THE VELVETEEN RABBIT was of course the inspiration for the story of the doll Jessie in Toy Story II.

And if we remember that it is with the Rabbit that a child identifies, then I must suspect that the story's power derives from the all-too-common tragedy of the child who does not feel loved, who -- having been 'cared for' in at least the physical sense for a short time near the beginning of life -- does not receive loving treatment frequently thereafter, regardless of what the parents may 'feel'. Such a child must somehow find -- or wait for --an adult who will offer the loving behavior necessary not only to self-esteem but to the actual development of inborn abilities and talents, which cannot flourish until such love is found, but cannot be undone later on, even when the source of love is lost. "(O)nce you are Real you can't become unreal again."

SHOOT: Looking forward to seeing this.

clipped from www.epinions.com Now what strikes me most forcibly about the book when I read it as an adult is the extent to which only the Skin Horse and the Velveteen Rabbit seem 'lower-case' real to me as characters, in spite of the fact that the Boy's Nana and his doctor and the Boy himself are given equally excellent dialogue insofar as they need to speak in order to further the plot. We are left in no doubt whatsoever about the Boy's love for "his old Bunny" -- since we are privy to all their imaginative games, the Boy's concern for the Bunny's 'comfort' and the extent of the old toy's love and concern for him -- but the child remains a shadowy figure whose head we never 'get inside', and I believe this is intentional. It somewhat softens the blow -- not to the poor Rabbit, of course, but to the child reader -- when the Rabbit is taken from the Boy and sent on yet another journey. In other words, it is only with the Rabbit that a child need identify; too much pain would be found in identifying with both.