I was, as always, extremely excited to hear of a new Jasper Fforde book, he's been a marvel in everything that I've read by him, from the Thursday Next books, up until Early Riser (still waiting for a sequel to Shades of Grey!). He's one of the few writers that I follow for updates to his work, as I can guarantee that each new release will mean a day or two of furiously well-spent binge reading.
Unfortunately, The Constant Rabbit misses a lot of the charm of his other books, and the very deliberate choice of topics (racism, xenophobia, Brexit), seems to have been too close to Mr. Fforde's heart to be effectively satirized.
Firstly, the whole book is a bit too on-the-nose. The rabbits are achingly saccharine, forgiving every hurt done to them by humans, protesting peacefully and quietly until they literally fall over from hunger, and contributing to mathematics while they are at it! Their major crimes are burrowing and laying about in a field, and even the one villain bunny is redeemed about 2/3 of the way through the book. Aside from making the protagonist uncomfortable, their entire existence seems to be about making everyone a "better" person.
By contrast, there are no neutral humans. At all. There are either allies, wishy-washy allies (protagonist), or enemies. With the exception of a bartender, every human is very vocal in talking about how much they hate rabbits, love upper-class white life, and stepping on the throats of small brown children... sorry, rabbit kits. The human side features vile killer foxes, dastardly drunken weasels, and boorish, ignorant humans. There is nobody (excepting the protagonist) who even so much as doesn't care about rabbits, or goes along to get along.
This extreme dichotomy comes across as preachy at best, and ignorant of the causes of the attitude being satirized. While there is a lot of talk about the "population bomb", there isn't enough emphasis put on areas where the cultures clash to make it a believable premise. We only see one family that lives away from a colony, and again, they are sympathetic to a fault. There are a few low-effort jabs at "not speaking English", and "bloody vegans", but they don't really do anything except make the humans look petty. And fine, I get it, that's the point of the book, but even Acheron Styx had a sympathetic note here and there, or at least a bit of character other than Bad Guy.
Secondly, the way the conflict is handled comes across as almost completely ignorant. SPOILER ALERT, in the end, the rabbits save the day and defeat prejudice by.... going away. That's it. No continued struggle, no strained integration or compromise. The bunnies just thumb their nose at the naughty humans, take their ball and go home. So at once, the book chides us all (at length in several chapters, and in an uncharacteristically protagonist-as-a-mouthpiece fashion) for being terrible people for not just adopting a vegan lifestyle and letting rabbits dig our foundations out and upturn our culture without a peep. BUT, it also says that the issues with immigrants/minorities/problem populations would go away if they bloody idiots would just leave the UK already.
And I want to emphasize that there is no, I repeat, no consequence from this leave-taking. The protagonist opens an unpopular museum, a few throwaway lines talk about the news media making fun of politicians, and that's it. No talk about economic impact from losing what was essentially a slave class, no portion of the population stops to think about what happened, no hint of shame about driving the rabbits away. The protagonist writes a book, the author writes a throwaway line about a Kenyan elephant president, the reader wonders what happened to the last few pages of the book.
Last but not least, I take issue with the protagonist's motivation. While he comes across as having a supportive attitude towards the rabbits, it's hard to sympathize with him when his first motivation for feeling that way, and a driving motivation for the story, is that he wants to get his leg up over a rabbit. Do the horizontal bunny hop. Do a Thumper duet. He wants to get a hare of the dog that bit him. That's it, aside from an un-admirable pile of wet human guilt. But don't worry, the rabbits are so unfailingly kind that the love interest's husband arranges a fake duel so that the protagonist can bump cottontails with a clear conscience. And this holds true for the three other characters with sympathies towards rabbits, they all have a romantic partner who is a rabbit. So the lesson is; the only path to allyship is through banging a minority. Either your with them (in bed), or you're against them.
So, in short, fetishization of minorities is a valid reason to support them, anyone against minorities is an unfeeling bad man who needs the Paw Patrol to show him a powerpoint presentation on diversity, and incidentally minorities wouldn't have such a hard time in the UK if they just BLOODY GOT OUT.
The frustrating part is that the book is well-written, fast-paced but with a believable series of plot points, and has a good portion of the humor that Fforde is known for. But whether the book was rushed because of "current events" or the subject is too close to his heart for even a slightly unbiased critique, it just fell flat on numerous points, and what could have been another Ffun Fforde Ffling came off as a Ffrustrating lecture about "human silence is violence."