Screw you guys! I’m going home to read…
April 5, 2010 # 12:12 pm
By Josh Q. Newman
“Ah, books? God, I hate those!”
If you agree with this—and chances are because you’re a college student you might very well have said something similar sometime before you went to class—then I would suggest you stop reading this because I regret to inform you that it was said by none other than Eric Cartman in the March 24 episode of “South Park.”
You might think Cartman is awesome—hell, everyone does—but this is the same guy that danced naked in front of a cut-out of Justin Timberlake and was caught red-handed sucking Butters’… um… slippery part. Among other things. So if you really want to agree with the fat kid, be my guest.
The show’s known distain for everything typically accepted by society came out particularly strong in “The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs.” Yes, you read right. McBoogerballs. What caught my attention this time was its targeting of something I hold very dear: reading books.
Call me a nerd (get in line), but I love to read. I have been reading ever since I learned how. When most kids were throwing a pigskin around or trying to be the next Tony Hawk, I was reading. In middle school, I would spend literally every free moment I had reading books. I would read on bus rides to school and in lunch periods. I would read in the car and outside the dentist’s office. I would even bring a book to a restaurant and read while waiting for my meal. (I realize that this was rude, so I apologize to anyone who I offended.)
When I was in 5th grade I tried to read “Moby-Dick” and when I was in 9th grade I tried to read “Ulysses.” Though I didn’t get past page 5 in either of them, my tenacity in picking up a book of “good literature” was higher than Towelie.
So as soon as the show mentioned J.D. Salinger’s classic 1951 novel “The Catcher in the Rye,” I knew that we were in for something.
Cartman, Stan, Kyle and Kenny read the book for class and cannot understand why the book is so controversial. They think the book is boring and whiney and not offensive at all. They become so infuriated over the book’s reputation that they decide to write an over-the-top book of their own. Hence the title.
I’ll spare you what happens next (especially the odd bit involving Sarah Jessica Parker, where she resembles a moose and gets shot at by hunters). In the end, the boys profess that people sometimes read into books more than they should and that analyzing them, in general, is a waste of time. According to the 4th graders, reading is bogus and people should watch TV instead. Ironically enough, the show does reference a range of “high brow” sources, from Milton to the Bible to existentialism.
Of course, I know the writers are playing a joke. Creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone would never believe in anything so stupid. I’m not going to waste my time rallying against the episode’s supposed anti-reading message.
Parker and Stone may not even be serious about Catcher itself. Granted, the book is not one of my favorites (I thought Holden Caulfield was a bit of a brat), but compared to a lot of other books written in a similar fashion, I think it’s the best of its kind. It’s one of the best books to come out of the immediate post-World War II era, and has inspired countless teenagers and others to keep on reading.
My concern with the episode is that viewers will misinterpret the message itself.
People are already bashing Catcher in the same way the boys did. I have seen at least two Facebook statuses proclaiming that the novel was horrible , and I know a few friends that are already going back to the old “books are stupid” mindset . How original.In fact, after watching it with some friends, I immediately saw the results. One of them announced, “Well, I can agree with that.” And another one said that the show was brilliant because it made fun of people who over-analyze books.
was dismayed, not because the show lampooned Catcher, but because its viewers now have a license to lampoon people like me.
First of all, I don’t agree with the show that Catcher has no literary value.
Over-analyzing is not a sin. Deep down the book explores teenage angst in a way no one has done before, and is bred from the philosophy of Rousseau and Nietzsche.But more importantly, I don’t think it’s bad to try to find value in a work of art. Where would we be if we stopped interpreting? A work goes beyond the intentions of its author. Chances are if you find meaning in life, you’re likely to find it in a book.
If reading between the lines is wrong, then “The Odyssey” is just about a bunch of crazy Greeks cruising the Mediterranean and “The Godfather” is just about a bunch of gangsters squabbling over dope. Even the Bible, including all of Jesus’ sayings, are just stories. Christianity would not have existed if it were not for interpretation.
Secondly, there is a danger in accusing people of over-analyzing when they are merely trying to analyze. It’s easy to do so, and sometimes it can be justified. (No, the white whale does not represent male insecurity.) “South Park” may not actually be on the anti-reading platform, but they do seem to think that analysis, especially of the crude and controversial, is misguided.
But as I just said, literature would not be literature were it not for people and interpretation to guide them. If mistakes are made, so be it. At least readers are trying.
For those of you who totally disagree with me and think that Catcher and/or analyzing are bad, fine. I would just like to point out how original that contention is. The whole point of the episode was to avoid reading into things, yet by copying the show’s position, you’re doing just that.
As much as I love the show, it is mostly a string of disgusting gags, gratuitous violence and pop culture references. I think Parker and Stone may have been making fun of themselves and the fact that so many viewers buy into messages that aren’t there. If that’s so, then their case against analyzing is itself bunked. Quite a paradox, isn’t it?
So, I warn the viewers of the show to not fall into the trap. Whatever you do, don’t let it influence your views on reading. Don’t be like Cartman.
