What do you think?
Rate this book
Bitch In a Bonnet: Reclaiming Jane Austen From the Stiffs, the Snobs, the Simps and the Saps, Volume 2
Novelist Rodi (Fag Hag, The Sugarman Bootlegs) continues his 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.” In this volume, which collects and amplifies three years’ worth of blog entries, he combs through the final three novels in Austen’s canon — Emma, Northanger Abbey, and Persuasion — 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. “Hiarious ... 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
526 pages, Paperback
First published April 12, 2014
23 people are currently reading
303 people want to read
About the author
Robert Rodi
210 books123 followersRobert 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
September 12, 2016
This is volume two of Robert Rodi’s publication of his blog series about Jane Austen novels; this volume covers Emma, Northanger Abbey, and Persuasion. The blogs were close readings of Jane Austen’s texts (each one covering three chapters, more or less), done by a man who is not a scholar but a comic author. So expect the lay point of view here, not arcane historical disquisitions or essays about abstruse symbolism. Basically, he’s translating the novels step by step into modern terms while riffing amusingly on the characters and plots.
His subtitle clearly epitomizes his point of view: Reclaiming Jane Austen from the Stiffs, the Snobs, the Simps and the Saps. Unlike the film adaptations, he’s not trying to pump up the romance volume or bury the sarcasm—and that’s just fine by me! Occasionally I missed scholarly depth (he is a bit shaky on some aspects of Austen’s bio) and sometimes, very rarely, he gets a point wrong about one of the stories (e.g., it’s Harriet Smith’s book of riddles, not Emma’s).
But little problems like those don’t diminish my overall respect for Mr. Rodi’s achievement, especially in this second volume. There are times when I disagree with him (Fanny Price, Henry Tilney), but overall he is spot-on with his takes on the novels; he often made me laugh out loud; and occasionally he took my breath away with an insight.
How does this translation process work? Well, a couple of examples: here’s Harriet Smith, who has come running to Hartfield for Emma’s advice after receiving a letter proposing marriage from Robert Martin: “Harriet is predictably surprised and flattered and abashed and uncertain and agog and exhilarated, and that’s just her first six syllables. After she’s finished bashing her way through the gamut of maidenly reactions she turns to Emma and asks ‘what she should do,’ as though she only has enough mental energy to spare for things like maintaining basic respiration, with none left over for tough jobs like The Future.” Rodi often makes heavy (and delightful) use of layering: we have Anne Elliot, emotionally overcome by Admiral Croft’s words about what Captain Wentworth will think after he’s married about having women on board his ship: “at which point Anne probably has to turn away by pretending to search for something beneath the seat cushion, like a pin, or a button, or Australia.”
The insights about the novels come more frequently in this volume than they did in the first (which covers Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, and Mansfield Park). These insights range from the small-but-choice (when Emma is plotzing about Frank Churchill, he says, “what teenage girl doesn’t long for a gay best friend?”) to the sweeping (“Comedy, for me, works best when there’s something real at stake—something vital. . . . One of the reasons Emma never quite entirely works for me is that there’s never any real peril. . . . The risk to Anne Elliot, on the other hand, is real; she’s gambled and lost, and her life is a kind of desolation.”).
Rodi has lived intimately with the novels and has a gift for conveying his experience, breath by breath. He makes a great companion on your own journey of reading a Jane Austen novel.
His subtitle clearly epitomizes his point of view: Reclaiming Jane Austen from the Stiffs, the Snobs, the Simps and the Saps. Unlike the film adaptations, he’s not trying to pump up the romance volume or bury the sarcasm—and that’s just fine by me! Occasionally I missed scholarly depth (he is a bit shaky on some aspects of Austen’s bio) and sometimes, very rarely, he gets a point wrong about one of the stories (e.g., it’s Harriet Smith’s book of riddles, not Emma’s).
But little problems like those don’t diminish my overall respect for Mr. Rodi’s achievement, especially in this second volume. There are times when I disagree with him (Fanny Price, Henry Tilney), but overall he is spot-on with his takes on the novels; he often made me laugh out loud; and occasionally he took my breath away with an insight.
How does this translation process work? Well, a couple of examples: here’s Harriet Smith, who has come running to Hartfield for Emma’s advice after receiving a letter proposing marriage from Robert Martin: “Harriet is predictably surprised and flattered and abashed and uncertain and agog and exhilarated, and that’s just her first six syllables. After she’s finished bashing her way through the gamut of maidenly reactions she turns to Emma and asks ‘what she should do,’ as though she only has enough mental energy to spare for things like maintaining basic respiration, with none left over for tough jobs like The Future.” Rodi often makes heavy (and delightful) use of layering: we have Anne Elliot, emotionally overcome by Admiral Croft’s words about what Captain Wentworth will think after he’s married about having women on board his ship: “at which point Anne probably has to turn away by pretending to search for something beneath the seat cushion, like a pin, or a button, or Australia.”
The insights about the novels come more frequently in this volume than they did in the first (which covers Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, and Mansfield Park). These insights range from the small-but-choice (when Emma is plotzing about Frank Churchill, he says, “what teenage girl doesn’t long for a gay best friend?”) to the sweeping (“Comedy, for me, works best when there’s something real at stake—something vital. . . . One of the reasons Emma never quite entirely works for me is that there’s never any real peril. . . . The risk to Anne Elliot, on the other hand, is real; she’s gambled and lost, and her life is a kind of desolation.”).
Rodi has lived intimately with the novels and has a gift for conveying his experience, breath by breath. He makes a great companion on your own journey of reading a Jane Austen novel.
July 25, 2024
Books that start out as blogs are often problematic. If the material is available for free online, why would you pay to have it in book form? For me, it’s a matter of convenience, but also of presentation—I’d rather read on my Kindle than stare at a computer screen, plus most books compiled from earlier materials go through another phase of editing before being packaged for sale (I hope, anyway). Plus, I can help support an independent author.
Bitch in a Bonnet started out in 2009 as a blogging project. The premise is simple: Robert Rodi was sick of what he saw as the droves of clueless Austen fans who focus in on her romance plots and period piece film adaptations, so he decided to do a close reading of all of the major novels to highlight what so many seem to be missing. I have found myself annoyed by these types, too, especially when they decide to write books themselves (I’m looking at you, Flirting with Pride and Prejudice: Fresh Perspectives on the Original Chick-Lit Masterpiece). They so obviously miss the point. Never mind that it’s unfair to dictate the “point” of a book for any given reader, sometimes you just can’t help being frustrated by those who seem to bypass what truly makes an author great and thus waters them down and propagates a bad system. I’m being a snob—as is Rodi—but since you are perfectly at liberty to bypass his book and my review if you don’t like them, I’m just going to go with it.
This book was so much fun! Since Rodi’s mission was specifically to bring Austen’s biting wit into focus, he fills the pages with the sharpest dialogue and most ironic scenes. There are few things calculated to entertain me more than sharing the best of what Austen has to offer, with snarky commentary besides. However, though I thoroughly enjoyed the book, it wasn’t a one-sided kind of enjoyment; I had an ongoing argument with Rodi through nearly the entire thing. I don’t consider this as anything negative—good books should promote a dialogue with the reader and this one certainly does.
Volume II covers the last three of Austen’s books to be published: Emma, Northanger Abbey, and Persuasion. This immediately presents difficulties for anyone trying to trace any kind of development or growth, as the publishing chronology does not reflect the order in which the books were written. Rodi acknowledges this in the section devoted to Northanger, but I still found the order somewhat problematic. Northanger was likely the very first novel Austen ever wrote, though it was the penultimate one to be published (posthumously). This creates problems when Rodi says that Emma “prefigures” Catherine Morland, because I don’t think she does. It’s true that Austen revised the novel later in life, but it so clearly derives from her almost anarchic juvenilia, I can’t help but think it would have been much more thoroughly revised if she expected it to actually be published.
One of my biggest gripes with Rodi’s first volume was his treatment of Mansfield Park and Fanny Price. I know she is not a favorite with many readers, but I think Rodi sacrifices her on the altar of snark, without looking into the profound psychological nuance of her character and situation. (I also think he gives Henry and Mary Crawford too much credit and flirts with buying into their charm as dangerously as Maria Bertram did.) I mention this because he often compares characters, specifically Jane Fairfax, to Fanny, and because I find fault with his treatment of Fanny, I can’t get on board with those comparisons. He is generally fair to Jane, but there is a moment that pulled me up short and had me ranting (probably out loud). Jane makes a comment about her future prospects- that is, becoming a governess- and is less than thrilled about it; Rodi says she “whines” about this future position, which will be nothing more than “looking after a few spoiled brats in their parents’ undoubtedly comfortable home.” This is particularly grating as, not far into the book, he mentions how Austen treats servants like they are invisible and this is a weakness of hers. Which begs the question: just what does he think a governess is? They were liminal figures, maybe one notch above “regular” servants, and many below the family. It would have been a fairly bleak future after having lived in relative luxury with her best friend and loving guardians; Mrs. Weston’s outcome is not typical. Call it nitpicking, but it is things like this that get me all worked up.
I also had issues with his view of Northanger Abbey's Henry Tilney- I think he misreads the tone of Tilney’s remarks, and paints him as vain and self-centered, when I’ve only ever seen him as witty, fun, and perhaps a little insecure. But this is personal perspective, so it’s still fun to carry on my mental arguments, even if it’s simply a matter of taste.
There were other moments like this, but I don’t think they detracted from my enjoyment. If I wanted to read a book 100% in alignment with my personal interpretation of literature, I would need to write my own book, for other people to then argue with. I must have highlighted about half of the text, capturing dozens of witty remarks, astute observations-and yes, points of contention. There are quite a few passages where the only note I left was “Nope.” I won’t go through all of those here, but for every “nope,” there were dozens of agreements- and lots of laughs. He separates Austen fans just a little too cleanly into separate camps—romance vs. social commentary—when they are not mutually exclusive categories, but his comedy requires it on some levels, so it generally doesn’t interfere with the overall intention of the book.
In Sense and Sensibility, Austen gave me one of my favorite lines in all of literature: “Elinor agreed with it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition.” Rodi has put together a fun project, and because it is intelligently written, I have no problem paying him the compliment of rational opposition.
Bitch in a Bonnet started out in 2009 as a blogging project. The premise is simple: Robert Rodi was sick of what he saw as the droves of clueless Austen fans who focus in on her romance plots and period piece film adaptations, so he decided to do a close reading of all of the major novels to highlight what so many seem to be missing. I have found myself annoyed by these types, too, especially when they decide to write books themselves (I’m looking at you, Flirting with Pride and Prejudice: Fresh Perspectives on the Original Chick-Lit Masterpiece). They so obviously miss the point. Never mind that it’s unfair to dictate the “point” of a book for any given reader, sometimes you just can’t help being frustrated by those who seem to bypass what truly makes an author great and thus waters them down and propagates a bad system. I’m being a snob—as is Rodi—but since you are perfectly at liberty to bypass his book and my review if you don’t like them, I’m just going to go with it.
This book was so much fun! Since Rodi’s mission was specifically to bring Austen’s biting wit into focus, he fills the pages with the sharpest dialogue and most ironic scenes. There are few things calculated to entertain me more than sharing the best of what Austen has to offer, with snarky commentary besides. However, though I thoroughly enjoyed the book, it wasn’t a one-sided kind of enjoyment; I had an ongoing argument with Rodi through nearly the entire thing. I don’t consider this as anything negative—good books should promote a dialogue with the reader and this one certainly does.
Volume II covers the last three of Austen’s books to be published: Emma, Northanger Abbey, and Persuasion. This immediately presents difficulties for anyone trying to trace any kind of development or growth, as the publishing chronology does not reflect the order in which the books were written. Rodi acknowledges this in the section devoted to Northanger, but I still found the order somewhat problematic. Northanger was likely the very first novel Austen ever wrote, though it was the penultimate one to be published (posthumously). This creates problems when Rodi says that Emma “prefigures” Catherine Morland, because I don’t think she does. It’s true that Austen revised the novel later in life, but it so clearly derives from her almost anarchic juvenilia, I can’t help but think it would have been much more thoroughly revised if she expected it to actually be published.
One of my biggest gripes with Rodi’s first volume was his treatment of Mansfield Park and Fanny Price. I know she is not a favorite with many readers, but I think Rodi sacrifices her on the altar of snark, without looking into the profound psychological nuance of her character and situation. (I also think he gives Henry and Mary Crawford too much credit and flirts with buying into their charm as dangerously as Maria Bertram did.) I mention this because he often compares characters, specifically Jane Fairfax, to Fanny, and because I find fault with his treatment of Fanny, I can’t get on board with those comparisons. He is generally fair to Jane, but there is a moment that pulled me up short and had me ranting (probably out loud). Jane makes a comment about her future prospects- that is, becoming a governess- and is less than thrilled about it; Rodi says she “whines” about this future position, which will be nothing more than “looking after a few spoiled brats in their parents’ undoubtedly comfortable home.” This is particularly grating as, not far into the book, he mentions how Austen treats servants like they are invisible and this is a weakness of hers. Which begs the question: just what does he think a governess is? They were liminal figures, maybe one notch above “regular” servants, and many below the family. It would have been a fairly bleak future after having lived in relative luxury with her best friend and loving guardians; Mrs. Weston’s outcome is not typical. Call it nitpicking, but it is things like this that get me all worked up.
I also had issues with his view of Northanger Abbey's Henry Tilney- I think he misreads the tone of Tilney’s remarks, and paints him as vain and self-centered, when I’ve only ever seen him as witty, fun, and perhaps a little insecure. But this is personal perspective, so it’s still fun to carry on my mental arguments, even if it’s simply a matter of taste.
There were other moments like this, but I don’t think they detracted from my enjoyment. If I wanted to read a book 100% in alignment with my personal interpretation of literature, I would need to write my own book, for other people to then argue with. I must have highlighted about half of the text, capturing dozens of witty remarks, astute observations-and yes, points of contention. There are quite a few passages where the only note I left was “Nope.” I won’t go through all of those here, but for every “nope,” there were dozens of agreements- and lots of laughs. He separates Austen fans just a little too cleanly into separate camps—romance vs. social commentary—when they are not mutually exclusive categories, but his comedy requires it on some levels, so it generally doesn’t interfere with the overall intention of the book.
In Sense and Sensibility, Austen gave me one of my favorite lines in all of literature: “Elinor agreed with it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition.” Rodi has put together a fun project, and because it is intelligently written, I have no problem paying him the compliment of rational opposition.
January 24, 2019
Just a lot of fun.
December 19, 2017
Although reading this along with Austen's novels will lead to a feeling of 'instant replay,' Rodi's commentary is insightful and funny.
After setting it aside, I came back to it a few months later, and reading his chapters on Persuasion reminded me again what a masterly novel it is.
Here is Rodi:
Wentworth says, almost there, just a sec; he seals up the letter “with great rapidity,” and hurriedly joins Captain Harville, who leaves Anne with a “Good morning, God bless you”—but from Wentworth, “not a word, not a look. He had passed out of the room without a look!”
Appalling tension…then almost crippling release. He comes back in, on the pretext of having forgotten his gloves; and in the act of retrieving them, “drew out a letter from under the scattered paper, [and] placed it before Anne with eyes of glowing entreaty fixed for a moment”. Then he slips back out, leaving Anne feeling like he’s just reordered all the laws of physics at a stroke and she no longer has any idea which way “up” is.
She looks the letter: it’s addressed to “Miss A.E.—.” In her present condition, possibly it takes Anne a second or two to realize, oh yeah, that’s me. So, when he said he hadn’t finished Captain Harville’s letter yet, he actually had; and he was furtively writing this second one, to her.
I think I liked this better than part one, if only because Rodi is clearly enjoying these three novels, not hung up over Henry Crawford and Fanny Price. I have to pick one joke, almost at random, and say there's always more where that came from:
“Have you been long in Bath, madam?”
“About a week, sir,” replied Catherine, trying not to laugh.
“Really!” with affected astonishment.
“Why should you be surprised, sir?”
“Why, indeed!” said he, in his natural tone. “But some emotion must appear to be raised by your reply, and surprise is more easily assumed, and not less reasonable, than any other. Now let us go on.”
Tilney is, astonishingly, the hero of this novel. Yet clearly, his precursors in Austen’s canon are the smooth-talking sumbitches like Willoughby, Wickham, Henry Crawford, and Frank Churchill. What are we to make of an Austen hero who’s a silver-tongued bon vivant? We certainly know what his predecessors would have made of him. Five minutes in the same room, and Mr. Knightley would want to break a piano bench over his head.
After setting it aside, I came back to it a few months later, and reading his chapters on Persuasion reminded me again what a masterly novel it is.
Here is Rodi:
Wentworth says, almost there, just a sec; he seals up the letter “with great rapidity,” and hurriedly joins Captain Harville, who leaves Anne with a “Good morning, God bless you”—but from Wentworth, “not a word, not a look. He had passed out of the room without a look!”
Appalling tension…then almost crippling release. He comes back in, on the pretext of having forgotten his gloves; and in the act of retrieving them, “drew out a letter from under the scattered paper, [and] placed it before Anne with eyes of glowing entreaty fixed for a moment”. Then he slips back out, leaving Anne feeling like he’s just reordered all the laws of physics at a stroke and she no longer has any idea which way “up” is.
She looks the letter: it’s addressed to “Miss A.E.—.” In her present condition, possibly it takes Anne a second or two to realize, oh yeah, that’s me. So, when he said he hadn’t finished Captain Harville’s letter yet, he actually had; and he was furtively writing this second one, to her.
I think I liked this better than part one, if only because Rodi is clearly enjoying these three novels, not hung up over Henry Crawford and Fanny Price. I have to pick one joke, almost at random, and say there's always more where that came from:
“Have you been long in Bath, madam?”
“About a week, sir,” replied Catherine, trying not to laugh.
“Really!” with affected astonishment.
“Why should you be surprised, sir?”
“Why, indeed!” said he, in his natural tone. “But some emotion must appear to be raised by your reply, and surprise is more easily assumed, and not less reasonable, than any other. Now let us go on.”
Tilney is, astonishingly, the hero of this novel. Yet clearly, his precursors in Austen’s canon are the smooth-talking sumbitches like Willoughby, Wickham, Henry Crawford, and Frank Churchill. What are we to make of an Austen hero who’s a silver-tongued bon vivant? We certainly know what his predecessors would have made of him. Five minutes in the same room, and Mr. Knightley would want to break a piano bench over his head.
November 9, 2014
I definitely liked the first one better. Rodi reuses the same joke about once a page, picking a character's emotional reaction and physicalizing it humorously ("And then, being Mary, she's got to add in this little knife-twister. I'm pretty sure it makes her day. Possibly after writing it, she goes out of doors and frolics among the winter flowers, and twines some in her hair and sings tra-la-la-la-la.")
The images are reasonably amusing most of the time but the device is ridiculously overused.
Also every once in awhile, he slides in one of those comments that while not outright nasty towards women, is subtly and cruelly dismissive of things he considers feminine. You know, like feelings. It's like he does it just to remind you that liking Austen doesn't make him any less of a privileged dude-bro, like thanks, I was really worried there for a minute.
These flaws are present in the first one too, but I noticed them more and more the longer I read, so they hit home more strongly here. I'd also just reread two of the books, so all my own opinions were fresh in my mind.
Anyway. There is some lovely Austen commentary buried in there as well - the best is when he points out the beauty or genius of a particular passage, which he mostly gets spot on, but which you can appreciate for yourself by just reading the damn original.
I do appreciate that there's an Austen commentary that is neither overly academic nor overly sentimental (though apparently unlike Rodi, I think the sentimental ones have their place). But slogging through the whole thing is kind of tiring.
I also found these books at their best and most useful when I was a captive audience - on a plane, say, or recovering from a cold. They move right along and are funny and entertaining when you need something to keep you occupied and your brain is working at about 65%.
The images are reasonably amusing most of the time but the device is ridiculously overused.
Also every once in awhile, he slides in one of those comments that while not outright nasty towards women, is subtly and cruelly dismissive of things he considers feminine. You know, like feelings. It's like he does it just to remind you that liking Austen doesn't make him any less of a privileged dude-bro, like thanks, I was really worried there for a minute.
These flaws are present in the first one too, but I noticed them more and more the longer I read, so they hit home more strongly here. I'd also just reread two of the books, so all my own opinions were fresh in my mind.
Anyway. There is some lovely Austen commentary buried in there as well - the best is when he points out the beauty or genius of a particular passage, which he mostly gets spot on, but which you can appreciate for yourself by just reading the damn original.
I do appreciate that there's an Austen commentary that is neither overly academic nor overly sentimental (though apparently unlike Rodi, I think the sentimental ones have their place). But slogging through the whole thing is kind of tiring.
I also found these books at their best and most useful when I was a captive audience - on a plane, say, or recovering from a cold. They move right along and are funny and entertaining when you need something to keep you occupied and your brain is working at about 65%.
May 25, 2018
Rodi is a published author, yes, and has a clever way with words, some very enlightening bits, but I found both of these volumes a disappointment. In reviewing Austen, he revealed a lack of research, did not know enough about the century he was reviewing, nor had he actually read about the author herself to any appropriate degree. For example, he does not raise an eyebrow at the passage in "Northanger Abbey" that shows how close the heroine might have found herself stuck helplessly in a coach exchange on the way home without money due to the inhospitality of her host. I've previously (Volume 1) remarked on this cavalier attitude toward the dependent situation of even upperclass women in the 18th century. He suggests, in "Emma,: that Mr. Knightley's brother in London is the older brother--no understanding of eighteenth century customs of primogeniture? He is absolutely right about his overall assessment of Austen's work, but most people who might read his work and Austen herself would already know this. Despite his wide vocabulary, I sometimes felt stuck in a time warp with an erudite Valley Girl. He seemed confused about who his audience might be, and I'm ready to be moving on. I don't plan to give his novels a try.
November 30, 2024
More fun with Robert Rodi as he discusses Jane Austen’s last three published novels - Mansfield Park, Emma, and Persuasion. As with the first volume, he takes us through the plot of each novel with his own personal view of the events, the characters and how they develop. His determination to prove how unromantic Jane Austen really is sometimes blinds him to the genuinely romantic moments - he must surely have noticed how romantic Captain Wentworth’s letter to Anne is for instance. But he is generally very funny and I find I mostly agree with his assessment of the characters. There are a few minor factual errors here and there - for instance in persuasion he tells us the Musgroves have only three children, whereas the book tells us they have a large family - only three grown up. But apart from these minor errors the book is very entertaining.
December 29, 2020
This book is an amazing rereading of Jane Austen.
Austen is probably my favorite author though I cannot really say why. I have read and reread more times than any other author. Partly because it is easy to do. Rereading Search for Lost Time presupposed that I got through it the first time (60% and stuck).
I have enjoyed great perceptions of the author. I shall read Austen with greater enjoyment in the future.
Austen is probably my favorite author though I cannot really say why. I have read and reread more times than any other author. Partly because it is easy to do. Rereading Search for Lost Time presupposed that I got through it the first time (60% and stuck).
I have enjoyed great perceptions of the author. I shall read Austen with greater enjoyment in the future.
November 22, 2019
The jokes, or at least some of them, fell flat after a while, but on the whole I enjoyed it.
June 10, 2024
This volume encompasses 3 of the 6 published novels, starting with my least favourite, "Emma." She is a heroine I do not like, and the villains aren't villainous enough.
As for this book, picture "God Awful Movies" if the Puzzle-In-A-Thunderstorm gang went through her books instead of terrible movies (so you don't have to). Rodi comes from a place of love, and he delights in the genius of Austen. I have only a few quibbles: he doesn't like Henry Tilney, thinking him a self-centred bully. I adore Henry: a man who delights in novels *and * understands muslin? I mean, come on! A girl can't ask for a more perfect guy!
He also doesn't take Austen at her word when she writes that Lady Russell, in Bath, doesn't see Captain Wentworth across the street because she's looking out for some impressive drapery she'd been told about. The point of the scene is that Anne *does* see him, and is anxious about Lady Russell's reaction. Anne shakes her head, being reminded, once again, that your point of view isn't the only one, and your concerns aren't everyone's, even your closest friend's. Rodi claims Lady Russell did see him. I maintain Austen wrote this as a lesson to Anne.
And he likes Emma. Ugh. For snobbishness, give me the honesty of Elizabeth Elliot.
As for this book, picture "God Awful Movies" if the Puzzle-In-A-Thunderstorm gang went through her books instead of terrible movies (so you don't have to). Rodi comes from a place of love, and he delights in the genius of Austen. I have only a few quibbles: he doesn't like Henry Tilney, thinking him a self-centred bully. I adore Henry: a man who delights in novels *and * understands muslin? I mean, come on! A girl can't ask for a more perfect guy!
He also doesn't take Austen at her word when she writes that Lady Russell, in Bath, doesn't see Captain Wentworth across the street because she's looking out for some impressive drapery she'd been told about. The point of the scene is that Anne *does* see him, and is anxious about Lady Russell's reaction. Anne shakes her head, being reminded, once again, that your point of view isn't the only one, and your concerns aren't everyone's, even your closest friend's. Rodi claims Lady Russell did see him. I maintain Austen wrote this as a lesson to Anne.
And he likes Emma. Ugh. For snobbishness, give me the honesty of Elizabeth Elliot.
June 15, 2017
Jane Austen criticism
Just as insightful as Volume One. Rodi obviously loves Austen's irony, and her depiction of comic villains especially, and he wants to ensure that people don't misread her novels as corny romances. I do, however, have a problem with his style, it's a bit too jaunty and colloquial, it began to jar once we got to PERSUASION. Also there are rather a lot of references to what I presume to be characters from American TV programmes. Still I enjoyed reading it, so glad there are people who appreciate Austen's acerbic wit.
Just as insightful as Volume One. Rodi obviously loves Austen's irony, and her depiction of comic villains especially, and he wants to ensure that people don't misread her novels as corny romances. I do, however, have a problem with his style, it's a bit too jaunty and colloquial, it began to jar once we got to PERSUASION. Also there are rather a lot of references to what I presume to be characters from American TV programmes. Still I enjoyed reading it, so glad there are people who appreciate Austen's acerbic wit.
February 24, 2019
I enjoyed this one more than Volume 1, although I still had to take a break in the middle as his humour gets to be a bit much, especially when there's a character he dislikes. But if you only read his commentary on one Austen novel at a time, it's enlightening and very entertaining.
February 4, 2021
Impudent insight
March 21, 2017
Contains some excellent insights and discussions and I love the underlying premise of focussing on Jane Austen' s clarity and sharpness of vision about human nature and society. However, the relentlessly jokey tone can become repetitive and a bit tedious.
August 6, 2023
Rodi's snarky comments make this a modern day condensed versions of Austen's novels that is fun to read.
I enjoyed his rewritten condensed version, but toward the end, I got tired of the modern day humor and was looking forward to finishing this book. As I have been reading books about Jane Austen and her works, I keep wanting to get back to reading what she wrote rather than what someone else wrote about her/it. Her writing is much more engaging.
I was quite struck that he missed (or ignored) the social commentary about slavery. This came to my attention when I saw the slave word in Emma. His volume 1 Mansfield Park section missed it also. Rodi is not providing an analysis; Instead, he translates them into a condensed version in modern idiom with extended vocabulary thrown is as a bonus. I made a list of new words as I went along.
"A classic is a work which gives pleasure to the minority which is intensely and permanently interested in literature. It lives on because the minority, eager to renew the sensation of pleasure, is eternally curious and is therefore engaged in an eternal process of rediscovery. A classic does not survive because of any ethical reason it does not survive because it conforms to certain canons, or because neglect would kill it. It survived because it is a source of pleasure and because the passionate few can no more neglect it then a bee can neglect a flower. The passionate few do not read "the right things" because they are right. That is to put the cart before the horse "the right things" are the right things solely because the passionate few like reading them …"
"Nobody at all is quite in a position to choose with certainty among modern works. To sift the wheat from the chaff is a process that takes an exceedingly long time. Modern works have to pass before the bar of the taste of successive Generations; whereas, with Classics, which have been through the ordeal, almost the reverse is the case. Your taste has to pass before the bar of the classics. That is the point. If you differ with a classic, it is you who are wrong, and not the book. If you differ with a modern work, you may be wrong or you may be right, but no judge is authoritative to decide your taste is unformed. It needs guidance and it needs authoritative guidance."
Arnold Bennett, Literary Taste: How to Form It, as quoted by S. I. Hayakawa in Language in Thought & Action, 4th Ed, p 139-140
His crude language grew old, and so I still have not read his volume 1 (as of 6 years later.)
I enjoyed his rewritten condensed version, but toward the end, I got tired of the modern day humor and was looking forward to finishing this book. As I have been reading books about Jane Austen and her works, I keep wanting to get back to reading what she wrote rather than what someone else wrote about her/it. Her writing is much more engaging.
I was quite struck that he missed (or ignored) the social commentary about slavery. This came to my attention when I saw the slave word in Emma. His volume 1 Mansfield Park section missed it also. Rodi is not providing an analysis; Instead, he translates them into a condensed version in modern idiom with extended vocabulary thrown is as a bonus. I made a list of new words as I went along.
"A classic is a work which gives pleasure to the minority which is intensely and permanently interested in literature. It lives on because the minority, eager to renew the sensation of pleasure, is eternally curious and is therefore engaged in an eternal process of rediscovery. A classic does not survive because of any ethical reason it does not survive because it conforms to certain canons, or because neglect would kill it. It survived because it is a source of pleasure and because the passionate few can no more neglect it then a bee can neglect a flower. The passionate few do not read "the right things" because they are right. That is to put the cart before the horse "the right things" are the right things solely because the passionate few like reading them …"
"Nobody at all is quite in a position to choose with certainty among modern works. To sift the wheat from the chaff is a process that takes an exceedingly long time. Modern works have to pass before the bar of the taste of successive Generations; whereas, with Classics, which have been through the ordeal, almost the reverse is the case. Your taste has to pass before the bar of the classics. That is the point. If you differ with a classic, it is you who are wrong, and not the book. If you differ with a modern work, you may be wrong or you may be right, but no judge is authoritative to decide your taste is unformed. It needs guidance and it needs authoritative guidance."
Arnold Bennett, Literary Taste: How to Form It, as quoted by S. I. Hayakawa in Language in Thought & Action, 4th Ed, p 139-140
His crude language grew old, and so I still have not read his volume 1 (as of 6 years later.)
February 5, 2015
The fun continued in volume 2. It wasn't quite as much fun as volume 1, because I'm used to the author's approach and more inclined to notice repetitions, and also because it had more typos than volume 1. I appreciate the fact that it is a compilation of blog posts and the style of blog posts was purposely retained, but catching typos and careless use of the wrong character name would have required no more than a quick edit...
But enough complaining. It was fun and I'm sorry there isn't more. Rodi really brings out the biting humor in Austen's writing and highlights the fact that there isn't much romance at all. Although he loves P&P and enjoys snark, he also admires Persuasion and shows us that Austen had grown as a writer since her early works and was integrating complexity of character with unmitigated snark. If only she'd lived another ten years, or twenty years. Next time I reread anything Austen, I will be particularly attentive to the countless elegant putdowns.
But enough complaining. It was fun and I'm sorry there isn't more. Rodi really brings out the biting humor in Austen's writing and highlights the fact that there isn't much romance at all. Although he loves P&P and enjoys snark, he also admires Persuasion and shows us that Austen had grown as a writer since her early works and was integrating complexity of character with unmitigated snark. If only she'd lived another ten years, or twenty years. Next time I reread anything Austen, I will be particularly attentive to the countless elegant putdowns.
September 23, 2014
More snarky retelling, more laughs, some real insights. This author sure can turn a totally inappropriate phrase, and he appreciates writing, the sentences, sometimes just the choice of words the same way I do; he appreciates the cadences, the tightly controlled writing that makes Jane Austen's books among the few I re-read every couple of years. As with the first Bitch in a Bonnet, I learned some things reading this book, also had some laughs. Can't beat that!
January 7, 2016
The snarky tone of this book is right up my alley. I would have finished this months ago, if not for the slog of final chapters about Northhanger Abbey (which in Rodi's defense, is more of my lack of interest in NA and less about his observations to make that book more relevant than it is).
January 15, 2015
Mr. Jodi, you did it.
You had me laughing out loud. Now I must go back and read JA again. I can see I'm going to spend a lot of time with Miss JA and MR. Rodi.. So happy I discovered Mr.ROdi.
You had me laughing out loud. Now I must go back and read JA again. I can see I'm going to spend a lot of time with Miss JA and MR. Rodi.. So happy I discovered Mr.ROdi.
October 15, 2015
The voice and expressions are the same as Volume One; snarky and irreverent in a way I'm sure Jane Austen herself might have enjoyed. These two volumes are an entertaining accompaniment to the six beloved novels.
July 15, 2016
I enjoyed this immensely. I agree with the premise of the author that Jane Austen in not a romance novelist but a social satirist. My only complaint with this book is that it needs a good editor as there were quite a few errors in the text.
September 10, 2014
An excellent critique
This delightfully continues Mr. Rodi's first volume, and what a romp it is! I so appreciate the author's point of view.
This delightfully continues Mr. Rodi's first volume, and what a romp it is! I so appreciate the author's point of view.
May 23, 2016
I always enjoy a good lit critique. His analysis is spot on, and it's nice to see someone try and free Jane Austen from the "chick lit" bookshelf.
July 1, 2015
I really enjoyed both volumes and definitely recommend it, as long as you are happy with an irreverent (but not in a bad way) attitude to Jane Austen's work!
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews