So… something about the rabbit wanting to be “real” instead of being happy with who he is? Or perhaps more related to the doctor’s order to burn the toys?
Funnily enough, a very old animated version of that story was among the first things my parents recorded with a VHS, among other cartoons in the same tape. I must have seen that thousand of times when I was a little kid.
There is something odd about the Skin Horse. He’s clearly only a toy, but he claims that the love of the boy’s uncle made him real and that being real is something that can’t be taken away from you – so he seems to be lying. But at the end of the story, the Velveteen rabbit _does_ become an actual rabbit thanks to the love of the boy as mediated by Fairy, so the Skin Horse…was right all along? It doesn’t quite make sense.
Hey, you’re not supposed to bring up the meaning of the name explicitly! Like in a children’s book, you’re supposed to let it be something the readers can feel smarter than the characters about!
I don’t know if it’s what’s being pointed at here, but there was something that bothered me about it when I got past the AWW BUNNIES as a kid: It’s all about how powerful humans are, not love. Human love did this, love for a human did that; everything’s based on humanity as the thumb on the scales, so to speak. I didn’t like that.
Its a successful children’s story. It has profound truths woven into its simplicity. But, please, go ahead and introduce it as to young people as an all too typically humanocentric fable which fails to take into account true rabbit love.
Barnes & Noble has multiple editions in the five to twenty dollar range. I’m making the assumption that it’s in the public domain. So which would be *the* edition to get?
When I was in the hospital with a temperature that peaked above 105, my girlfriend (now wife) sat and read the book to me. I was delirious from fever, but I remember her calm words soothing me. We now have a copy of the book on a shelf in the bedroom, since it represents loving and caring over each other.
In the story, the Velveteen Rabbit was Real to the Boy because he loved the Rabbit, but the Rabbit only became Real to every one after the nursery magic Fairy kissed him.
The Skin Horse, on the other hand, was Real to the Boy’s Uncle, but not at all Real to every one at large.
Is Project Skin Horse in some limbo, Real to the bureaucracy that created it, but awaiting a Fairy kiss to make it Real to every one?
————————————————-
I really hope that Hitty and Moustachio are not destined for the waste heap, condemned by the Skin Horse’s “wisdom”:
“mechanical toys arrive to boast and swagger, and by-and-by break their mainsprings and pass away, and he knew that they were only toys, and would never turn into anything else”
I can think of two extremely different reasons for why Artie would distrust the project Skin Horse based on the fairy tale.
First, the original Skin Horse gives the wrong advice to the rabbit. While he told him he could become Real, it was in such a way that the Rabbit wrongly assumed he became so once the boy accepted him. If you push the cynism further, Skin Horse could very well be a malevolent being, tricking toys into believing they could become Real in their current state.
The second reason is about the story’s morale, which could be interpreted as “you can never become Real in your current state, you have to conform to everyone’s idea of being Real”. In this case, the goal of project Skin Horse could be to turn every sapient beings into humans – or into non-sapient animals.
I would go with the first reason. Sapient non-humans have been lulled into a false sense of security — of belonging. Now that the reality blindness has struck, they will realize that no matter how welcomed they may have been made to feel, they will never be thought of as equals with humans.
Okay, I just read the book for the first time—thanks for the link, awgiedawgie. Skin Horse helps sapient non-humans, but it’s all below the radar—they’re real the same way the Skin Horse is real, within a limited context that doesn’t involve interacting with the greater world. Most humans never become aware of this “reality.” In the book, old, loved toys reach a second level of reality, where the fairy transforms them into whatever they represent, so they can interact with the wider world. (I wonder what happens to much-loved dolls and toys soldiers, or, for that matter, toy trains.) Would the equivalent in the comic be:
1) Humans become fully aware of the non-human sapients, and interact with them, for good or ill? or
2) Non-human sapients become the real-world version of what they represent?
1) seems possible, but the reality blindness is taking humans even one level further away from such recognition. 2) seems less likely, because for the animals, plants and machines, that would be a huge downgrade, and Jeff and Shaenon aren’t cruel. Or maybe we’re just reading too much into the book, and it’s just a title, not a roadmap .
Finally, I’m gonna get to learn about this story! (I’d never heard of it over here in the UK, and have resisted looking it up in case it spoiled a story such as this…)
The creepy thing that everyone’s seemed to miss is that the Skin Horse was made of “skin”. Therefore it had once been a real live horse that people killed and used to make a toy.
Some toys became real through a child’s love (and consequent abuse…a Christian or Buddhist transcendence-through-suffering) but this reality was a distinctly different level of reality than the state caused by the fairy’s transformation when the rabbit was placed on the pyre of toys that sustained the boy through his illness. Did the rabbit become physically alive, i.e., mortal at this point, or immortal? Are there levels of “reality” that arise from different amounts of abuse?
It’s more likely that the Skin Horse was actually covered in calf hide, because that was readily available and fairly cheap before the 1930s. It was quite common to use it as the “skin” for various toys.
Artie probably has issues with several aspects of the book. Taking it from the perspective of a NHS, the book is a parable for a minority underclass’ attempt at self actualization in a large, heterogeneous culture like in the US.
First, the Skin Horse itself symbolizes a common problem facing minority underclasses. It is the underclass accepting subjugation by the dominant culture due to the nature of the underclass as a recognizable and exploitable “other.” It is rejected by the mainstream because it is unable to fully conform to the mainstream ideal, but rather than seeking to force the mainstream to conform to its existence by joining the mosaic of cultures, it strives to serve the mainstream as an accepted underclass and is thus exploitable.
Second, the overall moral of the story, from Artie’s perspective, is that the minority underclass is not capable of self-actualization. Both the Skin Horse, which has a corrupted vision of acceptance, and the Velveteen Rabbit, which has a more “pure” vision of acceptance (becoming fully realized as a real rabbit and not just a beloved toy), cannot achieve their dreams without first being accepted by the humans. They are never at any point free agents, until the Velveteen Rabbit becomes a real rabbit at the end. They cannot realize their dreams and fully achieve self actualization without first finding acceptance from the dominant culture and sacrificing themselves in a way that a benevolent outside force deems worthy of realization.
Now, you want your mind really blown? All of the chapter titles (shown below the comic) are references to other children’s books. You’ll find more information on the books in the comments from readers who have recognized the references.
Ow, my brain!
So is this… should I go and read the book to pick up more details that the story assumed I knew, or is the in-canon “Rabbit became real, then everyone burned” enough of a gist at this point?
Well, the books are all good enough in their own right, but they won’t necessarily give you any magical insight into anything that’s going on here. If anything, I would recommend reading (or re-reading, as the case may be) all of the various Wizard of Oz books.
So… something about the rabbit wanting to be “real” instead of being happy with who he is? Or perhaps more related to the doctor’s order to burn the toys?
Funnily enough, a very old animated version of that story was among the first things my parents recorded with a VHS, among other cartoons in the same tape. I must have seen that thousand of times when I was a little kid.
As I remember it, they try to teach the rabbit a version of realness that is useful to its human masters, instead of being an actual, real rabbit.
There is something odd about the Skin Horse. He’s clearly only a toy, but he claims that the love of the boy’s uncle made him real and that being real is something that can’t be taken away from you – so he seems to be lying. But at the end of the story, the Velveteen rabbit _does_ become an actual rabbit thanks to the love of the boy as mediated by Fairy, so the Skin Horse…was right all along? It doesn’t quite make sense.
Hey, you’re not supposed to bring up the meaning of the name explicitly! Like in a children’s book, you’re supposed to let it be something the readers can feel smarter than the characters about!
Because in the end. all of the toys, real or not, are burned for the safety of the humans.
Not all the toys, just the ones that were in the boy’s room while he was sick. The ones in the nursery were fine.
I don’t know if it’s what’s being pointed at here, but there was something that bothered me about it when I got past the AWW BUNNIES as a kid: It’s all about how powerful humans are, not love. Human love did this, love for a human did that; everything’s based on humanity as the thumb on the scales, so to speak. I didn’t like that.
Its a successful children’s story. It has profound truths woven into its simplicity. But, please, go ahead and introduce it as to young people as an all too typically humanocentric fable which fails to take into account true rabbit love.
**shrug** I call it as I see it. And it bothered me when I *was* one of those ‘young people,’ btw; I make no apologies whatsoever. Deal with it.
Well, I can’t recall reading it when I was a kid…not sure I read it as an adult, either.
That’s an expensive book. It is $95.00 in Amazon for a hard cover version.
There’s a hardcover edition on Amazon for only $12.50. And a paperback version for less than $5. Not all that expensive.
Barnes & Noble has multiple editions in the five to twenty dollar range. I’m making the assumption that it’s in the public domain. So which would be *the* edition to get?
Free on Project Gutenberg, if you’re just looking to read it.
Here’s the link, if anyone’s interested.
When I was in the hospital with a temperature that peaked above 105, my girlfriend (now wife) sat and read the book to me. I was delirious from fever, but I remember her calm words soothing me. We now have a copy of the book on a shelf in the bedroom, since it represents loving and caring over each other.
I’m going to guess it has something to do with fire
Well, you’re not wrong
In the story, the Velveteen Rabbit was Real to the Boy because he loved the Rabbit, but the Rabbit only became Real to every one after the nursery magic Fairy kissed him.
The Skin Horse, on the other hand, was Real to the Boy’s Uncle, but not at all Real to every one at large.
Is Project Skin Horse in some limbo, Real to the bureaucracy that created it, but awaiting a Fairy kiss to make it Real to every one?
————————————————-
I really hope that Hitty and Moustachio are not destined for the waste heap, condemned by the Skin Horse’s “wisdom”:
“mechanical toys arrive to boast and swagger, and by-and-by break their mainsprings and pass away, and he knew that they were only toys, and would never turn into anything else”
I can think of two extremely different reasons for why Artie would distrust the project Skin Horse based on the fairy tale.
First, the original Skin Horse gives the wrong advice to the rabbit. While he told him he could become Real, it was in such a way that the Rabbit wrongly assumed he became so once the boy accepted him. If you push the cynism further, Skin Horse could very well be a malevolent being, tricking toys into believing they could become Real in their current state.
The second reason is about the story’s morale, which could be interpreted as “you can never become Real in your current state, you have to conform to everyone’s idea of being Real”. In this case, the goal of project Skin Horse could be to turn every sapient beings into humans – or into non-sapient animals.
I would go with the first reason. Sapient non-humans have been lulled into a false sense of security — of belonging. Now that the reality blindness has struck, they will realize that no matter how welcomed they may have been made to feel, they will never be thought of as equals with humans.
“The mouse and his child” might offer a counterpoint to that…
Maybe Artie is afraid because he’s a *real* gerbil and they’ll turn him into a toy?
Okay, I just read the book for the first time—thanks for the link, awgiedawgie. Skin Horse helps sapient non-humans, but it’s all below the radar—they’re real the same way the Skin Horse is real, within a limited context that doesn’t involve interacting with the greater world. Most humans never become aware of this “reality.” In the book, old, loved toys reach a second level of reality, where the fairy transforms them into whatever they represent, so they can interact with the wider world. (I wonder what happens to much-loved dolls and toys soldiers, or, for that matter, toy trains.) Would the equivalent in the comic be:
1) Humans become fully aware of the non-human sapients, and interact with them, for good or ill? or
2) Non-human sapients become the real-world version of what they represent?
1) seems possible, but the reality blindness is taking humans even one level further away from such recognition. 2) seems less likely, because for the animals, plants and machines, that would be a huge downgrade, and Jeff and Shaenon aren’t cruel. Or maybe we’re just reading too much into the book, and it’s just a title, not a roadmap .
Judging from the forum alone, Artie is going into one of those long, complicated explanations. Everyone better get comfortable.
Doesn’t work.
Finally, I’m gonna get to learn about this story! (I’d never heard of it over here in the UK, and have resisted looking it up in case it spoiled a story such as this…)
The creepy thing that everyone’s seemed to miss is that the Skin Horse was made of “skin”. Therefore it had once been a real live horse that people killed and used to make a toy.
Some toys became real through a child’s love (and consequent abuse…a Christian or Buddhist transcendence-through-suffering) but this reality was a distinctly different level of reality than the state caused by the fairy’s transformation when the rabbit was placed on the pyre of toys that sustained the boy through his illness. Did the rabbit become physically alive, i.e., mortal at this point, or immortal? Are there levels of “reality” that arise from different amounts of abuse?
It’s more likely that the Skin Horse was actually covered in calf hide, because that was readily available and fairly cheap before the 1930s. It was quite common to use it as the “skin” for various toys.
For reference: https://collection.maas.museum/object/169139
Artie probably has issues with several aspects of the book. Taking it from the perspective of a NHS, the book is a parable for a minority underclass’ attempt at self actualization in a large, heterogeneous culture like in the US.
First, the Skin Horse itself symbolizes a common problem facing minority underclasses. It is the underclass accepting subjugation by the dominant culture due to the nature of the underclass as a recognizable and exploitable “other.” It is rejected by the mainstream because it is unable to fully conform to the mainstream ideal, but rather than seeking to force the mainstream to conform to its existence by joining the mosaic of cultures, it strives to serve the mainstream as an accepted underclass and is thus exploitable.
Second, the overall moral of the story, from Artie’s perspective, is that the minority underclass is not capable of self-actualization. Both the Skin Horse, which has a corrupted vision of acceptance, and the Velveteen Rabbit, which has a more “pure” vision of acceptance (becoming fully realized as a real rabbit and not just a beloved toy), cannot achieve their dreams without first being accepted by the humans. They are never at any point free agents, until the Velveteen Rabbit becomes a real rabbit at the end. They cannot realize their dreams and fully achieve self actualization without first finding acceptance from the dominant culture and sacrificing themselves in a way that a benevolent outside force deems worthy of realization.
I literally just got done reading a Flat Stanley book to my class and then opened to this archive page on my break
… wait a minute, is Skin Horse an actual storybook or something?
Was there supposed to be context to this tale I’d never heard of until freakin’ 2022?
The Skin Horse is a toy/character in the book The Velveteen Rabbit. Yes, it’s an actual storybook.
Thank you! I had never heard of it up until this moment.
I guess I’m just insufficiently cultured!
Now, you want your mind really blown? All of the chapter titles (shown below the comic) are references to other children’s books. You’ll find more information on the books in the comments from readers who have recognized the references.
Ow, my brain!
So is this… should I go and read the book to pick up more details that the story assumed I knew, or is the in-canon “Rabbit became real, then everyone burned” enough of a gist at this point?
Well, the books are all good enough in their own right, but they won’t necessarily give you any magical insight into anything that’s going on here. If anything, I would recommend reading (or re-reading, as the case may be) all of the various Wizard of Oz books.