I remember being about eight years old, sneaking downstairs with my brother late at night to watch cartoons.  Focusing on lives of four elementary-aged boys, their interactions with their peers, teachers, and parents, the show quickly became one of my favorite vices – after all, I was forbidden to watch it.  Ironically, the parents who banned my brother and me from witnessing the hilarity of the show had never seen it themselves – they had just heard how distasteful and corruptive it was.  Yet now, eleven years later, my parents, brother, and I can all be found on a random Wednesday night in front of a television set, laughing at and bonding over that very show – Comedy Central’s South Park. 

            The subject of intense scrutiny, sufferer of many critics, and beloved by a loyal ‘cult’ following, the construction paper creation of Matt Stone and Trey Parker has drawn mass attention over the years for its supposed negative influence.  In fact, a 2009 “Lifestyle” article focused solely on how parents can correct problems their children have adapted from watching the show.  The writer, Cameron Fellows, even gives personal testimony to the “terrible changes” that he has witnessed in an eight-year-old boy who watches the show, describing how “He says the “F” word every other sentence” and “He seems to argue with every decision made! He has lashed out at his parents many times.”  Luckily for parents, Fellows provides a four-step solution for the parents who “Don’t know how to fix [their] child already.”  Wow.  Having been an eight-year-old who was avid fan of the show, I can attest that I barely understood anything in the program – it’s meant for adults – and laughed at things like ‘fart jokes’ while over-passing a giant, robotic Barbara Streisand.  Also, the only time I have ever seen the show without cussed-words censored with bleeps has been when I have watched it online or on DVD.  This author and the parents who detest the show (likely, without ever having seen it themselves) are overrating the effect of South Park on children.  Not to say that children should watch the show, but rather that the parents need to consider, instead, what their young child is doing watching an adult network late at night, and where they are picking up habits of the “F-word”, given that it’s never actually heard on the show.

            These critics need to realize, just as my parents did, that South Park is not the bane of childhood innocence or a blasphemous and abominable program, but can actually benefit viewers as a tool for social education.  The show, although full of exaggerations, still has content based on true events in America, presents situations without bias (they attack everybody, not just one side), and even have the children give touchy-feeling moral reflections at the end of each episode.  Yes, critics, it is time to get over being so freaking sensitive and actually notice what the program is trying to show/tell you!

            First, let’s realize that every show is created for entertainment but that entertainment results from social commentary.  The creators’ ideas for show plots are just reactions to events with which most viewers are familiar.  In season one, the townspeople deal with charity for Africa (“Starvin’ Marvin”), politically correct holidays (“Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo”) and, of course, TV censorship (“Death”).  That season was thirteen years ago and the show is still going strong with plenty of show fodder.  For instance, the “Trapped in the Closet” episode, which received Emmy attention, first divulged the beliefs of Scientology (with the handy “This is what Scientologists actually believe” caption) before pouncing on the crazy antics of Tom Cruise and the other Scientologists who defended him.  At the time this episode came out, Tom Cruise had received sizable media attention for his absurdities, from his odd relationship with Katie Holmes, to jumping on Oprah’s couch and criticizing anti-depressants.  So, naturally, he was the perfect candidate for the ridicule of the show.  Oh parent-critics do tell me again how this episode corrupts your little-angels, because personally, I cannot think of a way with this episode.  If anything, it educates viewers on the beliefs of a relatively unknown faith (I had no idea what Scientologists believed before watching) and the response believers usually receive.  However, the controversy that followed the airing of the episode became so overblown, as Isaac Hayes, a Scientologist who provided the voice of classic character Chef, chose to leave the show and Scientologists responded with outrage.  Isaac Hayes reaction could be construed to provide even more commentary on Scientologists as ‘untouchable’, as the man had helped produce episodes about molestation in the Catholic Church (“Red Hot Catholic Love”), the ‘gullibility’ of Mormons (“All About the Mormons”) – which also explained what Mormons believe – Jewish stereotypes (“Jewbilee”) and Protestant Christianity (“Super Best Friends”).  So, apparently Isaac Hayes viewed every faith but his own as fair game?  To me, that screams snobbery and arrogance – not the greatest light to cast on one’s religion, particularly one for which Tom Cruise, already snobbish and arrogant, is a staunch advocate.

            As you can probably tell from the list of belief systems above, South Park provides no mercy for any viewpoint, attacking or mocking anyone and anything in the public eye.  Thus, the show is unbiased, presenting many viewpoints and sparing no one from its ridicule.  For example, the show is currently airing a two-part 200^th episode, in which everyone the creators have ever mocked assemble in an attempt to destroy the town to save themselves from further mockery.  Naturally, Tom Cruise is the mob’s leader, having been the most outspoken over the show’s whiny, egotistical portrayal of him.  Celebrities like Patrick Swayze, the Crocodile Hunter, Barbara Streisand, Tiger Woods, Steven Spielberg, and George Lucas follow Cruise in their struggle with the stereotypical “Gingers” to wield the power of the image of the prophet Mohammed.  With the choice to use the Islamic prophet as a bargaining chip, the show creators make their point clear:  no one is safe from “Being ripped on.”  However, this decision is a follow-up to a previous episode, which presented the dilemma of freedom of speech versus the price of violence one pays for it.  Matt Stone and Trey Parker want to make it clear that no one should be free from criticism and use the prophet’s image just to elucidate that point, and do so while also commenting on radical Islam – it seems extremists would rather have their religious leader decked out in a Bear-Mascot suit that have his face shown.  Thus, South Park spares no group or individual from commentary, even under violent threats from Islamic radicals, by mocking a group, ironically, for their anger at being mocked.  As the show presents the viewpoints of and reactions to any group it can get its hands on, it uses humor and ridicule to bring social issues all to an even level, hence the show shows no preference (it loves to tease everyone) and the content of the episodes is deemed acceptable for learning about societal interactions.

            Just in case viewers are thick-headed enough to not pick up on not-so-subtle comments on the issues in the shows, Stone and Parker do the work for us, in the form of little boys in snow gear.  At the end of nearly every episode, cheesy music begins to play and one of the two “good” boys, Stan or Kyle, will step forward in front of the adults and begin, “I’ve learned something today” (hint, hint.)  The boy will then begin to explain moral lessons and reflections on the problem presented.  Although the issue, for the sake of comedy or symbolism, becomes grossly exaggerated throughout the show, in the end, the original problem is dissected, and the adults are lucky enough to have their children there to do it.  A recent episode, in which the townspeople revert to a Romanesque lifestyle to save money in an economic slump, eight-year-old (Jewish) Kyle adopts an obviously Jesus-like attitude, sacrifice and all, to save people from their debts.  But of course, despite Kyle’s ‘preaching’ that citizens should spend moderately to help put money back in the economy, the adults return to their pre-crisis spending, casting some Americans as just plain stupid to not realize their mistakes.  In another episode, “Britney’s New Look”, the boys, to the tune of sappy piano-playing, explain that people should leave Britney Spears the hell alone before she loses it anymore than she had at the time.  The show covers a variety of events, from government bail-outs to tabloid craziness and has lessons to teach and observations to point out for every one of them.  Whether viewers choose to believe the show’s message or not, they can’t deny the truth of the reasoning behind it:  recession response can be extreme and crazy, as is paparazzi stalking.

            My parents finally gave in to my insistence they watch the show a few years ago.  Even though the first episode they watched happened to be “Red Hot Catholic Love”, a satire of the Catholic hierarchy, and my parents are Catholics themselves, they couldn’t stop laughing.  And besides, there was no point in getting offended over it – the issues were in the news and true, the Church didn’t respond especially harshly, and it’s not as though we were behind any of the controversy ourselves.  We just needed to sit back and laugh and get some social commentary while we were at it.  Although I probably wouldn’t have my kids watching South Park… on their own…late at night…, but by the time they are old enough to even stay up late enough to watch it, I will let them, so long as I’m sitting right there with them.  After all, the content is true enough, funny enough, relevant enough, and I think I’ll use the opportunity to bond with them and show them known issues in new contexts.  The show is not corrupting America’s kids but can be used as a social educational tool for parents who haven’t corrupted the kids themselves.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/

            Willie Francis faced unimaginable pain and horror as the receiver of the first failed execution in the United States on May 3, 1946.  Unfortunately, the failed execution was not the only terrible incident, as the condemned Willie was only sixteen-years-old at the time and, in all likelihood, innocent of the crime for he was convicted.  McDonough’s lets the reader witness Willie’s fear while also illustrating an imperfect system through an imperfect execution.  By combining the basic facts of Willie’s case with the details included in the sonnet, Willie’s botched execution becomes a tragic commentary on the racist deep south of the twentieth century.

            The author uses the first seven lines of the sonnet to demonstrate the shock and awe of a boy before his supposed death, while also emphasizing his youth.  Namely, seemingly insignificant details of the text could only have mattered to one experiencing them through heightened senses, such as the teen walking to his death.  For example, the onset of the sonnet relays that the electric chair is “Louisiana’s only chair” and was brought “from Angola into Saint Martinsville Parish, to the Court House.”  Although these details could only exist to present the context of the sonnet, the large amount of these random details emphasizes the viewpoint of the prisoner.  Specifically, the author relays a pattern of numbers, again, only clear in the first half of the sonnet.  The details of the “only” chair that is set up by “four” men, and the “fifteen-year-old” who has lain in the “second” story of the court house all center on the prisoner and the masters of his fate.  For instance, the doomed man has only known that floor “for months”, is likely very aware of his short lifespan, and will have to face that chair that is dependent on those men in order to operate.  Therefore, the scene presented in the first half of the sonnet is meant to be seen through Willie’s eyes before his execution.  This interpretation is further supported in that at the cessation of these images is the electrocution itself, for which the author uses the view of a third party observer.  By writing “He shook and lurched and gasped” and “Willie Francis stood up”, the author makes it clear that Willie is no longer the supplier of details, but rather an outside source.  This organization allows for the reader to know and understand Willie’s adrenaline, which accompanies fear, as he waited for his death, making the nature of his failed execution all the more horrible.

            Besides describing the shock of a tortured teen, the author also uses near-rhyming and selective wording to characterize the legal system of Willie’s time as flawed and dishonest.  At first glance, the sonnet appears to have a cemented rhyme scheme:  ababcdcd, etc.  However, upon closer examination, the rhymes are imperfect and simple to overlook.  For example, “Saint” and “Lain” are written to correspond as rhymes, and, although their sounds are similar, they are no more perfectly rhymed than “Priest” and “Breathe.”  These imperfections could be made to parallel Willie’s execution, if not the legal system as a whole.  The sonnet describes how “Willie Francis stood up without help and…walked back to his cell” after his electrocution, thus exemplifying how an event that was meant to go smoothly – “They…pulled the switch, and thought he’d die” – fails to accomplish its goal, in the same way as the imperfect rhyme scheme. 

            Although Willie Francis was convicted, at the age of sixteen, of murdering a Cajun pharmacist, the evidence of the case against him was anything but condemning.  For one, the gun found at the scene that had been used in the murder did not belong to Willie, but to a Sherriff’s deputy who had once threatened to kill the later-murdered pharmacist.  This same gun disappeared from evidence, along with its bullets, shortly before trial.  With these facts alone, Willie’s guilty conviction becomes difficult to substantiate, yet the boy suffered not only a jail sentence, but the death penalty as well.  With this information, the credibility of the Louisiana justice system of the 1940s significantly declines.

In addition, the pattern of legal language in the sonnet draws attention to the 1940s legal system and the repetition of a select term illustrates a resistance to accepting blame within that legal system.  Rather than writing that the “Men setting up the chair” were ignorant “of amps”, for instance, the poet chooses to call them “Innocent”, emphasizing the judicial atmosphere of the situation.  Likewise, she describes how Willie is “Freed…from straps and hood”, using language reminiscent of a criminal trial and/or a court system.  Therefore the sonnet maintains a constant legal presence in the back of them minds of its readers.  Within that presence, the reader also notes the absence of an identifiable figure that carries out the execution, as it is only “They” who deliver the electric chair, “They” who call the priest, and “They” who disconnect the failed electricity.  By constantly neglecting to give any one person or multiple people responsibility for the actions taken in Willie’s execution, the poet suggests a cowardly and dishonest nature in those who are accountable for the proceedings.  As these people would logically be involved in the legal system, this cowardice, when combined with the judicial context, can thus characterize the legal system of the time.  With this identifying trait, the court system of 1940s Louisiana again loses its credibility as a fair, just, or honest institution.

            By taking into account the doubts of Willie’s guilt and the lack of judicial credibility in his home state at the time, it becomes likely that the reason for Willie’s conviction must be something beyond the criminal realm.  Therefore, Willie’s case is an example of the racial injustice of the American Deep South in the twentieth century.  Given that the author is sure to establish that the boy in the jailhouse is “Colored” as well as the lackadaisical attitude of the “Dead tired” men who “Passed flasks” and “Tossed” wires about, the reader understands that, at the time, it was uneventful to execute a black teen whose guilt was not cemented.  Thus, the details, language, structure, and the inclusion of this sonnet in the entire collection of fifty serves to relate to the modern audience a tale of American history.  This commentary on capital punishment embodies tragedy and corruption, thus intending for the audience to, if not denounce the death penalty altogether, at least constantly question the motives behind it.

I spent my spring break in the middle eastern country of Qatar, and I saw one street sign/billboard everywhere.  Just an example of how confusing and off translations can be.  When translated from Arabic to English, the sign said:

“Respect of the police man refers to your awareness”

Any guesses??

For one of my classes, I had to read an excerpt from Ngugi wa Thiong’o The Language of African Literature.  For the most part, he wrote well and stuck to Orwell’s concepts, but there was one segment that I had to re-read.  He just went way over the top (trying to sound smart) and used complicated phrases instead of simplified words.

“In some instances these European languages were seen as having a capacity to unite African peoples against divisive tendencies inherent in the multiplicity of African languages within the same geographic state.”   ugh…

When I was home in Charlotte a few weeks ago, my brother was able to drag me and nature-loving self out to a local football field for me to feel and marvel at my true existence in the world…though I highly doubt that was his intention.  Although he attends the beautifully natural and hippie-infested Appalachian State University, my best friend/older brother looked at the excursion as a last chance to squeeze in some time with me and our friend (and fellow hippie.)

This friend made that night possible.  He works for the parks and recreation department in Mecklenburg County, “playing in the woods all day.”  And although I have my doubts as to the legitimacy of his position with all the time he has to meet us for rounds of disc golf, the county saw him as valuable enough to give him a very intriguing perk.  Staying true to its theme of limitless learning, Mecklenburg provided us with one of the most powerful telescopes I have ever seen.  Not to say that it’s the size of a full-blown observatory, but this telescope had to be transported in three separate boxes, all about the size of a carry-on suitcase.  As I am notoriously impatient, my two companions (both veterans of star-gazing) had to assure me that the seemingly-complicated set up would be worth it.

…They were right, though not in the way that they had meant.  Unfortunately for the telescope, that night was one of the coldest we had ever experienced in Charlotte – a wind chill of 13˚!  But men will be men, right?  And despite their numb fingers and toes, the two males of the party insisted on wearing only jeans, T-shirts, and light-weight jackets.  Not that I was any better-off in my Cuddle-Dudd underarmor, scarf, hat, two jackets, and gloves – I couldn’t feel any extremities.  But in addition to my impatience, I am also known for my love of cold weather.  I suppose I am an oddity in that I seem to cherish what others despise:  the cold, boring food, exercise, and – what I got out of this particular venture – feeling small in the scheme of the universe.

As it turns out, the cold not only affected our suddenly-brittle bones, but the battery power of the beautiful telescope as well.  While my brother chose to run laps and bounce constantly (so unlike him!), I kept our hardworking friend company as he tried to reason with his uncooperative machine.  Eventually, he did give up, and then treated me to the wonders of his college-education:  learning the constellations.  I should, I suppose, include that a night-sky bustling with stars is a rarity in Charlotte, and that we were able to see (what felt like) each and every star made the night all worth the cold and trouble.

For me, feeling how small I am in the world is not frightening, but livening, just as the cold reminds me that I’m alive.  Hopefully next time though, the telescope will actually work.

Versailles :)

Name:  Mary Boyle

Major (Minor): English Major, German Minor

Hometown: Charlotte, NC

Favorite Book (does not have to be great literature): The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, any mystery by Tami Hoag, Lisa Gardner, or James Patterson 

Favorite Movie: Into the Wild, Inglourious Basterds

Favorite Band/Musician: 311!!