3 Category 3: ENGL 2020/2030
Emma Whittaker and Millie May
Welcome to the Smut Salon: A Novel Analysis of Mona Awad’s Bunny
Awarded to Emma Whittaker for work submitted in Fall 2025 to Mary Leoson in ENGL 2020: Themes in Literature and Culture
Bunny by Mona Awad is an award-winning novel set at the fictional Warren University. It follows Samantha Mackey, an MFA student at the university, as she falls into the cult-ish world of the Bunnies, a cliquey group of ultra-feminine women who call each other “Bunny.” Looking at the novel through a psychological lens, it becomes clear that Mona Awad’s use of language and point of view are crucial to the story, allowing readers to fall headfirst into the novel and experience the same emotions and events as Samantha, giving us a better understanding of her character. We are able to understand how the Bunnies are projections of Samantha’s internal desires and the cult-like dynamics that pull her into their reality. We can also use this lens to understand what Bunny says about society, and specifically what it says about MFA programs.
Literary Elements
Style/language and point of view are two literary elements that are crucial parts of Bunny. They allow readers to get a better understanding of Samantha and go through these events with her, rather than outside of her. Mona Awad’s style of writing consists of blunt, disoriented sentences and atmospheric, detailed descriptions. Her writing emulates Samantha’s psychological decline throughout the novel. The choppy sentences match how Samantha thinks and feels, while the sensory descriptions allow readers to get a better grasp on the setting and the events that are unfolding. A great example of the combination of these two components can be seen on page 93, when Rob Valencia (a creation of the Bunnies) explodes. Awad writes, “Blood and brains all over me, the walls. Blood all over the Bunnies and their whimpering boys… Something drops at my feet. An ear. Rob Valencia’s ear,” (Awad). In this moment, Awad used detailed descriptions (describing the bits of body falling everywhere) with short, choppy sentences (when Rob’s ear falls) to really encapsulate what Samantha is experiencing. When his ear falls off, she is seeing an ear, then understanding whose ear it is. Awad ensures that we, as readers, feel the chaos just as Samantha does.
Samantha’s point of view is another crucial element in the telling of this story, especially because, as revealed in the final part of the novel, she is an unreliable narrator. Samantha has the ability to also turn animals, not just bunnies, into people. Aside from Max, who she conjures from a white stag with the Bunnies, she is unaware that she has conjured Ava, her best friend, from a swan. Because she is unaware of her own abilities, we don’t know who is real and who is one of these animal beings, making her perspective even more unstable. This limited viewpoint also reinforces how isolated Samantha truly is. Since we only see events as she interprets them, we’re trapped inside her confusion and loneliness, unable to get clarity from anyone else. On top of this, we see Samantha’s psychological state slip over the course of the novel. We see her go from hating the Bunnies, to falling under their trance, to escaping and being alone, and then losing her best friend in the process. Because of Awad’s writing style, we feel like we are going through this process with her and experiencing the same things she is, making the reading experience much more immersive. Being limited to Samantha’s perspective has also raised some questions about her mental health, and if Samantha is really conjuring these beings at all. We know that Samantha is an unreliable narrator, which means that she herself may not even understand what is happening to her, or why. In a Reddit post titled “Bunny by Mona Awad is misunderstood by many people and here’s why (and my interpretation),” user hellocloudshellosky commented that that believed Samantha may have schizophrenia, which would explain her “imagining” the people and events she is a part of. They point to a scene in chapter 26, where Samantha encounters a woman sitting on a bus reading a list of schizophrenia side effects (Awad 210). They also point to her early memories with her mother, where Samantha mentions being told to stop imagining friends. Other users replied to this comment, agreeing, and also mentioning the fact that Ava disappears once Samantha takes the pills the Bunnies giver her, hinting to the idea that the pills are some type of antipsychotic and helping her control her schizophrenia. The idea of Samantha having schizophrenia and being undiagnosed further backs up the downhill slide of her psychological state, and also brings more to the table when discussing Awad’s commentary on the mental health of students in MFA programs.
A Psychological Lens
Looking at Bunny through a psychological lens allows readers to really understand what Samantha is going through, her actions, and the effects of these actions on her psyche. The Bunnies are projections of what Samantha desires: belonging, admiration, and an escape from reality. The Bunnies have the bond and relationship that Samantha lacks in her own life; her mom is dead, her father is running from debt collectors, and her only friend is Ava, who she conjured from a swan. She has nobody to turn to or rely on, no group of friends that she shares everything with. Even though she claims to hate the Bunnies, the desire to have what the Bunnies have is what draws her into their circle, no matter how much she expresses her hate for them.
The cult-like dynamics of the Bunnies also play a large role on Samantha’s psyche. Her emotional swing between rejecting and desiring them mirrors anxious or codependent attachment patterns, where wanting the close bonds clashes with her self-protection. The article The SCUM of Daddy’s Girls: Monstrous Cuteness as Gender Resistance in Bunny describes the Bunnies as “simultaneously lovely and depraved,” their “monstrous cuteness” masking the darker, more coercive nature of their community (Hsu 1). This dynamic creates an emotionally intense environment that, for someone as lonely and insecure as Samantha, becomes alluring. As the story progresses, we begin to see Samantha fully lose herself in exchange for the group identity. Hsu describes the workshops, where Samantha really begins to understand the Bunnies, as a “heterotopia… a space where real sites are simultaneously represented, contested, and inverted,” (Hsu 3). These workshops become a psychological refuge for Samantha, a place that promises belonging even as it begins to strip away her individuality. In Part Two of the novel, Samantha switches from “I” statements to “we” statements, no longer seeing herself as an individual person, but rather part of a group. The opening line of part two is, “We huddle-hug on the velvety green among the cherry blossom trees. We link arms. We close our eyes to feel each other’s bodies. We form a hot little circle of love and and understanding. We press our faces into our faces, our cheeks against our cheeks, our eyelashes tickling our skins like little hummingbird wings, like bunny nose twitches,” (Awad 123). This is a major part of the novel. It is the first time we see Samantha fully cave into the routines and practices of the Bunnies, no longer fighting them off in any way; she is now a part of the “cult.”
A psychological lens also allows us to understand how Mona Awad sees the world and what she has to say about it. In an interview with CULT MTL, Awad states, “The occult and academia are inherently connected. The elitism around certain academic institutions and programs has an occult quality. There are rights of passage…” (Islam). The mix of rituals, elitism, and creative pressure shows up in Awad’s satirical writing, highlighting the insecurities that come with being an artist, such as impostor syndrome, pressure to be original, and the fear of getting trapped in “groupthink.” This is demonstrated in how the Bunnies interact. Each Bunny claims to have her own unique way of writing: Duchess scratches stories onto glass with diamonds, Vignette only writes in vignette, etc. But in reality, they have all caved into the same group trends. They dress alike, talk alike, enjoy the same things, and write about similar scenarios, all losing any sense of self and showing how easily individuality can be lost. Samantha’s impostor syndrome also causes her writers block, making her unable to produce anything that she is proud of throughout the novel. When she does share her work, it is often criticized for being too dark, gruesome, and different from the rest, adding more pressure onto her work and making her writer’s block even more prominent.
Awad also highlights the psychological violence of artistic creation through the Bunnies’ creation of the “Drafts.” These creatures they represent the dangers of forcing creativity, controlling artistic output, and trying to mold art into something perfect and obedient. In an interview with Halle Butler for The Paris Review, Awad explains that the Drafts symbolize “bad writing,” noting that “bad writing comes from trying to control the outcome because you’re afraid of not knowing. That’s where the Drafts come in. They’re the Bunnies’ bad writing. Hence their dicklessness,” (Butler). In contrast, Samantha’s creations emerge from a place of emotional rawness and lack of control. Awad points out that Samantha, “can’t be controlled. She doesn’t have or exert that kind of power or mastery over her material. To a fault,” (Butler). This difference reflects their psychological divide: the Bunnies cling to control and sameness, while Samantha’s creative process is chaotic, unconscious, and tied to her mental state. Because her creations feel more “human,” they blur the boundary between art and reality, leaving Samantha unable to separate the two. This makes her creativity both powerful and dangerous; it becomes an extension of her inner turmoil rather than a craft she can shape. In this way, Awad uses the Drafts to show how the act of creation can be violent, destabilizing, and consuming, especially when it grows out of fear, longing, and lack of control.
Bunny’s Social Impact
Through it’s grotesque satire, Bunny critiques the way society encourages elitism in literary worlds and enforces female dynamics and social expectations.
Bunny skewers the elitism and gatekeeping in MFA-style literary spaces by showing how hierarchical system rewards conformity and punishes individuality. Marcello Tsai-Corbanese’s article, “What, Like It’s Hard? The MFA in Mona Awad’s Bunny,” explains that the novel, “melds the MFA graduate program setting with one of cliquey high-school-dom,” turning an institution of art and creativity that is often held in high regard into one with a petty, adolescent power structure. In Bunny, belonging to a group becomes more important than individuality. In Samantha’s cohort, the Bunnies group aesthetic, tone, and content become the standard by which all writing is judged by their professors and workshop leaders. As mentioned earlier, Samantha’s work is often criticized for being too dark and disturbing, placing her work at a lower value than the Bunnies because she does not conform with the rest of the group. Later in the novel, when the Bunnies themselves deviate from their typical stories, they too are critiques for going against the values and roles set within the program, being ridiculed for exploring new options in their work. As Tsai-Corbanese puts it, “The Bunnies function as an allegory for the performance of institutional excellence,” a parody of what some MFA programs treat as successes.
The Bunnies reflect the way social expectations shape female dynamics and determine who is welcomed and who is excluded. Their entire presentation of girlhood is exaggerated into something almost doll-like, which mirrors what society often encourages women to perform. They dress hyper-feminine, talk in high-pitched voices, always have perfect hair, and coo over cute dogs and babies. However, this feminine appearance that reflects how society thinks of women is only a mask. Behind closed doors, the Bunnies are performing brutal rituals that involve murder, something that completely goes against everything they appear to be. Leina Hsu’s article, which describes the Bunnies as “outwardly saccharine,” also makes note of this, saying that, “had their activities become known, they would immediately be shut down as negative outliers of proper femininity,” (7). The Bunnies are trapped in this act, but they are rewarded for it. This mix of sweetness and quiet violence shows how their brand of femininity is both socially rewarded and socially enforced. Furthermore, the friendship between the Bunnies is surface level, lacking any genuine connection, reflecting the way society expects women to all be friends and lack any sort of dislike of another. Everytime they say, “I love you, Bunny,” they are simply conforming to the idea of friendship and girlhood that society expects them to uphold. In the end, when their friendship is put to the test, each one of them is willing to throw it all away for a man. This is seen in chapter 37, when Samantha returns to the Bunnies’ house to confront them about killing Ava, and the Bunnies notice Max outside. As they all rush towards him, they are, “Pushing past each other. Pulling each other back by the hair, by the neck. Tripping each other in their black heels… No you don’t, bitch, they growl in perfect synchronicity,” (Awad 294-295). This moment makes it clear that their friendship was never about loyalty, but about performing the version of femininity they were taught to embody. Society forces women into these bubbles, and when they do not conform, like Samantha and Ava, they are considered the outcasts and are marked as unlikable.
Conclusion
In the end, Mona Awad’s Bunny uses its surreal, unsettling narrative to expose how psychological pressure, social performance, and institutional expectations shape the lives of young artists. Through Samantha’s unraveling, Awad reveals how easily individuality can be swallowed by the desire to belong and the demands of elitist creative spaces. Her use of language and point of view paired with a psychological lens shines a light on the high expectations and social pressures set within elite literary programs, and provides satirical social commentary on the ways women are expected to act. Awad leaves us questioning not only Samantha’s reality but also the realities of the artistic worlds we celebrate.
Works Cited
Awad, Mona. Bunny: A Novel. Penguin Publishing Group, 2020.
Butler, Halle. “Monstrous Cute: An Interview with Mona Awad.” The Paris Review, 12 June 2019, https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2019/06/12/monstrous-cute-an-interview-with-mona-awad/. Accessed 14 November 2025.
hellocloudshellosky. “Bunny by Mona Awad is misunderstood by many people and here’s why (and my interpretation) : r/books.” Reddit, 5 June 2020, https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/gxaxjw/bunny_by_mona_awad_is_misunderst ood_by_many/. Accessed 20 November 2025.
Hsu, Leina. “The SCUM of Daddy’s Girls:Monstrous Cuteness as Gender Resistance in Bunny.” Embodied: The Stanford Undergraduate Journal of Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, 2023. Stanford University, https://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/sjfgss/article/view/2382/1604. Accessed 14 November 2025.
Islam, Sruti. “Mona Awad’s new novel explores the cult-like, cliquey world of the literati.” CULT MTL, 14 August 2019, https://cultmtl.com/2019/08/mona-awad-bunny-interview/. Accessed 14 November 2025.
Tsai-Corbanese, Marcello. “What, Like It’s Hard? The MFA in Mona Awad’s Bunny.” McGill Department of English Undergraduate Review, 30 April 2024, https://mcgillchannelundergraduatereview.com/2024/04/what-like-its-hard-the-mfa-in-mo na-awads-bunny/. Accessed 14 November 2025.
Modern Queer Icons
Awarded to Millie May for work submitted in Fall 2025 to Alyson Lynn for ENGL 2030: The Experience of Literature
The 2000s have seen a major rise in both discussion about and victories for the queer community. From same-sex marriage to queer people accepting government positions, queer people have had the spotlight now more than ever. Due to this rising popularity, plenty of people in the closet have been more willing and open to accept their identities and have become much happier as a result. The same cannot be said for the girl-poets in Joyce Carol Oates’ short story “Three Girls.” The story follows these girl poets in the year 1956, where a chance encounter with supposed famous feminine actress Marilyn Monroe at a bookstore leads them to question and explore their sexuality. Due to the time period, however, not much could realistically come from it, as queer people and especially lesbians were shunned from the rest of society, systemically oppressed, and not allowed to express themselves. In 2025, however, I believe the girl-poets would be comparatively better off, though that is a rather low bar. More specifically, I believe that the Marilyn Monroe figure would be a more contemporary celebrity, the girls would be much more aware and willing to express and explore their identities, and the aftermath of their encounter would be much more hopeful.
As time comes and goes, so too do celebrities’ timelines of fame and relevance, though some, like Monroe, do leave a lasting impact on feminine culture. Still, more relevant celebrities tend to leave greater impact on those around them, and, at the same time, Marilyn Monroe was a great example of a pinnacle of femininity, whose identity Oates could cleverly turn on its head to provide a foil for the girl-poets. The turning point for these girls was seeing that Monroe “required no man,” as well as generally presenting masculinely and partaking in literature far too “scholarly” for women at the time (Oates 2). I argue that a woman much like Monroe both in profession and appeal is actress Margot Robbie. Robbie, most recently, was incredibly famous for her role as the titular character in Greta Gerwig’s 2023 Barbie, a story largely centered around the development of feminine identities through the symbol of popular dress-up dolls. Robbie, along with many of the other women in that film, have become both queer and general pop culture icons, and have caused many people around the globe to consider and question themselves in ways they never have before. As such, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch for the girls, already questioning their own identities thanks to Gerwig’s immaculate use of symbols and storytelling, to view a masculine-presenting Robbie as a turning point for their own explorations. Even then, I believe today’s conversations about the queer experience would have lead to the girls questioning their identities much sooner.
Contemporary conversation surrounding the queer experience has led many more and younger people to come out as queer in some capacity compared to the 1950s. In fact, a lot of people at that time didn’t even know gay people existed! The entire narrative of “Three Girls” is based around this notion, and the Monroe incident is such a huge revelation to them that it sticks in their mind as the most life-changing incident of their whole existences, the girls “giddy with the strain of the past hour, gripping each other’s hands in childlike elation” (Oates 5). However, contemporarily, while this still would’ve been a pretty substantial memory in the girls minds, it would’ve been much more normal today. According to John Pritchard in his article “Homosexuality and Gay Rights in the 2000s,” advancements in queer discussion and legislation have led queerness to be more normalized in specific parts of society as a whole, though still far from where it should be. Even then, especially in a progressively-minded state like New York, the girls would have already been exposed to LGBTQ+ media, people, and discussion. The diction of the girl poet in the story emphasizes their denial, constantly using feminine adjectives and labels to subconsciously distance herself from non-stereotypical traits. Now, however, I believe they would be in far less denial, treating their encounter with Margot Robbie more as a day to day fact, minus the whole celebrity being out in public unattended thing, than some grand, earthshattering revelation. The diction would be far more relaxed, with less immediate labels put on objects, ideas, or people, only sparsely used to exacerbate how pointlessly exhausting being stereotypically feminine is. Beyond the diction, however, I believe the ending would lead to a much happier aftermath.
On November 6th, 2012, Maryland was the first state to legalize gay marriage. It was an unbelievably substantial victory for queer rights, people, and culture, and set a standard for not just other states, but LGBTQ+ equality moving forward. Many people were much more hopeful and willing to marry, and the concept of lavender marriages were becoming a thing of the past. The poets of “Three Girls,” however, obviously did not have the option, and it shows in the story. As a whole, the lack of moving forward with a relationship was mandatory for social and political survival in the 1900s. As a result, the girls treat their kiss as a matter-of-fact, but still somber, end to what could have been, stating that “I adored and feared you knowing you’d break my heart” (Oates 1). There was an expectation of finality within gay and lesbian couples at the time. Some faced them with knowing, others with rage, some with a mix of both. This tale definitely feels like a mix of both, combining the agony of that finality with the certainty that they knew what would happen. However, the legalization of gay marriage would have absolutely changed their eyes and opened plenty of new avenues for them. Not only was marriage a symbol of love, it was socially and financially beneficial and, while gay couples are still systemically oppressed, they’re granted much more leniency for tax benefits and the like. What’s more, they also would have been much happier as a couple, and their allowance to marry like they did would have most likely led them to fight for others to do the same.
Almost every single aspect of this short story would change in the modern day. The two major themes of this play, queerness and celebrity culture as it relates to gender expression, have evolved massively over 70 years. I could talk about the literary illusions, the setting, the bookstore itself, the customers, but the celebrity figure really stands out as the idea that ties everything together. Without it, the setting would simply be a bookstore, its contents just recognizable media, and the girls without a foil to confront their own identities. A change from Monroe to someone like Robbie would change pretty much everything about the story, as femininity has evolved right alongside the figures who embody it. Without the popular media perpetuated by people like Robbie, the girls would have never truly explored their own identities, and it would have been 1956 all over again. Even the aftermath of marriage between the poets would have been impossible without that popular media. She might not have known it, but Monroe was part of the long, long chain that will eventually end in equality.
Works Cited
Gerwig, Greta, director. Barbie. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2023.
Oates, Joyce Carol. “Three Girls.” Jerry W. Brown, 12 Feb. 2021.
Pritchard, John. “Homosexuality and Gay Rights in the 2000s.” EBSCO, 2022. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/homosexuality-and-gay-riglits-2000s.
