Scan barcode
sawyerbell's review
3.0
2.5 stars. I enjoyed the Sense & Sensibility section a lot but it all began to seem quite repetitive after that. DNF.
artismyhammer's review
1.0
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.
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.
linnaemanne's review
DNF em 79% me deu muita raiva, mas não tanto para me forçar a terminar, claro. Fanny já sofre tanto no livro e ainda vem esse fazer pouco de td q ela passa e enfrenta, é foda viu
atroskity's review
4.0
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, [b:Flirting with Pride and Prejudice: Fresh Perspectives on the Original Chick-Lit Masterpiece|33749|Flirting with Pride and Prejudice Fresh Perspectives on the Original Chick-Lit Masterpiece|Jennifer Crusie|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1388731011s/33749.jpg|33793]). 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” Fanny Price, 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- 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, [b:Flirting with Pride and Prejudice: Fresh Perspectives on the Original Chick-Lit Masterpiece|33749|Flirting with Pride and Prejudice Fresh Perspectives on the Original Chick-Lit Masterpiece|Jennifer Crusie|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1388731011s/33749.jpg|33793]). 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” Fanny Price, 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- 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.
chelseyclark's review
2.0
Firstly, I think if Robert Rodi and I sat down in person to drink and talk about Austen, we would get on super well. We look at Austen with a very similar point of view. That being said, I still wasn't all that satisfied with his book. It's entirely possible that this worked a lot better as blog - which is how the whole thing started - because it would have been read in smaller pieces over weeks or months, rather than being read in quick succession. It took me a long time to get through this, to the point that I considered NOT finishing several times. Indeed, one of my reading goals this year is to get more comfortable with the DNF. But I wanted to finish this one so that I could reply to some of Rodi's ideas without any missing pieces.
General reactions: Rodi is funny and witty, but the humour is at times repetitive and he has a bad habit of picking on the same characters for the same flaws over and over without any new insights. He sometimes made really good points, but there were thin or holey arguments along the way. Particularly, Rodi makes a great deal of assumptions about what Austen was trying to do, which sometimes worked and sometimes I wanted to talk back to the book and remind him that maybe she was trying something different. He didn't explore any alternative ideas. Another one of these flaws is that Rodi sometimes revealed a lack of information when contextualizing the novels - sometimes he says Austen was the first to do this or that, and he wasn't entirely correct, or he would make notes about literature that came before Austen or her contemporaries that I felt weren't solid. It felt like maybe a little more research was necessary, or perhaps some more specific examples so I could understand how he came to his conclusions.
Sense and Sensibility: Probably the strongest analysis, in my opinion. Rodi made some notes about Marianne Dashwood that I found really insightful, and he made some really funny comments about Mrs. Jennings and Fanny Dashwood. I was pretty into it, although it felt a little long winded at times. I wanted less summary and more thoughts.
Pride and Prejudice: You can tell Rodi loves this book and he makes his love for Elizabeth particularly obvious. But he also seemed to have the least insight into this novel. While I agree it is one of Austen's strongest works, it is not immune to a critical lens, but Rodi wouldn't use it. It felt like a lot of "And then this happened, insert funny quip or character reference, isn't that just hilarious?!" Just a summary of the book with constant reminders that it's a funny/great book. I know it's great, I read P&P too, tell me something I don't know. I was losing interest a lot around here.
Mansfield Park: Aw man. I mean... I agree with him on a lot of things about this book - it's my least favourite Austen novel, it kind of sticks out like a sore thumb in the middle of her career because it lacks a joy and sparkle. Rodi doesn't offer up any insights or criticisms into this difference except to say that he thinks Austen was challenging herself to write something entirely subversive to her norm and basically failed. He doesn't stop to think, for example, that there is evidence that Austen worked on S&S (in its first epistolary form) all the way back in her teens, but it was never published until she was in her mid thirties, giving her a decade and a half to perfect it, and similarly she had over a decade to work on P&P, but there is not evidence for such a long writing and revision time for Mansfield Park. What if the reason MP feels different from her other books is that it was the first time that she felt rushed to get a project finished and it was a learning curve? I'm not saying that's the definitive reason, but I am saying that Rodi doesn't even try to consider any alternative ideas.
Rodi's thoughts on Mansfield Park take up over half of this volume and they are the most tedious and frustrating. For me, this was largely because of his unrelenting bashing of Fanny Price. At first, I was on board, because Fanny isn't my cup of tea either. I find her uninteresting, and like Rodi, she just seems to be Edmund's lapdog to me. But I also see a lot of merits in Fanny, and Rodi literally won't let her have any positive traits. She is, apparently, the source of all evil, and there just isn't any other way of looking at it.
My main issues with how Rodi talks about Fanny are as follows:
- Fanny is boring: Rodi brings up how much Fanny bores him in every chapter. At first I agreed, but after a while I got really frustrated with this representation because it felt less like legitimate criticism and more like Rodi stomping his feet because Fanny wasn't Lizzie Bennett. "Jaaaaaane, this heroine bores me! Write me another! EUGH!" Stop crying, Rodi. You're not five. Give me a more critical reading with some fresh arguments or get over it.
- Fanny says no to everything, is a wet blanket, etc: Rodi probably spends the most time on this point, and gets really passionately adamant that Fanny is essentially a selfish character who refuses to say "yes" to anything, even though it would bring others happiness. The fact that Rodi spends more than half the book lamenting this means I am also going to spend a lot of time talking about it. Let me just review Fanny's life really quick: she's born into this family that continually gets poorer as time goes on, due to her father's drinking and a lack of birth control, so she is sent off (without any evidence of concern for Fanny's personal happiness or what she wanted to do) to live with rich relatives who, from the start, treat her as lesser-than and almost as a servant (literally, rich families used to hire women to "attend to" or "accompany" older women who were either sickly or lonely - Fanny essentially does this for Lady Bertram), she is regularly belittled by a bitter Aunt. She has no female equals in the family - her cousins don't treat her like friends, Lady Bertram is not her intellectual equal (that is not to say that Fanny is a genius, rather than Lady B isn't concerned with anything that involves complex thought), Mrs. Norris makes sure she is reminded regularly that she is Less Than. Firstly - Rodi really criticizes Fanny for not accepting Mary Crawford's attempts at friendship and intimacy? Fanny has literally never witnessed a healthy relationship between two women in her whole life. She, no exaggeration, as ZERO role models when it comes to forming healthy friendships. Edmund is the only person who tries to show her this, so it's no wonder she clings to him. Secondly, Rodi gets angry over and over that Fanny won't give Henry Crawford a chance, even though Fanny has seen him be manipulative with her cousins and doesn't agree with his behaviour. Fanny has NO agency in her life - she gets to make ZERO choices about how or with whom she spends her time, where she lives, nothing. And then Rodi gets mad because the times Fanny DOES have the power to say no, she USES it?!
Rodi really disappoints here, with his repeated moaning about Fanny's using what little power she has to say NO when she does not want to participate or feels uncomfortable - he's got his big PATRIARCHY horn out: "Fanny Price should just marry this guy she hates so everyone else will be happy! To hell with what she wants - she's here to entertain me, not the other way around! Henry Crawford should get what he wants even though he is emotionally manipulative!" (Rodi thinks the fact that Crawford genuinely cares for Fanny means he should automatically be forgiven for being insincere and manipulative previously - that's not how earning trust works, dude.) And worse of all: "Fanny should say yes to Crawford because WOMEN WHO SAY NO ARE BORING. Women who SAY NO are SPOILSPORTS. Women who SAY NO are RUINING THE FUN FOR EVERYONE ELSE!" Rodi straight up says that Fanny should say yes to Crawford to make everyone else's lives easier, to make her a more entertaining heroine, and disregards the fact that Fanny is not responsible for the happiness of anyone but herself and should act accordingly. Fuck you, dude. It is no woman's job to say YES just so SOME DUDE gets what he wants. There was some very real misogyny happening here that Rodi can't talk his way out of.
- Fanny and Edmund have no chemistry: Rodi leans hard on the hint Austen drops that Fanny and Edmund actually could have been happy if they married the Crawfords, and all parties would have bettered each other in time. He really doesn't get Fanny and Edmund, and to be honest, I don't either a lot of the time - there's not a lot of heat there, no tension, and Fanny is essentially Edmund's puppy who follows him around and agrees with him unconditionally. But what Rodi really misses is that the lack of tension is what makes this couple work, and he doesn't see that Fanny has had nobody else to guide her and therefore she only knows to trust Edmund, she hasn't developed critical thinking skills because nobody has helped her find the tools. Rodi inherently does not understand who Fanny and Edmund are as people: Introverts. He gets really angry that at one point, Edmund expresses that after essentially being polite, sociable, and nice to a bunch of acquaintances, he is happy to be quiet with Fanny and not speak. Rodi tries to turn this into Edmund just being a jerk and unsociable. Fanny's dislike for being the center of attention, likewise, is an Unforgivable Curse or something - Rodi positively pulverizes her for being shy. Ultimately to me it just revealed that Rodi has little to no understanding of the Introverted personality type. It's totally normal for introverts to need time to recharge after a social gathering and Rodi forgets that socializing actively takes energy for some people. It's normal for introverts to prefer to stay on the sidelines, it's normal for introverts to choose not to make waves. Fanny, unlike Mary Crawford, understands that Edmund's personality and temperament leads him to the more quiet, contemplative, and compassionate life of the church, and how uncomfortable he would be in "distinguishing" himself. While I don't disagree that a book where Edmund married Mary and Fanny married Henry would have been interesting, what I think Rodi misses is that Edmund and Fanny eventually choose partners that understand them naturally. An introvert does not have to explain to an introvert why they are tired of social interaction or why the limelight makes them uncomfortable. Fanny and Edmund would have spent their marriages repeatedly explaining the most basic building blocks of their personalities to their partners had they ended up with the Crawfords. Together, none of this explanation is necessary. There is an ease and comfort between Fanny and Edmund that I think Rodi assumes as boring or cold, simply because it is not as "exciting" as Elizabeth and Darcy. He doesn't understand the affection and trust that comes from not having to explain who you are to the person you love.
Anyways, Mansfield Park is due for my next Austen reread, so I perhaps I should have saved these comments for when I finish that book. I will try to keep an open mind and look at it with room for Rodi's point of view, and perhaps I will come back here with different thoughts.
I'm really unsure of whether I will continue with Rodi's second volume. On one hand, the first was a bit of a slog to get through and when you boil it down, it comprised only of a long winded summary, a few jokes, and a lot of complaining. On the other hand, NOBODY has ever made me defend Fanny Price so hard (and I promise MP is truly my least favourite Austen and Fanny also annoys me A LOT) and I have to give him serious props for making me think and stand up for a character that I normally am on the other side of the fence about.
So, this book did make me think, but mostly it annoyed me and was pretty boring at times. I had to set it down for days - or even weeks - at a time before I could get through it. It felt like it was a thousand pages long. So it was just okay.
General reactions: Rodi is funny and witty, but the humour is at times repetitive and he has a bad habit of picking on the same characters for the same flaws over and over without any new insights. He sometimes made really good points, but there were thin or holey arguments along the way. Particularly, Rodi makes a great deal of assumptions about what Austen was trying to do, which sometimes worked and sometimes I wanted to talk back to the book and remind him that maybe she was trying something different. He didn't explore any alternative ideas. Another one of these flaws is that Rodi sometimes revealed a lack of information when contextualizing the novels - sometimes he says Austen was the first to do this or that, and he wasn't entirely correct, or he would make notes about literature that came before Austen or her contemporaries that I felt weren't solid. It felt like maybe a little more research was necessary, or perhaps some more specific examples so I could understand how he came to his conclusions.
Sense and Sensibility: Probably the strongest analysis, in my opinion. Rodi made some notes about Marianne Dashwood that I found really insightful, and he made some really funny comments about Mrs. Jennings and Fanny Dashwood. I was pretty into it, although it felt a little long winded at times. I wanted less summary and more thoughts.
Pride and Prejudice: You can tell Rodi loves this book and he makes his love for Elizabeth particularly obvious. But he also seemed to have the least insight into this novel. While I agree it is one of Austen's strongest works, it is not immune to a critical lens, but Rodi wouldn't use it. It felt like a lot of "And then this happened, insert funny quip or character reference, isn't that just hilarious?!" Just a summary of the book with constant reminders that it's a funny/great book. I know it's great, I read P&P too, tell me something I don't know. I was losing interest a lot around here.
Mansfield Park: Aw man. I mean... I agree with him on a lot of things about this book - it's my least favourite Austen novel, it kind of sticks out like a sore thumb in the middle of her career because it lacks a joy and sparkle. Rodi doesn't offer up any insights or criticisms into this difference except to say that he thinks Austen was challenging herself to write something entirely subversive to her norm and basically failed. He doesn't stop to think, for example, that there is evidence that Austen worked on S&S (in its first epistolary form) all the way back in her teens, but it was never published until she was in her mid thirties, giving her a decade and a half to perfect it, and similarly she had over a decade to work on P&P, but there is not evidence for such a long writing and revision time for Mansfield Park. What if the reason MP feels different from her other books is that it was the first time that she felt rushed to get a project finished and it was a learning curve? I'm not saying that's the definitive reason, but I am saying that Rodi doesn't even try to consider any alternative ideas.
Rodi's thoughts on Mansfield Park take up over half of this volume and they are the most tedious and frustrating. For me, this was largely because of his unrelenting bashing of Fanny Price. At first, I was on board, because Fanny isn't my cup of tea either. I find her uninteresting, and like Rodi, she just seems to be Edmund's lapdog to me. But I also see a lot of merits in Fanny, and Rodi literally won't let her have any positive traits. She is, apparently, the source of all evil, and there just isn't any other way of looking at it.
My main issues with how Rodi talks about Fanny are as follows:
- Fanny is boring: Rodi brings up how much Fanny bores him in every chapter. At first I agreed, but after a while I got really frustrated with this representation because it felt less like legitimate criticism and more like Rodi stomping his feet because Fanny wasn't Lizzie Bennett. "Jaaaaaane, this heroine bores me! Write me another! EUGH!" Stop crying, Rodi. You're not five. Give me a more critical reading with some fresh arguments or get over it.
- Fanny says no to everything, is a wet blanket, etc: Rodi probably spends the most time on this point, and gets really passionately adamant that Fanny is essentially a selfish character who refuses to say "yes" to anything, even though it would bring others happiness. The fact that Rodi spends more than half the book lamenting this means I am also going to spend a lot of time talking about it. Let me just review Fanny's life really quick: she's born into this family that continually gets poorer as time goes on, due to her father's drinking and a lack of birth control, so she is sent off (without any evidence of concern for Fanny's personal happiness or what she wanted to do) to live with rich relatives who, from the start, treat her as lesser-than and almost as a servant (literally, rich families used to hire women to "attend to" or "accompany" older women who were either sickly or lonely - Fanny essentially does this for Lady Bertram), she is regularly belittled by a bitter Aunt. She has no female equals in the family - her cousins don't treat her like friends, Lady Bertram is not her intellectual equal (that is not to say that Fanny is a genius, rather than Lady B isn't concerned with anything that involves complex thought), Mrs. Norris makes sure she is reminded regularly that she is Less Than. Firstly - Rodi really criticizes Fanny for not accepting Mary Crawford's attempts at friendship and intimacy? Fanny has literally never witnessed a healthy relationship between two women in her whole life. She, no exaggeration, as ZERO role models when it comes to forming healthy friendships. Edmund is the only person who tries to show her this, so it's no wonder she clings to him. Secondly, Rodi gets angry over and over that Fanny won't give Henry Crawford a chance, even though Fanny has seen him be manipulative with her cousins and doesn't agree with his behaviour. Fanny has NO agency in her life - she gets to make ZERO choices about how or with whom she spends her time, where she lives, nothing. And then Rodi gets mad because the times Fanny DOES have the power to say no, she USES it?!
Rodi really disappoints here, with his repeated moaning about Fanny's using what little power she has to say NO when she does not want to participate or feels uncomfortable - he's got his big PATRIARCHY horn out: "Fanny Price should just marry this guy she hates so everyone else will be happy! To hell with what she wants - she's here to entertain me, not the other way around! Henry Crawford should get what he wants even though he is emotionally manipulative!" (Rodi thinks the fact that Crawford genuinely cares for Fanny means he should automatically be forgiven for being insincere and manipulative previously - that's not how earning trust works, dude.) And worse of all: "Fanny should say yes to Crawford because WOMEN WHO SAY NO ARE BORING. Women who SAY NO are SPOILSPORTS. Women who SAY NO are RUINING THE FUN FOR EVERYONE ELSE!" Rodi straight up says that Fanny should say yes to Crawford to make everyone else's lives easier, to make her a more entertaining heroine, and disregards the fact that Fanny is not responsible for the happiness of anyone but herself and should act accordingly. Fuck you, dude. It is no woman's job to say YES just so SOME DUDE gets what he wants. There was some very real misogyny happening here that Rodi can't talk his way out of.
- Fanny and Edmund have no chemistry: Rodi leans hard on the hint Austen drops that Fanny and Edmund actually could have been happy if they married the Crawfords, and all parties would have bettered each other in time. He really doesn't get Fanny and Edmund, and to be honest, I don't either a lot of the time - there's not a lot of heat there, no tension, and Fanny is essentially Edmund's puppy who follows him around and agrees with him unconditionally. But what Rodi really misses is that the lack of tension is what makes this couple work, and he doesn't see that Fanny has had nobody else to guide her and therefore she only knows to trust Edmund, she hasn't developed critical thinking skills because nobody has helped her find the tools. Rodi inherently does not understand who Fanny and Edmund are as people: Introverts. He gets really angry that at one point, Edmund expresses that after essentially being polite, sociable, and nice to a bunch of acquaintances, he is happy to be quiet with Fanny and not speak. Rodi tries to turn this into Edmund just being a jerk and unsociable. Fanny's dislike for being the center of attention, likewise, is an Unforgivable Curse or something - Rodi positively pulverizes her for being shy. Ultimately to me it just revealed that Rodi has little to no understanding of the Introverted personality type. It's totally normal for introverts to need time to recharge after a social gathering and Rodi forgets that socializing actively takes energy for some people. It's normal for introverts to prefer to stay on the sidelines, it's normal for introverts to choose not to make waves. Fanny, unlike Mary Crawford, understands that Edmund's personality and temperament leads him to the more quiet, contemplative, and compassionate life of the church, and how uncomfortable he would be in "distinguishing" himself. While I don't disagree that a book where Edmund married Mary and Fanny married Henry would have been interesting, what I think Rodi misses is that Edmund and Fanny eventually choose partners that understand them naturally. An introvert does not have to explain to an introvert why they are tired of social interaction or why the limelight makes them uncomfortable. Fanny and Edmund would have spent their marriages repeatedly explaining the most basic building blocks of their personalities to their partners had they ended up with the Crawfords. Together, none of this explanation is necessary. There is an ease and comfort between Fanny and Edmund that I think Rodi assumes as boring or cold, simply because it is not as "exciting" as Elizabeth and Darcy. He doesn't understand the affection and trust that comes from not having to explain who you are to the person you love.
Anyways, Mansfield Park is due for my next Austen reread, so I perhaps I should have saved these comments for when I finish that book. I will try to keep an open mind and look at it with room for Rodi's point of view, and perhaps I will come back here with different thoughts.
I'm really unsure of whether I will continue with Rodi's second volume. On one hand, the first was a bit of a slog to get through and when you boil it down, it comprised only of a long winded summary, a few jokes, and a lot of complaining. On the other hand, NOBODY has ever made me defend Fanny Price so hard (and I promise MP is truly my least favourite Austen and Fanny also annoys me A LOT) and I have to give him serious props for making me think and stand up for a character that I normally am on the other side of the fence about.
So, this book did make me think, but mostly it annoyed me and was pretty boring at times. I had to set it down for days - or even weeks - at a time before I could get through it. It felt like it was a thousand pages long. So it was just okay.
More...