I went from publisher to publisher and literary agent to agent. The book was rejected by four well-known publishers and by three literary agents. They all said, in effect, the same thing: "Older children wouldn't like it because it's about rabbits, which they consider babyish; and younger children wouldn't like it because it's written in an adult style, which they would find too difficult." I thought, "Who's talking about children? This book is for readers of all ages."Adams was right about the audience for the novel. I loved this book as a young reader, and I'm loving the book at least as much as an adult reader. However, I fear it might be even harder to find a publisher now than it was 40 years ago due to recent cultural developments. Maybe it isn't surprising that a book about rabbits would cause controversy, but let me elaborate.
Hazel recognizes a problem and has the brilliant idea of befriending other animals to help do reconnaissance, but leaves his plan hazy until Kehaar has been befriended. Kehaar the violent, Kehaar the brave, Kehaar the thick-accented, Kehaar the awesome. Hazel then gets right to the point and lays it out like this: "We're doing well here, [. . . but] unless we can find the answer, then this warren's as good as finished, in spite of all we've done. [. . .] We have no does--not one--and no does means no kittens and in a few years no warren." Leave it to rabbits to talk frankly about reproduction. And when Kehaar is informed of the problem, he sees the truth of the problem, understands completely and volunteers to help the rabbits find "mudders."
These characters are animals and are addressing the topic with no concept of romance or love, but they present a simple fact: there is male and female, and this distinction is not arbitrary and unimportant, but functional, vital, and complementary. In other places, the bucks discuss how the differences are not only sexual, but also in personality and skillsets. Bucks are not interchangeable with does. Even though they might be able to do the same tasks when necessary, they are still inherently different. Acknowledging this difference does not imply one is more valuable. Quite the opposite actually, the difference cements the value of each precisely because they are not interchangeable. In the book, does are worth risking everything in executing elaborate plans. Conversely, when everyone is interchangeable, it isn't that far a journey to everyone is dispensable. There isn't much empowerment or comfort in that.
Again the book is dealing with animals, so many relationship dynamics are flattened, simplified, or reduced to blunt points like reproduction and breeding stock. Still, I worry that a book like this might be avoided by publishers today because, it seems, the fact of truly distinct but complementary sexes and gender roles has become culturally controversial. Defending the truth of male and female is outright mocked in what seem to be ever expanding circles. One could write this aspect of the book off as an outdated anthropomorphism, or animal behavior that has nothing in common with today's enlightened understanding of human society, love, sexuality, gender roles, etc.. However, I see nothing helpful in doing so. That seems to be like the rabbits in Strawberry's old warren ignoring the snares in exchange for having their challenges artificially disappear. They get what they thought they wanted to find it ultimately weakens them and starves the richness of their existence.
Our society and culture moves and morphs so quickly, so we do need discussion on these topics. But if the discussion starts downplaying or ignoring the fact of male and female, we shouldn't be surprised if we end up with "no warren" by ending up with amorphous, relativistic category definitions resulting in generic, dispensable individuals. Instead, why don't we look at the diversity of complementary design that is male and female, value the differences of their inherent design and resulting unique functions, and start the discussion from there?
No comments:
Post a Comment