffrey P. Jones. Ethan Thompson. Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in

the Post-Network Era. New York: NY University Press, 2009. Print.

Henry, A. Matthew. The Simpsons, Satire, and American Culture. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan, 2012. Print.

Hoesterey, Ingeborg. Pastiche: Cultural Memory in Art, Film, Literature. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 2001. Google Books. Web. 8 Mar. 2015.

- 53 -

Hutcheon, Linda. A Theory of Parody: The Teachings of Twentieth-Century Art Forms.

Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000. Google Books. Web. 8 Mar. 2015.

Koepsell, David. “Respect My Religiositah! South Park and Blasphemy.” The Ultimate

South Park and Philosophy. Ed. Robert Arp, Kevin S. Decker. Chichester,

West Sussex, U.K. : Wiley-Blackwell, c2013., 2013. 105-138. Print.

Marin, Rick, et al. “The Rude Tube. (Cover Story).” Newsweek 131.12 (1998):

56. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.

Morris, Dan, and Jake Tapper. “Secrets of South Park.” ABC News. ABC News Internet

Ventures, 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

.

Murtagh, J. Kevin. “Blasphemous Humor in South Park.” South Park and Philosophy:

You Know, I Learned Something Today. Ed. Arp, Robert. Malden: Blackwell

Publishing, 2007. 29-39. Print.

Oring, Elliot. Engaging Humor. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003. Print.

Oxford Dictionaries – Dictionary, Thesaurus, & Grammar. Oxford University Press,

2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

< http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/>.

Saunders, Dusty. “At 10, „South Park‟ still bites.” Rocky Mountaint News, The E.W.

Scripps Co. 2006. Web. 8 Apr. 2015.

com/drmn/spotlight_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23962_4848796,00.html

>.

“Season One – South Park Archives.” Wikia. Wikia, Inc, n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

< http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Season_One>.

- 54 -

“South Park – Awards.” The Internet Movie Database. IMDb.com, Inc, 2009. Web. 24

Mar. 2015.

< http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121955/awards?ref_=tt_ql_4>.

“„South Park‟ Behind the Scenes from ‟60 Minutes‟Overtime.” HuffPost Comedy.

TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 2015. Web. 8 Apr. 2015.

< http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/26/south-park-60-

minutes_n_981161.html>.

South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut. dir. Parker, Trey. Paramount, 1999. Film.

The Holy Bible. English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. Print.

The Spirit of Christmas. dir. Parker, Trey, and Matt Stone. Avenging Conscience, 1995.

Film.

Thompson, Ethan. “Good Demo, Bad Taste. South Park as Carnivalesque Satire.”

Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-Network Era. Ed. Gray, Jonathan,

Jeffrey P. Jones. Ethan Thompson. New York: NY University Press, 2009. 211-

231. Print.

“Vile “South Park” Episode Pulled.” Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

Catholic League, 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

.

Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew. Taking South Park Seriously. Albany: State University of

New York Press, 2008. Portál elektronických informačních zdrojů MU. Web. 22

Nov. 2014.

- 55 -

Episodes Referenced

“AWESOM-O.” Season 8, episode 5. Originally aired 14 April 2004. Written by Trey

Parker. Directed by Trey Parker.

“200.” Season 14, episode 5. Originally aired 14 April 2010. Written by Trey Parker.

Directed by Trey Parker.

“201.” Season 14, episode 6. Originally aired 21 April 2010. Written by Trey Parker.

Directed by Trey Parker.

“Bloody Mary.” Season 9, episode 14. Originally aired 7 Dec. 2005. Written by Trey

Parker. Directed by Trey Parker.

“Cartman Gets an Anal Probe.” Season 1, episode 1. Originally aired 13 Aug. 1997.

Written by Trey Parker, Matt Stone. Directed by Trey Parker.

“Cartoon Wars Part I.” Season 10, episode 3. Originally aired 5 Apr. 2006. Written

by Trey Parker. Directed by Trey Parker.

“Casa Bonita.” Season 7, episode 11. Originally 12 Nov. 2003. Written by Trey Parker.

Directed by Trey Parker.

“Christian Rock Hard.” Season 7, episode 9. Originally aired 29 Oct. 2003. Written by

Trey Parker. Directed by Trey Parker.

“Crack Baby Athletic Association.” Season 15, epiosde 5. Originally aired 25 May

2001. Written by Trey Parker. Directed by Trey Parker.

“Go God Go.” Season 10, episode 12. Originally aired 1 Nov. 2006. Written by Trey

Parker. Directed by Trey Parker.

“Jewbilee.” Season 3, episode 9. Originally aired 28 July 1999. Written by Trey Parker.

Directed by Trey Parker.

- 56 -

“Losing Edge.” Season 9, episode 5. Originally aired 6 Apr. 2005. Written by Trey

Parker. Directed by Trey Parker.

“Mecha-Streisand.” Season 1, episode 12. Originally aired 18 Feb. 1998. Written by

Trey Parker, Philip Stark, Matt Stone. Directed by Trey Parker.

“Pandemic.” Season 12, episode 10. Originally aired 22 Oct. 2008. Written by Trey

Parker. Directed by Trey Parker.

“Pandemic 2: The Startling.” Season 12, episode 11. Originally aired 29 Oct. 2008.

Written by Trey Parker. Directed by Trey Parker.

“Probably.” Season 4, episode 10. Originally aired 26 July 2000. Written by Trey

Parker. Directed by Trey Parker.

“Spontaneous Combustion.” Season 3, episode 2. Originally aired 14 Apr. 1999.

Written by Trey Parker. Directed by Trey Parker.

“Super Best Friends.” Season 5, episode 3. Originally aired 4 July 2001. Written by

Trey Parker, Matt Stone, David Goodman. Directed by Matt Stone.

“Trapped in the Closet.” Season 9, episode 12. Originally aired 16 Nov. 2005. Written

by Trey Parker. Directed by Trey Parker.

- 57 -

Summary

The thesis is an examination of the satirical character of the show South Park and the public debate caused by its controversial content, with the focal point set on the religious satire. The work lays down the theoretical background for the concepts of humor, parody, satire, intertextuality and incongruity, which are crucial for proper functioning of comedy, and therefore for South Park, too. Additionally, South Park's place in literary tradition is discussed within the frame of an analysis of three theories dealing with the issue, and searching justification for the show‟s vulgar rhetoric.

- 58 -

Resumé

Cílem této práce je rozbor satirické povahy amerického televizního seriálu

Městečko South Park a reakce společnosti vyvolané kontroverzním obsahem tohoto pořadu s tím, že hlavní pozornost je věnována náboženské satiře. Práce vymezuje teoretické základy pro pojmy jako humor, parodie, satira, intertextualita a inkongruence, tyto jsou totiž klíčové pro správné fungování komedie, a tedy také pro Městečko South

Park. Zařazení daného díla do literární tradice je demonstrováno na analýze tří teorií, jež se zabývají tímto tématem a jež hledají opodstatnění pro vulgární povahu tohoto seriálu.

- 59 -