Lethem Reading

The passage I analyzed was The Beauty of Second Use. After a quick overview of The Velveteen Rabbit, there are some distinct differences between the original message and the manner in which Lethem uses it in his text. The original text is quite tragic, a tale that tells the story of a rabbit that wanted to be desired and loved by its owner.  Throughout the text, the rabbit wanted to be “real”. He is informed by the “Skin Horse” that in order to be real, it must be loved by the boy.  The rabbit was disregarded up until one night when the boy lost one of his toys. Soon the two developed a strong relationship. However, the child falls ill and all of his belongings must be disinfected (burned). The text delves into many complicated topics within the rabbit such as identity crisis. At the end, the rabbit is made “real” as it wished, and revisits his old owner.

In the New Humanities Reader, Lethem ignores the emotional strings tied by Williams in the original text. Lethem uses the discussion between Skin Horse and the Rabbit seemingly to support the argument justifying “plagiarism” (to a degree). In Lethem’s text, it is said that “the value of a new toy lies not in its material qualities, but rather in how the toy is used.” (Lethem 219). In this case, it is describing how the value of any writing, any piece of art, etc. is not defined by its original intent, but rather how it is molded and used by other creators / artists. Lethem references The Velveteen Rabbit to further build this statement : “...by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby” (Lethem 219). He goes on to describe how this can be representative of two things, depending on one’s perspective. The rabbit is worn down due to extensive misuse (“from the perspective of the toymaker”) or due to love (“for others”). Similarly, many content creators see “plagiarism” as a misuse of their work while the people or the communities affected by a “plagiarised” piece see the new piece as an exemplification of the artist’s admiration for the original creator / piece.

The new context instilled by Lethem certainly helps his text flow; however, for me it seems as if Lethem’s culling of quotes builds his own agenda and takes away the power of the original texts. This shows that although he is pulling directly from other texts, others’ ideas can be used in a much different manner. This further promotes the idea of “plagiarising”, not in the context of copying directly, but rather, taking one’s ideas and using them to make your own.