Book Review

Review: Bitch in a Bonnet by Robert Rodi


Title: Bitch in a Bonnet
Author: Robert Rodi
Publication Info: Robert Rodi 3/14/2012
ISBN: 978-0-9834844-6-2
Genre: Nonfiction

Book Bitch in a BonnetBitch in a Bonnet is a hoot and a half.  This is a collection of recaps, commentary, and criticism of Jane Austen novels, from the blog of Robert Rodi.  The first collection includes chapter-by-chapter commentary on Pride and Prejudice, Mansfield Park, and Sense and Sensibility.  I didn’t always agree with Rodi but I sure did have fun disagreeing with him – he’s insightful and very, very funny.  Rodi’s main stance is that Jane Austen is perceived as a romantic, whereas she is actually a sharp satirist.

I tried three different ways of reading Bitch in a Bonnet.  First I read the commentary on Pride and Prejudice, which of course I have already read.  In this case, I had some previously formed opinions.  It turned out that Rodi and I have pretty much the same opinions.  The biggest difference here was that Rodi, curse him, is funnier than I am (gnashes teeth, rends hair).

The one major problem that I had is that Rodi tries to make his point about Jane Austen being a satirist by bashing romance novels.  This comes up more often in the critique of Pride and Prejudice than in any of the other novels and it just about drove me bonkers.  Romance novels are not similar to Jane Austen and I don’t think they are trying to be.  Rodi’s point about Jane Austen being watered down and misunderstood is perfectly valid but it has nothing to do with the quality of romance novels.  In some cases he goes completely off the rails – for instance, he seems to think it’s evidence in his favor that Austen couples often hate each other on sight and all their interactions are prickly.   Has he not read any romance?  Has he somehow missed the fact that “loathe at first sight” is, if anything, more common in both romance and romantic comedy than “love at first sight?”  His snobbery is insulting and what’s worse – it’s inaccurate, and it undermines the actual valid point that he’s trying to make.

And by the way, why can’t Jane Austen be both a sharp, rather cynical writer of satire, which she is, and also a romantic?  In Pride and Prejudice, people can grow and change and make each other better – that’s romantic.  Doesn’t make her satire any less biting.  She's not sentimental or prudish but I do think she's romantic – sometimes.

I realize that right now many of you are scratching Bitch in a Bonnet off your list forever, but if you have any ability to compartmentalize when you read, and if you are an Austen fan, then you won’t want to miss out on the 99% of this book that is astute and funny and clever.  So if you can stand it, just waltz right by the snobbery with your head held high and reap the benefits of the book, which are many.

Next up we have Mansfield Park, which I had not read before.   I read the original and the commentary side by side.  I thought Rodi was shockingly indifferent to poor Fanny Price’s sufferings.  He loathes Fanny, and I spent twelve chapters indignantly defending her.  Of course she behaves like she does!  Think of the abuse and neglect she’s endured!  I was enraged on Fanny’s behalf! 

Then I realized that I was on Chapter Twelve and that I would be hanging out with Fanny for thirty-six more chapters.  Just because I understand Fanny doesn’t mean that I want to hang out with her for days.  I gradually shifted from wanting Fanny to go mad and kill everyone with an axe to wishing that a large bomb, possibly nuclear, would land on Mansfield Park and do away with all the characters, Fanny included.  I still think that Rodi misses the boat when he fails to address how Fanny’s character is shaped but I feel we bonded over our shared suffering by the end.

This leads me to an important point – Rodi’s style is funny, sharp, and personal.  I have never met or corresponded with this person but I can’t stop myself from saying things like “we bonded over how frustrating Mansfield Park is” and “We had a spirited debate about romance novels”.  I’m neither delusional nor predatory – it’s just a tribute to the tone that the author maintains throughout.  It feels like he is talking to you, and you can talk back.  I loved it, and I promise that should I ever meet Richard Rodi I won’t terrify him by mentioning our deep post-traumatic Mansfield Park bond.

I read the chapters on Sense and Sensibility without reading Sense and Sensibility.  I enjoyed them because they are funny and entertaining but I missed the arguing.  I could hardly say, “Dude, you are SO TOTALLY WRONG” about this book” without having read the book.  So I’d suggest reading this as a study guide as you are reading one of the novels, or as commentary on a novel you’re familiar with simply because it’s more fun.

Bitch in a Bonnet 2 is out now as a trade paperback.  The website indicates that it will be released as an eBook soon.  As a huge fan of Northanger Abbey, which is covered in BB2,  I’m very excited about this.

As far as assigning a grade, I’m assigning this collection a B instead of an A because I think there are some areas where he truly does drop the ball.  Yes, I know, I’ve used “hoot and a half”, “off the rails” “miss the boat” and “dropped the ball” in the same review, but I’m severely sleep deprived and I’m not going to come up with something less cliché tonight.  The point is, there are moments in which Rodi has a valid opinion, which he backs up and that I agree with, and moments in which he has a valid opinion, which he backs up and which I disagree with respectfully, but he also has a couple of moments in which he espouses a total misunderstanding of something.  The most glaring example of this is his misunderstanding of romance novels and their relationship to Jane Austen.  Romance novels are not turgid (not all of them, anyway) and romance readers and authors are often well aware of the vast difference between Austen’s style in which most passionate emotions are revealed subtly and the more overt passions, both emotional and physical, in romance novels. 

I do hope Austen fans will look past the anti-romance bias because on the whole, with the exception of the few lines about romance novels, I thoroughly enjoyed this book.  It made me laugh and it made me think and it will be a great resource for me the next time I sit down to read an Austen novel (I have three down and three to go).  It’s much more fun to read when I have someone to argue with, even if only in my head!

This book is currently on sale for 99c! It's available at Goodreads | Amazon | BN | Kobo

Comments are Closed

  1. LMG says:

    This is a fantastic review—I think you are spot-on. I especially took issue with his review of Mansfield Park—I thought he missed a lot of the subtlety of that novel. I also thought it was clear that his limited understanding of history/society at that time affected his understanding of her writing and characters.

    However, like you said, he had a ton of really good points! It was an enjoyable read.

  2. CarrieS says:

    @LMG – yes, when he commented on Mansfield Park there were several times where he was speculating about things that I already knew the answers to from reading about Jane Austen’s life.  For instance, while I can’t say for sure what message she meant to convey in Mansfield Park regarding slavery, I can say as a matter of fact that she was a rather ardent abolitionist who was fairly well-educated about slavery, something that Rodi seems unaware of.  I gave him a bit of a pass because I thought he might be trying to examine the texts at face value, which is not the only way to examine a text but is a legitimate approach.

  3. denise says:

    being a Janeite, I think I’d find it amusing, too!

  4. It sounds like an interesting book. And I think I could enjoy it, even if I don’t share that disdain toward the romance novels genre. As a matter of fact it can make me go crazy and throw the book towards the next wall.
    Nevertheless, I agree with his main stance – Jane Austen is a satirist, not a Romantic. Not even in the historical sense of the word (Romantic Literature from the first half of the 19th century).
    Perhaps my POV comes from the fact that I came to Jane Austen from the Literary path, and reading her books, no watching TV series or movies based on her work. I arrived to Romancelandia through a different journey. And once you see something from a certain perspective, it’s very difficult to change your opinion.
    We all love Jane Austen and we enjoy romance novels, but I don’t see that the latter come from the former. Even when a romance novel scholar tries to support this idea, I don’t see it confirmed in the History of European or English literature as a whole.

  5. Meredith says:

    I definitely agree that satire and romance can go hand-in-hand. My first Austen experience was reading Pride and Prejudice in Hugh school. I was about halfway through the book, and enjoying it well enough, when I suddenly realized “Wait! This is COMEDY!” I had to go back and read it from the beginning, and I loved it! Sure, Austen makes fun of the mores of the day, but she also gives you the HEA we want!

Comments are closed.

↑ Back to Top