Aucun appareil Kindle n'est requis. Téléchargez l'une des applis Kindle gratuites et commencez à lire les livres Kindle sur votre smartphone, tablette ou ordinateur.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

Pour obtenir l'appli gratuite, saisissez votre numéro de téléphone mobile.

Prix Kindle : EUR 0,99

EUR 12,58 (93%)

TVA incluse

Ces promotions seront appliquées à cet article :

Certaines promotions sont cumulables avec d'autres offres promotionnelles, d'autres non. Pour en savoir plus, veuillez vous référer aux conditions générales de ces promotions.

Envoyer sur votre Kindle ou un autre appareil

Envoyer sur votre Kindle ou un autre appareil

Bitch In a Bonnet: Reclaiming Jane Austen From the Stiffs, the Snobs, the Simps and the Saps (Volume 1) (English Edition) par [Rodi, Robert]
Publicité sur l'appli Kindle

Bitch In a Bonnet: Reclaiming Jane Austen From the Stiffs, the Snobs, the Simps and the Saps (Volume 1) (English Edition) Format Kindle

Voir les 3 formats et éditions Masquer les autres formats et éditions
Prix Amazon
Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
Format Kindle
"Veuillez réessayer"
EUR 0,99

Longueur : 422 pages Word Wise: Activé Composition améliorée: Activé
Page Flip: Activé Langue : Anglais

Description du produit

Présentation de l'éditeur

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

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

Biographie de l'auteur

Robert Rodi is the author of eight novels and two memoirs; he’s also an accomplished monologist and musician. He lives in Chicago with his partner Jeffrey Smith and a constantly shifting number of dogs. For additional information visit his website,

Détails sur le produit

  • Format : Format Kindle
  • Taille du fichier : 1582 KB
  • Nombre de pages de l'édition imprimée : 422 pages
  • Utilisation simultanée de l'appareil : Illimité
  • Vendu par : Amazon Media EU S.à r.l.
  • Langue : Anglais
  • ASIN: B006N05YSO
  • Synthèse vocale : Activée
  • X-Ray :
  • Word Wise: Activé
  • Lecteur d’écran : Pris en charge
  • Composition améliorée: Activé
  • Moyenne des commentaires client : Soyez la première personne à écrire un commentaire sur cet article
  • Classement des meilleures ventes d'Amazon: n°282.456 dans la Boutique Kindle (Voir le Top 100 dans la Boutique Kindle)
  • Voulez-vous nous parler de prix plus bas?

click to open popover

Commentaires en ligne

Il n'y a pas encore de commentaires clients sur
5 étoiles
4 étoiles
3 étoiles
2 étoiles
1 étoile

Commentaires client les plus utiles sur (beta) (Peut contenir des commentaires issus du programme Early Reviewer Rewards) 4.4 étoiles sur 5 74 commentaires
8 internautes sur 8 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
3.0 étoiles sur 5 Hilarious when author has a lucid interval 8 janvier 2016
Par Constance Reader - Publié sur
Format: Format Kindle Achat vérifié
I laughed a lot at first. He's right that Austen is mordant as opposed to romantic or Romantic. But he ends up doing her wit a great disservice by constantly comparing some of her most quietly lethal comments to blunt-force contemporary sarcasm that are already dated and that show that his ear for the vernacular isn't all we might wish. ("Beeyotch, are you high," really?)

The guy genuinely knows his stuff but once he gets into Pride and Prejudice, he starts to dance around so hard trying to be funny or appeal to youth that he becomes what he and Jane mock, prancing like a poodle, spinning like a top, and peeing all over his own points. In trying to emulate the vernacular of the many genuinely witty contemporary writers, he tosses in the odd hilariously dated pop culture reference and the curiously out of synch odd occasional bit of British slang.

I liked a lot of it but the author needs to step out of Jane Austen's way. Her wit isn't analogous to the blunt instruments that writers today wield in a spirit of pure irony. They are funny and so is she, but in different ways and for different reasons. In fact, she is hilarious and amazing because her characters, though often monsters of ego, are also entirely like real people. Comparing them to cartoon characters, characters in Fellini films, and various modern types completely misses the point. It's ludicrous because her characters are the OPPOSITE of those things.

So I recommend these books to all true Austen fans--though with certain caveats.

9 internautes sur 9 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
1.0 étoiles sur 5 No, on so many levels 23 septembre 2014
Par KQ - Publié sur
Format: Format Kindle Achat vérifié
I would like to give this a much higher rating. Rodi does show signs of understanding literary criticism. That being said, he seems to think his reader is entirely ignorant about Jane Austen. I question his assumption that all of her readers are ignorant romance fans. Personally, I think Austen's ability to write tongue in cheek and her social satire can be perceived by any reasonably intelligent reader. She is accessible, even in the 21st century.

Rodi thinks a great deal of his own capabilities apparently. He seems quite taken with his rather adolescent humor and coarse analogies. Another reviewer mentions his taking the Lord's name in vain. I should have paid attention. How bad could it be? One of his favorite ejaculations is "sweet creeping J---s!" That's his tone.

Lastly, although under coarseness and literary mugging, there is evidence of genuine literary criticism which I am bound to admit. However, his interpretation of Mansfield Park is so bizarre that I felt obliged to re-read the book as I scarcely recognized the characters in his criticism. Rodi makes the very mistake he accuses others of making. That is of viewing a 19th century novel with 21st century eyes. His lambasting of Fanny Price is ridiculous. Read a little more carefully and the clues to her behavior are there. Bringing in slavery in the West Indies is off the mark. Whether or not Sir Thomas had slaves on his Antiguan property is not relevant to the story. He could have been having management problems, crop failure, trade agreements falling apart ... Austen does not specify. Non issue. Divorce in the family? Mary's solution was perfectly practical to Rodi, what's the problem? Early19th century -- adultery and divorce, huge scandals. Image was everything.

I will not be buying volume two.
101 internautes sur 108 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
2.0 étoiles sur 5 Mixed feelings 24 mars 2013
Par Sinuhe - Publié sur
Format: Format Kindle Achat vérifié
This litcrit is well-written and funny, but here's the trouble: I spy a wee thread of sexism.

Rodi is right - there is a "Jane Austen" that is not the same as Jane Austen, a tamed version that lives in people's minds and is associated primarily with romance, and the impulse to push the real Austen forward at the people who can only gush over her ~*~heroes~*~ and their associated most dramatic moments (or wet shirt scenes. To go off on a tangent, it seems immeasurably hypocritical that nobody these days says anything against Colin Firth in a wet shirt, but all hints of eroticism in newer adaptions get pooh-poohed as pandering). However, he presents himself as the sole voice of reason when there are many people in Jane Austen's fandom, mostly women, who are well aware that she was primarily writing comedies of manners, satires on human behavior. And at the same time, when he rails against romance novels and films

("... and Austen, the supposed progenitor of "Regency romance", the patron saint of "chick lit", the inspiration for who even knows how many craptacular costume dramas with dewy close-ups of heaving bazooms and quivering lips ...")

I detect even more revulsion for the people (again, primarily women) who enjoy them. What is it that makes these costume dramas craptacular? Apparently, nothing except their focus on a dramatic romantic storyline.

I cannot speak for everyone who discusses Austen's place in the ancestry of the romance novel, but it seems to me that there *is* a general understanding out there that she did not single-handedly give birth to the genre. Her female-character-centric novels partly inspired Georgette Heyer and other writers to write the original "traditional" Regency romances, which then led to the more dramatic and far more erotic romance novels of today. She was not writing romance novels herself, but she did help to set the stage for the romance novel down the line. You can complain about the connection if you wish, but you're simply off the rails if you think Austen's got nothing to do with romance novels just because she was also writing satirically - and if part of your reasoning is that the romance genre is wholly sub-standard, then there are even more issues.

The text itself was a great read, sort of like sitting down with a sharp-witted friend to discuss the novels, with the occasional typo (eg, "Willoughy" for "Willoughby") or accidental factual error (eg, calling Marianne Mrs. Dashwood's youngest daughter). There's just this recurring feeling that he's telling the ladies to sit down and listen that makes me unable to give more than three stars.

ETA: At the time I wrote the above review, I had only read the first third of the book, on Sense & Sensibility, and I assumed I would feel the same about the rest. I was incorrect.

Re: Pride & Prejudice's section: Rodi's enthusiasm and love for the book shined through. However, his overblown, hysterical reactions and the way he keeps saying that various characters are feeling tempted to commit violence made me start to think Austen could have written him as one of her caricatures. Something along the lines of Isabella Thorpe, only with the addition of the repeated "look how manly I am/my reading is" strain.

Re: Mansfield Park's section: My feelings here are no longer mixed at all. In fact, they've gone from "I wouldn't recommend it but I wouldn't dissuade anyone from reading it" to "NO", and the rating lost a star. The main problem is that, in verbally demolishing Fanny Price, Rodi has a) demolished his own premise that Jane Austen was not writing "chick-lit" or romance and b) failed to take Austen's society into account. By this point, he has invented his own Austen brand to compete with the supposedly overwhelmingly prevalent "romance novelist Austen" one, and appears upset that in Mansfield Park the real Austen does not line up with his brand. Perhaps the most striking instance of this was the assertion that Austen wrote MP as penance, deliberately suffering to atone for writing the super-sparkly-awesome Elizabeth Bennet, closely followed by the rather shocking idea that the reader is meant to hate Mary Crawford as the rival. Really? Because the idea that a rival must be hateful simply for being different from the heroine seems like one that's pervasive in romance novels and chick-lit, to me. Same as the desire to see two differing personalities who have tension together end up married.

Fanny Price is a difficult girl to love. She's not the stuff of which heroines are made; a lot of them start out small and downtrodden, but these days it's well-known that an oppressed girl needs to burst from her shell and shock everyone with her vibrant true self. Fanny doesn't, which automatically makes her worthwhile for looking deeper as something of an anomaly. Rodi maintains that the narration is lying, and that Fanny is in fact a big old hypocrite who enjoys ruining people's fun. The fact is, Fanny's behavior has been molded by years of emotional abuse. She gets fluttery at the thought of attention being paid to her and carriages being summoned for her because she's been trained by just about every member of her family to think that she doesn't deserve that, and that if she gets it it will be accompanied by criticism and slights (and probably Aunt Norris's screeching). Not to mention that she seems to have a decent helping of social anxiety, which doesn't appear to cross Rodi's mind. Fanny gets lambasted for her trepidation at approaching the door to her uncle's study - but I have to say that I've felt much the same thing when I come to a closed door that I know I have to knock on in order to have a nerve-wracking interview (or to make a phone call that I'm dreading - Fanny, be thankful you haven't one of those). Now, maybe I really am the cringing worm Fanny's made out to be here - or maybe Rodi is being extraordinarily self-centered.

And my last point, regarding the social mores that Rodi completely overlooks. In Austen's day, acting was extremely improper, especially for women. It was all right to do staged readings of Shakespeare within your own family or close friends, but memorizing lines? Getting costumes and scenery together? Inviting strangers to participate? Fanny is completely in the right for opposing it; she'll give in far enough to help out and can even take pleasure in listening to the others (Austen herself liked amateur theatricals in her family circle), but the fact that she won't give in all the way is actually a testament to her integrity. Likewise, it was extremely improper for a young man to give a gift to a young woman outside of an engagement. Mary sneaking the chain into Fanny's hands was wrong. It seems priggish to the modern reader, but there it is. Mary comes off as a strikingly modern character and it's tough to find any visceral reaction to her being ready to perform a love scene with Edmund, speaking slightingly of her brother-in-law and the clergy and admirals (and making sodomy puns), tricking Fanny - yet these are things that, according to the society the characters and author lived in, would be seen as character flaws, even when they went with an extremely charming personality. You don't have to like it, but you can't pretend to address the author's intentions without considering that.
1 internautes sur 1 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
4.0 étoiles sur 5 Live-blogging Jane Austen, our contemporary 6 septembre 2016
Par Christopher (o.d.c.) - Publié sur
Format: Format Kindle Achat vérifié
Although some of the reviewers are now saying that Rodi didn't have to 'reclaim' Jane Austen from those who claim her as the great founder of 'chick lit,' it still bears pointing out (as Rodi does here), how un-romantic a writer she is:

... Here are a few things you won’t find in Sense and Sensibility: a passionate kiss or a violent embrace ... a kiss or embrace of any kind, for that matter ... any portrayal of a marriage proposal ... any depiction of a wedding ceremony ... anyone speaking the words “I love you.” Here are a few things you will find in Sense and Sensibility: ruthlessness ... venality ... arrogance ... avarice ... fecklessness ... snobbishness ... shamelessness ... two or three of the most unbridled talkers in all of western literature ... and an authorial voice that merrily mocks them all into immortality. I rest my case. In Jane Austen, we have one of the great social satirists of all time.

... We’re 200-plus pages into Pride and Prejudice, and so far from anything resembling romance (Jane and Bingley’s hummingbird flutterings excepted), what we’ve had is a constant stream of bitter conflict, class anxiety, disappointed hopes, hideous confrontations, and an entire degustation menu of shrill social barbarisms.

Robert Rodi's take on Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice- chapter by chapter- is funny and shrewd. I liked his slangy style.

Here is a sample of his "live-blogging":

... But alas, Caroline’s campaign of icy inertia, which is doing a pretty fair job of making everyone within a quarter-mile feel the depths of her contempt, doesn’t last. Darcy, who’s heard of the ladies’ arrival, has left the fishing party and returned to the house to give Georgiana some moral support. At the sight of him—and at the sudden static-electric charge that crackles across the room between him and Lizzy—Caroline can’t help herself: she drops her strategy of victory-through-frostbite and switches to full-on Flame Queen; as if she might, with enough vitriol, be able to burn Lizzy down to slag right before Darcy’s eyes. She begins by loudly asking, “Pray, Miss Eliza, are not the ——— shire militia removed from Meryton? They must be a great loss to your family.” She’s talking specifically about Wickham, and almost everyone in the room knows it; unfortunately, Caroline herself doesn’t know that invoking Wickham is the surest way to distress Georgiana and infuriate Darcy. As ever, when Caroline throws a punch, it lands squarely on her own kisser.

Oddly enough, he sees very well the challenge Austen set for herself in Mansfield Park, and his comments are astute, yet he gets the book wrong by getting Fanny wrong. For him, her negativity conceals pride, and she is a hypocrite, but that really isn't what's going on. The charm of Mary and Henry Crawford is not supposed to blind us:

... “A little difficulty to be overcome, was not evil to Henry Crawford. He rather derived spirits from it. He had been apt to gain hearts too easily. His situation was new and animating”—we read this and we begin to suspect the sustainability of his high emotion; and that concluding statement troubles us as well, as it implies that novelty may be the chief attraction of his heroic resolve. In which case, despair and aggrievement might prove “new and animating” too. We may like Henry well enough—I’m pretty clearly crazy about him—but Austen, while failing to paint him as a despicable rogue, does convey his essential unsteadiness...

Close, but not quite there.
1 internautes sur 1 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 Bitch with a blog takes on Austen 21 février 2017
Par J.Vasilius - Publié sur
Format: Format Kindle Achat vérifié
There are few things as funny as a gay guy on a roll. This book, based on blogs, is overstuffed with crackling comments as well as thoughtful observations. I realize it's incorrect to stereotype gays, but I have been fortunate in having friends who make me laugh until I cry. Reading this is like spending an evening with one of those friends, who have intellect, humor, great powers of observation and a irresistible turn of phrase.

Some of his comments fall flat, but the majority are sharp.There is too much space given to the "Jane Austen is not romantic" thesis. Rodi's commentary is unintelligible to anyone who has not actually read the novel under discussion. And if have read Austen you know she is not Romantic in the bodice-buster style. The other reviews are correct, the commentary on Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice are spot on. Mansfield Park is such a twaddle that it can be forgiven if a reviewer is somewhat off. Amidst the humor there were many close readings by the author that enlightened me, aspects I had overlooked. It's these observations that make this book much more than a comic rant.

This book is like spending an evening with a smart, funny friend who loves Austen.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ? Dites-le-nous