After it was proved the book wasn't historically accurate, the author maintained it was based on a truth... but wasn't more forthcoming than that.
Actually, I think I get this.
Although definitely not unique to Australia the lost-child trope is a pretty deep-seated one in Australian culture, with its genesis way back in the history of European settlement. There’s a fair amount of literature on the subject, and some writers see in the general ‘lost in the landscape’ context a resonance with more recent anxieties – like, for instance, child welfare abuses, especially those connected to things like the forced adoption scandal and the child migrant program. It also ties up with another motif: the ‘white vanishing’ trope - a powerful narrative that seems to have found its most recent expression in the current explosion of Bush or Outback Noir (some of it very good, by the way). It’s also hard not to see resonances with some of Australia’s most notorious criminal cases: The Beaumont Children, the Adeleide Oval abductions, Azaria Chamberlein.
I’ve always been fascinated by our relationship with both our natural and our built environment – specifically, our common assumptions about those relationships, and our place within them. My personal opinion – to echo something from my previous post – is that nature is an apex predator. Thankfully, if our relationship with it remains on an even keel, then it generally spends most of its time sleeping. But if once you assume your ascendency within the relationship, you are – by the time you realise the error of your ways - likely to find yourself already well within its maw. Even a relatively gentle landscape can turn on you – start adding more lethal environmental factors and the potential increases exponentially.
But beyond this there are certain landscapes that I think of as a sort of as a sort of super-apex; inherently very dangerous, but made more deadly by a proximity to relative concentrations of human population. I have a feeling that Australia may be one of the broadest geographical examples of this in the developed world – a place where, for a significant portion of the population, ‘Here be Monsters’ or ‘
Ne plus ultra’ might be best written - not in the middle of ocean charts, or at the end of the known world - but on the battered road signs leading out of town.
I’ve read recently somewhere the phrase ‘nonspecific evil’ in relationship to the atmosphere of
Picnic at Hanging Rock. I’m not entirely sure that the word ‘evil’ works for me, although at the same time I totally understand what the writer is trying to describe. Personally, I’d describe it as an almost Lovecraftian cosmic horror, but without the ‘evil’ agency, which tends to be applied because of our utter inability to fathom the overarching power and annihilative indifference of nature. I think the very fact that it’s difficult to name or describe makes it somehow terrifying. The idea of ‘nameless terror’ is something of a horror cliché, and I’m not sure most people really examine what it means; personally, I think the concept has more relevance to a movie like
Picnic at Hanging Rock than it does in regard to the general output of the Horror genre.
For what it’s worth, I’ve always approached
Picnic at Hanging Rock as kind of dark fairy tale, the best of which are always informed by some sort of truth - and although factors like lost innocence and sexual awakening may play a role, in the end it’s about the land itself and our place within it.