The nice thing about a headline like this is that I don’t have to warn you about language you might find offensive, right? Last night, South Park promoted reading, demonstrated the perils of literary success and hoaxes, and killed the Kardashian sisters and (off-camera, as it were) Sarah Jessica Parker.
After being forced by their teacher to read The Catcher in the Rye — we were told J.D. Salinger’s novel had been widely banned as “inappropriate” — Cartman, Stan, Kyle, and Kenny became enraged that the classic wasn’t inappropriate enough. (They were also enraged that they’d been “tricked” into reading an entire book, a nice touch regarding school-system requirements.)
One never knows how inspiration will strike, but in this case, the boys were moved to show the world what a really offensive book would be, and thus their collaboration: The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerBalls, a bit of obscene juvenilia that, like more sanitary juvenilia (the Twilight and Harry Potter books, for example) ends up being read by millions of adults as well.
But unlike those real-life publishing successes, Scrotie is so vile, anyone who reads it vomits in disgusts. (There was a very funny sequence showing The Today Show‘s Matt Lauer hurling into a wastebasket for what seemed like many minutes.)
As always, South Park’s targets were varied and scattershot. After hearing that Catcher in the Rye had somehow given Mark David Chapman the idea to murder John Lennon, an overly-suggestible Butters started chanting “Kill John Lennon!” until his father informed him that Lennon — in South Park terminology, “the king of hippies” — had already been killed.
Indeed, Butters was credited as the sole author of Scrotie — a plan that backfired on the rest of the gang: They assumed they’d get in trouble for writing such crude trash, and instead were angrily jealous to see a credulous public raise their book to exalted status. Along the way, adults applied literary and political theories to praise Scrotie, to which the boys yelled, “There is no deeper meaning in this book!” and “There is no point!”
Later, after writing a second book himself (The Poop That Took A Pee), Butters switched his obsession to the Kardashian sisters (some psycho-sexual transference, since he’d earlier declaimed they were “hot”) and Sarah Jessica Parker (a long-running target for South Park cruelty).
Maybe I liked this episode even more than last week’s season premiere because it made fun of the racket I’m engaged in — criticism and reviews, things that Trey Parker and Matt Stone find, pretty much, ridiculous. I’d compare the Scrotie episode to the work of Rabelais, Henry Miller, and Dennis Cooper, but then I’d be part of the boys’ satire, wouldn’t I?
Did you find this episode funny? If so, why? If not, why not?
Follow @kentucker
The author of this article is a dumbass, he clearly doesn’t see the real meaning of this episode. Eitherway, this was probably one of South Park’s worst.
Why is Ken Tucker a dumbass? What’s the real meaning of the episode?
You are claerly missing the point. This article has an underlying meaning which is truly a bold statement about healthcare and the war in iraq.
I think ken tucker should make people put pictures here for all of the people wanting to judge who is ugly(I found this looking for a pic of her)… SJP looks better than the average ugly, fat internet troller/blog reader(&poster)… If you have never had a girl that got and kept everybody elses attention when they entered a room (with out make up and enhancents) or you are that girl, don’t call people ugly. SP addressed that a few times, fat people laughing at fatter people and here we have ugly people calling somebodye else ugly. I wish SJP could adress you guys one by one and point out her observations of you.(personally I think most people are ugly and only the top 10% of males should breed, we should go back to making guys with bad genes unics and stop the devolution)
Make men “unics”? Really? Pick up a dictionary; or get a computer with spellcheck. And SJP looks like Dee Snider.
lmao
What article were you reading? It was clearly defining the power stuggle between republicans and democrats, while also shedding some light on the stuggle of the lower-middle class American Family!
SJP is ugly. Some may find her attractive. I never have. And she has the acting ability of styrofoam. Their drawing (& characterization) of her was dead on. That part of the episode alone had me howling with laughter.
I didn’t see the episode but something tells me that the creators of South Park are good Americans who appreciate the concept of free speech and of living free or dying.
The author of this article totally gets it! Righteous! South park rocks! Gaylord is lame. He’s a cheesy poof.
I thought the episode was hilarious.
Funniest line was by a reporter asking Matthew Broderick why a mule-witch was standing next to him wearing a dress.
Sorry. Misquote. It was a “transvestite donkey witch”.
“How come there’s a transvestite donkey witch standing next to you, and why is it wearing a dress?” Best line of dialog EVER!
Agreed with Kristen. I belly laughed at that.
I didn’t get this episode at all. I didn’t find it fun.
if there was a kindle you probley get it
You clearly didn’t read enough into the plot to understand it
Lot’s of sick people in this world, and this seemed to feed into “get famous for anything” which may include murder. Thumbs down!
I agree’s with’s M Roberts incisive, totally coherent comment.
I almost pee’d when i saw sara jessica parkers south park character. I have for many years stated she is the ugliest woman in hollywood and it was nice to see SP take it as far as they did
Man, you read my mind. She is butt-ugly, and that’s unfair to butts everywhere.
SO true! People will have pity for her, but not me. Few people go out of their way to cause harm. But a decade of the canard that she is “beautiful” will wear anyone down. Sorry Jessica Parker, no male (human male, as I can’t speak for transvestite donkeys or rabid moose) want to LOOK at you, let alone SLEEP with you! Ugh! Sorry to say, SJP but you brought it completely on yourself. Like the super fat girl who ALWAYS talks about being at the gym. Eventually people just snap. Thank you South Park for liberating us from donkey witches everywhere! Hazzzah!
You’re a dick
Ohhhh noooo P! Am I supposed to cry now? I never said I was a nice guy, but the media DOES say SJP is attractive. I’d rather be a harsh truth teller than a fantastic propagandist any day. Also, your lack of rebuttal to my comment and pesonal attack on myself kind of proves my point, doesn’t it? No one can defend that withered hag. Just attack the messenger. Pardon me, as I get my tissue you clever, clever man…..*sigh
wow, it’s really easy to be an ass online. i don’t care about any of her movies – i liked square pegs, but that was like 850 years ago; but i saw her last year on a plane. whatever you think of this woman, here is the truth:
if you ever saw her in person you would agree that she’s unbelievably beautiful and charming, and you’d probably feel like such a tool for the comment you left here that you’d confess it to her, apologize, and want to hurt yourself.
Ah, and it begins! Do tell, which is Jessica Parker’s most “beautiful” feature? Her googly eyes? Her gnarled teeth perchance? The long thin reed of a nose which looks like it was broken ten times in childhood maybe? Perhaps the oddly shaped, even donkey-esque, gourd she calls a head? The sickly flat chest which shows the breastbones so blatantly one could play them like a xylophone? I know! That grotesque growth on her chinny chin chin must be it! Ah, yes, Jessica Parker surely has it all! She, and you, really know what a man wants! Not some idealized vision of “beauty” but a rehabilitated srugeried-up witch donkey on stilts! Yes, you got what we fellas like! Or…..maybe you’re just as ugly and the myth of fugly-attracts-man validates you somehow? I wonder…..
Yeah, her face looks like a foot.
Once again, Butters is the bees’knees. He has become the go-to cartoon on this show. From finding out John Lennon had died to his accepting the fact he wrote a book he didn’t. Funny.
prob one of the funniest episodes I’ve seen.
when the kids parents read the book, i nearly passed out. my phone was blowing up w/ texts a/b SP….good stuff.
Enjoyed it for the most part. I kind of feel bad for SJP. She does look weird but it seems kind of mean to make soooo much fun of her.
People aren’t usually inherently cruel. However, 15 years of Hollywood taking the ugliest hag in the country and constantly demanding that we consider her “beautiful” has caused Americans to revolt! She’s ugly. She; FUGLY. She’s truly one of the most hideous females on television (and I include the arrestees on COPS in that equation!) Screw you Jessica Parker! You forced this on yourself! We’re sick of the indoctrination! Fight the Fugly! Go back to under your bridge and leave we humans alone for good!
the episode was hilarious. end of story
k, i watch southpark all the time, too much honestly. this was my least favorite in all 14 seasons, i get they write all episodes in a week but it was really just people throwing up. i did enjoy the end (seeing the kardasians get blown in half by a shot gun) i hope they do better with the next episode.
I usually give some extra points when I think a particular South Park episode isn’t as funny as others but has some sort of sub-text meaning (especially if it about current events). However this episode stated “There is no pont”, so should I ignore all the great South Park sub-text all these years? Either way another good make you think episode.
no you should not. They just want you to be aware that there’s the possibility people have translated these works beyond their original intention. But even if that’s true it doesn’t make the analysis any less valid because it’s specific to the people reviewing the work. Yes it can be outrageous (extremely close readings) at times, but we just need to be aware that these distortions exist, especially because as humans we’re so desperate to find meaning in everything that’s pertains to our own individual existence.
I don’t think Stone and Parker are trying to subvert their older episodes, which clearly had social commentary. They’re simply saying don’t try too hard to find subtext that probably isn’t there. It’s the difference between a critic making the connection between District 9 and apartheid (which is valid), and a critic making the connection between Iron Man and the Iraq war (which is pretty ridiculous).
I know. I kinda think Matt and Trey scored some major hypocrite points since they TOTALLY ‘reviewed’ ‘Family Guy’ seasons prior. I still love South Park, but I hate when people just blanket dismiss critical thought and interpretation. Some of it can be very insightful and even instructive.
Just so it’s clear, I’m agreeing with parkR. I disagree with t3hdow’s point.
Here’s the thing. I don’t think critical interpretation or theorizing in itself is bad. Hell, I encourage it to keep people from thinking passively. However, when some of those statements goes off on ridiculous tangents that barely make a valid connection to the material, you begin to wonder if the readers are thinking too hard.
And don’t think I’m saying this out of ignorance. I took a literary theory class two years ago. While using some methods like Marxist theory and reader response gave some texts more depth, others, like deconstruction, seems utterly complicated for no reason, other than to screw with your head.
I didn’t think you were saying that either of those were inherently bad. But I also don’t think you should limit what people read into different ‘texts’ and neither should Matt & Trey. And I didn’t mean to imply I thought you were ignorant either; I hope that I didn’t. However I also think it’s a little limiting to say that because you took one class in Lit Theory and one area of interpretation gave you a hard time makes the theory and effort intentionally pointless and the outcome useless.
Maybe the entire “literary theory” thing came off a bit pretentious, since anyone can come up their own interpretations for movies/TV/books/music without it. I guess I’m siding with Matt and Trey, because despite reading some ingenious theories on various subjects, I’ve also read some asinine ones as well. And by asinine, I mean Jeff Jensen relating to one moment of Lost to Frosty the Snowman.
As for deconstruction, I’m not dissing it because its difficult to use (though it doesn’t help). However, it’s only used to discredit any concrete meaning someone would get out of a book, because of misleading language. For me, that’s almost a ‘duh’ moment. Any linguist can tell you that. That, and it misses any point the text may have suggested entirely, because the reader’s too focused on decoding abstract meanings from language, and not the message itself.
sarah jessica is ugly as hell though