Tinky Winky's got a brand new bag”: The Year's Work ... - David Lavery

Tinky Winky’s got a brand new bag”: The Year's Work in
Teletubbies Studies
By Krystal Whitecastle, Impoverished State University
Since its inception in 1997, Teletubbies studies has attracted its critics, many of whom argue that
recent scholarship has failed to maintain the momentum established by Aristotle Anopheles's
groundbreaking monograph Tele(ological)tubbies (Athens A&M UP, 1997). To be sure, there
have been more lows than highs in recent years, and detractors have been eager to dwell upon
the former [e.g., Mary Elizabeth Grace’s disappointing Tinky Winky, I Wuv You! (Scholastic P,
1999) and Timmy Wilson’s intriguing but poorly-executed Po! Laa-Laa! Fall Down Again! (Mother
Goose P, 2000)], while overlooking the latter [most notably Gerund Umlaut’s provocative inquiry,
Entschuligen Sie, bitte, wie komme ich zum Land Teletubby? (Berlin: die Presse einfältig
Universität, 1999)]. However, the intellectual vigor and critical sophistication of this year's work in
Teletubbies studies should silence even the most skeptical critic of our discipline, for these works
act as mental Viagra on minds left flaccid by the puerile criticism of Grace, Wilson, and their
ineffectual ilk.
Felix Culpa’s book “There You Go Again! Again! Again!”: The Politics of Repetition and
The Repetition of Politics (Bora Bora Institute of Technology P) opens with an ingenious
metaphor: “On election night 2000, the nation’s voters collectively shouted, “Again! Again!” before
falling hysterically to the ground. The new administration, in turn, replied, ‘Let them eat
tubbytoast’” (vii). Contending that Teletubbies put George W. Bush in the White House, Culpa
argues that the show's highly-repetitive nature subliminally conditioned millions of parents to find
security in mindless repetition, thus causing them to vote for the candidate who subconsciously
reminded them of their carefree high school and college years spent during the Reagan-Bush
administrations. The American electorate, Culpa explains,
displayed an infantile desire to turn back the clock and return to the benevolent
paternalism of the Reagan-Bush years; repeated exposure to Teletubbies conditioned
voters to find comfort and security in tax cuts for the wealthy, increased spending for
defense, and the opening of protected wildlife preserves for oil exploration. (64).
Culpa’s argument is an ingenious one, and if correct, Tony Blair had better keep a wary eye on
Margaret Thatcher.
2001 saw the publication of the much-anticipated reference work, “I am not a number. I
am a Teletubby”: The Prisoner and Teletubbies by Paddy Fritz and Joseph Serf (Village
Publications). Fritz and Serf, co-authors of last year’s critically-acclaimed Spongebob
Squarepants and the Geometry of Style (Atlantis UP), have produced an impressive three-volume
work enumerating 46,023 parallels between Patrick McGoohan’s 1967 television series and
Teletubbies, ranging from the seemingly trivial (the license plate on the Prisoner’s Lotus 7 Series
II reads “KAR12OC,” which is also the Noo-Noo’s serial number) to the profound (in both shows
characters are confined in an idealized English landscape and controlled by anonymous voices
heard over a network of loudspeakers, both shows feature giant weather balloons that sometimes
pursue the protagonists, and both shows unarguably function on an allegorical level). This book is
an outstanding example of Teletubbies scholarship and essential reading for anyone interested in
the astonishing influence of British television upon British television.
A welcome addition to the growing corpus of Teletubbies influence studies is “Fear no
more the heat of the baby-faced sun”: Teletubbies and Early Modern Drama (Dismal State UP,
2001) by M. Minkoff-Reilly, Indentured Instructor of English at l’Université de Nouvelle Orléans.
Minkoff-Reilly argues that early modern drama constitutes the single-greatest influence upon
Teletubbies, and her work thus stands as a bold challenge to Percy Porlock's hypothesis
[presented in his 1998 book We All Live in a Stately-Pleasure Dome: The Magical History of
Teletubbies (Liverpool UP)] that English Romanticism and late 1960s British psychedelia were

the primary sources of inspiration for the popular children's program. Minkoff-Reilly acknowledges
this fact in her introduction:
The influence of Romanticism, especially ‘Kubla Khan,’ and Yellow Submarine-era Beatles upon
Teletubbies cannot be overstated; however, if Porlock had spent less time in that Amsterdam
coffeehouse “researching” his book, he would have realized that early modern drama exerts an
even greater influence. (ix)
Viewing Teletubbies through the lens of early modern drama is an approach which produces
intriguing but inconsistent results. For example, Minkoff-Reilly's assertion that Po and Laa-Laa
were based upon Rosencrantz and Guildenstern lacks concrete evidence, while her suggestion
that a computer-animated sequence in which a nattily-dressed bear emerges from a flying
carousel to perform a soft-shoe dance routine “was undoubtedly inspired by the stage direction
‘Exit, pursued by a bear’ in The Winter’s Tale” is just plain wrong.
The arguments that do work, however, work very well indeed. For instance, Minkoff-Reilly
offers what may well prove to be the definitive reading of the classic sequence in which a giant
blowout party favor tickles Tinky Winky’s buttocks as he bends over. After examining several
examples of this type of anality in early modern drama, she concludes: “Like Hodge in Gammer
Gurton’s Needle and Edward II in Marlowe’s play, it is safe to say that Tinky Winky gets it in the
end” (34). In another chapter Minkoff-Reilly challenges Porlock’s assertion that “Teletubbyland
exists somewhere slightly west of Xanadu but north-northeast of Pepperland” (567), arguing
instead that Teletubbyland has more in common with the homes of Puck and Ariel:
There is no denying that Teletubbyland is a magical place, but while Porlock recognizes a
pharmaceutical source of the magic, I prefer to regard Teletubbyland as part of the same
mythopoetic landscape as the Athenian forests of A Midsummer Night’s Dream and
Prospero’s island in The Tempest, places inhabited by playful sprites and loveable
faeries, not women wailing for their demon lovers and Blue Meanies. (134)
These arguments alone make the book an invaluable contribution to the field, “but wait,” as the
sponsors are wont to say, “there’s more”: Minkoff-Reilly saves the best for last, concluding her
monograph with a provocative and challenging reinterpretation of what many Teletubbies
scholars generally regard as our darkest hour. I speak, of course, of Reverend Jerry Falwell’s
infamous “outing” of Tinky Winky.
In 1999 Falwell’s National Liberty Journal warned parents that Tinky Winky is a gay role
model. Foremost among the evidence for this startling assertion is the fact that the male Tinky
Winky carries a purse; furthermore, the article asserts, “He is purple—the gay pride color; and his
antenna is shaped like a triangle—the gay pride symbol” (“Tinky Winky Comes Out of the
Closet”). Although Falwell himself did not write the article, he later told reporters that he stood
behind it, adding, "As a Christian I feel that role modeling the gay lifestyle is damaging to the
moral lives of children” (“Falwell’s”). Falwell’s fear that exposing young boys to Tinky Winky would
turn them into mincing queens struck most people as ludicrous, and satirists were quick to ridicule
the former leader of the Moral Majority. However, Minkoff-Reilly argues, these satirists were
nearly four centuries too late, for a character based upon Falwell had already been lampooned by
Ben Jonson in Bartholmew Fair (1614). Near the end of the play, a puritan minister named Zealof-the-Land
Busy interrupts a puppet show, charging both the audience and the puppets with
immorality. Busy then enters a debate with one of the puppets, which culminates thus:
BUSY. Yes, and my main argument against you is that you are an abomination; for the
male among you putteth on the apparel of the female, and the female of the male.
PUPPET DIONYSIUS. You lie, you lie, you lie abominably. . . . It is your old stale
argument against the players, but it will not hold against the puppets, for we have neither
male nor female amongst us. And that thou may’st see, if thou wilt, like a malicious
purblind zeal as thou art!
The puppet takes up his garment.
BUSY. I am confuted, the cause hath failed me. (5.5.87-101)

Jonson, Minkoff-Reilly insists, satirizes Falwell’s attack on Tinky Winky by having Busy lose a
debate with a puppet over its alleged sexual orientation.
Proving that Jonson had foreknowledge of the event proves to be Minkoff-Reilly’s biggest
challenge, yet she rises to the occasion, offering unassailable proof:
While composing Bartholmew Fair in 1614, Jonson met Michel de Nostradamus at a dinner party
hosted by Lucy, Countess of Pembroke, and the celebrated French astrologer was so charmed
by Jonson’s wit that he gifted him with the following quatrain, which I discovered by chance on Ebay:
The shepherd shall lead his flock astray
By finding evil in a child’s plaything;
Yet his argument will reveal his own folly—
When confuted, he will fall well. (486)
Minkoff-Reilly rightly concludes that through this prophetic verse, Jonson foresaw Falwell’s
ridiculous attempt to impose human sexual orientation upon genderless fictional creatures and
decided it would be good for a laugh or two on stage.
Although using Nostradamus to support her argument will certainly generate controversy,
it is exactly this type of scholarly risk-taking needed to push the boundaries of Teletubbies studies
(after all, Mary Elizabeth Grace and Timmy Wilson didn’t exactly take any chances). Aware that
her thesis is a challenging one, Minkoff-Reilly strongly defends her position:
Although some small-minded nitpickers and Skeptical Inquirer-types will demand to know
how Falwell’s actions could have influenced Jonson’s play 385 years earlier, my
response is that the influence is undeniably there. As any fool can plainly see, Falwell’s
homophobic attack upon the Teletubbies so closely parallels Busy’s attack upon the
puppets that one cannot ignore the obvious influence of Teletubbies upon Bartholmew
Fair. End of story. Deal with it. (335)
Indeed, just as Busy could not refute the puppet’s logic, this reviewer cannot refute Minkoff-
Reilly’s ingenious argument.
Given my obvious admiration for Minkoff-Reilly’s book, it may come as a surprise that as
awe-inspiring as her book is, there is an even more powerful work left to review. Not an influence
study but a relentlessly post-modern analysis of race and racism in Teletubbies, the book raises
many questions, but, like an elusive enigma wrapped in a cryptic mystery shrouded in an esoteric
riddle, it provides few answers. Even the identity of the author is unknown. The book of which I
speak is, of course, the anonymous Coloring the Teletubbies (Smith-Binney Publications). This
crucial book bridges the perceived gulf between racial and individual identity, challenging our
(pre)conceptions about how racial identity is imagined, inscribed, figured, and theorized in
Teletubbies.
The anonymous author employs a series of linked black and white drawings printed on
coarse newsprint to investigate race in Teletubbyland and, by extension, our own. Since these
pictures cry out for color, the author's intent in rendering them monochromatically has generated
much scholarly debate: Does the absence of color indict Teletubbies for racism? Or does this
absence of color in fact invite us to project upon each Teletubby our own racial construction? For
years to come Coloring the Teletubbies will remain essential reading for professional scholars
and critics writing about Teletubbies. For the sake of Teletubbies studies, let us hope that this
anonymous author is busily working on Gendering the Teletubbies and Classing the Teletubbies.
Works Cited
“Falwell’s Newspaper Claims ‘Teletubbies’ Character is Gay.” CNN Interactive. 10 Feb. 1999. 23
May 2001. .
Jonson, Ben. Bartholmew Fair. Ed. G. R. Hibbard. New Mermaids. New York: Norton, 1977.

“Tinky Winky Comes Out of the Closet.” NLJ Online. Feb. 1999. 23 May 2001.
.