A 100 years on, Mrs Dalloway continues to walk
This year marks not only a century of Clarissa's walk across London but a return to the web of feeling that pulses beneath the novel's stream-of-consciousness style. At its heart is a triptych of love stories, Clarissa and her husband Richard, Clarissa and her childhood friend Sally Seton, Clarissa and herself, and, hovering just beyond the page, another marriage: Virginia and Leonard Woolf.
A marriage of two minds
Virginia and Leonard married in 1912. She was luminous, volatile, brilliant. He was steady, cerebral, and deeply devoted. Their marriage, like Clarissa's, was not defined by passion alone but by an intricate choreography of companionship, caretaking, and creative cohabitation. Together they founded the Hogarth Press from their dining table in Richmond, hand-printing and publishing some of the twentieth century's most radical writing, including Mrs. Dalloway. Leonard typed the manuscript; Virginia, with trembling hands and a mind always on the edge, reworked the sentences until they flowed like breath. It was a novel she had to write, and he ensured she could.
In Mrs. Dalloway, Virginia gave us a marriage that echoes her own: a partnership defined as much by what is unsaid as what is spoken aloud. Richard Dalloway, who cannot say "I love you" to his wife, buys her flowers instead. Clarissa, who once kissed Sally Seton in the garden at Bourton and called it the "most exquisite moment of her whole life," now hosts parties, listens for Big Ben, and thinks of lost chances. It is a novel filled with ghost loves: those that could have been, those that almost were, those that continue in silence.
But Virginia's genius lies in the way she resists simplifying love into a single narrative. Clarissa's feelings for Sally, blooming in youth and buried under layers of societal constraint, never vanish. Nor do they erupt into melodrama. They shimmer, instead, in small glances, brief memories, the way Sally "squeezed the water out of a sponge" at the sink. Richard, too, is not a villain or fool. He loves Clarissa, in his quiet, English way. And she, for all her longing, acknowledges the safety and structure he provides.
What emerges is not a love triangle, but a love constellation: fragile, flickering, true. Clarissa's party becomes the stage upon which all these tensions play out: Sally arrives late, older and changed; Richard, as ever, present but opaque; Clarissa, radiant and alone in a room full of people. It is one of literature's most piercing explorations of married life; not its beginnings, but its weathered middle.
To love many
Outside the novel, Virginia was writing from inside her own complicated geometry of love. She had close, intimate relationships with women, most famously Vita Sackville-West, but never left Leonard. "You have been in every way all that one could be," she wrote to him in her last letter before she committed suicide in 1941. "I don't think two people could have been happier than we have been." It is a line that glows with love's strange alchemy: she loved others, but she chose him.
The centenary of Mrs. Dalloway comes at a time when we are, once again, asking what it means to love in difficult times. In an age of climate anxiety, political collapse, and collective fatigue, Clarissa's insistence on beauty, on throwing a party, even as the world breaks, is radical. So too was Virginia's choice to write a book not about war itself, but about the quiet traumas it leaves behind. Septimus Warren Smith, the shell-shocked veteran whose story runs parallel to Clarissa's, is not healed by love. He is undone by a society that cannot comprehend his pain. His suicide, so carefully rendered, casts a long shadow over the Dalloways' drawing room.
But love is not absent; it simply cannot save everything.
Still, the marriage of the Woolfs, and the parallel one in the novel, reveals something deeper: that love, even when imperfect, can be a scaffolding for art. Leonard did not always understand Virginia's mental spirals, but he protected the space in which she could write. She, in turn, left behind some of the most luminous prose in the English language.
The prose of Mrs. Dalloway is like no other. Virginia once wrote that she wanted to "follow the atoms as they fall upon the mind in the order in which they fall." And so she did. The novel flows without chapters, shifting seamlessly from one consciousness to another, rendering the texture of thought in motion. Virginia broke the rigid structures of Victorian fiction and created a modernism of empathy, one that allowed readers to live briefly inside many minds.
At the time of its publication, Mrs. Dalloway was met with awe and some bewilderment. Critics admired its beauty but questioned its form. Today, it is canonical. It has inspired films, reimaginings, tributes, from Michael Cunningham's The Hours to experimental theatre adaptations. Penguin has released a centenary edition; institutions from Bloomsbury to Bombay have planned events, readings, and exhibits. Around the world, Clarissa walks again.
Love at third sight
In Karachi, where I first read Mrs. Dalloway as a teenager, the novel became a quiet compass. I did not know, then, that literature could be structured like time, like breath. That a woman thinking could be the plot. That love could be a thought remembered thirty years later and still burn.
What Virginia gave us in Mrs. Dalloway is no grand romance but a mosaic of human bonds; she gave us the space between words, the pause before a confession, the petal that falls before the kiss. And she showed us that marriage, even without drama or climax, could be a place of deep, and difficult, love.
As Clarissa throws her party, as the clocks strike, as the past and present fold into each other like silk, we remember: she is not just a character. She is a mirror. So too was Virginia, writing her way through pain, through passion, through partnership. One hundred years on, both women still walk through open doors, still gather the flowers, still greet the day. And in that moment, they are loved.
Have something to add to the story? Share it in the comments below.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Between inheritance and invention
Literature often arrives before theory finds a name for it. Long before Pakistani writing in English was granted the dignity of critical attention, poets and novelists were already grappling with the dilemmas of belonging, the dislocations of Partition, and the uneven legacies of empire. What was once regarded with suspicion or condescension has become an essential register of Pakistan's modern literary imagination — a way to reflect on the unfinished stories that history leaves behind. In the New Century: An Anthology of Pakistani Literature in English stands as both an affirmation and an inquiry into that transformation. Edited by Muneeza Shamsie, this anthology follows her earlier collection, A Dragonfly in the Sun, which first attempted to chart the contours of Pakistani English literature. Where the earlier volume sought to establish the field's existence and seriousness, this sequel arrives in a changed landscape. Over the two decades it covers — from 1997 to 2017 — Pakistani Anglophone writing has achieved international prominence, developed new idioms, and begun to address audiences both within and beyond the country's borders. The anthology assembles the work of 86 writers, reflecting a remarkable breadth of forms. It comprises poetry, short stories, novel excerpts, memoirs, life writings, essays, and drama. This diversity is not merely a matter of genre. Still, of sensibility: it suggests that Pakistani English literature has evolved into a domain capacious enough to hold multiple, sometimes conflicting, conceptions of identity and cultural legitimacy. The first contributor in the volume is Taufiq Rafat, a poet often credited with pioneering an indigenous voice in English. His inclusion underscores the lineage of literary experiment that has shaped Pakistani writing since decades after independence. Rafat and his contemporaries were among the first to insist that English could be adapted to local rhythms, landscapes, and preoccupations without surrendering its expressive power. In his work, the language of the coloniser is refashioned to accommodate the cadences of Punjabi and Urdu sensibility, a process that has inspired generations of poets since. At the other end of the anthology is Sarvat Hasin, part of a younger generation whose writing signals the continuity of this project into the twenty-first century. Between these two writers lies an array of perspectives that together document how Pakistani English literature has expanded its thematic and stylistic range, becoming both more introspective and more outward-looking. The introduction situates this development in a historical and cultural context. Shamsie traces how, in the years after 1947, English was viewed with suspicion by nationalist critics, who saw it as the language of colonial administration and social privilege. Yet she also emphasises a different dimension: the charge that English writing belonged to a social elite, disconnected from vernacular traditions and ordinary lives. While this association with privilege has persisted, the anthology demonstrates how, over time, English has also become a medium for serious engagement with Pakistani histories and sensibilities. What once seemed alien could be reclaimed, transformed by literary imagination, and reshaped into a language capable of expressing indigenous experience with authenticity. The anthology reveals how this process has matured. The poetry section, which occupies a substantial part of the collection, includes figures such as Adrian A. Hussain, Waqas Khwaja, Moniza Alvi, Imtiaz Dharker, and Kaleem Omar. Their inclusion illustrates the range of poetic practice: from reflections on Partition and displacement to meditations on language, faith, and intimacy. Among them, poets like Kaleem Omar — and to some extent Waqas Khwaja — have engaged with the ghazal form, adapting its classical structures within English. Shamsie's introduction highlights such experiments as part of a broader effort to create a Pakistani idiom in the language of the former coloniser, demonstrating that English could be made responsive to traditional literary forms rather than simply replacing them. The prose selections cover both fiction and life writing. Novel excerpts and short stories by Kamila Shamsie, Mohsin Hamid, Mohammed Hanif, Uzma Aslam Khan, and Bapsi Sidhwa reflect the increasingly international profile of Pakistani writers. In the period the anthology spans, several of these authors received global recognition, their work shortlisted for major prizes and translated into multiple languages. Through their stories, Pakistani narratives entered wider conversations about migration, religious extremism, and postcolonial belonging. Their inclusion here testifies not only to their literary accomplishment but also to the central role they have played in reshaping how Pakistan is perceived abroad. Memoirs and essays contribute a different texture to the collection. Works by Sara Suleri Goodyear, Fatima Bhutto, and Fawzia Afzal-Khan address the interplay between family history and national trauma. These pieces highlight a central preoccupation of Pakistani writing in English: the effort to reconcile the private with the political, the remembered with the inherited. Memoir in this context is never a purely personal mode; it is an inquiry into how individual lives are marked by the violence and upheaval of collective experience. Drama and theatrical writing also appear in the anthology. Hanif Kureishi and Ayub Khan Din are included not because they write about Pakistan directly, but because their work reflects the diasporic dimensions of Pakistani identity. Their plays highlight how cultural authenticity is shaped not just by geography but by experience, negotiation, and the ambiguities of living between worlds. Diasporic identity constitutes another major theme. Writers whose lives span continents — Moniza Alvi, Imtiaz Dharker, and Hanif Kureishi — explore questions of partial belonging and the longing for a home that may never fully exist. These contributions affirm that Pakistani literature in English cannot be confined to the homeland. It is also a literature of migration, of second-generation inheritance, and lives unfolding in the spaces of airports and border crossings. In gathering these voices, the anthology underscores the necessity of recognising diaspora as an integral aspect of the Pakistani Anglophone tradition. Several thematic concerns emerge across the volume. Partition remains a defining subject, approached not simply as a historical rupture but as an enduring source of memory and grief. For many of the writers included here, Partition is less an event than a recurring trauma — a set of absences and unspoken losses that continue to shape the stories families tell about themselves. The 1971 war and the creation of Bangladesh, long neglected in Pakistani English literature, receive attention in selections by Sorayya Khan and Durdana Soomro, among others. These works confront the dangers of selective memory and the ethical challenge of acknowledging complicity as well as suffering. The anthology also foregrounds the War on Terror as a shaping context for contemporary writing. In both fiction and poetry, authors grapple with the moral and psychological consequences of a period marked by violence, fear, and surveillance. These are not simply topics imported from the headlines; they are lived realities that have left their mark on the language itself, giving rise to new metaphors of rupture and dislocation. One of the anthology's contributions is to show how literary form itself has been transformed by these pressures. The presence of the ghazal alongside free verse, the mingling of satire with elegy, and the juxtaposition of memoir with fiction suggest a tradition that has learned to resist the simplifications of cultural explanation. Rather than offering a single, unified image of Pakistani identity, the anthology presents a field of tensions: between nostalgia and critique, between local rootedness and transnational movement, between inheritance and invention. If A Dragonfly in the Sun was an effort to legitimise Pakistani English writing, In the New Century: An Anthology of Pakistani Literature in English feels like a record of its maturation. It no longer seeks to prove that Pakistani literature in English exists or deserves a place. Instead, it sets out to document the complexity of that existence and the questions it continues to raise. The anthology refuses to impose closure on a tradition still in formation. More than a collection of texts, the anthology becomes a map of sensibility — a way to trace how writers have responded to the dilemmas of language, belonging, and history. Its significance lies not only in the range of material it gathers, but in the perspective, it models. By treating Pakistani English literature as a living tradition — shaped by argument, experiment, and dissent — it invites readers to see it not as a supplement to Urdu and regional literatures, but as a vital dimension of contemporary Pakistani culture. At a time when cultural identities are often reduced to singular narratives, this volume emphasises the value of complexity. It affirms that literature is most vital when it admits contradiction, when it resists the consolations of nostalgia, and when it dares to question the very categories that define it. In the New Century ultimately stands as both an archive and a provocation — a testament to the enduring conviction that literature, even when contested, remains one of the most powerful ways a society can imagine itself anew. In the New Century: An Anthology of Pakistani Literature in English Compiled and Edited by Muneeza Shamsie Published by Oxford University Press Pakistan, 2025 Pages: 600 Price PKR 2495/- ISBN: 978-0-19-906091-7 The writer is a Pakistan-born and Austria-based poet in Urdu and English. He teaches South Asian literature and culture at Vienna All facts and information are the sole repsonsibility of the writer
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
Julie Bowen's first reaction to Happy Gilmore 2 script
Julie Bowen is opening up about her unexpected storyline in Happy Gilmore 2, the long-awaited sequel to the 1996 comedy classic. In an exclusive interview with PEOPLE, the Emmy-winning actress revealed her reaction upon learning her character, Virginia Venit, dies within the first few minutes of the film. Bowen, 55, reprises her role as Virginia, who in the sequel is now married to Happy Gilmore, played once again by Adam Sandler. The couple has five children together — but the family moment is short-lived. Just minutes into the film, Virginia is struck and killed by a golf ball hit by her husband during a tournament. "When I found out that I was killed on page 12, I started laughing," Bowen told PEOPLE. She explained she was on vacation with limited phone access when she read the script. "I only had my phone, and I was like, 'Am I seeing this right?' Trying to blow it up," she recalled. Despite the abrupt ending for her character, Bowen embraced the twist with humor. "I go, 'I don't care. It's great. Happy can't be happy,'" she joked, noting how Sandler tried to reach her during her trip to discuss the plot. Bowen said she was honored to be included in the sequel, even with a limited on-screen role. "It's just fun to be part of the whole thing," she shared. "Of course, why would I not want to be part of Happy Gilmore, whether I'm a big part, a little part." She also praised Sandler's commitment to bringing back original cast members, calling it important to him. Though Virginia dies early in the story, Bowen revealed that her character remains central through Happy's emotional journey. 'His love for me drives the story,' she said, explaining how memories of Virginia motivate him to perform and parent well.
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Express Tribune
Wimbledon — the glitz, the glam, the hypocrisy
The writer takes interest in humanism and futurology. He has an MS from Houston and DDS from Nashville, Tennessee. He can be reached at bhasnain@ Listen to article Breakfast at Wimbledon' is a long-cherished tradition in sports. Here in America, as in London and across the globe, we can't wait to pour cream over strawberries or enjoy scones with hot tea or English muffins or even have Bangers and Mash. As the Commodores would say, "It's easy like Sunday morning." But for the die-hard tennis fans in Pakistan, it's "Dinner at Wimbledon." This year was no different. We lounged in front of our big screen TV sets. We picked our favourites. It was Carlos Alcaraz defending his title against Jannik Sinner. These two youngsters, the new kids on the block, have raised the level of competition to new heights. In an epic battle, Jannik Sinner outplayed Carlos Alcaraz defeating him in four sets, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4, avenging his defeat in the French Open final earlier this year. A slew of Hollywood celebrities attended the final match. Keira Knightly, Matthew McConaughey and Nicole Kidman, as well as London's Mayor Sadiq Khan were seated in the Royal Box. Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales, presented the trophies to the winner and the runner-up. But beyond the glitz and the glam, hidden from our view and undetected from all the camera angles, lies the shameless hypocrisy of the All-England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club that organises this tournament. In 2022, the club banned players from Russia and Belarus from participating in Wimbledon in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The ban was lifted in 2023, but in subsequent tournaments, players from Russia and Belarus have been forced to play in Wimbledon as "neutrals" as if they don't belong to any country. This includes the Russian players Daniil Medvedev and Andrey Rublev as well as the world number one female tennis player, Aryna Sabalenka, who hails from Belarus. The All-England Club justified its apparently discriminatory decision "to prevent the Russian regime from using the tournament for propaganda purposes". Supporters of the decision argued that "it was a necessary step to condemn Russia's actions and show solidarity with Ukraine." Critics of the double standard argued that "it is discriminatory to punish individual athletes for the actions of their governments." What about the tennis players from the USA and Great Britain? After all, the United States, along with its ally, Great Britain, invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 - and that too under false pretenses. Both countries have a chilling history of military interventions in foreign lands and territories. The British Empire is known to have established colonies from North America to South Africa, and beyond. In 1877, Queen Victoria imposed herself as the Empress of India. The British Empire not only stole billions (if not trillions as reported) from India, they subjected the local population to heinous and barbaric crimes. In the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in 1919, for example, Gen Dyer who was commanding the British Indian Army ordered opening fire on a peaceful gathering of unarmed Indians who had gathered to protest against the colonial rule. Over one thousand innocent people died that day. In short, athletes from the USA and Great Britain are not to be discriminated at Wimbledon as those from Russia and Belarus. That's that.
