If he is aware of Joyce’s Ulysses and “knows” that it’s supposed to be a dirty book, then why does he write “something called Ulysses”?
These are the words of someone who has no idea what Ulysses is — in any context.
I was also 12 in 1963, and it’s been a reference to Joyce for me ever since that time. Still is. It is not Homer - The Idiot and the Oddity were and are taught in junior high and high school, and would not be as over the top as the rest of the items. Neither would reading poetry - the parents might think that was great. I knew what Ulysses was then also.
Obviously none of the stuff happened. It would be a bit fast for a kid to get lost. And probably no alligators.
Back then the distinction between literary works and porn was lost on some people. In 1965 Tom Lehrer wrote, in “Smut”
" I have a hobby,
Rereading Lady Chatterley"
equating that classic with stories of tortures, used by debauchers.
And has already been mentioned, this song was meant for adults, who would get it as referring to Joyce. Tennyson, not so much.
Any parent who would be “frightened” by the possibility of their child contracting poison ivy would never send him/her to camp in the first place. It’s one of many risks parents accept when they send their children away.
And just like the bears and the alligators, the ptomaine poisoning is a product of the child’s imagination. A sane parent would realize this, and at the very most call the camp for the facts of the case before taking their child’s word for it.
He would know this only if he knows what Joyce’s Ulysses is. It’s clear from the lyrics that he does not.
Homer and Tennyson would, however, bore the child and thus be added to the list of his general complaints.
To make the line scan?
Certainly a possibility. Again, I’m only saying that this is one more strike against Joyce being justified by the song’s internal logic, and that it’s one of several elements within that internal logic that support an interpretation other than Joyce.
and Ulysses was mainly set up as a rhyme for “sissies”.
It’s really that simple, people. 
Sometimes we Dopers are wise----and sometimes we over-think stuff just a little bit.
Every other couplet, to that point, is something which has gone comically wrong. In order to fit, the “Ulysses” couplet must be about something comically wrong.
Reading from a sexual novel to young campers, so that they won’t be “sissies”, is comically wrong. Reading from Homer or Tennyson would not be.
Other way around, I think. Sherman wanted to have the kid horrify his parents by saying that he is being exposed to this scandalous book–and come on, people, there is *absolutely no doubt whatsoever *that the reference is to the notorious Joyce novel–and the “sissies” line, which may not make the most literal sense, was included for the sake of the rhyme.
Thank you.
Um…just to be clear, it’s not necessarily WRONGLY considered smutty, it’s actually going to depend on your Supreme Court-style definition of porn. I happen to be in the middle of a reread right now, and I’m at the scene where Bloom is fantasizing about a cross-dressing discussion with a dominatrix. There are similar scenes, the most salient of which features Bloom furiously masturbating on the beach while a naïve young woman shows him the length of her leg. Is it titillating? Not for me, but certainly it is for some English major somewhere.
I doubt that I heard it when if first came out, but when I first heard it, as a child, not knowing what “Ulysses” referred to, I could tell by the context that it was supposed to be a dirty book. Nothing else fits the song.
The child narrator was not previously familiar with Joyce’s work, therefore the use of “something called”. Allan Sherman knows full well that his audience, though, is very familiar with it. The juxtaposition is what makes it funny. Humor. Ha!
:smack:
Another anecdote to throw on the pile: like others upthread, I was a child when the song came out, and I immediately* made the connection to James Joyce’s famous banned dirty book. This seemed like a no-brainer.
*ok, maybe I asked my parents.
Here is what I always thought the song and the reference to “something called Ulysses” were about:
The kid is not happy at camp.
He may have never wanted to go. Or he may have wanted to go, but changed his mind after he got there.
In any event, he wants to go home.
So he tells his parents about bad stuff at the camp. Things that place him in physical danger, or threaten his moral fiber.
Almost certainly, these things are lies, designed to motivate his parents to bring him home. “(S)omething called Ulysses” would be how a manipulative kid would refer to the “dirty” book his parents wouldn’t want him exposed to if he didn’t want them to know that he knew about it. Of course, a head coach who said things like “(I) want no sissies” would be more likely have literary tastes (if any!) running to Hemingway than to James Joyce and stream of consciousness.
But the kid isn’t knowledgeable enough to understand this.
So he makes up a bizarre story of a strangely literate bully coach reading them that dirty book. Along with other improbabilities (bears and alligators?)
Later, he starts enjoying himself, and changes his mind about the camp. He’s not sophisticated enough to tear up the letter and write a short note saying, “Having a great time!”, so he tags it onto the end, leaving in all the made-up horrors.
There is a *remote *possibility that this really is the camp from Hell, and these bad things really are happening to him. In which case, he’s telling them the truth, and again hopes they’ll bring him home. In this case, he’s maybe never heard of Ulysses, and first learned of it when the creepy head coach read it to them. So the befuddled reference to it is on the level. (Or maybe, the bad things really are happening to him, and he *has *heard of the novel, but he doesn’t want his parents to know he’s heard of it. So he *acts *befuddled when he refers to it).
I never thought that thinking about that song would make my head hurt!
Fun fact: the “Dance of the Hours” from Ponchielli’s opera La Gioconda, AKA the tune of “Hello Muddah, Hello Fadduh,” also appears in (Joyce’s) Ulysses:
Thanks for all your views. Let’s summarize…
General arguments for James Joyce’s Ulysses being referenced in “Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah”:
The book had some notoriety at the time among adults as “scandalous”/“pornographic”/whatever
Arguments based on the song’s actual lyrics for James Joyce’s Ulysses being referenced in “Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah”:
None.
General arguments for Tennyson’s or Homer’s Ulysses (more likely the latter) being referenced in “Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah”:
Overall cultural literacy of the public. In 1963, even those who had never actually read these works would have had a general notion that Ulysses was a strong, heroic character.
Arguments based on the song’s actual lyrics for Tennyson’s or Homer’s Ulysses being referenced in “Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah”:
Fits in well with the coach’s expressed desire to not have any sissies. (Joyce’s book does not in any way.)
Fits in well as another in a long line of the kid’s complaints about camp, as a pre-adolescent child would find the experience of these works being read to him boring in the extreme.
Fallacious arguments for James Joyce’s Ulysses being referenced in “Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah”:
The child hopes his parents will be scandalized into bringing him home due to the coach reading such a book to him.
[ul]
No, because he has no idea what James Joyce’s Ulysses is — see “something called Ulysses” — and would be highly unlikely to know such a thing as a young child in 1963.
[/ul]
The coach reading to the kids from Joyce’s Ulysses could have actually happened.
[ul]No. If Joyce is part of this scenario, then it’s patently ridiculous. No adult in 1963 would risk his job by reading to children of any age a book that, as everyone agrees, was considered scandalous even for adult reading. (All of the other scenes described by the child could either happen in real life, or could at least appear to have happened when inflamed by his considerable imagination.)
[/ul]
The child, aware of the controversy over Joyce’s Ulysses, made the story up out of whole cloth to “horrify his parents.”
[ul]No. As noted, he would be very unlikely to know of this controversy in the first place. But more than this, everything else he’s told his parents either happened in real life, or appeared to happen when fanned by his imagination. Nothing of anything else he says can be characterized as an out-out-out lie. Telling such a huge lie as this would be a major leap. The child would have to know that had his parents come to pick him up, they would have confronted the camp’s administration and found out that the child was lying…and he would find himself in a much more uncomfortable position than the worst Camp Granada is visiting upon him now.[/ul]
Rational explanation of the events described in “Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah” based on the actual lyrics of the song:
Young Alan finds himself in an alien environment at summer camp. He observes certain things going on around him:
[ul]
[li]His hiking companion develops poison ivy (plausible, although he himself does not)[/li]
[li]Another boy gets ptomaine poisoning (unlikely; why is he the only one? Probably just a tummy ache)[/li]
[li]The lake has alligators (impossible in the northeastern U.S.; sheer imagination)[/li]
[li]The head coach — unable to direct any activity due to the rain — reads to the campers from a long, boring and difficult-to-understand poem (plausible if it’s Homer/Tennyson…impossible if it’s Joyce)[/li]
[li]His bunk mate has malaria (impossible; malaria was eradicated in the U.S. by 1952, so sheer imagination)[/li]
[li]Another camp mate disappears for a time (plausible, but not that unusual. If this were truly a long-term disappearance, there would be genuine panic and he wouldn’t be casually writing a letter.)[/li][/ul]
His feelings at the time of writing the letter comprise a mixture of discomfort with an alien environment, fear inflamed mostly by imagination, but probably more than anything sheer boredom. So he pleads with his parents to fetch him home.
Once the weather breaks, all of his complaints are erased in a heartbeat, and he’s very happy to be at Camp Granada.
Bottom line:
James Joyce is completely unnecessary in the above entirely reasonable scenario.
There are many arguments against his presence, and only one in favor. And that argument is not supported by anything that’s actually in the song.
All are welcome to pick apart any of the above (and mock me for putting this much time into it — but hey, I had fun!).
I just hope that effort will comprise something beyond “Oh, come on…”
The scene with the coach as described strikes me as about as funny as sneaking a pre-adolescent child into a porno flick would be today. The degree of difference in the two media is immaterial. Inappropriate is inappropriate, no matter what the era.
Those who keep pointing out how scandalous Joyce’s Ulysses was in 1963 are actually making my case for me.
And to head off one thing I’m sure is coming at the pass…
Yeah, I get it, it’s a humorous song aimed at adults. But most humorists either go fully in one direction (total absurd fantasy), or go toward reality and just look at it in a funny way.
All of “Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah” falls into the second camp (no pun intended), with the glaring exception of the notion that an adult would read Joyce’s Ulysses to a bunch of pre-adolescents. That crosses the line that separates funny and creepy…and there’s no need to do this in Sherman’s song, when the whole thing works perfectly well and consistently with Homer’s Ulysses instead.
I have a feeling I’m going to be sorry I didn’t just let this pass, but…
The very line that forms the title of this thread allows for Joyce’s novel as the only sensible interpretation.
“He reads to us…” indicates that it is an ongoing practice. Tennyson’s poem is a short one, it would cover two pages in a book at most. The coach wouldn’t read from it; he’d simply read it. And it wouldn’t take more than one session. Joyce’s novel, of course, is hundreds of pages long and densely written, and it makes much more sense as a subject to be sampled from repeatedly.
The Odyssey isn’t called “Ulysses.” If the kid didn’t know the actual title, he might have said “something about Ulysses,” not that it was called “Ulysses.”
[quote=“Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew, post:58, topic:700891”]
I have a feeling I’m going to be sorry I didn’t just let this pass, but…
The very line that forms the title of this thread allows for Joyce’s novel as the only sensible interpretation.
“He reads to us…” indicates that it is an ongoing practice.
[QUOTE]
The problem with this is that it can hardly be “an ongoing practice” when the entire time little Alan has been in camp amounts to “one whole day.”
Given all the other events he has described that have happened in his short time in camp, it seems unlikely that Alan has had more than one session with the coach.
As for the tense, it’s likely the coach has made it clear before any reading takes place that he wants no sissies, and that these readings will be an ongoing process to enforce this. It doesn’t have to happen twice for this tense to be used.
I’ll agree that Tennyson’s poem is an unlikely candidate for the coach’s readings. But Homer’s, which is quite lengthy indeed, is not (and would also be a candidate if it happens that there WAS more than one session on opening day). Read on.
When Alan and his mates listened to the coach’s reading, how many times do you figure they heard the word “Ulysses” spoken as compared to the number of times they heard the word “Odyssey” spoken?
Both words would be foreign to the kids. Would it be surprising if they came away with the impression the title of the work was “Ulysses” – as opposed to a word they likely heard spoken once at most?
If you were asked its title after hearing “Good Riddance” for the first time, what would you have answered?
Probably none, since the protagonist is usually identified as Odysseus in English translations of the poem–including the abridged one I myself had as a schoolboy.