Hugh! The (not very) admirable Hugh!
Whenever Hugh Whitbread is mentioned in Mrs. Dalloway, he is introduced as “Hugh! the admirable Hugh!” On the surface, this is a perfectly apt description. Hugh embodies the perfect English gentleman: he is always well-dressed, extremely courteous, supremely noble.
But these seemingly admirable qualities only go so far. If you go a millimeter below the surface of Hugh’s character, you’ll find that there’s nothing left. Indeed, nearly every character in the book detests Hugh. Richard notes that Hugh is “fatter than ever; an intolerable ass” (179) and that he “could not stand more than an hour of his society” (173). Sally thinks that Hugh “thought of nothing but his own appearance,” and that he “ought to have been a Duke,” because he was so pretentious (109). Milly Brush calls him “one of the greediest men she had ever known” at Lady Bruton’s lunch party, because he was attempting to eat everything on the table (161). Even Lady Bruton thinks him “very slow” and “getting fat” (164).
Compared to the rest of the characters in Mrs. Dalloway, Hugh has nothing going on in his mind, beneath his impeccable appearance and manners. Clarissa, Peter Walsh, Septimus, and others are all constantly reflecting internally on their experiences. But Hugh is only a shell. Woolf does not even bother to tell the story from Hugh’s perspective because it would be so boring! Imagine Hugh trying to narrate the lunch party. There would be nothing for him to say, though perhaps he could inform us how delicious the soufflé tasted.
Throughout the story, we come to realize that Hugh is the antithesis of Mrs. Dalloway. The novel’s central theme is examining each character’s emotions and reflections, but Hugh! the admirable Hugh! has none. To Woolf, and to all of the other characters, he is the lack of character, of spirit, of what makes us human.
It is so interesting to me that it seems like everyone in the story of Mrs. Dalloway dislikes Hugh. Like you mentioned, all the other characters seem to have very introspective thoughts while his character serves as only an annoying mindless character. I had never considered that he is also one of the only recurring characters that does not get a section told through his perspective. I wonder if that was intentional from Virginia Woolf. Great post!
ReplyDeleteHi Anthony, this is a really interesting blog! I really liked how you decided to do a deep analysis on the one character that has almost nothing to talk about. Do you think Hugh is aware that almost everyone thinks of him as a snob? And conversely, do you think Hugh could be one of the happiest characters in the book---given that he does not think about any of his problems, and carries himself in such a high manner?
ReplyDeleteHi Anthony! I never thought about Hugh as the "antithesis" of the novel, but I totally see it after you've brought it up. I feel like the book is comprised of a combination of characters that range from most soulful and struggling, to most shallow and contently blended within high society, all of which together reveals Woolf's commentary on society. I wonder what it would've been like if we had actually gotten a glimpse of the world through Hugh's perspective. It would've been really interesting if it was indeed just shallow thoughts that broke the intellectual flow of the other character's much richer minds. At the same time, I guess we’ll never know. Perhaps he was hiding behind a big facade, of fake smiles and pleasantries, since we never find out a whole lot about his background. Either way, I think your antithesis is a valuable and great way to frame Hugh’s purpose as a character.
ReplyDeleteHey Anthony! This is a great post. I remember being intrigued by the repetition of "the admirable Hugh!" throughout the novel, and I definitely noticed that despite how much this phrase is repeated, generally speaking people tend to dislike Hugh. The irony behind this statement definitely solidifies his status as the "antithesis" of the novel: that is, Hugh is an outwardly impressive but inwardly shallow character in a novel built around the idea of examining the complex inner worlds of outwardly unremarkable people. Now that you mention it, I actually would be kind of intrigued to see what Clarissa's party would look like from Hugh's perspective, even if it would end up being really, really boring.
ReplyDeleteHi Anthony, this is a really good post! Hugh being called admirable is one of the most memorable moments in the book, and your blog really dives deeper into how his surface is different from his real character. Your claim that Hugh is the antithesis of the novel is also something that I've never thought about. Great blog!
ReplyDeleteI love the deliberate vagueness of the term "admirable." At first glance, it sounds fine--people admire this guy! But it's a little slipperier in its implications. He is "able to be admired." Like, go ahead and admire him, if you're into that kind of thing. Or, it is indeed *possible* to admire this guy. As you say about Hugh in general, the word seems to offer praise of some kind, but it's barely even skin deep. And in Clarissa, Richard, and Peter's interior monologues, the verdict on Hugh and his admirability seems to be clear. It doesn't go much further than an admission that, yes, some people find reason to admire a person like this, mainly because they're impressed by his costume or his overblown prose, his "little job at court." We rarely get unanimity in this novel, but everyone seems to agree that Hugh is a pompous ass.
ReplyDeleteHola Anthony, I really like this blog and the ideas that you explored. I love how you describe Hugh as basically an empty shell in a fancy suit. Your comparison between Hugh and Clarissa is interesting because it shows how much of the books content comes from characters’ inner thoughts, not just how they appear to others. Hugh might be the best dressed at the party but if he doesnt have the charisma to back it up what does he really have? Nice blog Anthony, keep it up!
ReplyDelete