First off, let me give a hat tip to Tom McDonald who blogs at God and the Machine for bringing this news bit to my attention.
The first Lit in the News post will highlight Jane
Austen replacing Charles Darwin on a British Ten Pound Note. From The Guardian:
Jane Austen has been
confirmed as the next face of the £10 note in a victory for campaigners
demanding female representation – aside from the Queen – on the country's cash.
Sir Mervyn King, the
Bank's former governor, had let slip to MPs that the author of Pride and
Prejudice was "waiting in the wings" as a potential candidate to
feature on a banknote, and his successor, Mark Carney, confirmed on Wednesday
that she would feature, probably from 2017.
"Jane Austen
certainly merits a place in the select group of historical figures to appear on
our banknotes. Her novels have an enduring and universal appeal and she is
recognised as one of the greatest writers in English literature," the new governor
said.
He also announced that
the Bank would carry out a review of the process for selecting the historical
figures who appear on banknotes, to ensure that a diverse range of figures is
represented.
"We believe that
our notes should celebrate the full diversity of great British historical
figures and their contributions in a wide range of fields. The Bank is
committed to that objective, and we want people to have confidence in our
commitment to diversity. That is why I am today announcing a review of the
selection process for future banknote characters," Carney said. The review
will be overseen by the chief cashier Chris Salmon, whose signature appears on
banknotes.
I should say the feminists did agitate for a woman to make it onto the currency, and
frankly they have a point. If cultural
figures make it onto the currency, then there is little reason women should not
be represented. I have to say I’m
pleased they picked Jane Austen. I love her work. I’ve read three of her six novels, Pride and Prejudice,
Emma, and
Persuasion. I know Pride and Prejudice gets most of the notoriety, but I think Emma is her greatest work. I guess I shouldn’t speak for the ones I
haven’t read. I do intend to read them,
and it’s just about time for another. I’ll
have to put one on my 2014 list. Any suggestions
of the ones I haven’t read?
In that Guardian article the feminists admitted that
Austen was not their personal choice, but they did ultimately try to put Austen
in the best feminist light possible. The
truth is that Austen is not really a feminist by modern standards. While her female characters are bright,
energetic, and independent, they seek personal fulfillment in the context of
traditional marriage and male/female roles.
And while her novels only tangentially address religion, religious and traditional
morality color many of the decisions the characters make. She was the daughter of an Anglican priest after
all. Despite the claims of some critics,
there is nothing deconstructive or subversive about Austen. I don’t see Austen in sympathy with modern
day feminism at all.
Tom McDonald, who I gave the hat tip above, speculated
what if we in the United States decided to put a writer on our money. He suggested Washington Irving. You can read through the comments, but it
seems the most popular choice was Mark Twain.
I thought of Twain too, but ultimately I went with Walt Whitman. I think Whitman is more universal American
than Twain. But that might be my
opinion. If you had to choose, which
American author would you put on our twenty dollar bill?
John Steinbeck! :)
ReplyDeleteAh, you're a Steinbeck fan. :)
DeleteI admit it!
Delete