UNRELIABLE NARRATORS AND OTHER PROBLEMS | Bunny by Mona Awad | Discussion Video

In this video, I share my thoughts on Bunny by Mona Awad. Fundamentally, I liked a lot of the style of this book but not much of the substance. I discuss the themes of animalistic language, intellectualizing art, female sexuality, the use of an unreliable narrator, and writing more mature characters. In the end, despite liking much of the vibes of the book, I felt the execution was sloppy.
Please note there are spoilers for the book in this video.
FIND ME ONLINE
Discord: t.co/nITrAz1ov5
Instagram: / alovelyjaunt
Tiktok: / alexandra_alovelyjaunt
Storygraph: app.thestorygraph.com/profile...
Google Podcasts: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/7CS7MOx...

[@Disastercryptid22]

I read it as an exploration of how it feels to get lost in the work you’re creating, and how translating that into an academic setting makes you lose sight of your vision. Samantha felt really misunderstood by her peers, because they all came from wealthy backgrounds and have families to return to. She’s lost, and the one friend she managed to make (the lion), abandoned her. I think she was being honest when she said that nothing happened. in the last few chapters of the book, she describes that on the night they went back to his apartment. she essentially trauma dumped on him, and he wasn’t able to respond. she couldn’t understand why things felt different after that, but she recognized the cold feeling that comes with someone not understanding you, and that’s what caused her to break and create ava. ava was always a character, she references multiple times that she is writing about ava. she gets so lost in this perfect person she’s created that she isn’t able to differentiate it from reality. Also, the bunnies weren’t critiquing Samantha for being too dark necessarily, but for glorifying her own outsider-ness. I’m a massive fan of surrealism, and I thought this novel was a top tier example of it. I thought the themes were clear (feeling like an outcast, searching for belonging, the emotional attachment creators form to their creations, a sharp and witty critique of how academia is a bit ridiculous and restrictive). The beauty of surrealism is that it is meant to capture emotions in a very non literal way, blur the lines between the conscious and the subconscious. As a genre, it cares more about capturing raw emotion than it does about giving a coherent narrative, and this book was very evocative to me. it left me feeling sort of hollow and uneasy, and i think it will linger with me for a long time.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

I think this is an excellent review and response to the book. I’m glad you enjoyed it so much.

[@uxuagarcia206]

Yeeeeeees, I absolutely agreeee 🤍🤍🤍🤍🤍

[@paulajaunarena7478]

This is an amazing review!

[@bexelh5274]

Very thorough analysis. I actually do like that the Bunnies interacted with Ava, though. To me, that puts this book firmly in the realm of magical realism. That makes "finding the blurry line" between the fantastical occurrences and Samantha's own imagination much more difficult--and more interesting. I also gave a little more importance to Samantha's lower-middle class background from that (ostensibly) Niagara Falls tourist town. I think the problems she went through--having money, losing it, having parents, losing them--gave her an understanding of pain that enabled her to imbue life in to her hybrids (i.e. her writing, her creations). The other Bunnies have only read about suffering like that, so their hybrids are half-baked, if superficially pleasing (i.e. their writing, their creations).

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Thanks! Another commenter also brought up the importance of Samantha's class as the source of her superior writing/hybrid making and I think it's a strong point.

[@nicolepiscopo6553]

Love the video and the analysi! I'm a bit confused because I interpreted it as Samantha having created Ava from the swan, just like she created Max from the stag. Then the Bunnies killed her and she reverts back to the swan, just like how when she swings the axe to Max, he goes back to stag form.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Yes that’s my interpretation too that Sam created Ava from the swan, etc. But it’s a question of, do we see that as part of her psychological break down. I.e. in her unwell state Samantha thinks these things are happening but they are not. So we then imagine her in an abandoned house that’s bloody and covered with feathers because she’s been chopping up swans. Or, do we see this as part of the rules of the novel, whereby this is possible within this world.

[@nicolepiscopo6553]

@@ALovelyJaunt I completely missed the part of the house 'turning back' into an abandoned house. At first I thought the Ava twist was quite clever but the more I think about the ending and listen to analyses and discuss the novel, the less I like the ending for the exact reasons you mentioned. It's not clear what is and isn't real, it's like the author wanted to have her cake and eat it, like she was trying to make it obscure on purpose but it doesn't really work. Thanks for replying to my comment, I love these discussions and I subscribed to your channel :)

[@ALovelyJaunt]

@@nicolepiscopo6553 you’re welcome! Thanks for subscribing. I hope you enjoy it! I also love discussions like this. And to be fair to Bunny, there is a certain amount of ambiguity that makes these types of discussions even more fun. Because there isn’t a clear cut answer.

[@LoloMoore-ow1mp]

i take this string of events with heavy symbolism. the bunnies represent society’s standard for Samantha and female Ivy League students in general, and Ava is an extension of Samantha/Samantha’s potential self I believe; she is free in expressing her form of art and is much more bold and confident. Max represents something Samantha believes she would be deserving of if she were her highest self; Ava. He’s brooding and sexy with some similarities to Rob Valencia, her former crush. The bunnies reverting Max and Ava back to their animal forms represent society encroaching on Samantha’s ability to thrive and be herself as a person. that’s my analysis at least.

[@ryansims4941]

I just finished reading this book (like an hour ago) I really was confused by it. I really wanted to get it because I had heard such good things about how genius and twisty it was. I was afraid that it just went over my head so I was looking for an explanation, and came across your video. A lot of what you said here really resonated with me, especially about how you enjoyed the experience of reading it, but thought that it seemed resistant to analysis or deeper interpretation. Part of what I think is really interesting about my confusion and your points here, is that there is a line in the book itself that encapsulates the feelings of frustration towards not understanding someone’s writing. In a passage where the bunnies seem to be fighting and have decided to be brutal honest with one another about their writing, and Kira says, “‘Whenever I read one of Victoria’s vignettes, I always feel so dumb because I can hardly unde stand them at all. […] JUST SAY IT. TELL ME WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED. TELL ME WHAT THE FUCK THIS MEANS […]’” I find that passage so interesting because it is EXACTLY how I feel about this entire book, and it makes me wonder how intentional Awad’s choices were in her writing. This line leads me to agree more so with your interpretation that the book is intentionally resisting analysis, because it’s just so accurate to the experience of reading it that I feel like it must be intentional. I know that was a very long comment, but this book and your video have given me a lot to think about, thank you for opening up this discussion!

[@ALovelyJaunt]

I think the quote you reference here is great textual evidence for your interpretation. Love it! Thanks for watching

[@RefiningtheStatusQuo]

I thought this actually took place in a mental institution, while Sam was having a psychotic break. The Bunny’s and all the characters are real, except Ava and Jonah. I imagined their teacher as the psychiatrist leading group session, where they indulged Sam’s fantasy. Maybe Ava was really the true Sam, locked in her subconscious. Ava’s death was her failure to break free.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

I think this is a fun interpretation and it would certainly make the book better, but I just don't see the evidence on the page that this is going on. I think you're imagined scenario is way better than what is on the page.

[@val.daffodils]

That is an amazing interpretation, omg!!!!

[@geothermal]

I think Bunny is similar to "Fight Club" where a personality schism is created. Ava and Max are both internal personalities of Samantha.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

I think that's an interesting interpretation.

[@Marexxtube]

I really liked your analysis, this is my first video of yours and I was honestly looking for viewpoints on this book because it is one of my favourites. I've read it twice now and we disagree a lot but I think it was great to hear some points where we both agree it fails. First off about the immaturity and "high school-ness" of the characters: I think the point here was to reflect on how women and constantly pitted against each other in life. As a queer person (which I believe Samantha is as well) it feels very true to me to see other women as both something I want to be and have, in an almost gory way. Image struggles can manifest themselves in this almost cannibalistic way Samantha describes wanting to take bites out of the bunnies and for me it was pretty clear she was in a debate between wanting to be them, or maintain her own identity (which she sometimes appreciates and knows others do too) and have a connection. I think we might have had different college experiences too because I still found myself in many situations where this highschool dynamic happened and sometimes I also think trauma can make you see the world through a lens, like Samantha does in the book : she is immature so she assumes these looks, words, conversations, etc have a meaning. Saw a lot of people talking about her background and the class difference in the comments and I have to say I also agree, I think it's far more important than how you talked about it. It's important to remember Samantha has literally no structure and the only real friend she has she created from a swan. Like, talk about lonely ! Lastly, my interpretation of her stag boy might be inconvenient but I looked at it from a genderqueerness kind of way, because I do think her feelings for ava were romantic. She created a version of herself that these women would like, that they wouldn't see as competition, that could enchant them in the way she wishes SHE would. That wouldn't be judged for certain actions and could be free in a way only a man could. She dreams up herself as a boy because she knows only a boy could hold as much power over all their heads. And, for me at least (someone who is AFAB) this speaks so truly to how it feels to present femininely in a world where masculinity will always equal power.

[@Marexxtube]

also, did u mention Samantha killed ava? because she didn't right? one of the bunnies did

[@themindfullone]

I didn’t understand the hinting at Samantha’s upbringing. I feel like something must have happened in her early childhood that caused her to escape into her delusions (like the mention of her being on the roof while her mother is in a state of terror). It’s never fully explained how that escapism began to manifest. I accepted The Wolf, and maybe even Ava being people she created, but I would have preferred if Jonah was actually real lol. It kind of cheapened the ending for me that he was just yet another one of her creations. The character really had nothing that was grounding her to reality except her friends we assumed were real… then we find out they’re not so the entire book becomes a huge question mark. I did enjoy the style of writing, and can understand how people interpreted this as ripe for analysis. If you leave things open-ended enough, people will naturally try to make sense of it. Overall, I didn’t hate this book, but I do think it could have been executed better.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

I agree.

[@willowshaffer7410]

Also though, will add that to your point about the bunnies writing dark stories while disliking Sam's: I think that might be poking fun at how a rich or otherwise privileged person imagines the struggle of someone who is poorer, less privileged, struggled in a way they haven't, etc. Because sure, writing about a woman crawling around eating barbie parts, as mentioned, is dark on the surface, but will it hold a candle to someone drawing on their experiences of childhood trauma (which Sam must at certain points because the art is partially the artist after all)?

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Thanks -- I think this is a really good point. There is a sort of fetishization of the underclass by the elite. I think this is a good explanation for the way they interact with Sam and her work, whether it be on the page or with the "hybrids".

[@willowshaffer7410]

@@ALovelyJaunt totally agree!

[@AK-pq7wb]

@@ALovelyJauntThis does make sense especially considering how many times it was mentioned that art students like to pretend to be poor. It’s like they think it gives them an edge.

[@klaudiakowalik9259]

Loved this analysis! The one thing I disagree with is the emotional maturity of these characters being “wholly unrealistic.” As a 24 year old myself, I know plenty of people my age and older who absolutely still act in these ways, some of who are highly educated. Education does not always equate to emotional intelligence. Great video!

[@AtltheV]

I guess the "Dark" imagery of the bunnies was EXCLUSIVELY from Samantha's point of view (which, I agree, at the time of reading it, it never was clear whether the bunnies themselves were dark in nature [the axe chopping thing] or is that just Smackie seeing it that way) and that it was included for the sole reason of showing us how much Samantha really values imaginary characters, and that she was so shocked and appalled at how the bunnies kept "slaughtering" their darlings with such ease, which was obviously something very hard for Samantha herself to do...? Absolutely loved the vid though and I found peace in knowing I wasn't the only one frustrated by how much potential the author throws some times 😅 Still, I'm so glad I kept reading it while on my night walks at like 1am which added so much atmosphere to it!

[@ALovelyJaunt]

I completely agree that this novel had vibes for days. Midnight walks would be the perfect way to enjoy it.

[@vanyamori]

wait, i thought the whole thing between the lion and Samantha was that nothing actually happened between them? like sam had a breakdown and he avoided her after that because he felt awkward. also, im confused about max. he’s not real either, right? so how do each of the bunnies interact with him, even after they say Ava is a figment of sam’s imagination?

[@ALovelyJaunt]

All fair questions. I think the book lacks clarity for sure and these items are definitely open to interpretation. Samantha does repeatedly say that nothing happens between her and the Lion, yet in the final chapters as things begin to further unravel, she narrates a scene of going up to his office after the end of term party, she’s been drinking, then the scene goes black. The next scene we have is her sitting in front of the pond admiring the swans. Earlier in the story we are told this is where she first met Ava and where she frequently meets her between classes. That combined with the feathers and blood ax scene shows us that Ava was literally a swan who became Ava in Samantha’s broken reality. I think Samantha recounting of the two scenes of going to the Lion’s office followed by the moment at the pond is meant to imply that something traumatic happened which precipitated this break with reality. Her repeated statements that nothing happened, then become part of her effort to suppress her memories. I’m also confused about Max. This is where very precise writing would help this book. Having an unreliable narrator means the author should be very precise with the elements of surreality, like Max and Ava, and how they operate when reality intersects with Samantha’s surreality. I put much of this confusion down to imprecise writing.

[@katienicole940]

I interpreted Max as a character that Ava wrote as a part of her thesis. I interpreted their smut salon as time they all spent creative writing. The “darlings” or drafts they conjured up before never quite hit the mark. They were missing “parts” that weren’t quite working. This is allude to through sexual innuendos, which really I think was showing that the characters weren’t all the way fleshed out. Max was created on a night where all of the bunnies were present. Each bunny has a different name for Max because they all aspire to have a character as well rounded and developed as Max. I think that they all have a different name for him in the same way that when a work of art is great, it is often emulated by other artist. Whenever Max appeared the bunnies seemed to have a positive reaction toward him. Finally a work of Ava’s that they liked. Something they aspired their writing & characters to have.

[@krazykris4957]

This makes all of this make a lot more sense. That the entire thing is about her break with reality due to a trauma. I think you are correct though in stating that it is confusing due to the lack of organized writing. @@ALovelyJaunt

[@SharkeySpice]

I find it surprising you read this book and don't think it has a clear meaning. Like idk this book is "just vibes"?? To me it's very clearly about loneliness and creativity and the way artists are convinced they have to traumatize themselves to make "good" art. Loneliness is the main theme... borny. I also think you're missing the satire element. Like, exactly, everything they criticize about each other's work is something you could say about the book itself. Fairytale tropes, dark, gritty etc. Ursula even criticizes the girls for making "the work" about finding a boy in their final meeting in the cave (my friend pointed out this is probably a Plato's Cave reference) and what does this book do itself? Sam ends up with Jonah lol. Also Ava doesn't interact with anyone besides Duchess and Samantha acts shocked when she does- like Sam continually asks Duchess what she said to Ava. It seems pretty obvious by the end that the bunnies are similarly as lost in their own creativity as Sam is so it does make sense that they might be able to perceive Ava when others can't. Like the end also establishes that the "darlings" the bunnies make together aren't really real either. The darlings/hybrids and Ava (and Max) are all pretty clearly representations of creating a "piece of art" that is personified. Like... the darlings don't hands coz the girls who made them don't know how to work (hands are hard, bunny!) and no penises coz that would break their infantilized sexuality (bodies are hard too, bunny!) And I think this is in part why they resent Sam. She is gritty in a way that only their stories are. That's what they want from her. And she envies their richness and their perceived desirability. If you found the characters unrealistic for their ages I think that's your opinion, but I unfortunately know 25+ year olds who act like this lol. I'll agree that there could've been a stronger message about the themes of infantilized sexuality/predatory sexuality though. But it's also the part I haven't analyzed yet! Idk! I think you really just missed a lot of stuff in this book ngl. Like I do NOT think the Lion SA's her... at all. I don't think this book is sloppy either I think it pretty easy to understand. Bunny is completely making fun of itself, and probably will be on the level of, like, Heathers or The Craft once turned into a movie, but I think the book is artistically richer than either of those movies are.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Hi Sharky - Thank you for your response. I have found that a lot of people similarly to you and we obviously disagree. Nonetheless, I am glad you enjoyed the book and found depth in it. I do think the book establishes thematic elements such as loneliness, or an artist's relationship to their own creativity or perhaps their own work. I do see how the book might ask the question about the idea of "killing our darlings". My concern is not that these elements don't exist but that they aren't presented into a coherent meaning because of the way that the unreliable narration undercuts any meaning the work would put forth. I think authors have to be really careful with the choice of bringing in an unreliable narrator. I find it's really only effective when the work is making a statement about the subjectivity of reality itself. Then the narrative choice becomes illustrative of the very point of the work. However, when a work uses an unreliable narrator and tries to make any other point: about loneliness, about creativity, about sexism, about internalized misogyny, about how when women are sexually objectified, they are also infantilized... whatever the message or meaning might be; fill in the blank... that now becomes undercut because the narrative point of view through which we are taking in this world is, by definition, unreliable. This is my main concern with the work. Another thing I have observed from others who have a perspective like yours is a difference in our understanding of what a theme is. "Loneliness" is not a theme. That's a thematic element. But it needs to be articulated into a statement about loneliness. What do you think the novel is saying about loneliness? What do you think the novel is saying about creativity? What do you think the novel is saying about the relationship of an author/artist to their work? What do you think the novel is saying about the requirement of artists to kill their darlings? What do you the novel is saying about the an artists relationship to suffering? Even if you really great answers these questions, it will essentially be impossible to sustain the meaning because it gets undercut by the framing of the story by an unreliable narrator. I also agree that by the time we get to the end of the novel, we cannot see this work as being surrealist but having an unreliable narrator. The novel explicitly tells us that Ava, the Bunnies, and the Wolf are not real. From there I think we must question the characters who are described as animals, such as the Lion. But it really calls into question Sam's whole experience. I do not particularly mind the ambiguity, but the reality is we cannot know which parts of her story are real or are part of Sam's delusion. I think Sam's relationship with the Lion is totally open to interpretation. That's just mine. Certainly something traumatic happened as it's framed as the event which initiated her significant psychological break. Directly after that, Sam "creates" Ava out of the swan at the pond. I think SA would be thematically consistent since the relationship with Ava is a protection around and against future romantic relationships (see their dance class); also the Bunnies want Sam to explore her early experiences with young men; also the Wolf is created as a seducer of the Bunnies and Sam is disturbed by his relationship with Ava. The Wolf is also the only other character who Sam finds attractive, but he's a figment of her own imagination. Many people who experience SA find it much safer to attach their feelings of attraction to a fantasy or someone completely inaccessible. It allows them to express their feelings without any real need for connection or vulnerability to risk. Actually when I think of it, all of those of those creations (Ava, the Bunnies, and the Wolf) allow Sam to remain cocooned in a safe world void of romantic relationships. The Bunnies represent an all-female cohort of community and connection without Sam needing to feel vulnerable romantically or sexually. All of this leads me to interpret the unknown trauma event with the Lion to have been something along those lines. I also agree that the most generous interpretation for the work would be satire. If I were to put forth anything it would be that the work is purposefully eluding interpretation as a satire of the way in which people think we can over-analyze and over-intellectualize art. But I will be honest, because the work is so unclear, I feel like I am doing the heavy lifting on that. I feel I am supplying that meaning to the work. I don't think it was written well enough for that message to be intrinsic in the work. If that is the message, it is confused by the inclusion of all of the other elements (loneliness, creativity, sexism, infantilization, and even some of the other things I brought up in the video such as Samantha's potential homosexuality, as well as the use of food as a metaphor for consuming art, as well as the use of animalistic language, as well as the way in which Sam is willing to sacrifice her identity in order to feel connected to people). I really did spend a lot of time thinking about the thematic elements of the work and I have spent a lot of effort trying to articulate them into a coherent meaning. The structural problem is an unavoidable block. Of course we can still disagree about this, but I don't think my position is without merit. You can certainly disagree with me, but I have good reasons for my argument.

[@madoka5275]

This. I literally rolled my eyes as she kept on “explaining”🙄

[@SharkeySpice]

@@ALovelyJaunt It's now been a minute since I read this so I certainly cannot confidently reply to all here, and overall am happy to agree to diagree etc. the cool thing about books is we get to take what we want from them as individuals. But I agree about the point that it satirizes the desire to over analyze art. I think it also stands as a reflection of the sort of hysteria and pressure of being in, like, a university-esque space. I also think the book clearly has stuff to say on the thematic elements listed lol. Like why should you kill your darlings?? Coz babe, they might go rogue and kill you like some of the Darlings in the book do. You might get a little too attached to an idea and never be able to quite crack it and end up losing your mind over it. That just seems like 1, 2 logic tbh! What does it have to say about loneliness? Idk it's a book about a girl so cut off from her social circle she makes an imaginary friend that turns out to actually a swan. Again doesn't seem that hard to draw a conclusion about what Awad might be trying to say here. Commentary on the depths of self-hatred and repression. Commentary on the pressure of collegiate spaces. Like overall your argument against what I'm saying entirely hinges on this idea that the unreliable narrator undercuts any other potential themes that might be trying to be displayed. But I guess I just think that specific narrative framing doesn't have to automatically throw everything else away. Whether it really happens in the book to Sam or not, we're still reading it and getting the analysis from it. Like it's real to Sam, and getting a story of someone who believes they are being attacked by the personified artworks her cohort is making in university program certainly seems like enough to go on for some themes.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Hi Sharkey - You are right. I am making an argument about the structure of the work. I am saying that the unreliable narrator undercuts many themes that a work might put forth. I think an unreliable narrator works really well when the a work is arguing something about the subjective nature of our own perceptions, for example. The movie A Beautiful Mind is a great example of this. Why does this work? Because the narrative framing serves to reinforce the thesis of the story. Your answer to my question, "What does the book say about killing your darlings?" is "Like why should you kill your darlings?? Coz babe, they might go rogue and kill you like some of the Darlings in the book do. You might get a little too attached to an idea and never be able to quite crack it and end up losing your mind over it." Alright so let's break it down. What's the evidence in the text? Well, the Bunnies have to kill a bunny to create a weird man-bunny creature. Sam has to do the same. And ultimately, Ava the swan needs to die for Sam come back to reality. This all good evidence from the text. Therefore, the book is saying you have to kill your darlings or else you will lose your sanity. BUT we also see that the Bunnies kill their darlings, and remain at the very least weird if not also crazy. And their artwork isn't very good. So it seems that killing darlings neither guarantees great art nor sanity. AND all of this is from Sam's perspective, who we know by the end of the book is unreliable. So, someone could argue that killing your darlings is no guarantee of brilliant work. It's no guarantee that you will break out of narrow perspective and be able to see clearly. In fact, at the end when Sam supposedly has ended her psychotic break, how are we even supposed to know that's happened? Because that's still in her perspective. So she may have killed her darling and still not achieved sanity. In which case, it appears that the book is saying it doesn't matter if you kill your darlings or not, because nothing is guaranteed. If your darlings make you happy, you may as well stay in the fantasy with them. If you kill your darlings, you may find yourself alone, outside an abandoned, rundown building, covered in blood. It's better to stay in the fantasy after all. I'm not saying I think that's what the book means. I'm saying the structure of the narrative makes it equally possible to argue both sides. Meaning the book is ambivalent. It is unclear. That's my point. That no matter what thesis you put forth, excepting those that are touching on epistemology or psychology, it will be really easy to argue both sides at the same time. Let's try this exercise again with your second argument, the one about loneliness. "What does it have to say about loneliness? Idk it's a book about a girl so cut off from her social circle she makes an imaginary friend that turns out to actually a swan. Again doesn't seem that hard to draw a conclusion about what Awad might be trying to say here. Commentary on the depths of self-hatred and repression. Commentary on the pressure of collegiate spaces." This response is pretty interesting to me, because I think it highlights how we are approaching reading differently. "Commentary on the depths of self-hatred and repression. Commentary on the pressure of collegiate spaces." This is right at the crux of what I am trying to say. Everything you think is assumed under the word "commentary" is exactly what I am trying to get you to articulate. What it is it saying about the depths of self-hatred? What commentary is it making on the pressure of collegiate spaces? Is it good? Is it bad? Does it cause isolation? Does it cause conformity? What? I want you to articulate what you think that commentary is. Does it make more sense if I say: I'm not asking what the book is about; I'm asking what the book means. I'm not asking what is the plot or what happens in the book. I'm also not asking what are the topics of the book. I'm asking what is the/a thesis the narrative puts forth about these various topics.

[@bia5141]

When I finished the book my first thought was "omg no way she did that and then immediately I don't know if I like this book. However after thinking about it and let it digest I think it was kind kf genius how M. Awad handled it. I still don't think that all weirdness was my cup of tea bit I still appreciate how plot twist made me rethink the whole story (and I love good plot twist)

[@ALovelyJaunt]

I love a good plot twist too! I'm glad you were able to enjoy it in the end.

[@whenhelfrozeover]

I think your review is great! The question I have is, are the Bunnies even real as Samantha portrays them? Like did they really create these hybrids or was that Samantha's delusion? So confused.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Great question! That gets at the heart of the issue of introducing an unreliable narrator. My reading is that the creation of the hybrids is part of Sam’s delusion. Things get more difficult when we get to the characters of the Bunnies though because their portrayal is key to how you interpret what the book means: if it is in Sam’s head only, then we are dealing with commentary around Sam’s internalized misogyny, how it creates a split longing to be a part of and to reject femininity. On the other hand, if the Bunny’s really do act the way they do, then I really don’t know what I’m supposed to think: the way performative roles prevent creativity? The way class intersects with performative gender stereotypes and maybe that in combination prevents them from creating worthwhile art? Not sure…

[@krazykris4957]

I've responded to a few comments but I do find myself profoundly confused after this book and I don't think in a good way. Her book All's Well was one of my favorites from this year and I think fixes all the problems that this book presents-- mainly that we can tell which is psychosis vs reality while still understanding that the narrator is unreliable. I highly recommend it. I am glad I read it before Bunny, I feel like if I read it before I would have had a sour taste in my mouth. Won't be recommending but I'm glad I read it. Just feeling empty and confused, lol!

[@ALovelyJaunt]

I’ll have to check out All’s Well.

[@dariakalmykova4820]

I have a strong feeling that the entire book is actually Samantha's dream, or more specifically, a nightmare. The bunnies in the story probably represent girls from her high school, behaving in the way she remembers them, which is why they're so infantile. Additionally, I believe that the small references to Alice in Wonderland are hints to the reader that it's all a dream. For example, 'Eat me', 'drink me', mini cupcakes and also the white hair of the Dutchess. It seems as though she is the white rabbit and all the bunnies and Samantha follow her in the dream.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Yeah I think the book is definitely playing with the unreliable narrator -- both with her sanity and with the Alice in Wonderland references.

[@Sleeping.Bookerella13]

I don't think the writing's 'sloppy' or imprecise in any way, but rather smart and fascinating. Maybe that's part of the reason why I don't share most of your feelings. I personally didn't read Samantha as an unreliable narrator but saw the mentioned elements as part of the diegesis. And even if you read them as ambiguous, I don't see how that should lessen the text in any way. Isn't it much more complicated to write a story where something can be read in several different ways without one dominant interpretation? At the same time, I'm not a fan of trying to overanalyze a literary text just to reach one obvious conclusion or to get a clear message to take away. By looking at and close reading a text, one can only go so far in assuming things that are not part of the text itself as well as ignoring things that are explicitly written down. Analyses and interpretations should always be supported by textual evidence and I'm just not satisfied with the one you presented here. I know it's only a relatively short discussion of very few elements of the story but for me, that just wasn't enough to support your arguments.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

I wanted to take some time to craft a response because I think there's a lot worthwhile that you say here, but I wasn't quite sure how to approach it. It appears that you are engaging in this conversation on three different levels. I want to parse them out and address them one by one. First, you share some of your opinions about literary theory: that is how we should engage in criticism about the work. I think once we cover the groundwork here, we can move on to our two different readings of the text. "Analyses and interpretations should be supported by textual evidence." I totally agree. This is the foundation of literary criticism. "I'm not a fan of trying to overanalyze a text to reach one obvious conclusion or get a clear message to take away." I have a few thoughts here. First who gets to decide what is over-analysis versus the proper amount of analysis? The only metric can be how well an interpretation is supported by the text, as in the principal stated above. It is my opinion that great works of literature do have the ability to be complex and support multiple interpretations. Some interpretations are stronger (have a clearer basis in textual evidence), some are weaker (have a more tenuous connection to the textual evidence) or wrong (are contradicted by the textual evidence). On the other hand, some works of fiction do not point to a deeper meaning. This makes them entertainment rather than art. "By looking at and close reading a text, one can only go so far in assuming things that are not part of the text itself as well as ignoring things that are explicitly written down." If a criticism ignores things that are explicitly written down, then it is at best an incomplete criticism or a wrong one. I don't think we can assume things that are not part of the text. At the same time, a text can imply messages as well as make explicit statements. The same rules apply for interpreting implied messages: the closer they are to the work, the more they are coherent with the work as a whole, the stronger the interpretation. There can be multiple interpretations with some being stronger, weaker, or just plain wrong (wrong here means incoherent with the text.) Okay so that's at the level of literary criticism. Now let's move onto your opinions on the work. First we must determine if Bunny is a work of entertainment or a work of art. After a close reading, I determined that it was a work of entertainment because it did not contain within it a coherent deeper meaning. Because I found the work to be incoherent (not as a narrative but as a vessel for meaning) is why I describe the writing as sloppy. If you believe that it is a work of art, that is, a vessel for communicating a coherent deeper meaning to its audience, I would be curious to know what you think the book means. That would then prove your opinion that the writing is smart and fascinating. Now to go back to our discussion of an interpretation must be supported by textual evidence: Samantha is absolutely and explicitly an unreliable narrator. The final scene of her with the ax, having chopped up the body of the swan/Ava, with the revelation of the house she was living in with her as dilapidated and unlivable reveals to us that the world we have been experiencing through Samantha's perspective has been a result of her having a psychotic episode. The book explicitly disallows an interpretation of the events of the booking merely being part of the diegesis. This would be an example of not a weak interpretation but a wrong one because it contradicts the words on the page. Now to answer your question of why viewing the events as ambiguous as a result of Samantha being an unreliable narrator lessens the work. There are absolutely ways to incorporate an unreliable narrator to reinforce the purpose of storytelling. This is well done in A Beautiful Mind which explores the ways in which intelligence and creativity can be closer intertwined with mental illness. This is well done in a work like Atonement which questions the way in which our stories are delivered to us, both our personal histories and global histories, like the events of WW2. I believe that Bunny does this poorly. I think this happens across multiple lost opportunities within the book to explore meaning. Some I mentioned were: the relationship to the book Alice in Wonderland, its exploration of humans as animals, the relationship of an author to it's "darlings" or characters, as well as the potential for a feminist narrative in the text. Let's just take one as an example to show how the unreliable narration in this book undercuts the opportunity to make a meaningful statement about any of these ideas. Let us ask ourselves the question, "What does Samantha's relationship with the Bunnies say about femininity?" Or, is this book feminist or misogynist? Textual evidence: 1. Samantha is not overtly femme. 2. The Bunnies are and she dislikes them for it. She perceives this expression as insincere and insipid. 3. Ava is not overly femme. 4. Samantha is attracted to Ava and some of the Bunnies. 5. Samantha wants to be friends with the Bunnies even though she disdains them. 6. Samantha fears the judgement of the Bunnies (both of her work and of her prior relationship with the Lion). 7. The Bunnies exhibit an infantilized sexuality. So at first glance we can say, Samantha dislikes the performative nature of the Bunnies femininity because she perceives it as insincere. But then she becomes friends with them and basks in their hugs and confectionary sweets. She enjoys that they perform femininity in this way to her. She wants to share friendship and connection with them. So then we can say: Well actually, the story reveals how the bonds of femininity actually create a safe community for women. So far so good. But then if Samantha is an unreliable narrator, are the Bunnies even real? Are the Bunnies also hybrids, like Ava and the Wolf and the other bunny-boys? If so, who created them? Samantha? If they are a figment of Samantha's imagination, then are we supposed to see overt expressions of femininity as positive or negative? Does it represent Samantha's own uncertain relationship with her own femininity? Samantha also created the Wolf to torture the Bunnies. He goes about seducing and harming them. Is this an expression of what Samantha actually wants to do with them, because she is at once attracted to them and reviles them? But then the Wolf is also harming Ava, her best friend, who she also attracted to. So does Samantha unconsciously feel the same way about Ava (not femme) as she does about the Bunnies (femme)? So is the work not making any statement about femininity? But in the end Samantha kills Ava/Swan but not the Wolf. Is this her trying to kill off the part of herself that is attracted to women? But then when she does so, that's the event that brings her back into reality. So is the book endorsing that? Or is the book saying that we have to cut of pieces of ourselves to conform? Are we supposed to see the hybrids as fragments of her identity? As projections of her desire? As NPCs, nonentities that don't matter if they live or die? Is the true state of being one of insanity and the only way to engage in reality is to sacrifice the self? Is that good or bad? Is the only true state of being pure solipsism where she can have relationships with the fragmentary parts of herself? I could go on listing all the questions that this one narrative choice brings up. And I don't see the text providing answers to any of them. This is why I say the text is sloppy. That one choice opens such a vast can of worms.

[@Sleeping.Bookerella13]

@@ALovelyJaunt You have lost me a bit with this post, to be honest. I consider myself a very careful and attentive reader, yet I feel like we've almost read two entirely different books. Without having reread the book in the last day (although I might do that in the foreseeable future and maybe we can go more in depth then, as I get the feeling that is something you would want to do, looking at this very long post), I think my main issue with your reading is the fact that you see a huge part, if not all, of the story as taking place in Samantha's mind. That approach is not productive, in my opinion, and that is a big part of what I mean when I talk about not ignoring certain elements in a text but at the same time also not assuming too much beyond its scope. Let me elaborate: When you get to a point of asking youself if the Bunnies are even real, a, if not the, key component in the story, you might realize yourself that you're getting too far away from the text itself. And where does it leave us if we assume this and similar elements in the story to just not have happend 'in reality'? What stops us from assuming that the whole thing is acutally Samantha's hallucination? What stops us then from assuming she's someone or somewhere else entirely? Without the Bunnies, can we be sure she's even in an MFA programm or at university? Can we instead assume her to live a completely different life or be in a coma or held in a psych ward (just to name a few more outlandish examples)? How do you analyze or interpret something that you don't see as something that actually happened in the text? Where do you draw a line? You need some basis, slme kind of diegesis as a backdrop for interpretaton. And I'm not saying that there aren't texts where part or everything is an imagination or hallucination, but then it is usually either very clearly marked or intentionally kept vague. A story where I find the latter case extremely well represented is Ludwig Tieck's literary tale 'Der Blonde Eckbert' (transl. to English as 'Auburn Egbert', 'The Fair-Haired Eckbert' or 'The White Egbert'). It's a story where you literally can't tell to what extent things really happen and what's only taking place in the protagonist's head. But here, too, you can't just assume everything to be a hallucination, because what are we left with then? A paranoid individual? In what setting? What's triggering his paranoia if not the events that are potential illusions? To analyze a literary text you have to be able to engage with it and take what's there, at least part of it, as 'real'. Otherwise you will start walking in circles and never reach any kind of conclusion. As I said, I don't find that approach very productive. I also didn't pick up on many markers that would make me read many parts of the story as imagined by Samantha. I would, on the contrary, take a majority of what we're told happens at face value (even if I get the impression that you wouldn't agree). As to what I then think the story means: in my opinion, 'Bunny' is about loneliness, the need to create and the intricacies of female relationships (among many other things, certainly). If that doesn't go deep enough for you, I would, with all due respect, see that as more of your problem than mine. For me, 'Bunny' is definitely art and not just entertainment, although I did certainly enjoy reading it.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Hi There - Yes, I see exactly where we disagree. I see the novel as requiring Samantha as an unreliable narrator because of the closing scene of the book as described in my previous response when she kills Ava/Swan with the ax in the dilapidated house. You see me as assuming something that isn't in the text. How do you interpret that final scene if not revealing that Samantha has therefore been in a psychotic episode? And remember that just prior to this scene is her recalling the memory of going up to the Lion's Office in the first year, going blank on those memories, and then finding herself sitting on her the bench in front of the pond with the swans, and directly in that moment she meets Ava for the first time. These narrative moments are connected on purpose. They are the bookends of her psychotic episode. She was triggered by something (we don't know what) that happened in the Lion's office at the end of year one, we have all the main action of the book throughout year 2 (which I contend is the timeframe during Samantha's psychosis), and then we have the closing scene with the axing of Ava/Swan. So how do you account for this? If, then, I am not unjustified in my reading of the conclusion of the work this way, your statement of "Let me elaborate..." is exactly my point of why and how the book breaks down. That is exactly my point of why and how I see the work as unsuccessful. That is exactly my point of why in this book (not in all books but in this one) having an unreliable narrator unravels the whole thing. This is exactly why I think the book fails. It lives and dies by the question of Samantha's reliability. Even taking the question of the unreliable narrator out of it, I can give further evidence that we should question the reality of the Bunnies. We know that hybrids are created from bunnies. We know that The Wolf is a hybrid. By the end of the book we know that Ava is a hybrid made from a swan. That she can be returned to a swan when cut to pieces. All of these characters are either directly referred to as their animal counterpart. Or, they are described with animalistic language that correlates with their animal counterpart. Ava is very swanlike in her appearance and dancing and other details. Therefore, by the same pattern, should I not be led to wonder: are the Bunnies hybrids? Is the Lion? I don't see why it should be out of the question given the rules of this world, even when taken as part of the diegesis. As for books whose point is the difficulty of determining what things are real or not, these works incorporate that meaning into the work by means of the devices they use. I have not read Auburn Egbert but that sounds like an excellent example. The same is true of A Beautiful Mind. The point of that story is to show how mental illness (which is the source of the unreliability in the narrative POV) is integral to his unique intelligence. The framing of the story enhances the fundamental thesis of the work. This is not so in Bunny. Stating that a book is about "loneliness and the need to create intricate female relationships" is not an interpretation; it's an observation. We must go further. Having observed that loneliness is an element the story brings up multiple times we must dig deeper. What does it say about loneliness? What does it say about intricate female relationships? I also considered the interpretation for the book as being one of loneliness, alienation versus inclusion, which I addressed in my video. It's not sustainable through the whole text as an interpretation. Samantha feels alienated from the Bunnies. She feels that she can't connect to them. She's afraid of their judgement. She gets the invitation to the slut salon and thus begins her incorporation into the friendship group of the Bunnies. What is her motivation for wanting to be connected with girls who she disdains and with whom she seemingly has little in common? It would make sense if she had no friends, but she has Ava with whom she shares a deep friendship. She also has the opportunity for a great friendship with the poet. But she abandons both of these to be connected with the Bunnies. She loses part of her apparent true personality in connecting with them: she starts dressing like them and acting like them. It seems that Samantha enjoys the connection she has with the Bunnies but is distressed by the fact that she is not able to be friends with Ava at the same time. Is the book a criticism of the ways in which must conform in order to make connections with others? And yet, Samantha eventually breaks off from the Bunnies and returns to Ava. She stops dressing like the Bunnies. Do we then interpret the book to be saying that it is better to be true to yourself and find friends with whom you can share an honest relationship? But then eventually, Samantha axes Ava/The Swan to death, which then negates the idea that it could be about connecting with real friends. Do you see how the book folds back on itself once I try to probe beneath the surface of the concept of "loneliness" as an abstract?

[@totallyinteresting68]

I completely agree with everything you’ve said. Perfectly put.

[@SummerClinton]

Ugh thank you. You perfectly described everything I felt after reading this book! The lack of any kind of character arc for Sam really got to me. Her continued disdain for the bunnies and joy in their misfortune until the last page of the book read so immature and unwilling to learn from experience.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

You’re welcome.

[@dylanbrookshire3955]

Right? The scene where the bunnies each read their thesis work and receive critique, one of them is criticized for having a passive protagonist. I was like "alright, mona is aware of the critiques she's going to receive and is actively showing her hand." And then Samantha takes no real action to initiate the ending. Weird to include the critique scene if youre going to fall into the same tropes that each bunny does.

[@willowshaffer7410]

I totally agree with what you're saying about the age ranges of these characters vis a vis how they act! Set younger might have made more sense or, alternatively, if Awad had spent more time really building up Sam's sense of isolation and otherness, it may have read better.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Thanks! I agree

[@saltysandhya]

i’ve been watching and reading reviews of this book for 3 hours now and I must say, you’ve highlighted some points that nearly no one else did. Great review! 26:17

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Thanks!

[@dariakalmykova4820]

Such a nice review! Thank you!

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Thank you!

[@farawaykin]

I absolutely loved your breakdown of the book, instantly subscribed :3 You put into words so much of what I was feeling and like thinking as well but not in such concrete and clear terms, and even though I didn't agree with everything, it's a wonderful analysis. I especially liked your criticism of the themes concerning sexuality and femininity, because while there's been a lot of conversation about cults and cliques, as well as loneliness and all sorts of delusions in this book, these topics definitely need to be discussed too.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Thank you for your kind comment! I am glad you enjoyed the video and the discussion points.

[@chrisbonweenie9136]

I found your review and totally agree! You said it so well. Definitely subscribed after your comment about Ninth House!! Totally agree

[@ALovelyJaunt]

So glad you found me! I had a very spicy conversation about Ninth House over on my TikTok too lol.

[@foxtutoring]

Love this, thank you 👏🏻

[@ALovelyJaunt]

You're welcome!

[@itss_starryy787]

I think that if u take everything as a satire so like think everything is happening literally its a really fun and thrilling read, but like you said critiquing it makes it frustrating

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Yeah I think satire is a better approach. The story is fun, if you don't think about it too much.

[@levitycamilleri1315]

Something I found really interesting is the fact that both Ava and Max are written as shoplifters! I think that this could represent her subconscious desire to actually obtain the things she craves (both materially and in other ways), or potentially a way to blame someone else/justify her own stealing since it may contradict with her moral codes.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

I like it!

[@koontekinte0]

thank you for the video. as an unskilled reader, the impression I got from the book was unreadable, frustrating, "all over the place". However, I also thought the same thing about "In search of lost time" (which I was not able to get through) , so I guess I am not the one to judge this type of writing. Unreliable narrators can add this thin veil of doubt about reality that is needed to shake the reader (like in "the farm" by tom rob smith). For that to happen, the reader first needs a grasp of the reality of the story - which is missing in "Bunny". thanks again for the video

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Totally. There's a difference between complex or challenging and... just plain sloppy writing.

[@bicho6313]

Finally someone has pin pointed what my biggest gripe was with this novel. I found it so juvenile, so remniscient of a YA piece of media with all of the corresponding tropes (not like other girls mentality, hot broody guy, popular plastics and the desire to both criticize them and join them) that I couldn't believe first that the characters were in college and second that the book was being lauded as a great literary novel. I think part of it is that the writing is good so it masks what the book is actually saying/trying to do, which is actually quite basic at this point as it has been done to death. Just watch Mean Girls or Heathers.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Yeah the juvenile quality was one of the hardest parts for me to read tbh.

[@krazykris4957]

I was shocked when the book reminded me they're 25-28. I was like oh... I thought this was undergrad. But ig if we see it from a cultish-lens, you'd be shocked what people are convinced to do.

[@jelisaveta10]

I totally agree with everything you said. I just finished this book, after dnfing the audio version when it first came out. But I recently saw how much people love it and thought to myself ‘have I been listening too the same book?’ And decided to give it another go but actually read it. And came to the same conclusions as you state. But the end made it easier for me as I just see it as none of it being real and it’s all just Samantha’s delusion. 😅

[@M1ntt806]

I gave it my best shot but ended up DNFing it because of how childish and stupid our protagonist was. I don't think there was a single TRULY likable character in this novel to hold your hands through the insanity which tbh really wasn't as clever or witty as it probably thought it was. Some of the jokes like the "we should have more of minis" that kept going on and on had me rolling my eyes all the way to back of my skull. There was not subtlety, no nuance, just a shoddy plot that falls apart if you think about it for 2 seconds and not enough fun or clever vibes to hold that plot in place. I'm truly in awe of how Mona Awad has managed to convince such a significant chunk of the population thay she truly did something with this novel.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Strong agree!

[@TheHPExperiment]

I think your analysis and criticisms were totally spot on!!! I enjoyed the book, but I agree, it made little to no sense. I, myself, can still find enjoyment out of that in itself. But not everyone can, of course.

[@potatollamabatata3537]

Thank you for voicing my frustrations with this book! While reading it, I constantly questioned wether the book was sloppy or wether I was not getting it. I've read so much that the latter hurt my feelings honestly. I realized that Ava and Max were not real, but I couldn’t tell whether the Bunnies actually engage in self-harm of if Samantha imagines that too. I just.. would not recommend this to anyone.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Exactly!

[@poniesandproteins]

Have you read any of Awad's other books? I'm giving All's Well a chance to see if I have the same issues with it as a did Bunny, and if so, decide Award is just not a writer for me. I love unlikeable female protagonists, but they really need to have a reasoning behind them, either personally or because of societal factors, and Sam had none that I could really interpret. It just sort of reeked of internalized misogyny, like Awad wanted to an outlet to shit talk other women without the criticism that comes from saying this stuff directly, and it lacked the nuanced critique to justify the cruelty she wrote.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

I haven’t read anything else by her. I totally think it’s fair to interpret Sam’s attitude as a representation of internalized misogyny. Because the book is so disorganized it’s hard for me to contextualize it in any meaning within the book. Sam certainly isn’t perfect or particularly like-able, but does that mean we are supposed to reject Sam’s opinion of femininity? I’d hesitate to interpret Awad herself through this book. I just can’t tell what the book is supposed to mean.

[@krazykris4957]

This is a response 6 months later but did you finish All's Well? It is one of my favorites of the year. I think All's Well is so much more polished and interesting. Though I don't think Bunny is inherently bad, I think All's Well is a masterpiece.

[@poniesandproteins]

@@krazykris4957 I did, and I actually really liked it! Much better than Bunny in my opinion. It still had the same dark and unlikeable female protagonist, but she was more fleshed out and her motivations were a lot stronger. I loved the portrayal of anger that comes with chronic illness/disability, it's not something you normally see represented, and it was honestly perversely cathartic to have some of those frustrations with medical providers and friends acted out. It needed about 20% of it cut to keep it from dragging at points, but other than that, a pretty solid book. It did make me want to check out her next book, and see if Bunny was just her trying to get into the style, sbd but representative of her work moving forward.

[@krazykris4957]

@@poniesandproteins I am so glad you enjoyed it! What's interesting is I find the protagonist likable but unreliable. Yes there are parts where she's deranged and doing bad things but for me, I began to root for her (not that they're right of course). I also found the commentary on chronic illness eye opening and enjoyable. In a Gothic Lit class I took we read a text that was supposed to be horror but also about chronic illness/disability and it did a HORRIBLE job. Awad's All's Well is a wonderful portrayal of the mind of someone who isn't believed and its consequences. I also think the thematic messages were much more fleshed out as you saw Macbeth, All's Well that Ends Well, and the other play that was mentioned (I read it a while back). Anyways, all that to say I think it does a really good job. I didn't mind that it was a bit slow at times.

[@cris6645]

I would love a review of The Secret History from you!

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Thanks! I have read it and I do have thoughts… both positive and negative.

[@atelieroma]

I was reflecting on the book after I finished it. And if the majority were created by Samantha after a trauma situation (Lion's abandonment and coldness, just like her father), the characters are shallow and childish because Samantha herself has several issues with growing up and self-esteem, in addition to a schizophrenia condition. To the point of escaping the world imagining everything. The Bunnies are unreal because they are creations of Samantha's mind, or they are the reduced and prejudiced version of Samantha or they are darlings created by someone else (I think the seminary teacher)

[@AudreyZhu]

My theory is that either the thing about conjuring people from animals is real, or the conjured people are indeed the literal work that the students are creating. I’ve also heard of a theory that this book is the book that Samantha was working on, hence the inconsistency in writing style and the surrealism

[@ebrutuncay6181]

I didn’t hate reading this book but that’s it•I mean it was all over the place• Author was Samantha herself I think•Finishing it I was quite confused but not in a good way•

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Yeah I agree. The experience of reading it is pretty fun, just don’t think too hard about it or the illusion will be ruined!

[@itamarags]

my thoughts exactly!! bunny had everything to leave a mark but it's such a disappointment (even the dark academia vibes are meh-)

[@Kindlelover88]

“What does it mean? Who knows”❤ Same.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Agreed!

[@brandneweyes4095]

I really did not like this book. When I got to Part III is when I mentally checked out of it. It was just annoying to me. I had to see a review on it to find any amount of understanding so thank you for that!

[@ALovelyJaunt]

I understand why you felt that way.

[@NatalieM123]

Your video is perfect. (I read this book and I couldn’t have made any of these points as well as you.)

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Thanks so much!

[@milesCarmany]

I love a good rant

[@ALovelyJaunt]

When it goes off the rails, just a little bit....

[@mentalhealthnrse]

First honest review I’ve seen of this book. I am not a fan. I struggled to read it, had to force myself to dedicate time to reading it just to get through it. I didn’t even feel it was particularly well written. The characters conversations are so juvenile it seemed like what a 13 year old thinks vapid, wealthy girls would sound like. Also, the author uses the same terms over and over to the point of absurdity, for example, “like so much”. This book was extremely overhyped in my opinion. It’s for people that want to feel smart and if other people don’t get it, it’s because they’re not on the same level. It was sloppy and disorganized with no real point, theme or conclusion. There is a way to do surrealism, unreliable narrators and absurdity, like Chuck Palahniuk has mastered. This book was really crap to me.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Thanks!

[@terrijozwiak3484]

This book is s--t! You are spot on

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Thanks!

[@MercyRabbit49]

Idk if you read "Rhymes with Witches" in your YA days, but holy crap. It is the same book. Same characters. "The Bunnies" are "The Bitches". The school is infested with cats. Cats everywhere. Everything is cats instead of bunnies. And the characters acting like high schoolers makes sense because they are in high school, and their goals and magic reflect that. When I say that these books are the same book, I would call Mona Awad a liar to her face if she ever claimed to not have read or taken heavy inspiration from "Rhymes with Witches". The character of Creepy Doll in Bunny, and Mary Brian in RWW are completely indistinguishable (Most friendly, cutest voice, most obviously sexy). Vignette is just a cutesy, stoner version of Camilla from RWW (Unfriendly, seriously Hardcore ballerina with a love for Literary Theory). Both books end with the main character having broken free from the Magic Cult Clique, feeling empty, and the unpopular boy she has no real interest in for the entire book is the last person at their side while not having grown or learned anything from their experiences. I LOVE Bunny, but it's because I loved "Rhymes with Witches" first. I'm not saying you should read it, but if you want to have your mind blown by the similarities, you should definitely check it out. Jane and Samantha are *literally* the same person, except one of them is mentally ill. The similarities are insane. Completely insane.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

I have not heard of this book before! Despite my critique of the structure of Bunny or even as it inability to be a deeper work, I actually totally loved the crazy vibes of the book and the *experience* of reading it. When I'm in the mood again, I will have to try Rhymes with Witches.

[@MercyRabbit49]

@@ALovelyJaunt Hooray! There's a prequel for RWW, and it explains the magic and where all these dang cats came from, and takes place during the Manson trial.

[@renatajd7758]

When you will see in 20 years what you have done here.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

Can you rephrase this? I don’t understand your comment.

[@autodidact2289]

Hello! I thought hard all day about your review. I watched an interview with Awad, a mediator, and MARGARET ATWOOD. MA was inscrutable of course, but Mona was... vapid? She said, "you know," before and after every thought. She couldn't seem to remember how she came up with this story, how it was derivitive of Alice in Wonderland etc., how she reached a conclusion. MA not impressed. Snidely asks Mona what it takes to fail a creative writing degree. Mona doesn't know, nobody failed, but quitting is an option, which she nearly did. This was clearly not MY experience in an MEd. program (and I don't think it was yours either). MA snickers every so often, asking Mona if she studied fictional theory. Mona rolls her eyes and doesn't think so. Your only mistake in your review was expecting this published and soon to be a movie "novel" to be sensible, somewhat accountable, and maybe even rational to a degree (or any degree for that matter). Mona concludes this mess by avoiding any more really hard questions by saying she doesn't want to reveal spoilers. I would have had more respect if Samantha was writing all this from her room in a mental hospital. I saw glimmers of illness when she was afraid of the tall grass moving as a child, and when her mother pleaded her to wake up. Her mother probably was the only adult in the story. Yes, the academic world operates within its own set of rules. Remember the bit from The Little Prince, where the scholar says its true because I wrote it and had it published. Don't you fret, Mona will never hold a candle to you, honey.

[@ALovelyJaunt]

How interesting! I was partially persuaded to get the book because of the Atwood quote on the cover. When I read it, I was surprised that she had praised it. (Of course I understand there’s a marketing machine in publishing.) Thanks for sharing about the interview!

[@autodidact2289]

@@ALovelyJauntis Now it seems I've misconstrued the whole Strand interview, with Margaret calling Awad her literary heir apparent. I subscribed to you especially liking the read better, not just more approach you advocate. A few years back, my son asked what The Handmaids was about, seeing it listed on Hulu. I said it was a miserable book written by a miserable woman. I think the marketing machine is pumping out propaganda. I think about Pearl Buck. I think about DuMaurier. Oddly, I think about an old lover (PhD. at age 26) rummaging through the pockets of his linen suit and muttering that he might have lost Mother Teresa's fax number.