Fangbangers, Tin Soldiers, and Living Toys! Fictional Creatures Becoming 'Real'

The divide between human and non-human, real and not-real, is a problem frequently explored in texts about toys and undead creatures. Even the term ‘undead’ is problematic, for while the undead are not ‘dead’ in the truest sense, they are still not ‘alive' (Perhaps ‘not not dead’ would be a more appropriate term!). The three texts for discussion in this paper, Robin McKinley’s novel Sunshine, Hans Christian Anderson’s perennial short story The Steadfast Tin Soldier, and Margery Williams' The Velveteen Rabbit all delineate between the real or human or living and the not-real or not-human or not-living on biological grounds; that is, the animate toy or the undead creature cannot perform the same biological acts as either their animate or not-undead analogues are able. A toy rabbit cannot jump as a real rabbit can, a tin soldier is restricted by his very form to a certain predefined agency, and a Vampire cannot create a new life with another biological being1. The three texts also explore how these ‘unreal’ creatures attempt to become ‘real,’ and show the results of these metamorphoses.

When first introduced, the Rabbit is simply a velvet casing stuffed with sawdust, but is “fat and bunchy, as a rabbit should be.”2 There is some initial concept of ‘rabbithood,’ but this is purely an imitation. The Rabbit’s own concept of self is that he is a velveteen rabbit; he has not made the link between his own existence as a toy, and the ‘real’ existence of being a rabbit, “for he didn’t know that real rabbits existed.”3 Williams delineation of the ‘real’ and the ‘not-real’ is clear: the velveteen rabbit is a pretend rabbit, the model boat is a model (or a representation) of a real boat, et cetera.

Of all the toys in the nursery, it is the Skin Horse who exists in the most liminal of spaces. The question of ‘alive’ or ‘not alive’ in The Velveteen Rabbit is particularly problematic, as the toys possess some awareness of their own existence, and are obviously capable of cognition. The most useful framing for considering the ‘aliveness’ of the nursery toys is their agency; while the toys are able to ‘think’ about their surroundings, they cannot interact with them. In their first conversation, the Rabbit and the Skin Horse are, "lying side by side near the nursery fender, before Nana came to tidy the room.”4

In this sense, none of the nursery toys are ‘alive.’ The reference to ‘Nana’ is not simply temporal framing, but shows that without Nana, the toys are unable themselves to their proper positions. Likewise, when the Rabbit meets the real rabbits outside in the woods:

“ ‘Can you hop on your hind legs?’ asked the furry rabbit.
‘I don’t want to!’ [the velveteen rabbit] said…”5

The Velveteen Rabbit is restricted in two ways; first, by his form, and second through his agency. He does not have hind legs, so therefore cannot hop and even if he was made to possess hind legs, he would lack the capacity to act on them and still could not hop. He would need to be physically manipulated by the boy or by Nana to ‘hop’.

The transferral of the Velveteen Rabbit’s agency to the manipulations of the Boy are key to understanding the transformation from Toy to Real. When the Boy plays with the Velveteen Rabbit, there is no concept in the Boy’s mind that his toy is not real. For the boy, the representation of ‘rabbitness’ is sufficient to understand his toy as ‘real.’ Once she has made him real, the Nursery Magic Fairy tells the rabbit, “ ‘You were Real to the boy… because he loved you. Now you shall be Real to everyone.”6

Once the Velveteen Rabbit realizes his newfound ‘realness’ he displays his own agency for the first time in the story, as he jumps, leaps and twitches with the other ‘real’ rabbits. In his To form, he was rejected by the other rabbits, but now, after his “fleshly metamorphosis”7 he is accepted as ‘Real’ by the very creatures he was made to imitate. While the appearance of the Nursery Fairy (and indeed the whole idea of ‘Nursery Magic’) could be considered a deus ex machina, the transformation shows that both the Velveteen Rabbit’s evolving concept of self and his desire for ‘realness’ are contributing factors. The fairy’s invocation of the love that the Boy has for his toy serves as a catalyst for the metamorphosis.

Both The Steadfast Tin Soldier and The Velveteen Rabbit move through the traditional cycle of toy narratives, “appearance, … arrival, … decrepitude… and trashing,”8 but differ in their resolution of the quest for ‘realness.’ Like the Velveteen Rabbit, The Toy Soldier is bound by his form, and there is a sense that he develops some sort of soul, which goes on to unite with the little dancer in some sort of toy afterlife. His reduction to “a little lump… in the shape of a heart”9 is perhaps Anderson’s symbolic way of portraying the enduring quality of the Tin Soldier’s Petrarchan love for the dancer.

Like the Velveteen Rabbit, the Toy Soldier’s agency is limited by his form, although Anderson disguises the limitations behind cognitive reasoning. There are several passages where this occurs:

"[The Tin Soldier] was too proud to cry out for help while he wore a uniform.”

“the poor tin soldier could only hold himself as stiffly as possible… to show that he was not afraid.”

“He felt himself melting away, but he still remained firm with his gun on his shoulder.”10

Whether in the mind of the Tin Soldier himself, or in the mind of Anderson, the physical form of the Tin Soldier simultaneously restricts his agency and provides reasons for such restrictions. In reality, he was not ‘too proud’, but does not possess the means to speak. He ‘could only hold himself stiffly’ and ‘remained firm’ because that is all a tin soldier can do.