Talk:The Velveteen Rabbit

Request Revision Of Plot Summary

This section is tough to figure out (per the current version, 01.01.14). The language is convoluted (I guess someone with ESL wrote this draft?) but also imprecise. On my first read-through I read it as:

• the young boy was shunned by the toys of higher function because he had rejected the velveteen rabbit.
• no idea what extreme adoration or love from the children (what children?) has to do with getting told about magically becoming real.
• not clear whether it was the boy or the rabbit who was awed about the rabbit getting information.
• what wish? and by whom? This is the only mention of some wish, and it's not obvious whose wish it was.

That was my first read-through, and just the first para. I'm sure that reading isn't right, so I did do a quick check through some old versions in the History. A version from 2011 is the most recent that sounds familiar and doesn't seem open to multiple interpretation...

But I haven't read the book, so I am not suited to edit this section. Could someone learned pitch in?Smittee (talk) 09:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It should be removed. It's terrible AND the book itself is no longer than this ignorant piece of twaddle, it would be better to just put the entire book up. It's online here :

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/williams/rabbit/rabbit.html

Can wikipedia do something about this third-grader book review type of articles on fiction ? The practice is reprehensible 116.231.74.1 (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

A few points here:

The "ignorant piece of twaddle" you are referring to has little in common with the summary referred to three years ago.[1]

A plot summary is entirely appropriate for an article about novel, novella or short story. The substantially longer full text of the work is not. Links to the text are included at the bottom of the article.

Yes, Wikipedia can do something about problems with the article. We can improve the summary. We can rewrite the whole section, if need be. To get this started, we just need a member of our editorial staff to take the lead. I think I know just the person... - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

huh, that's so true, i just ran across this story again and checked the article becauase what i had read had the velveteen rabbit turn into a real one when i was so sure that the kid had died and the toy burned. Anyone else have memories of this? From what the article says, it's pretty common.--orphan frequently 08:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought he was burned too... weird. I'll have to reread the original sometime. 71.77.207.50 07:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The story section of this article really needs to be moved to Wikisource instead of being here. I don't know how to do it though. Any know?--Jackyd101 12:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; the full content of the story isn't encyclopedic. The link to Project Gutenberg's copy of the text at the bottom of the page should be sufficient for the purpose of this article. ~ Eidako 06:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a new Velveteen Rabbit movie coming out in February of 2009, I'm interested to see the book to movie conversion. Any thoughts? rebecca (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I read it as a child, and could never read it again (until just now) because it is so obvious what ACTUALLY happened, as opposed to what the story SAYS happened. Of course the Velveteen Rabbit was actually burned up after the Boy recovered from scarlet fever--although the Boy didn't die. WordwizardW (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic chat
Gag me with a spoon. It was an abortion. I'll never understand WHY movie people have to take classics and destroy them. No taste, I guess ? 116.231.74.1 (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Image

I just scanned and uploaded an image of the cover. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:VelveteenRabbitCover.PNG DragonSparke 17:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the image. b_cubed 05:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Woo! I'm useful! DragonSparke

I couldn't figure out how to comment above, but "rebecca" who commented above is a marketing tool used by Feature Films for Families to promote and market their products so everything associated with her should be considered questionable for encylopedic entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craisingoldfish (talk • contribs) 19:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Buried Treasure?

I recall hearing that the original printed version of this story supposedly held a code for buried treasure. True? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.101.34 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of Masquerade (book). Lisiate (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

Cell phone spam - spamming "Do not call" registered numbers I just got called from 917-210-4609, promoting the upcoming movie release. Apparently, I'm not the only one, according to http://whocalled.us/lookup/9172104609. I suspect this kind of violation of US law might be encyclopedic, at least to talk about popular culture and mistakes people make. --04:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC) It does not belong in this article because it has nothing to do with the book. Either create a separate article for the movie or put it in an article about telemarketing. 71.109.160.33 (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Chronicles"?

Really? Are you sure it doesn't just "tell" the story? rowley (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)