Patrick Klepek | 'The Fractured But Whole' Has the Same Identity Crisis as Modern South Park
- Page 1 of 1
Waypoint's Patrick Klepek has been playing through the new South Park game and he has some pretty fascinating thoughts to share.
https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/article/wjg85m/the-fractured-but-whole-has-the-same-identity-crisis-as-modern-south-park
I don’t personally have a lot of reverence or nostalgia for South Park, but Patrick does make some excellent points about the broader issues that the show (and game) try to approach without necessarily taking sides. The difficulty slider or gender identity selection at the beginning of the game are good examples of trying to point out real issues in the world today, but then backpedaling for cheap laughs when it counts.
The article is absolutely worth a read.
https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/article/wjg85m/the-fractured-but-whole-has-the-same-identity-crisis-as-modern-south-park
This is a game where one of the main characters, Cartman, dresses up as a Racoon-themed superhero and calls himself The Coon. The joke, of course, is "coon" is also a racial slur for black people. Pretty funny stuff. It gets even better when one of the main missions has players invading the homes of innocent black people and helping the police arrest them. The punchline is that the police are racist! The Fractured But Whole, much like modern South Park, often feels like "well-meaning" people desperately holding onto an ability to laugh at shitty jokes made at the expense of people who don't deserve it, even though they know better.
The Fractured But Whole's politics are a larger identity crisis for modern South Park, where the show's no longer a unruly fuck you to a stubborn status quo; it is the status quo. It's the establishment. Some of the show's choice of targets puts itself in a position of punching down, using society's marginalized—sex workers, people of color, LGBTQ individuals, etc.—for a joke's payoff because it's easier. It's not as though trendy progressivism, ignoring the consequences of gentrification, and empathy-when-it-suits-you—all questions explored in recent seasons—aren't worthy of scathing criticism. But in the journey to land a hit, who's knocked over along the way?
Ahead of The Fractured But Whole's release, the game received attention after Ubisoft disclosed how the game's difficulty slider worked. Choosing "easy" meant your character was white, while "very difficult" meant your character was black. Get it? Because black people's lives are harder because of systemic racism that's been ingrained into society for hundreds of years! Ha ha!
South Park is not a show that's reliably used race, sex, gender and other impassioned topics as a basis for persuasive commentary or inspired joke telling. Even if that's what's on the minds of the show's creators, South Park might not be not the platform to express it. South Park has enormous baggage when it comes to every single one of those topics, and you can't handwave that away because it's a new season. South Park has to live with the history of South Park, just as we have to live with the history of our own actions and reactions to, say, jokes.
I don’t personally have a lot of reverence or nostalgia for South Park, but Patrick does make some excellent points about the broader issues that the show (and game) try to approach without necessarily taking sides. The difficulty slider or gender identity selection at the beginning of the game are good examples of trying to point out real issues in the world today, but then backpedaling for cheap laughs when it counts.
The article is absolutely worth a read.
I honestly just think he doesn't "get" the jokes/humour. I know he can say he does and that he's the biggest fan "ever" but all that stuff he described there, I found hilarious in the game so far.
I also find the newest season of the show a return to form and very funny. I don't know, maybe he did like it and has outgrown it.
I also find the newest season of the show a return to form and very funny. I don't know, maybe he did like it and has outgrown it.
I found the game to be quite amusing. Didn't enjoy SP last season but this season has been really good. Patrick also took issue with other reviewers that found the game funny. I guess he was mad that everyone wasn't as offended or non-plussed as he was. Hopefully he'll be able to cope with the fact that different people enjoy different things.
South Park may be historically libertarian-leaning but they've also been pretty socially progressive, right from the start too. Think about how early the Big Gay Al episode was, attempting to introduce homosexual acceptance to the simple-minded characters of their town(and in doing so, to many audiences across America in the 90's). Of course I'll admit they get quite a bit wrong at times but they also grow with the times and update their positions with more educated nuance.
I can't vouch for every joke because there is indeed some indefensible stuff here and there(often times for shock value, and only sometimes due to ignorance or lack of perspective on the part of Matt and Trey) but I guess I don't get the problem people have these days with basic satire. For example I don't quite understand why people take issue with something like the race/difficulty slider(which I've seen some take issue with over the last few months, like in this article). Are they saying that saying nothing at all about systemic racism is better than making a subversive joke about it? They're right that systemic racism is not funny, but subversive jokes like that often serve a higher purpose than just having a laugh over the plight of the oppressed.
I get the criticisms about the cynicism they've displayed in the past towards things like global warming and voting, but all in all I truly believe SP has done more good than bad. I can't speak to the game yet because I'm only 30 minutes into it, but maybe I'll feel differently about what kind of stuff is likely made fun of in it once I'm through playing.
I can't vouch for every joke because there is indeed some indefensible stuff here and there(often times for shock value, and only sometimes due to ignorance or lack of perspective on the part of Matt and Trey) but I guess I don't get the problem people have these days with basic satire. For example I don't quite understand why people take issue with something like the race/difficulty slider(which I've seen some take issue with over the last few months, like in this article). Are they saying that saying nothing at all about systemic racism is better than making a subversive joke about it? They're right that systemic racism is not funny, but subversive jokes like that often serve a higher purpose than just having a laugh over the plight of the oppressed.
I get the criticisms about the cynicism they've displayed in the past towards things like global warming and voting, but all in all I truly believe SP has done more good than bad. I can't speak to the game yet because I'm only 30 minutes into it, but maybe I'll feel differently about what kind of stuff is likely made fun of in it once I'm through playing.
Reading through this article feels like Klepek didn't actually know how to argue for the points he wanted to and so just relies on the reader to fill in the dots and do his work for him. Get it?
Ha ha!
Yes I do get that joke, and it does make me chuckle. Is there any further point? Klepek just leaves them there in an obviously sarcastic fashion, hoping that the enlightened reader will recognize the sarcasm and perhaps consider themselves too sophisticated to fall for such crude humour; therefore, Klepek is correct, or something like that? What is this an argument against, that South Park is not the height of subtle humour?
Despite professing himself a long time fan, the article reads as though he has only ever read about South Park and not seen any episodes recently, hence the old criticism about South Park just being a both sides argument trotted out. I'm not sure that the show has actually made a 'both sides are the same' argument in the last 10 years but that hasn't stopped everyone from making the same statements about the show's position again and again.
I think the biggest issue with this is that Klepek seems to assume that humour isn't actually subjective, and if he doesn't enjoy a lot of the jokes or finds them misplaced, then everyone must feel the same.
Ha ha!
Yes I do get that joke, and it does make me chuckle. Is there any further point? Klepek just leaves them there in an obviously sarcastic fashion, hoping that the enlightened reader will recognize the sarcasm and perhaps consider themselves too sophisticated to fall for such crude humour; therefore, Klepek is correct, or something like that? What is this an argument against, that South Park is not the height of subtle humour?
Despite professing himself a long time fan, the article reads as though he has only ever read about South Park and not seen any episodes recently, hence the old criticism about South Park just being a both sides argument trotted out. I'm not sure that the show has actually made a 'both sides are the same' argument in the last 10 years but that hasn't stopped everyone from making the same statements about the show's position again and again.
I think the biggest issue with this is that Klepek seems to assume that humour isn't actually subjective, and if he doesn't enjoy a lot of the jokes or finds them misplaced, then everyone must feel the same.
I don't know that lazy humor is the same as having a blasé attitude about social justice. On it's face this sounds more like the former and not like the latter.
I think the point is less "this humor is bad and you shouldn't laugh at it" and more that the game itself doesn't always know which joke it's trying to land or point it's trying to make. The gender identity issue at the beginning of the game, for example, lays the foundation for inclusiveness to all players but the presentation and jokes around it seem to be at odds with said inclusiveness. It's where the identity crisis comes into play. At least that's how I interpreted it.
Satire is fine, and I'm not upset at South Park or this game in particular for what it's saying. I'm more fascinated in how it goes about saying it and what more it could be doing. In this 2017 people are just looking for more from these topics, which is understandable.
Regardless I think it's really interesting to think about!
Satire is fine, and I'm not upset at South Park or this game in particular for what it's saying. I'm more fascinated in how it goes about saying it and what more it could be doing. In this 2017 people are just looking for more from these topics, which is understandable.
Regardless I think it's really interesting to think about!
I haven't actually watched the last two seasons.
I only partially agree with him.
While I get that people want Parker & Stone to take sides, which they already did plenty of times, I think they're doing fine.
Of course, there have been plenty of episodes that I didn't enjoy or jokes that I didn't think were fitting or without any intention behind it.
However, I'm old enough to form my own opinion and I don't need them to think for me or showing me what's right and wrong.
That argument might not work for some younger people that are easily influenced, but even if you showed the intention or picked a side, they would still laugh about a shitty joke instead.
Besides they already had plenty of topics already established before and repeating them over and over again, would be horrible.
Just take the Michael Jackson episode for example, when the cops are getting notice that there will be a new black person in town and they're trying to place false evidence, until they realise he's "white" and the cops are starting to puke "we almost arrested a white guy".
They still kinda do repetition, even within the game and therefore I rather have them creating their own stories.
I still get some points of Patrick's criticism.
The game felt fragmented at times, without any proper direction behind it.
The Kanye West minigame felt horrible integrated without any reason to actually being in the game.
Generally it was a good ride for me, with plenty of nods towards both older and newer episodes, allthough more towards newer stuff.
The magic of the first game is a bit lost, despite having more characters, a better battle system and feeling alot better, it's just not the same.
Like when you're going to Canada in the first game, or randomly opening doors and seeing rather sketchy things. It was something totally new and unique seeing something like South Park being adapted so well.
I can still watch South Park like when I was young, even though I understand some of the topics alot better being older. There is certainly some nostalgia, but I gladly watch the new stuff as well.
I only partially agree with him.
While I get that people want Parker & Stone to take sides, which they already did plenty of times, I think they're doing fine.
Of course, there have been plenty of episodes that I didn't enjoy or jokes that I didn't think were fitting or without any intention behind it.
However, I'm old enough to form my own opinion and I don't need them to think for me or showing me what's right and wrong.
That argument might not work for some younger people that are easily influenced, but even if you showed the intention or picked a side, they would still laugh about a shitty joke instead.
Besides they already had plenty of topics already established before and repeating them over and over again, would be horrible.
Just take the Michael Jackson episode for example, when the cops are getting notice that there will be a new black person in town and they're trying to place false evidence, until they realise he's "white" and the cops are starting to puke "we almost arrested a white guy".
They still kinda do repetition, even within the game and therefore I rather have them creating their own stories.
I still get some points of Patrick's criticism.
The game felt fragmented at times, without any proper direction behind it.
The Kanye West minigame felt horrible integrated without any reason to actually being in the game.
Generally it was a good ride for me, with plenty of nods towards both older and newer episodes, allthough more towards newer stuff.
The magic of the first game is a bit lost, despite having more characters, a better battle system and feeling alot better, it's just not the same.
Like when you're going to Canada in the first game, or randomly opening doors and seeing rather sketchy things. It was something totally new and unique seeing something like South Park being adapted so well.
I can still watch South Park like when I was young, even though I understand some of the topics alot better being older. There is certainly some nostalgia, but I gladly watch the new stuff as well.
By HvySky Go To PostI think the point is less "this humor is bad and you shouldn't laugh at it" and more that the game itself doesn't always know which joke it's trying to land or point it's trying to make. The gender identity issue at the beginning of the game, for example, lays the foundation for inclusiveness to all players but the presentation and jokes around it seem to be at odds with said inclusiveness. It's where the identity crisis comes into play. At least that's how I interpreted it.Being inclusive doesn't mean Matt and Trey are not going to joke about everyone and everything they feel like joking about.
Satire is fine, and I'm not upset at South Park or this game in particular for what it's saying. I'm more fascinated in how it goes about saying it and what more it could be doing. In this 2017 people are just looking for more from these topics, which is understandable.
Regardless I think it's really interesting to think about!
By Inflatablemidget Go To PostBeing inclusive doesn't mean Matt and Trey are not going to joke about everyone and everything they feel like joking about.That is true. My argument was that maybe they could be doing more than those quick and easy jokes if their writing implies they still want to be bringing up these topics. Of course, South Park's history shows that just as they've fallen short, they've also been able to pull it off well. Maybe it doesn't come off so gracefully or clearly in this game as it could have, even if there's nothing inherently wrong with the quick and dirty satire on display.
By Inflatablemidget Go To PostBeing inclusive doesn't mean Matt and Trey are not going to joke about everyone and everything they feel like joking about.
Doesn't excuse their "jokes" from being criticized either. I don't know why people treat comedy as if it's some magical form of expression immune from criticism. Real comedians are constantly testing out jokes and refining their craft. If a joke doesn't land, they analyze why and make changes, telling it different the next night and sometimes they even drop it. Sometimes you have comedians own up to their mistakes and admit a joke was in poor taste. "It's just jokes!" isn't a valid defense against criticism, especially when the jokes punch down and make marginalized groups the butt of the joke. These jokes can be harmful. Look at Dave Chappelle. Chappelle's show is legendary, but he's even said himself that people eventually hijacked his jokes and skits from the show and stripped them of their intended meaning and satire and used them as a way to laugh at racist jokes.
That doesn't mean that good satire can't exist. It can and it does. But not all satire is good satire, and comedy and satire are not immune from criticism.
I read this yesterday, agree for the most part. Think SP is funniest when it's more absurd then when it's trying to be about something
By Zekes Go To PostDoesn't excuse their "jokes" from being criticized either. I don't know why people treat comedy as if it's some magical form of expression immune from criticism. Real comedians are constantly testing out jokes and refining their craft. If a joke doesn't land, they analyze why and make changes, telling it different the next night and sometimes they even drop it. Sometimes you have comedians own up to their mistakes and admit a joke was in poor taste. "It's just jokes!" isn't a valid defense against criticism, especially when the jokes punch down and make marginalized groups the butt of the joke. These jokes can be harmful. Look at Dave Chappelle. Chappelle's show is legendary, but he's even said himself that people eventually hijacked his jokes and skits from the show and stripped them of their intended meaning and satire and used them as a way to laugh at racist jokes.They dont care if you criticize it. I couldnt care less if you criticize it. It's when people like Patrick think everyone else should walk lock-step with him and his opinion that it's laughable. His tweet wondering how any reviewer could possibly like the game is why many view him as a joke. Rightfully.
That doesn't mean that good satire can't exist. It can and it does. But not all satire is good satire, and comedy and satire are not immune from criticism.