The Giving Tree, urgh

[pegkerr]

I was looking at various critics' list for best 100 books, and ran across The National Education Association's list of 100 best books for children.

Right at the top is Shel Silverstein's The Giving Tree, and I think urgh, urgh urgh.

To me, The Giving Tree is a loathsome, evil book.

I'm a Christian, but to me the message of that book is just twisted, and certainly not a picture of what true Christian giving should be like, although I am sure there are many that would argue otherwise. It is clear that the author approves of the tree (Edited to add: or perhaps he doesn't; perhaps it's meant as a cautionary tale). The tree is always referred to as she, and she gives up her apples, her branches, and eventually the wood of her trunk to a selfish, greedy boy. When he is an old man, he sits on her stump. That's the payoff: "And the tree was happy."

I rewrote the story once because it disgusted me so much. I wish I had a copy of my rewrite (Edited to add: I remember now: I titled my rewrite The Sharing Tree). When he asked for apples, she told him to take half the apples and sell them for fertilizer to put around her trunk, and then she could make even more apples, so there would be some for him, but she would not be bereft. I think at one point she told him to apply yet more fertilizer so she would be even bigger and stronger, and then invited him to make a tree house in her (much larger) branches, using the extra wood she had grown big enough to spare, and invite all his friends over so that he would not be lonely. In the end, she was a mighty tree indeed, with many extra apples and many extra branches, with a breezy tree house up above and a whole happy, thriving community around her roots. My point was, she could give to him without maiming and destroying herself. And goddamn it, why did he have to be so selfish, anyway? Why did he (male) always get to be the taker, and she (female) always have to be the giver? Couldn't there be ways that he could take and she could give that wouldn't involve her destruction, but instead her being nurtured by him? Why was she happy that he parked his bony ass on her in the end, destroyed by giving herself up for him, when he had done nothing for her? How could the author approve of this?

I think it's an awful message, both for girls and for boys.

So? Do you agree or disagree?

Edited to add (again!): Thanks to mereilin, who provided a link to a symposium at the always interesting First Things about the book.

Comments

[psychic-serpent.livejournal.com]

What are they thinking? Books for all ages? Silverstein's work--just no. Not even close. Little Women? For all ages? Sorry, no. It's for eleven year old girls, and that's about it. The Wizard of Oz? Interesting in its way but even my daughter found it to be full of oddly sexist and racist references that make it rather dated today. Heidi? I enjoyed it as a kid but you couldn't get me to read it now; I have better things to do than read about such a Mary Sue at my age. These are books for all ages? They're serious? Where on earth are the HP books? Now THOSE are books for all ages.

The books for preschoolers aren't bad, I suppose, but I prefer Don Freeman's Norman the Doorman to Corduroy. (The avant garde artist in us all! Even a mouse who is a doorman to the art museum for other mice!) And The Runaway Bunny is boring, even for little kids. Even more boring if you're the one reading it to a kid. I loved reading On the Day you were Born to my kids at this age, and my daughter still loves it; the prose has a kind of flow you get with free-form poetry and the cut-paper art is amazing. And why isn't there any Dr. Seuss in this section? Are we serious? Or Sandra Boynton? I think what I'm chiefly seeing here is that none of the books listed is what I'd call FUN, which is what small kids need in their reading. Why are these "best"? Because they're teaching values or something? Fun is one of the best values kids can learn, and often they're the ones who have to teach it to the adults around them. The folks who made this list clearly wouldn't know "fun" if it came up and tickled them mercilessly. ;)

I see there are some Dr. Seuss selections in the next age range, but that's still neglecting the ones for younger kids. There's a wide range of books in this section (as there should be). However--The Boxcar Children? That treacle? No no no. And I think The Giver belongs in the young adult category, as most kids 9-11 wouldn't be able to deal with it yet. (Yeah, the ending was a bit disappointing, but there's a lot to recommend it despite that.) And my mother-in-law was never able to cope with the very IDEA of Stuart Little because a human woman gave birth to a mouse. Erg. I think she may have a point. There still aren't many books that are fun, and some that are fun are oddly lightweight and I don't get their being here. (Like Mr. Popper's Penguins, which is pretty much pointless from beginning to end, even though it's fun.) And no James and the Giant Peach? And once again--no HP books? No Jane Langton books are another significant omission. There is also a dearth of recently published books, such as The Tale of Despereaux. This list seems frozen in amber.

The Young Adults list is truly mystifying, though. Five books? No HP, no other fantasy (besides The Hobbit) or science fiction, nothing like Fever 1793 or Tithe? Where is Louis Sachar's Holes, at the very least?

Erg. The Silverstein inclusions are not the worst of this collection. The sad thing is some parents will treat this list as gospel. I shudder at the thought.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

To be frank, I didn't read the list past the first book!

[mizzlaurajean.livejournal.com]

Okay I just looked at the list. It's rather unimpressive. There are tons of other books I think are better writen, better story's. The preschool list is really short. Little kids are really underestimed and read books that don't push the envelope with vocabulary. A lot of the books on the list are old classics and it makes me wonder who's writing the new classics.

[(Anonymous)]

At the beginning you claim to be a Christian, but then in the last full paragraph you condemn the Lord to hell.

[tinymich.livejournal.com]

?!?!? >_<

How, O Anonymous Poster, could anyone actually condemn the Lord to hell, if He is indeed the Lord?

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

Your version sounds definitely superior to the original. Call it 'The Sharing Tree?'
'The We're in this Together Tree?'

- Laramie

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

That's right! I remember now--I actually did title it The Sharing Tree!

[zedmeister.livejournal.com]

Ugh. I had no idea the tree is female in the original version. English is my second language, and while I did read The Giving Tree as a kid, it was a translated version that (in the spirit of the language) used 'tree' as a neuter noun. You simply can't refer to trees as female in Serbian, there's no female noun.

So, as a kid, I found it to be a heartbreaking, if somewhat cynical tale on the one-sided nature of love. It always made me cry, but I was furious with the boy at the same time.

Now, though... I think I find it disgusting. I never even imagined that the tree was intended to be female.

[ambtiondata.livejournal.com]

I think I must have read that once at some point, but from your description it seems one of those books that would make a greater impression on me now than as a child, as I had a loving and secure family life and none of the themes resonated with me or dug anything out. I love what you wrote about it though - that was an extremely wonderful and productive rant. I like your alternate version too, as far as giving a good message. I generally do like to see quirky, darker than would be expected themes in children's books, but it needs to be balanced. I haven't read many children's books at all lately though. The only I can make an example of are the Series of Unfortunate Events books - they've got some pretty depressing themes of adult incompetency, but you're never left feeling quite so depressed at the end as Lemony Snickett leads you up to expect because the children themselves have such a close, unwavering bond of love and companionship, which overshines the evil and negligence done to them. Which is not to label the above as great literature, just to explain that while I do like the fact that The Giving Tree has ambitious regard for children and their capabilities of understanding, it needs positive themes as well (not necessarily instead of) to be a truly remarkable story. As it stands, yeah, it could be quite a damaging thing to put in the mind of any kid it might resonate with.

Again though, I truly loved reading your post.

[liadan-m.livejournal.com]

I have to disagree.

I was raised to give all I could, serve as much as possible, do it until it hurt. We've had a comfortable income for several years and each of us have individually given our 10% in time or in money or both. Then we give some more. And mom and I know that we don't give enough. We are people who live to serve...it's both our job and our passion. And we give, whether or not any one else appreciates it.

For me, the giving tree is an example of how to give and the attitude to have. It is also a cautionary tale of what my absolute limit is...I'm not allowed to kill myself with serving. I will and have come close but that is the one line I'm not allowed to cross. It is giving to God, giving to people, giving everything I can to the best of my ability. Thinking of myself should come very far down my list. It doesn't always...

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Well, I think it's good that you see the cautionary angle of it.

I worry about women who land in abusive relationships, who give and give and give to men who become utterly selfish monsters from taking and taking and taking. And pastors who urge them to stay in such marriages because it's "Christian" to give and forgive.

I certainly don't think that it's best to never give! Yes, giving/unselfishness is integral to my faith. I do vastly prefer the giving and the way it affects relationships in "Leaf by Niggle," however (I'm talking about the relationship between Niggle and Parrish as it becomes at the end of the story, rather than at the beginning).

[squeeful.livejournal.com]

I think you hit on why I never had that book as a child, something I hadn't really thought about before. The only place I encountered it was at school and it always had me in tears by the end, every time until the teachers stopped reading it. I always felt horribly, horribly guilty for being, which is a terrible thing to put on a four year old.

After my first knee-jerk comment, something more thought out...

[mereilin.livejournal.com]

I stewed about this book for a solid week after I first read it last spring, and decided that I absolutely hate it, and my husband (after reading it to Danny every night at bedtime for a week) was in full agreement. Our general consensus is that the tree is a pathetic doormat and the boy is a selfish, insensitive jerk.

I got a bunch of comments when I first posted my initial reactions to the book, and I was surprised to realize that there are many people who have found this story beautiful and inspiring.

But what I think is this: If it's actually a parable about a parent's love for their child, it's missing something that I think is critical. Parents do give unselfishly to their children, and sacrifice a lot to make them happy. But ultimately children grow up and become parents themselves, and the cycle continues. To apply the parent/child paradigm to this story is to assume that parents can only be truly happy when they spoil their children at the expense of their own well-being and yet, somehow, manage never to prepare them to be responsible, giving adults.

The boy grew up, but never grew past the selfish child. In all his long life, he learned nothing at all from the tree that gave up her very life for him, which sort of makes her sacrifice pointless. The tree is dead, incapable of giving anything to anyone else; the boy is by then obviously a very old man who's going to die soon. The world is not a better place because of their existence.

Go ahead, says the tree. Use me, cut me up, leave me for dead -- I'll be happy if you're happy. But the thing is, he isn't happy until there's nothing left of her but a stump for his sorry old ass to sit on, and even then he seems more worn out than actually happy. If you turned the page to see what happens next, would he just get up and hobble away again, leaving the tree stump alone in the forest? Would he die right there, to finally give the tree what he wouldn't give her in life?

I don't think there's anything in that story that I want to emulate, nor that I want my kids to emulate. Kindness and giving are beautiful things; finding contentment in continually being abused by someone you love and care for is not.

For more discussion on this, both pro and con, check out the following link:

The Giving Tree: A Symposium

Re: After my first knee-jerk comment, something more thought out...

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Oh, many thanks for the link! I have always appreciated the articles I've read in First Things.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

You might find this interesting: "The Giving Tree: A Symposium" at
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9501/articles/givingtree.html .
Some disagree with you, and some agree.

One participant says this, which I think is particularly on point here:
"When the tree helps the boy realize some of his desires, those wants are legitimate--to eat and to play, to buy things and have fun, to have a house and family, to sail away and (one suspects) begin anew, to rest. But through all of this, when the boy seems merely to be taking and the tree only to be giving, the boy loves the tree. If that is said only once, the reality is plain. For the heart with 'ME & T' carved into the tree is never effaced. When the tree is taken down to a stump, that expression of love still remains. The boy keeps coming back not simply because he gets what he wants from the tree, but because he loves the tree. And we must therefore ask what makes the boy's love possible. Not, I think, only the things the tree gives, but that she gives herself without stinting. The boy returns not because the tree requires it, but because the tree's love makes it possible for him to leave and return."

As this person points out, the boy goes to the tree for what he needs in his development as a human being. That last line, I think, is key to my viewpoint on this story as an allegory of parenting: I try to give my children everything they need to become the human beings they were meant to be, and I will keep on trying till I'm an old stump. They aren't selfish in asking for these things; they need them, and in being their parent I have taken on the responsibility to give these things to the best of my ability.

When the day comes that I am that old stump, it won't be because my children took everything, or anything, from me, but because a tree is supposed to eventually become an old stump. That's the way of nature; that is the natural ending for me.

As for the issue of gender: Would it be possible to make the tree and the human of any combination of genders and not have someone protest? If both were male or both were female, would not someone see significance in the fact that the tree is dark in color and the human is light? If the tree were male and the human female, would not someone protest that it portrays a stereotypical relationship between a hard-working male provider and a greedy female being provided for?

[liadan-m.livejournal.com]

agreement.

Thank you.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Great topic, Peg!

I have to say I have a conflicted relationship with The Giving Tree. I'm not the biggest fan of the book, but I did think it was an interesting story about total, unconditional love that is never returned or ever completely understood. It's definitely a creepy book, and I do look a bit askance at it in terms of gender relations, true. I'm not sure what S.S. meant in writing it the way he did, but it's a very painful story.

But I wouldn't read it to my nephew.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Loathesome book. And papersky beat me to the second most loathesome book that parents just love foisting on little ones, "Love You Forever."

Shiver.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I'm curious: How do you feel about Oscar Wilde's "The Happy Prince"?

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Alas, I don't think I've read that one yet.

[misia.livejournal.com]

I never cared for it, but then again I always thought that Silverstein was showing his true colors a whole lot more in the infamous Uncle Shelby's ABZ Book.

[elisem.livejournal.com]

Uncle Shelby's ABZ Book! I never read it as a kid, but Juan did, and he thought it was very funny. Then again, he was a weird kid. According to him, his mother raised him on Uncle Shelby's ABZ Book, plus records by Anna Russell, Tom Lehrer, and Flanders & Swann. Which may explain a few things about him, but anyway. He still refers to Ernie in the ceiling now and then.

Me, I loathed The Giving Tree. It really icked me out.

[lizardlaugh.livejournal.com]

I have always found the explicit moral of this story absolutely loathsome, but the implicit underlying message is that this sort of sacrifice is terribly wrong. Look at the tree? Just a stump! Look at the boy? Old and stooped (and as I recall, not happy). I think this is actually a good book to use as a lesson in critical thinking, so long as it is discussed and the kids have to really think about all of the implications.

[peacockharpy.livejournal.com]

My mother recently told me that when my brother-in-law had to leave his class of students to go to a new job, they all collected up and gave him The Giving Tree. My immediate response was, "But that's an AWFUL book!"

I first read it as an adult, after hearing lots of people talk about how wonderful it was and I couldn't believe that's what they were going on about.

[cloudscudding.livejournal.com]

As a little kid, I absolutely hated that book. I think I threw it across the room when I was done reading it. I still dislike it, though I acknowledge that it's a quite powerful story.

On the plus side, that's probably what turned me into an environmentalist.

[faithhopetricks.livejournal.com]

((reads list)) Oh dear ghod they are STILL recommending kids read The Cay? ((headdesk))

[http://users.livejournal.com/anam_cara_/]

Yikes- my son just had to read that for school, and I'm unfamiliar with it. I can no longer keep up with reading EVERYTHING he does, so I haven't been vigilant with books he's assigned. Is it terrible?

He did have a different teacher assign "Love That Dog"- what a wonderfully drawn out tale! I was unfamiliar with that one as well, but read it at my son's request.

[naomikritzer]

I think "Love You Forever" is attended to be humorously over-the-top. Also sappy, but the midnight break-ins, I think, are supposed to be funny. I nonetheless know a LOT of mothers who find it creepy, because they start imagining their mother-in-law crawling through their bedroom window...

I hate, loathe, and despise "The Giving Tree." I read it exactly the way Peg does, and hate it for exactly the same reasons. I've hated it since late childhood. I hate that the boy is so selfish, and so willing to strip the tree down to a stump. I hate that the tree is so willing to let him do it, and that this is presented as A Good Thing rather than pathological behavior.

I came up with a Jewish-mother version of it once, that had the tree greeting the boy with, "You never call...you never write....you took all my apples and now you want more? Oh, go ahead and take my branches, too. It's not like I'm using them for anything. I'll just sit here in the cold with no branches all alone, I don't mind..." (For those who aren't familiar with the genre of Jewish Mother jokes, they can be roughly summed up with this one. Q. How many Jewish mothers does it take to change a light bulb? A. None. "It's all right. I'll just sit here in the dark.")

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

I once had to stage manage an adaptation of The Giving Tree, adapted by and starring a mime. The horror, the horror...

[faithhopetricks.livejournal.com]

Wow, I'm surprised your eyeballs didn't melt out of your sockets.

[morganmalfoy.livejournal.com]

MY spiritual advisor has always hated this book for the same reason. My mother thinks it's great. However, my mom also feels underappreciated, and I would say her thinking of 'the giving tree' as an appropriate life model has a lot to do with that.

-Morgan

[markiv1111.livejournal.com]

Just to agree with everybody who ever hated the book -- and the friend who first mentioned the book to me mentioned hating it, which is why I went looking for it. I couldn't believe a book could be that awful, especially since I like Shel Silverstein's songwriting so much. I have nothing to add that others haven't said better. (I didn't buy it -- can't remember where I had a chance to read it.)

Nate Bucklin

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

After reading more than 100 comments to your LJ post, I think that this book may be a good vehicle for revealing dramatically different views of "selfness" (as well as of parenting, and a few other things).

To me, the stump at the end is still "the tree" in just the same way the big, branchy, fruited creature was. Nothing that the tree has given of itself has diminished it in any way, has made it any less "the tree."

I think there may be a dramatic difference in worldview between those who see the tree as you do, a used-up shell of an annihilated self, and those who see it as I do: changed in form, changed by life and time, but still itself.

[elisem.livejournal.com]

I am going to ponder this. Thanks for writing it!

[enkeli.livejournal.com]

i disagree, because i don't think kids think about it in those terms. i know i certainly didn't when i read it as a wee 7 year old.

i do remember it making me sad, mainly because i remember thinking that the boy, at one point, was possibly taking advantage of the tree. i haven't read the story in a long time, but i'm pretty sure that the tree comes to that conclusion as well.. and is sad about it. but, to me, the point of it was unconditional love, like mother to son.

and i never thought the ending, with the tree stump, meant that the tree was destroyed.

interesting read!

[(Anonymous)]

I have to admit that I never thought of it that way, but then again, I've only ever read it when I was a child. Children don't think of it that way, I'm fairly sure of that much. I know I didn't, but then again, I think a lot of kids read it for the story and not the tones underneath.

As for Love You Forever, I think it's a good book. It makes my grandmother cry when it's told, and I think all of us (they read part of it at my cousin's graduation from high school last year) had tears in our eyes.