pegkerr | The Giving Tree, urgh

Current Mood: irritated
Current Music: Moxie Fruvas: Once I was the King of Spain

Entry tags:

The Giving Tree, urgh

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.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Hm. I suppose that what I meant was that the book is less creepy if it is being descriptive, not prescriptive. If the message of the book is "parents are often self-abnegating in service of their children, and this comes out of love and is real and intended, even though it isn't necessarily good for the parent and the child doesn't really understand what the parent has done." And as a descriptive work, yes, of course it is the mother, not the father, because, unfortunately, it our culture it has historically been the mothers who are extolled for being self-sacrificing.

I do, however, agree that if Silverstein's message is, this is great and should be kept up, the book is, well, maybe dangerous is the right word? If Silverstein's message is, this is the way it is in our culture, then the book remains creepy, and is simplistic to the point of being problematic, but I don't think in that case it's evil.

AGREE!

I love you so much. For years I thought I was crazy because I always thought The Giving Tree was such a horrible book about a boy who never learned how to give back and a tree that had no sense of self. I understand the idea, that the tree was happy just because the boy was happy, but why did he never learn that it's not okay just to take without giving something back? It creeped me out and I'm glad that no one ever gave it to me as a sorority gift. (It was very popular in that realm.)

I never really thought much about gender in regards to the book, just because that wasn't the issue for me. My issue was always with the boy's selfishness and his lack of regard for the tree.

Like a couple other people who have commented already, I didn't encounter the book until I was already an adult. I picked it up casually in a bookstore and read it on the spot; it's one of the only times I can recall totally losing it completely in public. I occasionally pick it up in bookstores and skim over it merely to see if it'll have the same effect. I'm masochistic that way.

I have to admit that the gender-specific language never really struck me. It makes sense now that you mention it, but I honestly never noticed it before...at least not enough for it to have made an impression. I'm going to have to keep that in mind for the next time I masochistically re-read the book in Barnes & Noble.

I can't agree that it's that horrible a book to illustrate 'love.' A lot of people exist in relationships that ARE primarily based on sacrifice and selfishness; it may not be right, but it's pretty realistic. So many relationships are exactly like the one illustrated in this book...usually down to the gender specifics. People find a balance between need and selfishness, often convincing themselves that being used and needed is the same as being loved.

I'm not a parent and it's likely that I'll think differently when and if I ever have a child, but I don't think it's that terrible a children's book...so long as you're the sort of person willing to explain to your child that a)the male character is a selfish horror of a human being and b)giving ideally should not = sacrifice.

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.

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.

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

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

- Laramie

have you read the two sequels to the Giver? Not really sequels per se, but companions.

Yes. This is how I feel now.

I thought that it was interesting that you mentioned being Christian and not liking this book in your post, because I don't see anything particularly Christian in it at all. When Christ told the story of the prodigal son, it was about a FATHER and his sons, and the prodigal returned and asked for forgiveness, which was the real reason that the father wanted to celebrate. (He was glad that his son had learned his lesson and had returned safely, when that wasn't necessarily a given; if he wanted to celebrate being walked all over by his son he would have held the party before he'd left.)

So--no. I don't see it as Christian in terms of gender roles (Jesus was actually quite subversive about this--look at the whole Mary and Martha thing) or in terms of giving without expecting anything in return. This is not depicted by Jesus himself as a good or admirable thing on either side of the giving/receiving divide. I hate it when conservatives try to warp this into mothers/wives needing to give of themselves the way this tree does. It's so unhealthy and not at all what Christ ever advocated.

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.

You know, if she said that, if you have kids, your mother is never going to believe you're doing enough for them, no matter what.

There are actually several picture books that strike me as being about sick relationships between parents and children. There's one about a mother who sings a lullaby to her baby about "I will always love you best of everything in the world, I will always make everything right" which is all very well, but when he's grown up she breaks into his house at night to sing it to him and then when she's old he sings it to her. There's a very odd message there that I'm not sure the author or the publisher intended to be given to pre-schoolers -- or for that matter, new parents.

Then again, there's Can't You Sleep, Little Bear, in which Big Bear and Little Bear live together in the woods and try to work things out scientifically and tolerantly and lovingly, and Big Bear actually just wants to read his book (which is just getting to the interesting part) and with whom I've never had any difficulty identifying.

You're right, and I should have clarified further. What I meant is, I think that many people assume that this is what Christianity should be, but to me it isn't. You're right, the story of Mary and Martha is an excellent counterargument to The Giving Tree.

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.

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

I can see what you're saying about descriptiveness, especially if you read it as something created pushing-thirty years ago.

I did a quick Google for criticism of the book, and I found this, from a class syllabus:

When the Giving Tree was published, there was some criticism regarding the story's depiction of the all-giving female tree sacrificing everything, even herself, to the demanding male. She was happy only when she had fulfilled his wishes. In an attempt to approach this issue, I will read the story without showing any illustrations and substituting the words "the tree" for the pronoun "she" and using "the child" every time the story says "boy" or "he." Upon completion of the story students will discuss their feelings about the story. "What is your opinion of the tree and the child? Do you agree with what each of them did? Explain. How would you have acted if you were the tree and/or the child? Do you know any people who are like the tree and/or the child?" Students will then be asked what they think regarding the gender of the tree and the child and why they have made their particular choice. They will then explore whether they believe this situation exists in real life. Reference will be made to the comments they made regarding people they might know who are similar to the characters. Finally, we will explore the topic of whether they believe the relationship between female and male as it exists in The Giving Tree is appropriate and should be accepted as inevitable.

But, on the flip side, here is a lesson for kids in primary school upon reading the book which bears absolutely no relationship to the contents of the book itself. it's almost baffling in terms of disconnect - sort of in the realm of people who think that you can learn Wicca from the HP books.

I also found a quote from Silverstein on the book:
Shel Silverstein, when asked about this book's meaning, would say no more than this: "It's just a relationship between two people; one gives and the other takes." So I'm going to assume those who judge the book (positively or negatively) based on its environmentalist "message" are reading into it more than what the author intended.

So is it possible that he meant it as a cautionary tale - a Do Not Be As The Tree, and it's just been horribly misinterprited through the years? Because I can see it being read as a "don't be like the boy or the tree" and see merit in *that*.

I went to a funeral back in August, where the grandchildren (all 25+) read the book in memory of their grandmother, as it had been one of her favorite books. It gave me the wibblies, because I think that his poem Hug O'War is a much better creed for living by.

But I'm really also not the self-sacrificing sort at all.

I AM NOT A MARY SUE. [/heidi]

I am, actually, eloise. I am a city child. I ~~live at the Plaza~~ lived at the Plaza for three days once when there was a chemical spill in my apartment and they gave us a 300$ per diem. Lovely weekend it was.

?!?!? >_<

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

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

Umm, well, I don't recall her exact words and probably ought not have this conversation here, but 1) it was very much like that and 2) actions indicate that she doesn't think of it as prescriptive.

I will make a note of the bear book, thank you. (I will also get a copy of Diary of a Wombat because it is the cutest thing ever.)

I thought there was just one ...

(P.S. - have never read The Giving Tree, Ms. Kerr, and therefore feel unable to comment. Lafcadio always worried me intensely, though.)

It is the world's most codependent book, and I waffle back and forth between whether its meant in earnest, or it's meant to make you go "ew."

Based on Silverstein's other work, I suspect the "ew," but yanno, it's a near thing....

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...

"Love you forever, like you for always, as long as I'm living, my baby you'll be."

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.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 2 of 6

The Giving Tree, urgh

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject