This needs to be said: “The Death of Bunny Munro” is not a misogynistic novel. I have been tired of hearing about this book from so many people who have clearly not read it in its entirety since it came out three years ago, and that weariness has now grown into homicidal rage.
I am a feminist. I’m also female. I’m offended and ashamed to be human on a daily basis due to the inherent sexism that exists rampantly in things I read, see, watch, and hear. This novel is not one of those things.
Cave crafted his protagonist from definitions of vice put forth by religious and feminist texts to stand as an embodiment of misogynist culture. The reality is ugly, and so the attempt to accurately capture it must and should be ugly. Bunny Munro was intentionally constructed for the specific purpose of being Valerie Solanas’ typified evil male. In order to fulfill this portrayal, Bunny engages in repulsive and repellent actions throughout the book. This is done so that at the book's end he can be killed, raped by the devil, and made to appear on a stage in front of all the women he’s ever wronged and apologize to them. His death is then seen as a happy ending because it implies to us that his son, Bunny Jr., does not need to inherit the same values that Bunny received from his father. The cycle can end.
The story is not sympathetic toward Bunny’s actions. It is sympathetic toward people. It is told from Bunny and Bunny Jr.’s point of view. In Bunny’s narrative, he does not express shame for his actions. If he’s meant to be abhorrent and vicious in a primitive, subhuman way, why and how would he be ashamed of himself? In Bunny Jr.’s narrative, he is as enamored with his father as any other child his age. This is how this kind of attitude toward women transmits from one generation to the next. Bunny Jr. is oblivious to much of his father’s behavior; his father can do no wrong because Bunny Jr. is still at the age where he views his father as the superhero best-dad-on-the-planet figure. If this were not the case, there would be no danger of Bunny Jr. becoming like Bunny.
The shame of what Bunny does is not conscious to the main characters. It’s obvious to the readers and to the characters affected by his actions in the book. It manifests in the novel with the motif of the ghost of Bunny’s wife and the devil man.
There is nothing in the actual novel that supports the idea of an amoral philosophy justifying and excusing Bunny’s actions, and I am baffled to the fullest extent that a human being can experience bafflement every time that I see someone make this assumption. We are called to be sympathetic toward Bunny not because what he does is not wrong, but because we aren't sociopaths and because he is still a human being. Cave is writing from a Christian perspective: he values and chooses to treat all sentient beings with respect and dignity throughout the book. This same philosophy that makes it possible for the author to portray what Bunny does as being wrong is also what makes it necessarily follow that he is deserving of sympathy himself. This does not necessarily imply redemption, but it does involve forgiveness, consideration for others, and making attempts to understand why people are the way that they are and do the things that they do.
"One of the last things Jesus did on Earth was to invite a prisoner to join him in heaven. Jesus loved that criminal. I say, he loved that criminal as much as he loved anyone. Jesus knew. It takes a lot to love a sinner. But the sinner, he needs it all the more." — Augustus Hill (Oz: S05E01, Visitations)
Gathering this conclusion from the evidence in the text does not take consultation from the inductive talents of either Mr. Sherlock Holmes or his real-life ex-FBI “Mindhunter” counterpart, John E. Douglas, to arrive at. I have yet to see one logical argument that sets aside personal biases and pre-conceived notions tied almost entirely to cover artwork and instead examines actual parts of the novel, connects them to the work as a whole, and identifies what about it is problematic in regard to gender dynamics, all the while referring to specific quotations and examples to give credible foundation to these conclusions. All I’ve heard are irrelevant statements on Nick Cave’s personal character and how some of the various covers that the book has been printed with are offensive. I trust I don’t need to remind anyone of a particularly well known idiom regarding cover illustrations and hasty generalizations of written publications.
Yes, sex and objectification of women is rampant in this book. What grand observational skills many readers have acquired from their respective educational systems. That's the point of the book. If you don't want to read about some pervert's obsessive train of thought that objectifies nearly every woman that he comes into contact with and draws disturbing sexual narratives from anything and everything around him, then don't read The Death Of Bunny Munro. If you don't want to read about some sociopath's obsessive thoughts of murder and objectification of humanity, blood, and death, and the disturbing, ever-present narrative of emptiness and morbidity that goes with the territory, don't read American Psycho. If you don't get any of that, then maybe you should stick to Grisham, Clancy, and Koontz. This is what literature is. It uses evocations of particular places, times, events, and people to provide perspective on them and communicate some sort of truths about them. Many things in this world are ugly, disturbing, and upsetting. This particular “male disease,” to quote George Carlin, is one of them. We SHOULD be aware of it as a society.
If you disagree with me on the merits of this novel, that is fine, great, and actually of genuine interest to me. I’d love to hear your reasoning. But only on the conditions that you have read the book in question and you disagree on premises that come from the actual text, not from your emotions, your views of the author as a person, the book’s cover art (which comes from the publishing company), things that you’ve heard others have said about it, the fact that you are shocked by the material, or other such irrelevant details that should have no place in any discussion of a literary work.
Stop drawing conclusions about books you have not read. You wouldn’t venture to do so in a literature class. You would not write in an essay as an explanation sufficient for your literature professor that you hold X opinion about the meaning of this text because the cover it was published with looks like this, or you hold X opinion about the meaning of this text because the author seems like this type of person to you from what you know of them. Why would you want to be less genuine with the way that you behave and the opinions that you hold in your life than you would be in a staged environment like a classroom? Why?