Australian Fiction and Themes of Independence and Luck in Rabbit Proof Fence

“The “Shifty Shadow of Luck” becomes a religious substitute for Sam as he is guided and controlled by it.” “the old man believed deeply in luck, although he was careful never to say the word. He called it the Shifty Shadow of God. All his life he paid close attention to the movements of that Shadow. He taught Sam to see it passing, feel it hovering, because he said it was those shifts that governed a man’s life and it always paid to be ahead of the play.” (Winton, 1991, p. 8).

Fate, Luck, Chance, whatever you care to call it, this shadowy presence is prevalent throughout the novel. For many of the characters in the novel, their lives seem to be at the mercy of luck, which appears to consist of both favour and misfortune in commensurate measure. Sam is depicted in the novel as the victim of the fickle circumstance of life by Winton with the notion of a man’s life being governed by luck having been inherited from his father.

Sam experiences periods of good luck followed by a run of bad luck, and you often see him seeking to escape his fate. Luck plays a prominent role from the outset, with the ‘great continent of a house’ having been bequeathed to them as the blessings of good fortune. As he searches for meaning in life, Sam’s obsession with gambling can be seen as symbolic of his desire to tempt fate. Sam’s accident, in which you see him loose his hand, is typical of the bad luck which befalls him if he “ignores the shifty shadow”. As Sam himself says in the novel, “I got me ole man’s blood. Dead unlucky.” (Winton, 1991, p. 19).

Eventually, Sam’s ability to forgive and show compassion help him to find peace, but whether you call it Lady Luck, The hand of God or the Shifty Shadow, to Sam, this intrusive presence could often be felt, if not necessarily seen, “it was as though luck made choices and it could think.” (Winton, 1991, p. 9) and a man’s life was governed by it.

“The Rabbit Proof Fence is a symbol for both interdependence and colonisation between two conflicting worlds in Australia”. Built in 1907 to prevent the migration of rabbits from the East to the West of Australia, the “rabbit proof fence” provides a graphic illustration of the spectacular failure of European settlers to acclimate to and fathom their new environment, and highlights the fact that their impact upon their new land could not be tempered. In the end, even with the rabbit proof fence, there ended up being more rabbits in the West than the South East.

Molly, the protagonist in the book and the mother of the author Doris Pilkington, is herself an example of this conundrum of existing between two conflicting worlds. The daughter of Maude, an intelligent, Aboriginal domestic help working for a man named Hawkins - who is the superintendent of the Jigalong camp set up to maintain the fence – and a white man named Thomas Crain (an inspector of the aforementioned fence), Molly found that her own people were wary of her, her sister and cousin, due to the implications to Tribal beliefs and traditions, and the government at the time mistakenly believed that these “half casts” would be easier to assimilate. Pilkington herself observes that “they were doomed” from the outset, as was the rabbit proof fence.

The fence is representational of the linguistic and cultural barriers experienced by both the Aboriginals and the European settlers during this time. Initially, the Europeans restricted the land that the Aboriginals were able to live on in an effort to maintain a strong English culture in this new land. Pilkington describes the erosion of the Aboriginal cultures, laws and way of life, as European Law is established as the only law.

However, as has always been an intrinsic belief of the Indigenous people, everything is connected and both relies upon, and impacts everything around it. By the 1900’s the Aborigines had gained recognition for their knowledge of the land, and skill with both horses and cattle, and they became accepted into the European way of life. Just as the settlers sought initially to separate cultures and beliefs, the rabbit proof fence sought to separate lands and people. Yet, even as Molly was separated from her family, her primal instincts drew her back toward them. Likewise, the rabbit proof fence emerged as a link between worlds.

“Racism is not simply a segregation of colour, it is a class system resulting from preconceived social inequalities”. Social stratification means that, as demonstrated in True History of the Kelly gang, (Carey, 2000) it is in fact possible to be seen as both hero and outlaw, depending entirely on social class. “We arrived at the Beveridge Police Camp drenched to the bone and doubtless stank of poverty a strong odour about us like wet dogs and for this or other reasons we was excluded from the Sergeant’s room”, (Carey, 2000)

To people of his own class - the lowly lower classes - Ned Kelly was seen as a hero, but to his pursuers he was nothing more than a thieving criminal and a bloodthirsty killer. In the book, which is written in the 5th person, Kelly sees himself as nothing more than a poor bushranger toiling against the injustices of English colonial rule who “knows what it is to be raised on lies and silences”, (Carey, 2000). The story shows that, in the case of Ned Kelly, the mind of a young child is more affected by the insults than the poverty in which he grew up.

Tis not poverty I hate the most

nor the eternal grovelling

but the insults which grow on it

which not even leeches can cure

Kelly sees that the highest the child of a white, Irish immigrant can climb, is to the rank of a police officer, whereas, all the politicians are British. Born of Irish descent, with a convict father and the name of his wife’s notorious family Quin, means that Kelly is predetermined as a thief and he is therefore, in no way surprised when he is initially sent to prison for crimes he did not commit. The system is in fact so fundamentally corrupt, that one of the characters asks “what did we ever do to them that they should torture us like this?”, (Carey, 2000)

These are scenes horrifyingly reminiscent of the racial injustices experienced by the Indigenous people of Australia. However, Ned Kelly became to Australia what Robin Hood is to England, and is revered as a national icon with his image even being shown at the Summer 2000 Olympic Games. “Ownership defines success, but success does not lead to happiness if in the process you lose your own humanity”.

The definition of “ownership” was actually the root of the initial conflict between the Colonial settlers and the Indigenous Aborigines in Australia, and is a central theme throughout “The Secret River” (Grenville, 2005). The belief of the English that “marking” something made it their property directly conflicted with the Aborigines belief that the land was there, they were there and the two should co-exist in harmony. '... the blacks were farmers no less than the white men were. But they did not bother to build a fence to keep the animals from getting out. Instead, they created a tasty patch to lure them in. Either way, it meant meat for dinner.' (Grenville, 2005) In the book, this was Williams first glimpse into the Aboriginal way of life leading him to realise for the first time, that there could possibly be more than one way of structuring society and it need not mean oppressing the lower-classes in order to function. In William’s eyes, the fact that in the Aboriginal way of life there is not class system, meant that they all lived like gentry.

The problem with this recognition for William however, is that while he can acknowledge the beauty of the Aboriginal system, and the violent and oppressive nature of his own. If he should choose to follow the idyllic Aboriginal ways, it would mean the outright rejection of the English definition of success and all he believed in and had dreamed of.

Towards the end of the book, William begins to realise that the self-same system that promised him success and freedom, had not lead him to happiness, but instead to regrets as this system relies on violence and oppression to function, yet he greatly regretted his part in the massacre of the Aborigines even though he had only participated in order to persuade Sal to stay with Ned’s voice whispering in his ear 'Ain't no other way to hold her', (Grenville, 2005) because he knew if the Aborigines remained that Sal would leave. This dawning of realisation brings William to conclude that participating in and being a part of such a repressive system only lead him to lose his own humanity. “In My Brother Jack, David’s obligation to his destiny leads to inner torment as he feels he loses his soul to his desire to achieve acclaim and “significance”, which in turn separates him from the very culture he so yearns to belong to as his polar-opposite and, “honourable” brother Jack does, being the stereo-typical mid-twentieth century Australian male”.

David reflects upon his youth, and growing up in inter-war Australia in the shadow of his typically Australian older brother Jack. Comparing himself to his brother, David feels like he never fit in, being of slight stature and drawn to more intellectual pastimes than his rugged, outdoorsman brother who is brave, outgoing, good at sports and has had many female companions. David idolizes his older brother, leading to feelings of self-loathing as he himself leads a solitary life as a somewhat shy and introvert teenager.

However, as they grow older and Australia falls into the Great Depression, the tables are turned. The once shy and retiring David finds success as a journalist while Jack struggles through these difficult times. As his notoriety as a prominent journalist catapults him into a new, more materialistic world, David marries a beautiful wife and buys a brand new house in an expensive suburb. David feels like he has finally achieved the acclaim he set out to find, but worries he doesn’t truly deserve it. Even now, he compares himself with his sibling, who leads a far simpler, unencumbered life with his own family and he realises that he feels trapped by a life of chasing outward appearances and the demands of his successful literary career.

“The thing I am trying to get at is what made Jack different from me. Different all through our lives, I mean, and in a special sense, not just older or nobler or braver or less clever.” (Johnson, 1964) Something David (the author thinly veiled) often alludes to is a feeling of shame, although he never names it outright. This shame comes about because in every culture, there are certain “norms” and expectations of people, and David feels he never fit into his cultural “norm”. However, this book itself is the perfect example of why everyone should follow their own dreams or “norms”, because in writing this book David (the author) found his own path to success.