logo
Mrs. Dalloway at 100

Mrs. Dalloway at 100

Express Tribune13-05-2025
On May 14, 1925, a London flower shop became the unlikely threshold to literary history. It was the day Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway was published, introducing readers to Clarissa Dalloway, a poised yet introspective woman preparing for an evening party. Over the course of a single day, Virginia captured a vast emotional landscape. A century on, the novel endures as a profound meditation on time, love, and the quiet performances of everyday life.
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Julie Bowen's first reaction to Happy Gilmore 2 script
Julie Bowen's first reaction to Happy Gilmore 2 script

Express Tribune

time2 hours 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.

Wimbledon — the glitz, the glam, the hypocrisy
Wimbledon — the glitz, the glam, the hypocrisy

Express Tribune

time21 hours 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.

Netflix renews Wednesday season 3, explores Addams Family spinoff with Tim Burton and Jenna Ortega
Netflix renews Wednesday season 3, explores Addams Family spinoff with Tim Burton and Jenna Ortega

Express Tribune

time3 days ago

  • Express Tribune

Netflix renews Wednesday season 3, explores Addams Family spinoff with Tim Burton and Jenna Ortega

Netflix has officially renewed its hit series Wednesday for a third season, with early discussions underway for a potential spinoff based on other Addams Family characters, according to The Hollywood Reporter. The announcement comes ahead of season two's premiere on August 6. In their first joint interview, director Tim Burton and star Jenna Ortega reflected on the show's success, the intensity of production, and navigating public scrutiny. Ortega, now also a producer on the series, described the early filming experience as 'chaotic and stressful,' having started at just 17. 'I don't think I've ever shot a scene that hasn't kept me up at night,' she admitted. Despite these challenges, Wednesday became Netflix's most-watched English-language series, racking up 252 million views globally. Ortega's comments in a past podcast, where she mentioned changing lines to better fit the character, sparked controversy. Reflecting on the incident, she said, 'In no way did I mean to come across that way… it was a good lesson.' Burton, who directed both Wednesday and Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, praised Ortega's instinctual understanding of the role. 'You need this weird internal strength and clarity… you can't manufacture it,' he said. Showrunner Alfred Gough echoed this sentiment, noting, 'She has a 360-degree view… you don't find that with most actors.' With an expanded cast in season two — including Steve Buscemi and Billie Piper — the team has leaned into a bigger scale and more creative freedom. 'Netflix has a lot more trust this time around,' Ortega said. Beyond the show, both Ortega and Burton criticized the growing influence of AI in entertainment. Ortega warned that AI-generated content creates 'junk food for the brain,' while Burton said it left him feeling like something had been taken away from his work. While Warner Bros. hinted at early development for Beetlejuice 3, Burton stated he hasn't been officially approached. 'It took 35 years to make the second one… I know those odds aren't good,' he said. Ortega firmly added she wouldn't return to the project without Burton at the helm: 'It is what it is because of Tim.' As for the future of Wednesday, neither Burton nor Ortega are making long-term plans. 'I don't even have plans for tomorrow,' Ortega said. Burton agreed: 'Me either.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store