Category: Virginia Woolf

Through an exploration of gender thinkers considering femininity as a lived experience of endemic repression in the first-wave concerns of Woolf to the struggle for objective representation without repercussion as delineated by Gilbert and Gubar, this essay will analyze the effects of a historically patriarchal literary landscape in reproducing a damaging hegemonic subjectivity. Adopting an Althusserian lens which recognizes ideal subject creation through dominant institutions realizes the difficulty of attaining an individual agency and producing against anon as a supposedly monstrous female creative, and subsequently heralds the bravery of the dynamic precursor in bearing the physical and psychological scars of social transgression. Considering the work of Cixous, we can observe how much content shapes the ideas of ever-changing feminism as seminal texts are consumed and reworked with an affectionate yet pragmatic approach as literary studies work to a universal sense of inclusion and representation.

When considering gender in light of literary studies, Virginia Woolf’s early twentieth-century text, A Room of One’s Own provides a foundational basis for recognizing the engrained marginalization of what one considers the figure of the woman. Indeed, her imagined tale of Shakespeare’s Sister explores the potential possibilities of a sister as gifted as Shakespeare in what culminates as a tale of tragedy. That a woman excluded from educational facilities could hold the epithet of genius may appear a dubious claim, yet Woolf posits ‘genius of a sort must have existed amongst women’ of the era. Unlike the nurturing her male counterparts receive, the microcosmic woman is rather tortured in the erasure of her ‘own sense of her self’. Woolf’s text can aptly lend itself to an Althusserian understanding of the created subject, the so-called ‘ideological state apparatus’ existing as a means of the subconscious and non-violent hegemony. Through institutions such as education, the family, and the church, the government state can convey dominant opinions to create obedient citizens of subjectivity through processes of reproduction. One can acknowledge within Woolf’s work how the role of the family can be complicit in reproducing domestic ideologies, ‘the conditions of life for a woman’ constituting effectual grooming towards marriage as observed in ‘her parents came in and told her to mend the stockings or mind the stew and not moon about with books and papers’. Certainly, one can acknowledge the denoted effects of spatial constraint in molding pacified women, it indeed seeming ‘inevitable that women reared for privacy, reticence, domesticity might develop pathological fears of public places and unconfined spaces’.

That Woolf imagines Shakespeare’s sister as ‘took pity on (and) subsequently found herself with child’ when she effectually enters society can suggest that through the aforementioned processes of patriarchal reproduction, exteriorized existence is imagined as masculinized, unsanitized and dangerous. That the home is ultimately the only true realm of protection and safety instills a restrictive fear. Acknowledging the relationship between her socialization and physical body can support the notion that women ideally ‘become nothing but a bundle of nerves, in which control and restriction are naturalized and fragility emphasized. Indeed, if women are reduced to ‘nothing but’, they must lack the agency to create material that escapes subjectivity. Where Butler notes a conceptual ‘scene of constraint’, Woolf traces a historical struggle for ‘woman’ in a society that fails to consider and subsequently nurture her individual autonomy. Examining in detail the notion of ‘constraint’, Woolf’s theorem aligns with Butler’s practice of improvisation that underpins the concept of gender. Embodying the angelic, as explored in the later studies of Gilbert and Gubar, perpetuates a religiously influenced image of pity requiring a means of salvation. Where this allows a means of survival, albeit temporary in Woolf’s narrative, that women must embody an angelic submissiveness to ensure their livelihood profligates a damaging and indeed constraining paradox of limitation. Normalizing and circulating a gender definition of ‘women’ which rejects the autonomy that can be held in ‘woman’ evidently restricts the prospective potential of the physical and intellectual feminine and addressing the topic of literature itself, reproduces a body of largely patriarchal literary work which perpetuates the aforementioned stereotypes and renders woman ‘anon’.

Yet when considering the concepts of gender from a twenty-first-century standpoint, whilst it is easy to critique in hindsight, it is nonetheless crucial to note that the work of considered forerunners such as Woolf herself is not wholly representative of collective women in so much as a confined sense of a woman. Examining both Shakespeare’s sister and A Room of One’s Own holistically, whilst they outline a gender limitation that will be an assumed basis for later literary theorists, the central claim that women require a ‘room to herself (and) – five hundred a year of her own’ to effectively thrive is a loaded one. Both middle and working-class women are indeed restricted to a particular sphere of expectation, yet one can posit that regarding Woolf’s premise, ‘for some women to thrive, gain intellectual freedom, time and private space required to develop and be creative, another group of women (must) stand back’. Indeed, in imagining this denoted room one is inclined to consider the role of working-class women in its domestic upkeep, Woolf demonstrating a bias of her upbringing in failing to consider the financial unfeasibility of her premise for the very women that make it possible.

Nevertheless, Shakespeare’s Sister engages with the overarching struggle of the female creative, and it is productive to note that Woolf outlines evidenced consequences for women when attempting to write and produce amongst a sea of male precursors. Where it may be easy to condemn a distant past of gendered inequality in light of improved educational inclusion and proto-feminist reference, Woolf’s analysis finds some corroboration in Gilbert and Gubar’s examination of Victorian literary culture, The Madwoman in the Attic. The pair note that within the literature of the nineteenth century, ‘incarnate patriarchal authorities – attempt to enclose (women) in definitions of person and potential, reducing her to extreme stereotypes (angel, monster)’ that subsequently affect both her creative process and indeed ‘her own self-her autonomy’. Furthermore, the notion of the female self and autonomy is taken further in Fetterley’s supporting notion that this mass of masculinized literature ‘forces women readers to identify against themselves in reading it women have to think as men, identify with male viewpoints, accept male values and interests’. Exploring the impact surrounding the imagery of ‘angel’ and ‘monster’ for literary studies, that women are reduced to religiously underpinned binary opposition is a poignant process of debilitation by a society whose patriarchal values seep into prominent pedagogical institutions. In an argument that reaffirms the Althusserian notion of the ‘ISA’ within the church, women are forced into a debilitating scene of improvisation through fear of greater consequence which permits a pandering to engrained masculine desire. As asserted by Gilbert and Gubar ‘if they do not behave like angels they must be monsters’. Yet one can note how authors such as Bronte effectively employ the bildungsroman form to attempt to defy such patriarchal impositions, her titular Jane Eyre tells her own retrospective narrative in which she literally and metaphorically refuses to pacify herself; – am not an angel will be me – you must neither expect’ asserting individual agency in the face of patriarchal idealism.

Elaborating on a presupposed narrative of consequence for women, the female creative examined in The Madwoman is said to be plagued with what the duo coin as the ‘anxiety of authorship’, which takes a spin on Harold Bloom’s anxiety of influence in which the poet wishes to equal or overpower their precursor’s influence in a process of writing which relishes competition and rivalry. The anxiety of authorship rather takes into consideration the foundational work of theorists such as Woolf in suggesting that the act of writing for the female artist will be a physically and intellectually destructive struggle against ‘isolation – alienation – (and) obscurity’. In light of extensively patriarchal precursory work, the female artist is rather forced, albeit painfully, to attempt a legitimation of ’her own rebellious endeavors’. In an anxiety that stems from a self-defined ’inappropriateness to her sex’, she looks to her foremothers whom history has obscured, attempting to assert and validate her individual agency as a ‘genius of a sort must have existed among women’ before her. That Gilbert and Gubar emphasize the ‘lost fore-mothers is an important note for gender-literary studies. To defy the obscurity of these forgotten sisters and effectively facilitate her sororal successors, one must proactively enact a sacrificial martyrdom in negotiating an alienation that manifests upon the body and mind as a disease. Where patriarchal culture assumes ‘mental exercises would have dire consequences’, that a woman is prepared to battle with restrictive identifications at a cost to both health and honor can reason the noted ’fear of the intellectual woman’.

In an essay that can attempt to answer the denoted criticisms of its theoretical predecessors, Helene Cixous’s The Laugh of the Medusa, published in 1975 within the second-wave feminist movement, can be acknowledged to work towards an intersectional feminist modernity. Cixous understands that women must take proactive action in regaining autonomy of their socio-literary construction by ‘writing her self’, constituting both class and race diversity through authentic narratives of a previously mystified experience as ‘almost everything is yet to be written about femininity’. Where Cixous’ premise can be said to problematically rely on the effort of women in effectually cleaning up the representative failures of masculinized literature, she nonetheless attempts to reunite women with their bodied self in recognizing a lack of autonomy when one’s form has been transubstantiated into a site of politicization and oppressively problematized. Writing as a woman of color, Cixous can be acknowledged to respond to the narrow perspective that infects Woolf’s work. In writing ‘woman’, she creates through an undefinable but ‘inevitable struggle’ a tragic image where patriarchal oppression is endemic of a collective feminine experience exclusive of race and class. In positing that a ‘universal woman subject – must bring women to their senses’, it is only through coming to know and loving the Old in the efforts and realities of our literary and theoretical foremothers that we can speak of the privilege of a universal approach as theories of gender are approached and revised amongst developing social climates.

In conclusion, literary studies understand the difficulty of production for the prospective feminine creative when constraining expectations of her force a performative improvisation. Where Gilbert and Gubar view femininity as subjected to a restrictive binary opposition in women having to accept the piteous figure of male interest, Woolf’s work connects the domestic existence with a superficially protective binding as the sense of a world outside the symbolic door is purposely unprepared for and subsequently unnavigable. Through the anxiety of authorship, literary studies acknowledge the great obstacles that must be overcome for the historically marginalized to feel they can legitimize their creative endeavors and recognizes the power of a patriarchal landscape in obscuring the potential capabilities of a historical multitude. Whilst Cixous effectively pushes for revisionary female authorship that privileges an autonomous experience, a perspective of such privilege can only emerge through the recognizing analysis of gender theory in denoting the physical and psychological effects that accompany the act of writing in a society that aims to reproduce spatial and intellectual constraints to its women.

When RIP project was assigned to class, I soon decided to write a book review, because I personally like to find interesting books and seek to realize different perspectives on a book by reading book review. Orlando: A Biography is the novel that I have read in writing 39B class this quarter, it leaves me a deep impression. Because gender has always been a topic that people generally care about, I decided to write a book review of Orlando: A Biography. A book review is an analytical evaluation of a book, it enables me to give my audience the concise contents of the book, provides a critical assessment and suggests to them whether the audience to appreciate this book. In the beginning, it was difficult for me to determine the structure of book review before I write. I often struggled with how to combine my message, purpose, and information into one completed book review. However, professor Wells provides various book review websites about genre examples, like The Los Angeles Book Review of Books and London Review of Books. The format of book review from those websites help me a lot and define my project advance direction.

The message that I am trying to delivery to the audience is that gender did not influence one’s identity, but societal pressure did. The purpose of this book review is not only to tell the audience that Orlando: A Biography is a book worth reading, but also to let them to develop a new perspective on differences of gender. I want to express that how well Virginia Woolf explored the significance of gender. Gender is a concept that we imposed on ourselves, it restricts us to become ourselves. People should give each individual equivalent freedom and let them be themselves based on the nature rather than gender. I also hope my readers can share this idea in order to let more people know and cause the widespread concern. People and the society should have a brand-new idea of gender differences and show generosity to the gender neutrality.

My book review does aim to appeal to people who feel interested in dealing with gender topics or confused about gender differences and gender inequality, or readers who are interested in historical context about the female in the 20th century. I believe that they are willing to read my book view, since Orlando: A Biography has lots of descriptions of gender differences and is considered as a feminist classic in the literary world. Furthermore, I utilize various genre conventions, such as provided context, tone, style to strengthen my book review. Novice audience is one of the types of audiences that I want to reach. Since novice audience is not familiar with background information, I provide related contexts like personal information of author Virginia Woolf and the historical background of the 20th century. To be more specific, I list the literary achievements of Woolf and the female role in the Victorian era to support my book review. Determination of tone is one of the most important steps for my book review. An appropriate tone not only conveys the message very effectively but also particularly influences how the audience realizes the message which I am conveying. Based on the contents that I want to show the audience, the formal tone is the best tone to use in my book review. Formal tone enables me to build respect for respect and express my serious attitude about topic. My intended audience includes informed, but the skeptical audience and hostile audience, so formal tone enable me to improve ethos so that eventually the audiences have the same view with me.

I emulate my book review with a book review entitled ‘‘The Meaning of Isolation: On María Sonia Cristoff’s Include Me Out written by Joel Pinckney (Joel, 2020). The author Joel Pinckney is presently promotions assistant at University of Texas Press, he usually appears at The Millions, Paris Review Daily, and The Los Angeles Review of Books. According to the above background and experiences of Joel, I can ensure that this is a trustworthy source that I can use. The reason why I choose this article is that I like its structure. At the beginning of the reading, Joel provides the main theme and gives a concise summary of the book. In the body paragraph, Joel analyze the work by comparing Include Me Out with secondary source, a book entitled False Calm and states that both two books are exploring what is isolation, why causes the isolation, and the effects that isolation has bearing on one individual. Finally, Joel gives the audience his evaluation of the book. Joel’s book review makes me understand the elements, style, tone, and language of book review. Besides, I read a book review entitled ‘‘Book Of A Lifetime: A Room of One’s Own, By Virginia Woolf’’ by Helen Simpson that published in The Independent. The independent is a British published that was established in 1986 and Helen Simpson is a famous British short story writer. In her book review, she explored ‘‘A Room of One’s Own’’ which also written by Virginia Woolf. In the book, Woolf states that female writers need the private space and uninterrupted time. Helen links Woolf’s message with her own experiences to evoke responses from the audience.

In general, I take pride in my work. Before that, I am not familiar to this project and it is not a straightforward task for me. I searched lots of resources on the internet and overcome the language difficulties to finish it. Admittedly, there are still some shortcomings on my work. For instance, some audience may feel that the summary of the content is not concise enough and my assessment of the content needs improvements. In the future, I will continue to enhance the quality of writing.

As a well respected American writer of many extraordinary texts, Edward Albee was able to demonstrate many modernist and absurdist characteristics in his play “Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf?”. His play was able to give an insight to the readers about what had influenced the play. This play is more than just a story about the imperfect marriage between the two main characters; when analyzed more thoroughly it can be seen to have a deeper understanding of the 1950s. Edward Albee’s play “Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf?” is able to reflect many absurdist and modernists characteristics including the re-evaluation of life’s big questions; this is evident through the flashbacks of their pasts, the symbolism of George and Martha’s son, and the paradigms of George and Nick.

Throughout the entirety of the play, there are several flashbacks relating to the main characters: George, Martha, Nick, and Honey. These re-evaluate both religion and reality. Most of these flashbacks are seen during the games which were played during the night. During Humiliate the Host the readers are given insight towards Georges’s book which had mentioned him killing his own parents. This narrative was never true and had been made up. This illusion inevitably leads to the re-evaluation of the truths as their pasts were just a deception. The acknowledgement of “In spite of something funny in his past” clearly indicates the beginning of these games. As they talk Martha says, “Naughty boy who…uh…who killed his mother and his father dead.”, and to this Nick responds, “Hey…wait a minute…”. The last line by Nick is made clear to have more meaning as he is remembering what George had previously stated, “he had killed his mother with a shotgun some years before [….] they told him that his father was dead”. Nick remembers this familiar story which was mentioned to him earlier, and this leads to the misconception that the stories which are being told are real. These stories question the meaning of reality as many of these stories are just a figment of their imaginations. As Martha talks about these pasts she mentions a boxing match which had happened. These stories had been well-rehearsed as they have been told numerous times. The point of these games is to humiliate the other person using the illusions of their past. The blurring of the truths and illusions is illustrated by “Right in the jaw […] and he was off balance…he must have been…and he stumbled back a few steps, and then, CRASH, he landed…flat…in a huckleberry bush!”. They are blurring the boundaries of what is real and illusional. This is evident through the indication of the “huckleberry bush”, as that does not exist and was made to suit their illusions. Illusions often give characters a sense of satisfaction and relieve them of the harsh truths of reality. Unlike many other playwrights, Albee strips his characters of the illusions which they live off of. The recognition of Albee’s thoughts of taking away all illusions, “strips all of them away from his characters […] he believes self-deception is evil and that no fraud should be entertained, no matter how comforting […] people must live without illusions and accept the inevitable consequences.”. These thoughts give an insight into the reality of illusions. The readers begin to re-evaluate religion and the illusions they live with. As many religions are based on partial deceptions and many people would need to re-evaluate this aspect of their lives to accept “the inevitable consequences”. Rather than just leaving the boundaries between reality and illusions blurred these flashbacks to the characters’ pasts begin to re-evaluate the essential questions of life. But the flashbacks are not the only literary devices that express the main modernist characteristics in the text.

Furthermore, there is a frequent reference to George and Martha’s son. Not only is he a figment of their imagination, but he also sets down the foundation for one of the largest modernist characteristics that are present in this play. The illusion of their child leads Honey and Nick to the misconception of reality. They begin to live in a world where they believe in self-deception. Once confronted with the truth these illusions in which they live in need to be re-considered and they need to understand what life really is without illusions. The son is first brought up by Honey while talking to George, “When is your son?” and George’s reaction “SON!” sets up the mood for suspicions. Martha’s response, “I’m sorry I brought it up.” makes it seem like she was not allowed to mention their son. The illusion of their son is more clear as they refer to him as “it” taking away the human characteristics and treating him like an object. Self-deception is seen during this conversation as they try to hide the fact that they have a son. This makes the readers consider the fact that they need to hide these illusions if they wish to live in a world of comfort. The loss of someone or something which is close to an individual gives them the chance to re-evaluate life and what it truly means to live. Being given the chance to have a happy life can be taken away in seconds as death is never far. AS George decides to kill their own son not only does it affect him but it also affects Martha. As she wraps her head around this, she is not just heartbroken but she is fueled by anger as she yells, “YOU CAN’T KILL HIM1! YOU CAN’T HAVE HIM DIE!”. Reality can often be painful as the inevitable consequences begin to catch up. The symbolism of their sons’ death and Martha’s reaction shows the fear to live without illusions as they aid the wounds of reality. Furthermore, this leads to them needing to question what life is like to live against the society’s norms of two kids, heterosexual, and white. Albee is able to question this image of a “perfect family” as every family is different and as this couple of two white, heterosexuals begin to fall apart. Modernism is able to make the audience think about the things they may have thought to already know. They begin to question the meaning of life, who God is, what religion is and much more. Many of Albee’s plays including “Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf?” present “conflicting desires, moral dilemmas, and the double-gaming of truth and illusion.”(Shuman; Gidmark). These aspects of writing help convey different aspects of modernism and absurdist drama. The truths and illusions which Albee uses in his play are evident through the symbolism of George and Martha’s son. These illusions which he implements into his plays indirectly question the readers and help them re-evaluate their lives as many live with illusions. They need to question this aspect of their life and begin to face the real world, and what the truths hold. Albee is able to do a great job of hiding modernist characteristics in the characters. He is able to make the son a symbol of truths and illusions. As the son is a symbol, George and Nick are also used to help illustrate the re-consideration of life’s big questions.

Finally, the paradigms of the two male characters George and Nick are able to represent history vs. biology. This dichotomy is able to help enforce the main theme. The subjects they represent are used to question are used to represent the value of life, and religion as the two subjects are both opposites and support different ideas. Through Nick Albee is able to represent biology – the study of life. During the time period in which the play was written in biology was questionable as to what if could be used for. The perfect human was seen to be a blond-haired, blue-eyed and biology would help them with this dream. This causes a lack of individuality making everyone the same. During a conversation with George, Nick tells him about teaching in the biology department and to that George says “millions of tiny little slicing operations […] which will assure the sterility of the imperfect…the ugly, the stupid…the…unfit[…]with this, we will have, in time, a race of glorious men.” He later says “There will be a certain…loss of liberty […] diversity will no longer be goal[….]history will be eliminated. There will be order and constancy” (Albee,72-73). With the paradigm of biology, the loss of diversity, individuality, and religion will be imminent. This causes the reader to think about the time meaning of life because if everyone is modified to become the same what would make life so valuable. These would be nothing special about anyone and the loss of someone will make no difference as then brought nothing new with them. After the second world war, many people were traumatized by the events. Hitler had many ideas during this war but one of his greatest ideas was the idea of a master race. This was thought to destroy religion and individuality. The world needed to think of life’s value and what religion really meant. The Nazi’s “racial ideas” and “eugenics” were taught to the children to help with their “master race”. They wanted to create “the pure Aryan race” and the girls “were taught parenthood, biology” since they “would be mothers of the future ‘master race’”(Allan). This shows their views for the blonde-haired, blue-eyed race, as they would be the perfect humans. The value of human life is diminished through the “pure Aryan race”. As these lead to the destruction of religion, humans need to re-evaluate the true value of religion as it allows variety between everyone. History is able to represent the complete opposite of what biology was seen to represent. George is seen to be a paradigm of history and talked about how he opposes these ideas of Nick. He questions the lack of diversity and religion as biology will get rid of these aspects of human life. During the conversation of biology, George says, “And I, naturally, am opposed to all this. History, which is mu feild” helps show how history naturally oppresses the views of biology. George later adds, “The most profound indication of a social malignancy” since Nick and Honey had “no sense of humour” and “the monoliths could not take a joke”, he tells them to “Read history” since they have lost their individuality and purpose of life. This helps express how history was able to unlock a new aspect of humans since everyone is not the same and it was able to show the difference between the biological and historical mindset. This paradigm helps depict how the meaning of life, the value of life, and religion could change depending on the way it is viewed since both biology and history see life in completely different ways. These paradigms of George and Nick assist Albee with conveying a major aspect of modernism.

With the many literary devices present throughout this play, a substantial amount of modernist and absurdist characters are evident. Throughout the night many different aspects were uncovered and revealed. The flashbacks of their pasts, the symbolism of George and Martha’s son, and the paradigms of George and Nick express a major characteristic of modernism which is the re-evaluation of life’s big questions. The influences of the time era also help set the true meanings of this text as it was written in the 1950s not long after the second world war. Albee’s ways of writing were unlike others as h had different beliefs and would present the harsh reality to the readers.

So, who deserves to be seen next on the 10-pound note. The face I think the UK should see for the next 10 years on the note is the face of Virginia Woolf. Ever heard of tat name? Virginia Woolf is a name synonymous with modern British literature, and I will be going on to explain about the ideas she brought to this country and hopefully by the end of this you will also, may be persuaded into sharing most of my view.

Now let me tell you a bit about her. Virginia Woolf was an English writer who lived her short life in the 20th century, the times where she was considered the most important author and a pioneer in the use of stream of consciousness as a narrative device, which in simple terms, means to depict the numerous thoughts and feelings which pass through the mind of the narrator through stories. For example, Mrs. Dalloway, her fourth novel. The mesmerizing story about young people forbidden to love, raised issues of feminism, mental illness and homosexuality in post-World War I England. A central figure in the Bloomsbury Group, which remains an object of profound fascination today, Virginia Woolf has been hailed by readers, critics, feminists – and every combination of the three – for her work. She had a lesbian affair with the novelist and poet Vita Sackville-West. So,Is it too much to suggest that putting Woolf on a banknote would strike a blow not only for women, but also against prejudice?

Now, I mentioned the Bloomsbury group but do you what it was or what it did? To Those who don’t know, they were a group of writers, artists and intellectuals including Vanessa ball,her sister, woolf, who met in l homes in Bloomsbury, central London. They shared ideas, supported each other’s creative activities and formed close friendships. They named themselves the “Bloomsberries” Group and their meetings continued for the next thirty years. They ,were mostly privileged and well-educated members of the upper middle class. Yet, what separates them from other intellectual groups at the time was that they were the only group to support gay rights, women in the arts, pacifism, open marriages, uninhibited sexuality and other unconventional ideas. Having grown up in Victorian households, the Group openly rejected the old Victorian ideals from their childhoods and adopted more liberal and progressive attitude, and as it said in an article “In short, they were determined to reinvent society, at least within their own circle.”

They also had their own playful side. Ever heard of the dreadnought hoax? In 1910, some members of the Bloomsbury group, including Woolf, made national headlines when they dressed up as Abyssinian ambassadors and tricked the British Navy into giving them an exclusive tour of their flagship, the HMS Dreadnought, the incident that came to be known as the Dreadnought Hoax.

Unfortunately, all good things come to an end, members began to fall like dominoes and Woolf herself was troubled by bouts of mental illness, which included being institutionalised and attempting suicide. Her illness is considered to have been bipolar disorder, for which there was no effective intervention at the time. She had lost her mother and father at a young age and along with the recent deaths of her friends and her long-known condition of suffering from depression, eventually in 1941, she committed suicide by putting rocks in her pockets and drowning herself in a river, at the age of 59.

But as I mentioned at the start she had had short but inspirational life, even after death people admired her writings and later exhibitions. St ives was were she had lived till 1895 and alos where she got inspiration for her most famous novel, To the Lighthouse.Her exhibition, lead by her writing can be seen in the Tate gallery in St.ives. she wrote many books and many of these books became and remain best-sellers which then turned into films. She remains one of the most influential authors of the 21st century and her works continue to be translated into more languages and books are still written about her.

Woolf raised many issues of many of which we face today, wouldn’t putting her on the note raise more awareness for Many of you would say there has already been many authors including Dickens and Shakespeare already been put on, however in my opinion women also needs more consideration, and if we’re going to honour towering figures of English literature, it only seems fair that the Godmother of modernist fiction gets a look-in. . I believe that with all this fame, people are slowly forgetting all the work she has put into this world, without her there would be no Bechdel Test, the feminist benchmark for movies, maybe by putting her on the note, we can still continue to respect and remember her.