The Good Place (last three eps): http://markdoesstuff.fetchapp.com/get/c116c509

But I'm uncomfortable with the assertion that there is only one correct interpretation of the book, not explicit but very clearly implied, and anyone who thins otherwise wasn't paying attention.

Yes, this. I think one concern I have is that a lot of people across the comments for a few weeks now have had different interpretations/readings of this book, and have felt very strongly that their reading was more important (or more valid or more true) than others' readings. I myself have had different readings of the books over the past decade, and I don't necessarily think any one of my readings was better or more correct than the others.

Galavant Season 1: http://markdoesstuff.fetchapp.com/get/d7787e88

(also some The Good Place Place episodes)

The Good Place 2x06-2x09 (also Galavant Season 1): http://markdoesstuff.fetchapp.com/get/d7787e88

And again, I'm left wondering what on earth this book looks like if one misses that it's All About Sexism.

Well, when I first read the book, I thought it was parodying the "woman dresses like a man and goes to war" fantasy trope by overdoing it and have everyone be a woman, and then have a happy peaceful ending that is immediately undone because there is a war again. Needless to say, I didn't like it very much.

With each subsequent reread, I have liked the book more and more, and appreciated some of its nuances. It's not one of my favorites, but it's up there (I don't like it as much as Witches/Watch, but I like it more than the Death books). I wouldn't say that my first read was "wrong", though, I just started to like things that I didn't care much for in the first read.

That being said, I have always interpreted the ending as a bleak/hopeless meditation on the inevitability of war, no matter how much everyone may purport to be trying to end/avert it at all costs. As Mark has reviewed, I've been listening along to his reviews rather than reading the text myself, so I might feel differently about it if I reread the text now. But you asked what this book looks like if I don't interpret it as being All About Sexism, and that is what it looks like to me.

Your interpretation of the ending as waging war on the patriarchy (rather than about reengaging in war, period) is interesting, and I'll definitely need to keep that in mind when I reread MR again. But that has never been the way I've read the text, and while it will make for an interesting counterpoint when I read the book again, I doubt that it is how I will interpret the text in the future.

I've never commissioned Mark to read/watch anything, so maybe those who have done so see it differently, but from my perspective, Mark is NOT paid to react to the book.

Mark reviews books he reads and media that he watches because that's what he chooses to do with his blog. The reviews are "free". ("Free" is in quotes just because there is presumably some ad revenue to him, but nobody is paying to access the reviews.)

People commission him to read/watch items on video. That is separate from the review itself. They commission him for the act of recording his instantaneous reactions. Their payment does not extend to how he chooses to review the chapter/episode in question, and does not entitle them to dictate how much he likes the book, or how/what he thinks about the book.

The commission is for recording the video, NOT for his reviews - if someone did not commission a chapter/episode, he would still put up a review, he just wouldn't record a video, as happened historically.

I would go farther and say that Mark's commissions are not even tended as "purchase" of a product, but rather as an act of support. Now, as mentioned above, I have never commissioned Mark to watch/read anything, so people who have actually done so, and Mark himself, may review the relationship differently. But when commissions were first a thing, the sense I got was that people wanted to support him, to help defray costs (which were mounting because of site traffic) but not because they thought it was a fair compensation for his time effort (nor do I now think it is fair compensation for his time and effort), and I think his Patreon (and Patreon in generally) functions similarly. It's more about supporting someone than about a specific "I pay you therefore I get something from you" transaction.

I think it's fair to disagree with his interpretations of the book, and it's fair to think that he's wrong, but I don't think it's fair to say that he is "paid to react to the book" or that he is paid to read and interpret the book in a particular way (even if it's the "right" way).

The Good Place 2x02-2x05 http://markdoesstuff.fetchapp.com/get/76947e0c

The Good Place S1e11-s1e13, s2e1 (basically the prior batch of Patreon commissions): http://markdoesstuff.fetchapp.com/get/04a737e6

The Good Place 1x07-1x10:
http://markdoesstuff.fetchapp.com/get/168be921

The Good Place, 1x03-1x06: http://markdoesstuff.fetchapp.com/get/33c3b046