Bitch In a Bonnet: Reclaiming Jane Austen From the Stiffs, the Snobs, the Simps and the Saps, Volume 1

by Robert Rodi

Novelist Rodi (Fag Hag, The Sugarman Bootlegs) launches a broadside against the depiction of Jane Austen as a “a woman’s writer…quaint and darling, doe-eyed and demure, parochial if not pastoral, and dizzily, swooningly romantic — the inventor and mother goddess of ‘chick lit.’” Instead he sees her as “a sly subversive, a clear-eyed social Darwinist, and the most unsparing satirist of her century… She takes sharp, swift swipes at the social structure and leaves it, not lethally wounded, but shorn of it prettifying garb, its flabby flesh exposed in all its naked grossness. And then she laughs.” In this volume, which collects and amplifies two-and-a-half years’ worth of blog entries, he combs through the first three novels in Austen’s canon — Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, and Mansfield Park — with the aim of charting her growth as both a novelist and a humorist, and of shattering the notion that she’s a romantic of any kind (“Weddings bore her, and the unrelenting vulgarity of our modern wedding industry — which strives to turn each marriage ceremony into the kind of blockbuster apotheosis that makes grand opera look like a campfire sing along — would appall her into derisive laughter”).

“Hilarious…Rodi’s title is a tribute. He’s angry that the Austen craze has defanged a novelist who’s ‘wicked, arch, and utterly merciless. She skewers the pompous, the pious, and the libidinous with the animal glee of a natural-born sadist’…Like Rodi, I believe Austen deserves to join the grand pantheon of gadflies: Voltaire and Swift, Twain and Mencken.” Lev Raphael, The Huffington Post

Genres: Nonfiction, Regency, Literature, Literary Criticism, Humor, Writing, Research

424 pages, Kindle Edition

Published December 11, 2011

About the author

Robert was born in Chicago in the conformist 1950s, grew up in the insurrectionist 1960s, came of age in the hedonist 1970s, and went to work in the elitist 1980s. This roller-coaster ride has left him with a distinct aversion to isms of any kind; it also gave him an ear for hypocrisy, cant, and platitudes that allowed him, in the 1990s, to become a much-lauded social satirist.

After seven acclaimed novels set in the gay milieu, Robert grew restless for new challenges — which he found in activities as wide-ranging as publishing nonfiction, writing comic books, launching a literary-criticism blog, and taking to the stage (as a spoken-word performer, jazz singer, and rock-and-roll front man).

In 2011, excited by the rise of digital e-books, he returned to his first love, publishing new fiction inspired by the work of Alfred Hitchcock. He also organized the republishing of his seminal gay novels under the banner Robert Rodi Essentials.

Robert still resides in Chicago, in a century-old Queen Anne house with his partner Jeffrey Smith and a constantly shifting number of dogs.
.

German version: Robert Rodi wurde 1956 in einem Vorort von Chicago geboren. Im Alter von 22 schloss er sein Philosophie-Studium ab. Schon vorher beschäftigte er sich mit Comedy. Sein erster eigener Roman, "Fag Hag" aus dem Jahr 1991 war ein großer Erfolg. Es folgten mehrere andere komische Romane, zahlreiche Kurzgeschichten und Sketche. Robert lebt mit Partner und Hund in Chicago.

Reviews

[Sherwood Smith]

What you get here is Rodi summarizing three of Austen's novels while occasionally making pronouncements upon literature and Austen fans. Unfortunately, I think most of these go astray: the fans he's making fun of aren't the readers of Austen (who aren't obsessed with Darcy's wet shirt; they know that Darcy never does anything so stupid as to take a dive in his lake while clothed), they're the Austen film fans, or they are fans of the sexy sequels and more modern-language-and-mores Regency romances, who are looking for romance, and not the social satire and comedy of manners that Austen actually wrote.

Likewise, his comments about Austen, for example, that P&P is the first romantic novel, go astray because he doesn't seem to have read well enough in the period to land those shots. P&P was not the first romantic novel by any means--most would probably say Pamela, but some would go even earlier.

That aside, he warms up with a relatively brief go at S&S, and then unleashes the salty hilarity with P&P. So many funny lines as he smacks his lips over the stupidities of Collins, and bows to the monstrous greatness of Lady Catherine de Bourgh! Though I think he misses the boat entirely with his sometimes funny but mostly one-note commentary about how stupid Jane is, without seeing Jane's place in the manners of the time, and also he doesn't seem to realize how innovative Charlotte Lucas was: a female character who got exactly what she wanted, and didn't have to pay for her temerity with a deathbed confession.

That is a warning for what is to come, a pretty much one-note rant through Mansfield Park about how great the Crawfords are, and how evil, noxious, and creepy-crawly Fanny is--while being an empty dress. I agree with Rodi that MP is problematical (I go on at length here about what I think is a magnificent failure), but we agree very little on why, especially as I think he shoots wide of the mark about literature of the period, and about Austen's intentions. That riff left me wishing for less rant and more funny.

[Sophia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Compiling his thoughts on the first three of Jane Austen’s published novels- Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, and Mansfield Park, author Robert Rodi fires a broadside at the swooning, sugary sentimentality of the modern Jane Austen fan craze. He is appalled that such a group has turned a witty, sharp-tongued wonder into trite purple prose and slapped her silhouette on a t-shirt. Forging ahead for over four hundred pages, he dissects these Austen novels chapter by chapter, line upon line, precept upon precept highlighting a lack of romance and a decided prevalence of comedy and insight into the human condition.

I would like to give an early warning that this is not a book for those who have never read these novels. Though, it might be argued that it is exactly for those who are still considering. My warning is for those who prefer to go into their books without spoilers and no undue influence because, reader, the author most definitely means to influence and discuss with thoroughness each character and each event and he does.

Bitch in a Bonnet begins with an explanation and a warning. Rodi doesn’t plan to take anyone by surprise or leave anyone in question of his purpose in writing his book. He basically shouts out ‘There be dragons here!’ And, I suspect for some, his method of discussion might be just that. I would be lying if I said I never had the urge to bop him on the head for trashing some of my favorite characters or scenes or that I have a decidedly differing opinion on matters particularly in Mansfield Park.

In colloquial turns of phrase and a great preponderance of cultural idioms, he dissects each of the books in his own chapters that tackle the novel’s chapters in about five chapter sections. His sardonic humor and often sarcastic turn of phrase can be highly amusing (read, laugh out loud funny) and, once in a while, wearying (he can belabor his point now and then).

He is obvious in his preferences for certain characters and certain types of scenes which he still rattles on about in a funny manner, but the biting wit is saved for those characters he has little use for (cough, cough Fanny Price whom he loathes with fire of a thousand suns). Is there a coincidence that most of those not meeting his approbation are the quieter and milder figures in their stories? That would be a no, gentle readers. This is meant as a hint to gird up your loins if you’re a fan of the softer and more subtle in Austen’s tales and God help you if you are a romantic swooner on occasion because he won’t spare you.


But, lest I give the impression that this is merely some stand-up comedian let loose roasting Austen’s works, I should also say that he is very knowledgeable and slips in insightful observations and explanations. As readers, it’s hard not to approach these novels with a twenty-first century eye and Rodi reminds us now and then that certain phrases, actions, customs, etc meant something rather different in Austen’s day and at times admits he himself couldn’t get past his own 21st century sensibilities like cousins marrying.
While critiquing her books, Rodi also pauses or remarks in passing on Austen herself and how her life might have influenced her to write such a character or scene.

He incited in me either a great state of amusement or exasperation, occasionally a thoughtfulness. I definitely had to be in the right frame of mind and read it in several sessions rather than straight through to appreciate Rodi’s style and his ‘pert’ opinions.

The ultimate question we start with and now answer in the end: Did he convince me to throw out my ‘I love Darcy’ pin or my water color print of Captain Wentworth’s letter? Not hardly.
Robert Rodi sounded forth on what he loves (and loathes) about the author and her works. I thoroughly appreciated getting his entertaining thoughts and views. So, enjoy this critique for either an affirmation of your own views, an entertaining summary of Austen’s novels and life, or a chance to see a different perspective from your own, but take him at his word about what you will get if you pick up this book.

[Suzannah Rowntree · Rating 3 out of 5]

This commentary on Jane Austen's first three novels is detailed, often insightful, and laugh-out-loud funny. Rodi's commentary really brings out Austen's humour, which these days we can often read under a self-imposed gloss of old-timey decorum, sort of like how we read the Bible (especially the KJV).

I had two major complaints. First, I've never actually met many people who view Austen as being a swoony romance novelist, and I suspect that those people have never actually read a word of her. Anyone who reads Austen for pleasure, reads her for the acid humour. Rodi's constant slagging on people who love Austen for romance feels off-target.

Second and much worse, Rodi himself isn't immune from imposing a certain preconception of his own on Austen. It's as if he expects all her heroines to be like Lizzie Bennet - vivacious, whip-smart extraverts. To the introvert characters - Jane Bennet, Elinor Dashwood, and Fanny Price - he is completely unsympathetic, and when it comes to Fanny (half the book is dedicated to his fanrage against Fanny) he completely seems to miss the point - wilfully, because at one stage he DOES admit that Austen was obviously challenging herself to write a charmless heroine. But that's one line; his entire treatment of MANSFIELD PARK seems to be wilfully ignoring the fact that having written one PRIDE AND PREJUDICE already, Austen then wanted to turn around and explore what Lizzie Bennet would be like as the villainous romantic rival to the heroine.

I did come away from this book with sore ribs from laughing, bleary eyes from staying up way too late, and a much greater appreciation of how complex, charming, and sympathetic the Crawford siblings are. However, I remain quite unrepentant in cheering Austen for not letting Fanny end up with Henry Crawford. It's a balm to my soul to read a book in which the heroine DOESN'T reform the rake. (Rodi, strangely enough, blames Fanny for this: yes, of COURSE Austen hints that if she'd accepted him the first time he probably wouldn't have run off with Maria, but to then turn around and say that Fanny was to blame - ! It's not like she blackmailed him into it!)

Despite disagreements, I totally enjoyed this book and look forward to eating up Vol 2 at my earliest convenience.

[Martha · Rating 2 out of 5]

Made it 71% of the way through Bitch In a Bonnet, which was plenty. For the most part, Rodi just recaps the plots of Austen's first three published novels, quoting from them extensively and pointing out the humour (something I don't need help with). I did smile out loud many times (I wouldn't go so far as to say I laughed), but most of the funny stuff was Austen's, not Rodi's.

But my main problem with Bitches In a Bonnet is that Rodi is cruel where Austen is merely satirical. Austen justifiably pokes fun at the obviously ridiculous (Mr. Collins, Mr. Rushworth, Mrs. Norris), but she doesn't trample on people who simply aren't like her. Rodi, from his 21st-century perspective, repeatedly slaps down and insults several characters, usually women displaying typical Regency-era quiet virtue (most notably Jane Bennet and in particular oh-my-god-will-you-stop-please Fanny Price). There's a difference between funny and mean-spirited, and Rodi's treatment of such characters falls squarely on the side of mean-spirited. Jane Austen herself doesn't inspire this kind of cruelty, so it must be all his own.

Rodi makes no secret of disliking Mansfield Park, which is a pretty common opinion. But it actually comes across as mansplaining to Jane Austen: You poor thing, you're not writing what you really feel, you're trying to lecture yourself on how you think you should think. What she REALLY feels is... And if you took out his relentless insults of Fanny Price, the book would only be half the length. I'm perfectly equal to reading an opinion that differs from mine, but page after page of insults and condescension becomes a bit tedious.

"You do not make allowance enough for difference of situation and temper." -Jane Bennet, Pride and Prejudice (See, I too can quote Austen to make my point.)

Clearly, CLEARLY he doesn't understand moderate-tempered or introverted women and makes no effort to. If they're not outgoing and sharp-witted, he has no time for them. But he makes plenty of allowances for someone like Mary Crawford, who is not nearly as benevolent as he gives her credit for.

Also, there were typos throughout.

To close, some quotes from Bitches In a Bonnet that exemplify Rodi's complete lack of understanding in many cases.

"Elinor had to bear the entire weight of the conversation, which frankly doesn't seem like it would be that big a burden." -Any introvert could tell you how draining and oppressive it would be to have Mrs. Jenkins talk at you for hours on end with no hope of escape.

"The Austen I know and love... would have had Fanny Price for breakfast." -Clearly he doesn't really know Austen all that well, because she never shows an inclination for cruelty toward meek or timid women.

"If Austen were herself, and not labouring under some kind of penitential delusion, she'd agree." -Oh I see, the only way Rodi's beloved Jane Austen could write something he dislikes is if she's deluded. If she had her wits about her, she'd agree with Rodi's dazzling display of common sense.

"We look for certain things in an Austen heroine." -Well sadly for Rodi, Fanny Price is an Austen heroine. An imperfect one, perhaps not easily understood by the average 21st-century reader, but an Austen heroine nonetheless.

About Fanny Price: "damn if that wasn't cute." -Okay, time for me to stop reading.

[Abigail Bok · Rating 4 out of 5]

Comic author Robert Rodi has published, in two volumes, his blog posts of close readings of all six of Jane Austen’s novels. This is a review of the first volume of those posts, which covers Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, and Mansfield Park.

Rodi tells us up-front that he does not regard Jane Austen as a writer of romances—a view I wholeheartedly agree with. Right on page 1 he lets us know that he sees her as “a sly subversive, a clear-eyed social Darwinist, and the most unsparing satirist of her century.” This may be overstated (personally, I think she is too forgiving of people’s foibles to be a social Darwinist—after all, those foibles are her meat and drink—and there were more unsparing satirists than she in both the 18th and the 19th centuries, from Henry Fielding to Eaton Stannard Barrett). Though I might back off a little on the overstatement, on the whole I’m pretty much in Rodi’s camp when it comes to the lens through which JA should be viewed. Rodi, a satirical writer himself, sees her as cadre, and that point of view informs his readings of the novels throughout. I say, Yay! Jane Austen is not a romance novelist, in any way the term is understood today.

The individual posts/chapters each cover about three chapters, allowing Rodi the space to comment in detail on each chapter, and virtually each paragraph. He appears to see his task as twofold: (1) translating the original language into its modern equivalents and (2) giving us a true understanding of JA’s intended meaning. His tone is lighthearted but his mission is serious.

It’s virtually impossible to sustain hilarity over the course of more than 400 pages (the length of volume 1), but Rodi keeps us chuckling most of the time. He does rely a bit repetitively on certain jokes (any character seeking to please is wagging his/her tail, one already pleased is paws in the air, waiting for his/her tummy to be rubbed—cat lovers beware, the dog imagery is relentless). Fairly often, though, the juxtaposition of modern “equivalents” serves to make the humor of the interpretation broader than that the original, and I feel the loss of JA’s subtlety. An example: “Suddenly we can conjure an image of Marianne swooping downstairs and dropping limply across the length of a couch, then loudly clearing her throat until someone notices her.” Yes, I agree that Marianne Dashwood is self-absorbed and sometimes self-conscious in her melodramatic posturing, but JA lets us discover that for ourselves, while Rodi feels obliged to hit us over the head with it. Still, the humor is sustained at a pretty high level throughout, and for this I give Rodi major props.

Sometimes the over-the-top modernizations had me laughing out loud. When Elizabeth Bennet shows up, muddy and sweaty, at Netherfield, Rodi says, “To Bingley’s sisters she might as well be Swamp Thing, shambling into the parlor dripping with moss and algae.” Of the Crawfords in Mansfield Park, he says, “They’re basically Noël Coward characters air-dropped into an Austen novel.” Conceits such as these kept me reading for several hours a day, eager to see what the next page would bring.

As for his interpretations of the text, I felt that in the Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice chapters, he was mostly on target; unfortunately, he lost me with the Mansfield Park section. Rodi is, sadly, in the “I hate Fanny Price” camp, and this bias skewed his whole reading of the text. He loves the Crawfords—who doesn’t?—but to the point of resenting any part of the plot that did not serve their putative interests. He really wanted Mary and Edmund to marry, and sorta wanted Henry and Fanny to marry, though he clearly felt Henry deserved better. He sees Fanny as a passive-aggressive vacuum, a sort of fictional black hole. I read her very differently, giving greater credit to all the explicit and implicit cruelties that made her so timid, as well as to the courage she shows in sticking to her ethical guns against enormous pressure. Rodi sees as hypocrisy any signs of weakening or ambivalence (e.g., her enjoyment of helping the actors preparing for the play, her wishing that Mary Crawford’s immoral ideas could become more apparent to Edmund); I see these internal moments as making her more human, and rendering her ultimate choices more admirable. Rodi also believes that the slavery undertow of Mansfield Park was not conscious on JA’s part, that she didn’t want to look at it head-on. I think it was very deliberate, and though she did not feel it appropriate in her work to make such political issues explicit, she intentionally put in enough verbal echoes (including the name Mansfield Park, which would remind readers of the day of Chief Justice Mansfield, who stripped away the legal basis for the slave trade) to ensure that her contemporary readers would understand the subtext and judge Sir Thomas Bertram and his cozy world accordingly.

Fair enough; sensible people can disagree. I do wish that Rodi had done one more proofread of his book (or paid someone to do so); the typos were a bit irritating. One, though, was priceless: the repeated use of “Willoughy” (presumably pronounced “willowy”) for “Willoughby.” That one will stay with me, every time I read Sense and Sensibility in the future!

On the whole, a very impressive achievement, and I look forward to reading volume 2.

[Suzanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a lot of fun. It takes a look at three novels and deconstructs them in an intelligent, sarcastic, opinionated and snarky way. Rodi has done his homework and backs up all of his snide remarks. He appreciates Jane Austen and her novels. He finds her a genius, but not an angel.
He begins by saying that Austen finds "weddings a bore" and that " she has a highly pragmatic point of view.....weddings are chiefly about property, not about passion." He calls Austen "wicked" and "merciless." He points out that time after time her characters keep their eyes "on the ledger sheet" and those character who act impetuously are condemned by society and the author.
Of Elinor and Marianne Dashwood, he says,"Elinor governs her feelings and Marianne indulges them." He continues, "There's nothing remotely attractive about her (Elinor) except her reliability and faultless good manners,... Marianne remains voluble and reactive." Rodi calls Willoughby, Marianne's heart throb a"handsome , self absorbed schmuck" and colonel Brandon a"world class wuss". Edward, Elinor's love is just graceful.
The Bennet's are Rodi's all time favorites. Elizabeth is the real diamond and Jane is just card board. He adores the whole cast of characters for their color and action. He has real passion for Mrs. Bennet and Lady Catherine de Bourge for what they do for the novel. He finds Elizabeth 's friend , Charlotte , much smarter than she is. Again, he points to the fact that love is attention to net worth,when sensible.
Rodi's least favorite is Mansfield Park. He finds Fanny Price more class conscious than Darcy. He says that she is lacks passion, honesty and even good intentions. If you want to find out why, you'll need to read the book. Rodi likes Henry, the cad and Mary, his sister, much better than Fanny and Edward.
Yet, this humorous view does feel a bit laborious . He summarizes and critiques every two or three chapters. It is fun, but also work. If you're pretty familiar with Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice and Mansfield Park you will find some of Bitch in a Bonnet redundant . Originally, I thought this would be a great read along for a first time reader. I was wrong. It is too personal and persuasive a view. It is a bit of a slog for a reader who is really familiar with these works. It's just right for a reader who has read each work, once or twice .
Also, Rodi falsely trivializes Austen's characters who become ill. Read Mann, which is written much later, if you want to see how ineffective medical care is, even for the privileged.
As I've said, Bitch in a Bonnet is, Rodi's very personalized retelling of beloved and familiar important works of Austen. It's not for everyone. It shouldn't be read before, instead of or until the reader is well versed in Austen. I believe the reader must begin Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice and Mansfield Park as a virgin, no experience. Take these revolutionary and inspired works and experience them. After that, you may be searching for variety, a different experience, and then you may be ready to enjoy Rodi's masterful and clever verbal intercourse




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joanna-...





Sent from my iPad

[BrokenTune · Rating 2 out of 5]

As lovely and intriguing as the title is, the book itself just seems to be summaries of the plots of Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice and Mansfield Park, with some commentary interjected about how some of the phrases used by the female characters were sharp, spiteful, sarcastic, etc.

If you are reading the books themselves, i.e. instead of this one, you'd be able to spot for yourself if a character was being sharp, spiteful, sarcastic, etc.

I don't generally need a study guide to point out the author's intent. If the author doesn't manage to do this in the original book, I tend to be of the opinion that either the author has failed me, or I have failed the author.

So, as far as my estimation of this particular book goes...Meh.

[Angela Clayton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Like reading Jane Austen with a sassy gay friend who has a degree in literature and writes an opinion column.

[Carolyn · Rating 2 out of 5]

I absolutely LOVED the first half of this book, in which Rodi evaluates Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice; however, he devotes the entire second half of the book to a drawn-out far-too-detailed assessment of Mansfield Park. Rodi has a serious hatred for Fanny Price, and he carries it way too far, beating the dead horse until it's nothing but molecules and then beating it some more. I am not going to try to claim that Mansfield Park is Austen's best work, nor am I going to try to claim that Fanny Price is her finest heroine, but Rodi's complaints are so extreme as to be completely irrational. He completely misreads the Crawford siblings, finding them to be admirable, delightful, tragically betrayed figures (betrayed by Austen), while I see them as scheming self-centered egoists, and Henry's belated, possibly entirely delusional "affection" for Fanny does not redeem them. Rodi, however, excoriates Fanny for not giving in to Henry's request (and clearly complacent assumption) that she marry him, feeling, evidently, that women should marry in order to please their relatives and to pay back someone who has done a brother a favor, and he further argues that any woman who does not do so is ungrateful, smug, arrogant, and cold-hearted. He also assumes that everyone must necessarily feel as he does--referring constantly to how "we" love Mary Crawford and how "we" despise Fanny Price. (He did the same with his analysis of the other two novels, but as I agreed with him, I didn't notice. It's offensive when you find yourself on the other side of his sweeping generalizations!)

His analysis of Mansfield Park was extremely disappointing because, by contrast, the analysis of the other to books was spot on. I LOVED LOVED LOVED what he wrote about Pride and Prejudice; he clearly understood that book exactly as I did and appreciated the stellar humanity of Austen's narrator down to the last nuance. So I give the first half of Bitch in a Bonnet five stars, but I give the second half zero. 2.5 stars would be about right, but since I can't give .5, I rounded down, because the horrible part of the book was last, and that is the experience the reader is left with at the end.

Related: He started by saying that he was going to read all of Austen's books in order, so I was expecting discussion of at least the six finished works. I was disappointed when I realized that I was 85% through the book and he was still on Mansfield Park and clearly was not going to get to the other three. It turns out at the end that he's planning on volume 2 for the other three. Had he spent equal time on Mansfield Park as he did on the others, he could have fit all six in one volume. I MIGHT be willing to try the other volume, especially as he claims that he loves those three and, in his view, Austen learned from her Mansfield Park mistakes, but I sure won't buy it. And I won't be in a big rush, either.

[Louise Culmer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Robert Rodi discusses the plots and characters of Jane Austen’s first three published novels (Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, Mansfield Park) in detail. His aim is to emphasise that Jane Austen was a social satirist rather than a romantic. His book is very funny, you don’t have to agree with everything he says in order to enjoy it. For instance, in his zeal to highlight the other aspects of Jane Austen’s work he perhaps overlooks the fact that Jane Austen’s novels are also often very romantic. Perhaps he feels that a man shouldn’t enjoy reading about romance. I think sometimes he doth protest too much. There are a few factual errors here and there - for instance, discussing Pride and Prejudice he writes that Miss King has £10,000 a year. In fact she had £10,000 in total - which would give her an income of at most £500 a year (a very comfortable income but not fabulous wealth like10,000. Year would be). But minor quibbles aside, this is a very amusing book.

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am so happy I stumbled upon this book. On the surface it may seem as a summary/analysis of Jane Austen's first books: Sense & Sensibility, Pride & Prejudice, and Mansfield Park. It is, but it is also so much more, the author's insight and, well, let's face it snarky comments had me laughing out loud.

A must read for any Jane Austen fan.

[Lou Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I only started to take an interest in Jane Austen about four years ago and I have loved her ever since. Northanger Abbey, Emma and Pride and Prejudice are my favourites of her works and whichever one I pick up first is invariably too short and leaves me wanting more goddamnit which leads me to one of the other two, because there isn’t really anyone else who writes like Jane Austen. Usually, once I’ve read all three I’ll have had enough and won’t think of them again for a few months.

This time though, having now completely finished the entire Sherlock Holmes collection (sob) and craving some more 19th century fiction I was forced (yes that’s right, FORCED) to pick up Mansfield Park. I’m about two-thirds of the way through and painfully reminded of why I despised it so much the first time round. Is Fanny Price the most boring, frigid, judgmental, melancholy, insipid and downright bitchy heroine ever written? When I first read it, I thought she was just dull. Now I see that she’s actually a complete cow. Henry and Mary Crawford are the only likable characters in the book – they, along with Mrs Norris (probably one of Austen’s most ridiculously hilarious characters, second only to Miss Bates) are the only things that save the story.

Anyway, so tiring of the little noises of disgust and irritation coming out of my face while reading it, I thought I’d see how far the Fanny-hatred is spread amongst the Janeites, and I wasn’t disappointed when I found a blog post comparing her to a quivering blancmange, written by the author of Bitch in A Bonnet.

How to do justice to the brilliance of Robert Rodi. Besides that the aim of book is to shatter the illusion that so many people have of Jane Austin being a writer of romance (or worse – chic lit), rather than…well, I can’t put it into words better than Robert himself:

“Jane Austen was—is—a sly subversive, a clear-eyed social Darwinist, and the most unsparing satirist of her century. She’s wicked, arch, and utterly merciless. She skewers the pompous, the pious, and the libidinous with the animal glee of a natural-born sadist. She takes sharp, swift swipes at the social structure and leaves it, not lethally wounded, but shorn of it prettifying garb, its flabby flesh exposed in all its naked grossness. And then she laughs.”
-Introduction

Which is exactly what makes her so goddamn awesome. Anyway, apart from that, Robert writes so beautifully that reading this blog turned book, where he’s reviewed the first three novels from the Austen canon chapter by chapter, is almost as enjoyable as reading the books themselves.

I love how triumphantly he pulls out a particularly poisonous barb or incredibly insightful observation into human nature and reminds us that this is what Jane is all about. Much as I adore many of the adaptations (including Lost in Austen!) the truth is that not one of them really understood Jane, her stories or her characters. I may ‘swoon’ over Colin Firth’s Darcy or JJ Feild’s Mr Tilney (how do you swoon anyway?) but I place the sweet, mushy, fluffy films as an entirely different genre to the originals.

Read Roberts reviews to be reminded of just how very little detail Austen uses for her ‘romance scenes’…count how many times a declaration of love or a marriage proposal is played off-page, with the business-like narration of “everything that should have been said, was said, and in exactly the way it ought to have been said” or some such, the only description we are rewarded with after an entire novel of will-they-or-won’t-they. There’s your proof, if you needed any, that Jane is no rom-com writer.

By the way, he's reviewing Emma right now on the blog.
http://bitchinabonnet.blogspot.co.uk/

[Anne Beth · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've never encountered anyone who thought Jane Austen was 'quaint and darling, doe-eyed and demure, parochial if not pastoral, and dizzily, swooningly romantic — the inventor and mother goddess of ‘chick lit.’'. I thought it was a well-known fact that she's a very witty, satirical and rather progressive writer who comments on romanticism and the patriarchal society of her time in her very own subtle and often hilarious way. So I don't really get the purpose of the book.

Next to that it's mostly quotes from her novels explained in the way the author interprets them. His interpretations don't seem to match mine very often. But the way he writes it, there doesn't seem to be much room for a different opinion than his.

[Tracie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I give this 4 stars for the sections on _Sense & Sensibility_ and _Pride & Prejudice_, and 2 stars for the _Mansfield Park_ section, which takes up slightly over half of a very long book and should not have. Rodi's observations are funny and right on the money, but in the MP section they become very repetitive. I look forward to volume 2 and hearing what he thinks about my favorite Austen book, _Persuasion_.

[Luci · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was some very entertaining literary criticism. I really enjoyed his analysis of Sense & Sensibility and Pride & Prejudice. I was never a fan of Mansfield Park but Rodi hates it so much that the last third of the book drags. I wish that Emma was in there too so I am looking forward to the next collection. This was gossipy fun, like discussing the books with a good, funny friend. I do highly recommend this.

[Libby · Rating 3 out of 5]

Swings the pendulum too far the other way (who would've guessed from the title, I know) but a useful antidote when you need to remind yourself that Austen was not a romance writer (or certainly not JUST a romance writer).

I couldn't read the Mansfield Park section, he hated Fanny and I love her to bits, but the takes on Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice were fun reads.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bitch In a Bonnet: Reclaiming Jane Austen From the Stiffs, the Snobs, the Simps and the Saps (Volume 1) by Robert Rodi is a 422-page compilation of his blog posts about Jane Austen’s first three published novels. Rodi is relentless in rescuing JA from the clutches of chick lit, a genre about which he makes a most persuasive case for being unworthy of the genius of Austen. The notion of her being the writer of romances incenses him enough to write this: “Weddings bore her, and the unrelenting vulgarity of our modern wedding industry—which strives to turn each marriage ceremony into the kind of blockbuster apotheosis that makes grand opera look like a campfire sing-along—would appall her into derisive laughter.”

Rodi’s analyses of the plots, characters, and cultural aspects of the novels is mostly spot on. Of particular value is his analysis of Austen’s development as a novelist by comparisons of Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, and Mansfield Park, with references to the later novels as needed. The writer definitely plays favorites with his characters. This is most apparent in his assessment of Mansfield Park where he excoriates the protagonist Fanny Price as boring, passive-aggressive, priggish, and unlikable in every way. Her love interest Edmund Bertram doesn’t fare much better. Rodi loves Mary Crawford and her brother Henry, though. In fact, he asserts that Mansfield Park is Austen’s weakest novel because it is too difficult to make Mary and Henry the unsympathetic bad guys compared to the dreary Fanny and Edmund. I suspect that few will be dismayed at the rough treatment of the latter, surely JA’s least appealing main characters.

Bitch In a Bonnet is a worthwhile read and I look forward to Volume 2. It carries a list price on U.S. Amazon of USD17.78 but is available on Kindle for just 99¢. Recommended to everyone but the most dewy-eyed chick litters.

[Donna · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really loved this book, which kept me laughing and really did add to my understanding of Austen's first 3 novels. I haven't read much Austen literary criticism (just whatever my high school served up when we read Emma) so can't say how this compares in terms of scholarly insights, but Rodi's no holds barred love of Austen and his snarky, comic writing style were a great combination. He defends her, criticizes her and most importantly, GETS her; his satire reminds me of Austen and I think she would've recognized a bit of a kindred spirit in Rodi.

Definitely read the first 3 Austen books (Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice and Mansfield Park) beforehand, but don't worry if it's been a while - he recaps the books in some detail while commenting on them.

Looking forward to reading Volume 2 after I finish the last 3 Austen novels.

[Diana · Rating 1 out of 5]

Occasionally amusing, but not a fan

Ultimately this book is not worth it. You can practically hear the author’s sneer at anyone who dares to read Austen for anything other than what he himself reads it for. His only saving grace is how much he clearly loves Jane Austen and her writing, but even that can’t save it from his tediousness or his apparent inability to tell the difference between his own opinions and those of Austen’s. In addition to making wildly inaccurate claims about the author that can be easily proven wrong (claiming she didn’t care about music when she was an accomplished musician who practiced every day, saying she was irreligious when she wrote her own devotions and prayers), he seems incapable of conceiving how anything could ever be in the text if he didn’t pay attention to it.
He gets this most egregiously wrong with Mansfield Park, which he clearly hates so much that he is incapable of actually reading and understanding the words on the page, and instead makes all sorts of bizarre claims about the characters motivations and personalities which have absolutely no basis in their words or actions in the text.
If you also hate Mansfield Park, this might be a book for you, but don’t expect anything deep or even especially accurate.

[Karen Cox · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting take on three of Austen's novels: Sense & Sensibility, Pride & Prejudice, and Mansfield Park. There are some laugh-out-loud funny moments in Rodi's critique of the stories and characters. He shares my view of Jane Austen as snarky, witty, sly and funny rather than Romantic with a capital R.
Sometimes, though, the caustic wit in this book crossed the line into hyperbole, which led me to rate it as 'liked it' rather than 'really liked it.' I also wish he'd waited to publish BiaB until he had reviewed all six novels, and polished the Volume 1 material a bit more. At this point in time, I see no evidence of a Volume 2, although there may be more information on that on his blog.
All in all, a funny and engaging read.

[Darien · Rating 3 out of 5]

I loved the first two sections of Mr. Rodi's commentary, and would recommend this book just for his insights into "Sense and Sensibility" and "Pride and Prejudice". That part of the book was 5 stars all of the way, with out-loud laughing and "wait, you've just got to hear this!" to anyone who would listen. But his dour negative take on "Mansfield Park" was painful to finish. In my opinion he completely missed the point of the character Fanny, and the message of the entire book. For that reason I can only muster up three stars. But I enjoyed the other sections enough I will look for the next book reviewing the rest of Jane Austen's cannon.

[Éowyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

First couple of chapters were quite funny and perceptive, but I had issues with the second half of the book, mainly as the author doesn't really like either Mansfield Park or its main protagonists. I got a bit narked by all the Fanny Price-bashing and felt the author was missing the point a number of times. There were also a number of glaring errors - for example, and this was stated twice, Lady Bertram is NOT the eldest of the Ward sisters. It'a clearly Mrs Norris, which is why we never know her first name.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

I gave up early on Mansfield Park, and having read Rodi's account of it, I can see that I wouldn't have made it the whole way, as even the passages he quoted were rough going. I deducted a star for his excessive piling-on of its main character, Fanny Price.

Otherwise, Rodi's done a bang up job with his mission to debunk the myth of Austen as a "romance" genre writer.

[D · Rating 2 out of 5]

The best thing about this book is its title. Originally written as blog posts and "minimally edited" which means "I didn't care enough to re-read my own blog posts". Save yourself the trouble and read Jane Austen's letters to her sister, Cassandra.

[Average Jane · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a lot of fun if you're a Jane Austen fan and even passingly familiar with her books. I enjoyed even the dissections of the books I haven't ever read, and it was especially delicious reading his analysis of the books I know well.

[Victoria · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found it wildly funny (though some modern comparisons and references are now dated, e.g. the Jonas Brothers), but very long. I found the Mansfield Park section too long, and a bit too negative. I'm looking forward to what he has to say about Emma and Persuasion!

[Story · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars. I enjoyed the Sense & Sensibility section a lot but it all began to seem quite repetitive after that. DNF.

[Jennifer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oh this was so much fun to read. The Mansfield Park section goes on too long though (much like the novel itself). We get it, you hate Fanny Price..

[Heather · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly entertaining, even when I strongly disagreed with the author. Like many people, I have a lot more sympathy for Fanny than he did. I also think Rodi really missed the boat on Henry. The man couldn't stay faithful for three months, when he still had something to prove. His own sister openly admits he'd take mistresses. I don't condemn him utterly, but he'd make Fanny miserable. And then her entire family, and his, would blame her for failing to reform him, or failing to hold his attention. They already do, without her even marrying him. Imagine how much worse that would be for her if they were married? And how much the gossip and scorn would hurt her.

[Wendy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thanks again to Smart Bitches for the rec of this book, when it was on sale!

I have loved Jane Austen since long before the BBC miniseries that made a household name of Colin Firth (whose name I knew long before the miniseries, too). Her books make me laugh, cry, gasp in admiration, and long to emulate her brilliance.

I am delighted that her books are enjoying a resurgence in popularity, and that her brilliance is reaching new generations of readers. But I am less delighted that, more and more, she is packaged, labeled, and sold as the inventor of the romance novel, or of "chick lit". And I think she would be less than delighted, too.

If ever an author needed reclaiming from those who profess to adore her but completely misunderstand her, it's Jane. Thank goodness Rodi was there to write this book and do just that.

The author, like me, likes his Jane savage and unflinching. And like me, he doesn't think she was perfect, or that everything she ever did was unalloyed brilliance on tiny sheets of paper. He lauds the things she does brilliantly, such as the characters he calls her "grotesques" - Mrs. Bennet, Aunt Norris, Fanny Dashwood - and he unapologetically points out her moments of less-than brilliance or failed experimentation, such as making the 'villains' of Mansfield Park more interesting, charismatic, and sensible than the alleged heroine and romantic hero.

Mansfield Park is my least favourite Austen novel, and I am not alone in that. But I have never enjoyed it more than I did reading Rodi's analysis of it, and why it didn't work as well as her previous two novels. His depiction of Fanny Price as the Queen of Negation, and the contradictions in her character and behaviour, were revelatory. Same with Edmund, who basically molded her character to suit his own tastes and convenience, in a Regency-era Stepford Wife way. He sheds new and unexpected light on Tom Bertram, Aunt Norris, the Crawfords, Sir Thomas, and even the chaotic Price clan, and shows us the empty shells parading as Lady Bertram and her daughters, and the neighbouring Grants.

I can hardly wait to get my paws on the second book, which will cover Austen's last three novels: Emma, Northanger Abbey, and Persuasion.