Richard Adams’ leporine fantasy Watership Down tells a story of the adventures in a world that humans never think about; however, the story itself reveals a dark truth about our society. Adams’ saga of adventuring rabbits criticizes our society, not because it portrays a symbol of childhood innocence as hyperviolent, but reveals the gendered nature of the fantasy genre.  His timeless story has been put under harsh criticism for the use of female rabbits as nothing more than a tool for breeding. One feminist critic, Selma Lanes, reviewed his use of female rabbits, does, by suggesting that the novel “finds more confirmation in Hugh Heffner's Playboy than R. M. Lockley's “The Private Life of the Rabbit.”” Lanes is making the accusation that Adams abandoned his alleged source material for a more misogynistic approach. Could it be that Adams’ novel is an indicator of the anti-feminist nature found in other fantasy authors, such as his J.R.R. Tolkien? Or does it contain a legitimate representation of does? Despite the criticism, Richard Adams’ portrayal of female rabbits in his novel Watership Down is accurate, supported by his source material, and serves a different perspective than that of its feminist critics.

Before discussing Adams’ intent and perspective there are questions that must be answered. Do the does do as does do? Is there evidence that supports the claim that female rabbits are inaccurately portrayed in the novel? This can be divided into two main ideas, does are just as likely as bucks to leave the warren and does have jobs other than raising bunnies. Hugh H. Kolb, a Scottish ecologist, spent a year studying the movement patterns of British Rabbits, specifically Oryctolagus Cuniculus the rabbit used by Adams, to find the best way to control their population. Kolb’s research revealed insight on the gender gap amongst rabbits. One of the first tests he did was in the March of 1989, for 6 nights he trapped the rabbits in snares. For 5 of the six nights an average of 2.2 males were caught and average of 2.4 females were caught per night, the first night however was an outlier with 21 males and 8 females. The other piece of gendered data was counting the number of time old and young male and female rabbits were spotted outside of the warren. According to Kolb, “There was no significant differences in the over behavior of the sexes or age-classes in this respect” (898). Both of the two tests by Kolb show a pattern that female rabbits get out as much as male rabbits. This reveals that both genders rabbits have freedom and the power to leave just as often as the other. Kolb’s research supports the first claim. R. M. Lockley’s paper, “Social Structure and Stress in the Rabbit Warren” provides insight on the second claim. Lockley is an ecologist that concentrates on rabbits, and Adam’s has admitted to using Lockley’s research to write his novel(The Private Life of the Rabbit 6). Lockley, on the role of the doe, states that “She is responsible indirectly for the sitting of the buck’s territory” (404). Lockley describes that the does, after finding a mate, only work to make a nice nest for their bucks and bunnies. Lockley’s studies also show that the does are eventually confined to their burrows and nearby land for grazing. Since rabbits graze, an adult must find its own food this is supported by Kolb’s observations that does and bucks are equally found outside the warren. Lockley and Kolb’s research both support Adam’s depictions of rabbits. Both say that male rabbits are territorial which is the idea that cause the most conflict in Adam’s novel. While Lockley supports Adam’s claim that the does live in the burrows and monogamously breed as adults. The ecological reports both back up the author’s accuracy, and make this story less of a fantasy tale. 

It is nice that Adams’ rabbits act like their real-world counter parts, but in Lanes’ article she criticizes Adams because he strays from his source. Lanes argument may still hold, if Lockley’s Secret Life of a Rabbit portrays does in a way similar to Adams. There is very little about the dominance or lack thereof of does, the 1974 publication of Lockley’s book contains a foreword from Richard Adams. Adams mentions how much he owes to Lockley for help in writing Watership Down, he says, “before that novel could hope to possess any true dignity or authenticity … I would need to know a good deal more about the ways and lives of real rabbits” (5). Adams goes on to describe that he wanted his book to point towards Lockley’s work so that the world learns more about these “childishly cute” animals (5). He expresses a desire for authenticity in his work, an authenticity based on Lockley. His statements show that his novel is nothing if not based on Lockley’s work. Yet Lanes makes it clear that Adams falsifies “his own view of rabbitry”, and that any reading of Lockley’s work would reveal Adams’ lies. Lanes claims that Lockley’s does are the center of the family. In The Secret Life of a Rabbit Lockley does not support the matriarchal society but also not the opposite, Lockley describes the rabbits as monogamous (42). He states that rabbits court and then breed for life to one other, however one of Lockley’s subjects had three concubines, and that these couples live and raise bunnies together. The society that Lockley describes is no more matriarchal than human society. The bucks fight to mate with one female and the females work to keep the affection of their bucks. The power lies not with the most fertile female, but the strongest male that can offer protection and food. Lanes assertion that Adams strayed from his influence, Lockley, is not only difficult to see but is also insulting to Adams’ original goal.

Through the research a common theme has shown up that displays the disconnect between Lanes and Adams, rabbits are not humans. Lanes notes the story to be “a glorious paean to man’s (or rabbit’s) resilience,” she is making the point that Adams glorifies men through his uses of rabbits. Yet in the foreword he wrote Adams claims, “an animal is an animal and not a sort of human being dressed up” as he discussed the sentimental treatment of rabbits in literature (6). Adams motivation was an unforgiving narrative that says rabbits may have humane characteristics but they are still animals. His novel supports the monogamous attitude by following the courtship between Fiver and Vilthuril, the two court and eventually mate with only each other.   In Lockley’s “Social Structure and Stress in the Rabbit Warren” he makes a point to say that the bucks are only tied to warren because of sexual attraction to their does (404). That point is explicitly expressed by Adams when the main characters leave their promised land simply because they wanted does, a plot point that Lanes criticizes and goes as far as to call it rape. Adams and Lanes both come from different points of view that are very different and will only lead to disagreement.

Adams never wanted to write and anti-feminist text, he simply wanted to make a novel that described rabbits in the most authentic way. Adams does bring up two points by writing this story, an author’s story maybe hurtful even if they don’t intend it and that sometimes even telling facts can still be taking a stance. While his intent was not to be an epic to sing of masculine pride, it still came off as such to the readers and the reader controls the meaning of a text. The appearance of Adams’ tale does mirror criticism to other esteemed fantasy authors in the idea that women are often misrepresented. Adams’ telling of facts, though not intentionally partisan, still aligned with antifeminist viewpoints, ultimately supporting the ideals he claims to not. By telling certain facts a man can support a side in an argument when he wishes to stay neutral. Whether he has a side or not, Richard Adams’ portrayal of rabbits in Watership Down is accurate, supported by the source he cites, and simply provides a view different to that of his feminist critics. 
