In my worst nightmares, I am like Hugh from work.
Hugh has been promoted twice in the time I've known him, but he still wears the same clothes as when we first met: mustard coloured pullovers, polo necks, moleskin trousers. He seems to pick his clothes purely on their ability to trap and hold the dandruff that drifts, in slow motion as if in a snowglobe, from his greasy dark hair. It is beginning to go grey.
He never seems to clean his clothes either. We spot an odd stain on a moleskin jacket, and track it over many, many weeks. It does not disappear, and we are disgusted by that but not surprised. We speculate about what it is; the charitable guesses involve food, or baby drool, the less charitable ones don’t bear repetition. Initially, we think he doesn't own a suit but we are proved wrong one day when he turns up in one for an important meeting. It looks as if it’s a lightweight polyester blend and it probably cost less than my cufflinks, though he earns considerably more than I do. Ironically it may well be machine washable, though he will never find out.
His chair smells; it never takes too long for people to notice. When he’s in the office, the person at the next desk starts to complain within fifteen minutes.
When he talks about his wife he never says her name, it’s always “the wife” and when he talks about his child it’s always “the baby”. You could be forgiven for thinking that he has forgotten his child’s name. It all sounds functional and efficient, as if their courtship was a merger or an acquisition. There isn’t even the slightest hint that there might be a life for him outside this network of meeting rooms and corridors, organisational charts and project plans.
We all assumed he was happy but then at one Christmas party he told one of us that he wasn’t, in a way that makes the listener feel uncomfortable. It's a secret that should never have come out of the box, a box we didn't even know he had. Now we all know, and he doesn’t know that, and everything has an extra dimension which is hidden to him. It makes him make more sense to us, it makes everything more sad.
He seems boyish, he has an almost endless desire to please and that puppy-doggish quality is most obvious at lunch. He is a messy eater. There is always something caught in the corner of his rubbery bottom lip. I have a feeling he eats with his mouth open, though I try my best to look away.
He likes to hold court when we sit round the table. He will talk about something that was on television the night before, or something in the news, and he has some jokes prepared on the topic of the day. It feels mechanical, as if he’s learned it from a book on how to relate to people. You can hear the grinding of the gears, or you would if he stopped talking long enough.
Perhaps the most painful thing is when he regales us with his impersonations. He can impersonate former bosses, former colleagues, famous people. Every lunchtime he finds a way to bring them into the conversation and it doesn’t matter whether it's relevant to what we're talking about, because he’ll showcase his skills none the less. His public expects it, and he can’t disappoint them. And because we can’t disappoint him either, we all laugh - not because we love his impersonations, but because he thinks we do. We are also doing an impersonation, but he doesn’t realise that.
It must be terrible to be Hugh. He has no idea that none of us like him.
Proximity, and Revelation.
-
Usually, things are just the distance away that they seem to be. Neither
closer, nor further away, just where they should be. Our eyes find them
and,...
4 days ago

72 comments:
ouch! It sounds like it would probably me my first nightmare too - to be Hugh, or like him!
That's just horrible.
Makes me wonder if there are people I see who think I am a Hugh to them. The Book on How to Relate to People - google shows several books, so maybe I should get one.
We have two people like that where I work. Their not quite sociable, and definitely programmed to respond to certain situations with a pre-specified retort. It is as if they stand in the mirror and practice it the night before.
Both of these guys, already in their thirties, still live with their parents. By comparison, Hugh seems to be ahead of the curve.
Maybe he does know.
Maybe for him the illusion of acceptance is all he has and so he clings to it because the alternative is to have nothing at all.
Maybe that's why Hugh tries so hard.
Wow. I was expecting, after all that contempt, that the final paragraph was going to regale us with how funny he was in spite of his ineptitude. First time you've disappointed me.
Miss OverThinker - Actually, there are other things I dread as much as being like Hugh. There is little, for instance, I find sadder than people who have a dream and don't realise they don't have the talent. It's what makes the early stages of TV talent shows so heartbreaking.
Elaine - In what way?
jfurlongs - I worry about exactly the same thing, a lot of the time. I suspect I'm more like Hugh than I'd like to be.
Nessa Roo - Do you feel sorry for those guys? I would.
Sarah Mac - Maybe. That's the sad thing, I suppose we'll never know. It's quite possible.
Andrea - That's an interesting comment. I'm just describing him as he is, I can't make up a happy ending just so people aren't disappointed, if I wanted to do that I'd write fiction. I don't think contempt is how I see the tone of the piece, maybe other people feel differently. A few people have told me they felt sorry for him after reading it, which is what I intended.
I don't think anyone (other than a career victim) wants to be pitied so I see no point in feeling sorry for him either. It's not useful and it's certainly not flattering. It's comparable to going to a poor community and offering charity rather than empowerment (e.g. job training) -- designed only to make the giver feel good. I was just wondering why you'd write something like that with no point other than to exercise your right to do so. What is your message exactly?
Hugh knows. I'm a Hugh. We always know. We aren't as dim as we appear to be.
Andrea - There isn't a message. It's a portrait of someone at work. I didn't write it to be useful, or flattering, and many people's reactions to people (including pity) are instinctive ones not based on whether they have any "point", as you put it. I think you are reading far too much into this.
tennyson - Really very difficult to know what to say to that, as I don't know you well enough to judge whether you're being accurate, hard on yourself or feeling sorry for yourself.
I often wonder if I am going through life blissful as a Hugh. If he really doesn't know what's going on as you say, then maybe we're all Hugh to someone else...
Everyone worries that they might be a Hugh from time to time, some people worry more often than others. The fact that you can self-assess yourself by wondering if you are a Hugh or not is what sets you apart however, as the best people in social environments are always the ones who actively look for ways to improve themselves, cooperate with others and make genuine connections with the ones around them.
I have a 'Hugh' in my office also. He clearly doesn't do any self-assessment, therefore annoyingly remains a 'Hugh'...
The Hugh-like people I have known usually knew. As Sarah Mac said, maybe that is why they try so hard.
I think your intention was to give us a portrait of Hugh, but what stood out the most for me was the portrait you painted of yourself. The words "It looks as if it’s a lightweight polyester blend and it probably cost less than my cufflinks" made me cringe. And the last sentence, as Andrea said, really disappointed me.
I don't feel sorry for Hugh for the reasons you'd perhaps expect me to; I feel sorry for him because he has to work with you lot.
Strangely enough, I think that every workplace has a 'Hugh' We had someone very similar. Everyone then tends to debate whether he should be shunned, or told about his smelly countenance (so that others will tolerate sitting next to him)
Are we being kind by not being forthright? It's a debate that probably goes on in every place of work I think...As I passed by his chair, I would probably spray him from the rear with some deodorant!
Sydneylk - I tend to agree with some of the other commenters that if you worry about it, you probably have nothing to worry about. It's sparked an interesting debate in that respect.
Out Of Sync - Yes, I agree. Looking at this piece I start to wonder whether I did a good enough job of capturing why and how he is unlikeable, so that's a lesson learned for next time.
BlOG - It's an interesting debate that, about whether it's lack of social intelligence or overcompensating for painful self-awareness. My experience tends to suggest the former but we're all different. So sorry for your recent loss by the way, hope you are bearing up.
Elaine - Fair enough. I never expect everybody to like everything I write, which means generally so far I've been pleasantly surprised.
Technogran - Exactly. I have a real problem with people who smell bad. Obviously if it's a genuine medical complaint that's different, but never washing yourself or your clothes is just nasty.
I agree with Andrea.
It's all a rather snobby character assasination.
There's no attempts by you or any others to reach out or to understand Hugh.
Bear in mind the comment of Atticus in To Kill a mockingbird about walking in someone elses shoes.
That is what literature is about
Well that certainly stirred things up. I think what has upset the detracters is that you've been honest about how you see Hugh and that level of honesty makes them uncomfortable. I'm actually quite impressed that you are willing to give that much of yourself away in a public forum. I doubt they'd have the courage to be truely honest about their views - frightened some one like them would treat them the way they are treating you.
I immediately think of a teacher I once had, and a colleague I once had, for whom this would be an accurate description. But then again, I tend to agree with another commenter, that we're all Hughs for someone else...
I also thought you revealed more about yourself than Hugh here. Comments about social awkwardness are fair enough, but why draw attention to the fact that his suit is cheap? This makes you sound rather snobbish and unkind.
I think I like this post... It's difficult to say. One of the things I love about your writing is the irreverence to social taboos; that you don't mind (and probably enjoy) voicing things we all think, but would seldom say.
For me, this post is a bit of a guilty wank - which isn't a bad thing at all.
I actually really like the snobby bits (eg. cufflinks > suit), but that might be because I've read enough of your other stuff to recognise that you're not actually the sort of twat who turns his nose up at people who can't afford the latest Armani accessories, which is how this could be read. The snobbery seems a bit guilty to me, which is a nice vibe.
I may be reading too much into it, but I think the strength of this post is in the balance between the guilty pleasure of feeling bloody superior to someone who's (reassuringly) at the bottom of the pile, and desperately hoping that you're not anything like him yourself; trying to create the greatest distance possible in the way you present yourself, and the way you present him. To me, it's ironic and quite funny.
...But perhaps the balance is a little too wonky for some on this occasion.
I suppose it's an occupational hazzard of your writing that you might occasionally run the risk of seeming a bit like a cock!
Kizzia: Exactly. Sort of what I meant by 'guilty wank' but more eloquently put.
He sounds like an almost-certain case of Asperger's syndrome to me, in which case, he'll have no idea he's upsetting others (either with his hygiene, or his conversation).
Has anyone tried talking to him? Kindly?
I can't really contribute anything new to the discussion, but I think the people above that are reproaching you are being dramatic. Everyone has thoughts like these, few share them, and even less share them with writing that not only makes sense, but is a damn pleasure to read. Well done, I say.
Poor guy. We had one of those at the company some time ago, the smell was drastic. He was somewhat dim to say the least. I sprayed him one day with a potpourri spray because I just couldn't take it anymore.
Fortunately, cinnamon was his favorite, and he thanked me.
(Should have been They're, not Their, but I forgive myself.)
Yes, I do feel sorry for them, because they just don't get it.
We're cruel to them with our harsh jokes, yet they try so hard to fit in with us, the mean ones.
A brutal portrayal of a human being.
Food for thought:
If this much effort goes in to dissecting Hugh, I wonder what they say about you and others behind their backs.
wow - openness that makes an Englishman squirm. A very interesting read though and gives such food for thought. Many of us want to be liked. How many of us, and I include myself in that, would really want to know though.
I cannot do impersonations by the way. Well not of famous people.
Thank fuck.
As always, a superb piece of writing. It is near impossible not to tumble headlong to the next word, sentence, paragraph, feeling. That is why I admire your work so much.
Other than that, I've given myself permission to stay away from another 'smoke and mirrors' debate.
I've encountered cats like this. Frightening.
@Kizzia
I don't think it's about honesty at all. I'm certainly not afraid of revealing my thoughts on my blog in fact theres over a years worth of my opinions on it.
Anyone who is writing, even if it is just a blog, or who wants to be considered a writer needs to consider the wider ethics and impact of what they are writing.
Unfortunately MLS has on this occasion fallen short
I leave the last word to Steve Coogan who was speaking about the comments about Mexicans on Top Gear.
Just replace the word comedy with writing.....
"There is a strong ethical dimension to the best comedy. Not only does it avoid reinforcing prejudices, it actively challenges them. Put simply, in comedy, as in life, we ought to think before we speak."
Hello Neil. Well, thank heavens for the Ethics Police. Are you all called Neil? That seems a very Ethics Police kind of name.
You may not agree with or like this piece of writing but to call it lacking in morals/ethics is hyperbole to say the least. Calling Hugh a mockingbird is a bit patronising too.
This post sounds a bit like one the "Twitter you" might write. Does that make sense?
There is no doubt we've all had a Hugh in our life. Or are one.
What interests me about this piece is that it's the first one of yours I've read which I hesitated to comment on. I'm afraid to prove myself a Hugh and uncomfortable taking a stance that picks on him.
Instead, I'll just appreciate being made uncomfortable (no mean writing skill) and value being provoked to think a bit harder about my response.
wow MLS this one has stirred them up big time...
we all have a Hugh working with us..you've just been honest enough to say what most of us really think..we used to have a pool going on which shirt and tie combo he would wear (not very hard..there were only 3 of each)
I think alot of people read too much into this...I read it as someone venting..but then I'm sitting in an office full of Hughs and Hughettes...
(the smelly chair?..that's just nasty)
take care MLS
Interesting comments. As ever, you say what you think. I for one would not have it any other way. You write from the heart and you write openly and honestly. I think you depicted someone really honestly, from your perspective. That's valuable. You'll never get medals for it from people who want the "nice" you all the time. But just wait till Mrs T dies. Then I'll lose a fair few followers with my eruption of spite and bile. We are who we are.
I spent many years working front of house in West End theatres, and lord knows you get some characters there, and lord knows I have either hidden from them, or made a bitchy -albeit incredibly funny- comment or two. But this post reminds me that behind every socially inept human being, there is a story. I suppose it is a question of how far our allowances will extend, and how soon we have to stop making excuses. If someone has a good heart, and good intentions, I like to extend my allowances as far as I can.
This was a neat description of a certain type of person.
Just because they're not impressive or admirable doesn't make them any less worthy a subject for writing.
It made me think (which is a justification for the piece in itself) of a rather Hugh-esque acquaintance of mine who occasionally laments his lack of social skills, getting you all sympathetic and vowing to make more of an effort to be friends in future, only to follow moments later with some abject, self-absorbed untrue crap.
It's like a small island of self-awareness in a sea of gauche and is, when you consider it, a bit tragic.
He's still not coming to my party mind.
Reading this is equivalent to watching a car crash. I agree, it is pointless.
Andrea has heart I think. :-)
Neil80 I'm not sure what to say to that - other than I'm entitled to am opinion just as you are. Do not dismiss people's views simply because they do not fit your own - it screams of narrowmindedness. Oh and using abstract concepts like morality and ethics does not advance your arguement - they are terms which hold different meanings for each individual and therefore can't legitimatly be used in the way you have.
I remember a while back that I toyed with taking comments off my blog because I wanted to write what I wanted without being so hung up on how people would respond. Well, if any post is going to test whether I can do that I suppose it’s this one.
So first of all thank you for commenting, even if you didn’t like it, or didn’t like me, or found it mean-spirited. That is of course your right. It’s hard not to see this post as a success, because it made people think and debate: Am I that sort of person? Does that sort of person know they are that kind of person? Is it wrong not to like people like that? Even if it is, can you help it? and so on.
Now, I am going to respond to all the detractors in one go. Completely understand if you didn’t like it, or me, that’s fair enough. However, I do have to say some things about why I write. I think quite a few people use blogs as a way of presenting the best possible side of themselves. I’m not, and have never been, interested in that. So if you say you’re disappointed in me, or think that I’ve come across as an unpleasant person, I’m sorry to say that - for me at least - that’s irrelevant. I am sometimes snobbish and unkind (well spotted), and this isn’t the first piece of writing where I’ve shown that side of myself, but I am honest. I would be interested to know just how much effort some of the commenters really make with people they dislike who get on their nerves. I have a feeling it’s less than they claim.
The other thing I wanted to specifically respond about - because this is where I feel a bit less conciliatory - is people coming on to my blog and commenting to try and educate me about what writing and literature are really about. I don’t think literature is exclusively about understanding other people, sometimes it’s about describing them and your reaction to them. In a short piece of under 600 words I think if it does that it’s done quite a lot. Now onto whether writing has an “ethical” angle, and that quote from Steve Coogan (an ironic quote from a man whose comic creations are often unlikeable grotesques). Personally, I think that’s patronising tosh. For me, writing is about telling stories and telling a truth (not the truth, just a truth). That’s why I write, and even though it may not be likeable, that’s what I did here. Honestly, if you don’t like it don’t read it.
Finally, the people who feel I’ve fallen short or disappointed them. It’s very kind of you to say so, but I would be far more disappointed in myself if I held myself up to your standards of what constitutes good, proper or ethical writing. I write for myself. I hope you like it, or appreciate it, or that it makes you think. But if it doesn’t, we will just have to agree to disagree.
@ Grace London
@ Kizzia
Of course Ethics are relavant to this issue. Their not abstract at all as we all use them everyday. If like me you beleive that writing is a powerful medium, one which can empower, or conversley disempower, can do good or cause harm then there is a need for the writer to make an ethical judgement.
What I'm basically saying is that writers need to consider carefully the impact of what they write. Steve Coogan's (notice he's not called Neil)quote says it all really. Taking lazy shots at the weak, vulnerable, or afflicted is a gross misuse of a writers skill.
What MLS has written is a very unsympathetic piece of prose about another person. Of course he may hide behind a defence that he is just illustrating reality, but there is one problematic aspect; the subject of the writing Hugh is not given the right of reply in any way. Hugh cannot represent himself. In effect MLS has carried out a prosecution of someone with no defense.
After reading the piece we know very little about Hugh; how he feels, how he interprets the world, and MLS makes no attempt to understand these.
Now to respond to the other comments.
Kizzia - Yes, I feel like you got what I was trying to achieve. Of course, the other way to view the response to this piece is that I didn’t do a good enough job of painting why he is so unlikeable, and that too is a possibility. It’s a bit like the previous post - I was honest about the fact that the old woman with a beard made me uncomfortable. I know it’s judgmental, I accept that.
Pueblo girl - We all worry about being a Hugh to someone, yes. I made it clear in the first line of this piece that I did.
Paul - I am glad I’ve written something that can’t be responded to in a one-liner. From that point of view, it feels like a success to me. Someone said on Twitter that this post made more sense if you have read more of my blog and I think that’s true, it maybe doesn’t stand alone as well as I’d hoped. I really like your comment because you saw some of the complexity in this. But you are right about two things, too: the balance definitely didn’t work for everybody, and I do sometimes come across as a cock in my writing. That’s fine. Sometimes I’m a cock in real life too.
Planet Aspie - He definitely isn’t that. And yes, of course we all have.
OWO - I tend to think so too, but they are entitled to their opinions of course. Thank you for mentioning the writing - so few commenters did on this one. And yes, I think lots of people feel this way about someone - the outcry, in the light of that, is interesting.
Danger Boy - In fairness I have worked with a number of people who smelled bad over the years. Nobody ever told any of them. I wrote a post on a subject like this ages and ages ago, it never attracted a fraction of this discussion.
Nessa - Interesting you say that. Nowhere in the post do I say we make jokes at his expense.
Muddy_B - Thank you. I think none of us really want to know because we always fear the worst. I’m really touched that this made you think.
HMS - Thank you. The writing! Nice to see someone talk about the writing.
Robbie Grey - As with so many of these things, it’s universal which is why the reaction and the debate are universal too.
Grace - I do wonder what the people who are critical would have done if they worked alongside the individual I am describing. Because I am telling you now that they would not be off down the pub with him and going out for dinner at the weekends, but it’s easy to be perfect in principle.
Nicole - Yes, it does, but I still don’t think the tone is as strong as people have taken it to be. That’s a matter of opinion of course, but someone used the word “contempt” and I don’t see contempt in there. It made you think, it made you uncomfortable so from my perspective I think that’s some kind of success.
Debbie - I tend to agree with you, but that’s the thing about writing. Some of it is what you’ve said, some of it is what people think you’ve said and some of it is people overlaying their own way of looking at the world on what you’ve said. I do that all the time, so I can’t complain too hard if other people do it too.
Philip - Yes, this one has really stirred up some discussion. I appreciate your perspective. Heaven knows we don’t always agree but we do, I hope, always respect one another. Which is how it should be.
The Jules - Thank you. I agree, there is no shame in writing honestly about people you don’t like, it can’t all be wide-eyed wonder and love letters.
Neil - I am going to reply to your comment and then I am afraid I’m going to bring this debate to a close. Sorry about that.
You and I are fated not to agree, I suspect, about anything. I do not believe that writers have an ethical responsibility to the subjects they write about. I have absolutely no issue with the fact that the subject of my writing does not have the right of reply. This happens the whole world over. When people a writer has met are absorbed into a fictional piece, used in a short story or a novel, nobody bats an eyelid. I have changed the individual’s name in this piece.
What you suggest, to me at least, would ruin the impact of much of many of the good books I have read, both fiction and nonfiction. I write to tell my truth - not Hugh’s, or yours or anyone else’s. I write to paint a picture of my world the way I want to, not the way you or someone else thinks that I should.
I make no apologies for not attempting to understand how Hugh interprets the world. Sometimes, when I write about people I know, I do do that, but not always. This wasn’t that kind of piece. That’s why you don’t like it - I completely understand that - but it doesn’t make it bad, or wrong, it just makes it writing you don’t like.
If you write for yourself, why do you have a blog?
:^P
Because I think I'm good at it, I'd like other people to read it and I hope they might like it too. Should I have said "first and foremost, I write for myself", would that have been better?
I liked this piece as it put into words something that I can sometimes see in myself but do not like to publicly acknowledge. Occasionally, I silently judge and dismiss certain individuals in my life for reasons I deem relevant (others may not). I am never overtly hurtful to the person, but do not try to include them in my little world and avoid being drawn into theirs. However, I definitely have that niggle in the back of my mind that others must see me this way as well. Hopefully not the smelly bit.
I think I am a Hugh- I definitely don't really 'get' my colleagues and find it difficult to really connect with them- partially because I don't have much in common with them, and partly because I just don't really care, and yeah- I wear cheap suits ;) I don't think it is really fair to judge him for his clothes- he might earn more than you but from the information in your post he is married with children, probably has a big mortgage to pay off, maybe he goes on holiday a lot, heck- maybe he has a huge model trainset to spend all his spare cash on? We all have different priorities and most of us would rather not spend all that much money on work clothes if we can get away with it and since he has had several promotions clearly he is getting away with it.
This post reminds me of the one you did a while back of the frumpy women in the shopping centre- it made me feel equally uncomfortable reading it as I don't really want to be in the position of judging someone based on their appearance, but it didn't quite generate the discussion that this one did for some reason!
Oh, and Hugh probably knows full well that no one likes him, why else would he be so awkward? It is difficult to really be comfortable with people when you know they can't stand you and it gets to a point where you just don't care anymore and go through the motions just to get it over and done with, all the while waiting for the clock to strike five.
All great writers write for themselves that's how great writers are born. The very first sentence of this piece tells us that it's the writer's perspective we're going to be hearing about.
Apparently some of your readers have never heard of the greats like, Eudora Welty, or Flannery
O 'Connor, who wrote vignettes of life and it wasn't always pretty, or socially acceptable, or politically correct. It wasn't supposed to be. It was about real life, the stuff of which great literature is made.
Thank you for a thought-provoking piece.
Gosh, you ruffled some feathers on this one, didn't you?
Do you think you'll lose any followers? Doesn't matter. (Eff 'em...)
I like a good three ring circus, all these people getting worked up over a few well-written paragraphs. Insanity.
I hope you don't turn comments off again. It's almost as entertaining as your writing.
Anyway, I came back to say that I didn't mean to imply that you were making jokes about poor Hugh. I was talking about me and my "cool crowd" at my job. Sorry for the confusion.
Emma - Again, there's that interesting distinction between what I actually said and what people are taking me to have said. I chose my words quite carefully. I didn't say we "couldn't stand" him. I didn't even say we "disliked him". I said we did not like him. To me at least, there is a distinction there.
I don't expect you to change your writing in any way in response to comments such as mine.
I've always thought it a bit odd when bloggers get precious about their freedom of speech and threaten to turn off commenting whenever they get comments they don't like. For me, the beauty of blogging is that on the one hand, you are free to say whatever you want and on the other, it's a public forum, so people are free to respond however they want.
Obviously comments that are offensive or abusive are not on, but otherwise I think people are just discussing the way the writing came across to them - not necessarily "complaining" or asking for any kind of change.
I rather like this post. I find it interesting that so many people got all up in arms about it- you are eloquently describing a situation and a person. I have a feeling that everyone who is griping and ragging on you for posting it are uncomfortable with the face that you are honest enough to write down what everyone is thinking... I freely admit that I think things like that; that I judge people, undoubtedly more harshly than I should. I find the people that attack those who are honest about such judgment are simply trying to take any potential scrutiny away from themselves.
To all of you who are knocking MLS for what he wrote- at least he is honest about it. You are still just pretending. We all fear being the "Hugh" because we all judge the "Hugh."
For what it's worth, I think Ms. Scotch's observation was rather spot on...
Wow, MLS...completely impressed with how you responded to all those comments. I have nothing else to say.
I hope Hugh is not an avid MLS reader or indeed friends of Hugh.
I tend to feel empathy for the Hughs of the world, for there by the grace of a dubious suit choice with unmatching tie, go I.
Ms. Scotch - Yes, it was eloquently written. Mr LS is a fantastic writer and I'm completely in awe of his skills. And he knows that. The portrait he painted of Hugh was brilliant in that it showed me, without the need of a photograph, what Hugh looks like. It showed me, without the need for a video, how he carries himself. It showed me, without the need of a documentary, how he lives his life. That was all brilliant. Top Marks.
But...and this is a big but...Mr LS appeared (to me) to be very critical of Hugh. He appeared (to me) to frown upon him, laugh at him, laugh with his friends about him and compare his cheap suit to his own expensive cufflinks. The portrait of Hugh was fantastic; the portrait of Mr LS (in my opinion) was horrible.
I'm not upset that he wrote about Hugh - after all, we all know a Hugh. But I'm upset that I expected Mr LS to tackle it a bit differently than he chose to; that (in my opinion) he came across as someone I thought he wasn't.
Debbie - Thank you. I would stress again that none of us are overly hurtful to the individual I write about. Nor do we laugh at him behind his back. I’m not sure why people took this message from the piece, since I said nothing of the kind. Glad you liked the piece.
Teresa - Actually I’ve never heard of either of them either. But yes, real life sometimes isn’t attractive or neat and tidy. If I had written a fictional character like this nobody would have batted an eyelid.
Nessa - No, I don’t plan to turn off comments again. However, I have got comment moderation on now and it’s likely to stay for at least a little bit. I said earlier on in the comments thread that I was drawing the debate to a close (on the subject of whether writing should have an ethical component, in any case) and so I have chosen not to publish a couple of comments on that subject. I am also choosing not to publish anonymous comments on this one as I am not convinced they are well intentioned.
Timorous Beastie - I didn’t at any stage threaten to turn off comments. In the past I’ve turned off comments not because I got funny about negative comments (I’ve been very lucky to get very few in my two years of writing) but because I was allowing the number of comments I received to influence how I felt about my writing. A subtly different distinction. Generally, I agree with you about the distinction between abusive comments and comments discussing the writing. However, as I said above I have chosen not to publish a couple of comments because I’ve made it clear that I am not interested in having a debate about whether my piece was “unethical” or fell short of other people’s standards. As we are not destined to agree, I think that discussion is pointless and anyone who has more to say on that subject should be publishing it on their own blogs. I know this won’t be popular with everybody, but that’s life - my house, my rules.
MsScotch - Thank you. I don’t pretend to understand the motivation behind some of the people who don’t like the piece. Some people have given me candid feedback that, although they didn’t think it was cruel, the balance of the piece was wrong and that’s why it didn’t work. I respect that. I considered - several times - slightly tweaking the post or even the last sentence (as a fair few people didn’t like that) but in the end I decided against it. The piece is what I wanted to write, even if it isn’t to everyone’s taste. The other thing worth saying is that I have worked in environments where I’ve been the “Hugh”. It’s all relative.
Hillary - Thank you. I had no idea I was letting myself in for quite this much debate over a comparatively short piece.
Bass - Interesting, for instance, that everyone picks up on the comments about the physical appearance but not the seemingly emotionless and mechanical family life.
Elaine - I have nothing to add to my previous comments on this subject.
A very though-provoking, and discussion-provoking and just plain provoking blog. I'm quite glad I came to it late and have been able to read so many comments as well as the post that inspired them.
Usually when I drop in on Mr London Street I find something evocative, often poignant which sends me off on a personal journey of my own. This time I had a response I can only describe as 'professional' in that I immediately wanted to know who Hugh's line manager was and why that person hadn't had a sensitive conversation with him about some of his personal hygiene issues at least. I have had to have those kind of conversations several times in my management career. They are always excruciating, no one likes to have them, sometimes they have almost zero impact but occasionally they can be transformative when someone is told something for the first time that they genuinely didn't know or understand. People are so willing to whisper, speculate and gossip but very reluctant to (gently) confront a colleague with what makes them difficult to be around.
I don't feel angry with MLS for writing about this honestly; I do feel there's a manager there who isn't doing their job.
I expect the way my 'professional' response came to the fore says something about me, too.
Now off to take that personal journey. Thanks, as always. Food for thought.
First of all let me say this post is very well written. It could be the introduction of a character in a work of fiction if it wasn't real.
As for the Hughs of this world, sometimes they can be tragic figures to be pitied or helped, and sometimes they can annoy the living shit out of you. I find it depends on what kind of day I'm having and what company I'm in. None of us are perfect, and neither are our reactions to others always perfect.
I think, at times, I've been a "Hugh" type. I've certainly known a few in my work life.
As I read this post, it made me wonder about why your Hugh is the way he is. And, then Hugh said it himself by admitting his unhappiness at the work function (cringe-worthy admission for the listener, to be sure). The picture of him becomes clearer, if, not, however, more sympathetic.
Thank you for your blog, MSL! I truly enjoy reading it.
x-Bea
Somewhat late to the party...
For me, the quality of your writing is always in your depictions of the life we experience, engage with, or come up against from time to time; and how the different characters in that life interact and compare. This piece does all of that.
In terms of the reactions it has prompted - if this was about a character in a novel, I suspect nobody would have turned a hair. It seems to have caused a reaction because you made people believe in Hugh as a real person - that seems to me to be a significantly successful piece of writing.
Keep writing MLS.
This was so painful to read, to painful to imagine. I really liked the line about him not realizing you were doing impersonations too.
itsmotherswork - Interesting the different perspectives people bring to this. I think you must work in a different environment to me, many of these things just don’t get discussed in a lot of offices. I think the comments are - on this occasion (and probably so many others) - far more interesting than what was meant to be just a brief pen portrait.
Steve - Absolutely. So if your reaction is not perfect, the impression I get from at least a couple of the commenters here is that you’re not meant to write about it.
Bea - I agree. I didn’t go into detail about Hugh’s revelation because I wanted to leave it to the imagination. But people took it to back up the picture they already had in their heads that he was a poor misunderstood underdog. In that sense, I have to accept that my piece is flawed.
Sharon - Thank you. As most of my pieces try to show compassion to people I don’t like or understand I can see why people felt this was not what they were expecting, as it is very much the odd one out.
Lady Jennie - Thank you. Perhaps that should have been the final line, as it’s a softer landing than the final line I chose.
And to think this is one of my most commented pieces. The relative obscurity of the next post will almost come as a relief.
I'm forever trying (not very successfully) to paint pictures with words, this is almost a haiku. So much detail packed effortlessly into so few words and giving such a detailed picture of a man seen through your eyes. Love it.
I'm still somewhat baffled as to how it was in any way shape or form a character assassination or lacking in morals or ethics, let alone dragging TKAM into the discussion. One feels almost let down that as yet Godwin's law has not come into play, you obviously move in a much higher intellectual circle than I'm used to.
Thank you Wolf. Ironically, the person who mentioned To Kill A Mockingbird did actually then go down the path of Godwin's Law. He compared my writing without an ethical dimension to Leni Riefenstahl. I chose not to publish that comment.
Every office has that worker with the smelly chair. Why is that? I don't know, but it's true.
Maybe a smelly chair is required in order to get all the promotions.
Hmmmm.
Ok, so, you want us to feel sorry for him. Well, I want to say I feel sorry for you. You were horrid about poor Hugh, Elaine was right, and you have only displayed what kind of person YOU are: Rude, disrespectful, and a bully. It is obvious that you are jealous of Hugh,with his kindness that you lack. Yes, he may not be the most hygenic person in the world but who cares?! If he is a nice person, then thats what matters. Just leave him alone.
What "kindness" is is that Hugh has which I lack exactly, Carroll? I don't see anything in my piece which suggests that Hugh exhibits any kindness at all. In fact I make him sound ambitious, cold towards his family and mechanical in how he pretends to relate to people. You are now inventing characteristics for someone I have described, you have never met and never will. Are you on drugs?
First, "Everything has an extra dimension which is hidden to him. It makes him make more sense to us, it makes everything more sad." ~ Beautifully poetic...I absolutely loved this. Even more so that you kept his secret (which, by the way, proves that if you were out to muddy his image, more than what was already presentable to any person within reach of him, you would have shared it)but at the same time gave us (the readers) more depth to his personality aside from his shoddy clothing and personal hygiene habits.
In this world of work and play, we all are subject to impersonating our emotions. We all have a default mode that gets us through our day to day lives, perhaps Hugh could use an upgrade. The fact of the matter is, that Hugh couldn't give a shit. If he cared in the least about how he is received his hygiene would not be applicable to this discussion and that alone I find very sad.
I am shocked by the controversy this post has caused. Long time readers (and anyone with any common sense whatsoever) know that you, MLS, come with many layers, much like every single one of us. Congrats on being a real boy, with real emotions, thoughts and opinions. Looks like the Pinocchio(s) of the world, will just have to watch their noses grow.
Post a Comment