Excuse the length, as I think I got rather carried away. This is not really meant as a defense of the Giving Tree, as I think all of what you said is correct, and, personally, it gives me the willies. The bad-relationship willies.
But I think the best light in which to see it is as a cynical metaphor for *parenting*, not couple-hood. I think the idea is to represent the self-sacrifice of parenting -- that you give everything of yourself, again and again, without question, because it is what your child needs, and sacrifice things that you might want to do and be so that your child might have the things they need. And that sacrifice, although real, makes you happy anyway, because you put the happiness and success of your child, often, above your own. And your child doesn't really understand, while growing up, what those sacrifices really mean.
Now, I think that this is an incredibly cynical view of things, as what Silverstein *fails* to do is give any reason why the tree should be happy to have the boy around in the first place, other than that we are vaguely told that the tree loves the boy. Clearly in actual parenting the sacrificing may often be thankless but it is not *reward*less. The tree appears to get *nothing* in exchange for its sacrifice, and no parent (well, no good parent) would say that they get nothing out of being a parent. That's just silly.
Also, the cycle of parenting seems, to me anyway, to involve children growing up and becoming parents of their own and doing the same sacrificing and only then understanding what it is to give of yourself as a parent, and in the Giving Tree, the boy never has that experience, perhaps because, well, he isn't a tree. But he never, even as an old man, appears to understand what the tree has done for him, which takes away the sense of any of this being all right at all.
Not to mention the fact that, although perhaps there are parents who would read this book and think, "yes, that is what it is like, I am that tree," it has got to be the most intense guilt trip in print for a kid. Kids *aren't* prepared to understand the notion of love involving sacrifice. If they get that message at all, it's just going to make them feel unbearably guilty for their own existence in a way that they can never fix.
Perhaps I am reading too much into a simple terrible book extolling codependency, but it's an alternate reading to consider, anyway.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-01-12 04:19 pm (UTC)But I think the best light in which to see it is as a cynical metaphor for *parenting*, not couple-hood. I think the idea is to represent the self-sacrifice of parenting -- that you give everything of yourself, again and again, without question, because it is what your child needs, and sacrifice things that you might want to do and be so that your child might have the things they need. And that sacrifice, although real, makes you happy anyway, because you put the happiness and success of your child, often, above your own. And your child doesn't really understand, while growing up, what those sacrifices really mean.
Now, I think that this is an incredibly cynical view of things, as what Silverstein *fails* to do is give any reason why the tree should be happy to have the boy around in the first place, other than that we are vaguely told that the tree loves the boy. Clearly in actual parenting the sacrificing may often be thankless but it is not *reward*less. The tree appears to get *nothing* in exchange for its sacrifice, and no parent (well, no good parent) would say that they get nothing out of being a parent. That's just silly.
Also, the cycle of parenting seems, to me anyway, to involve children growing up and becoming parents of their own and doing the same sacrificing and only then understanding what it is to give of yourself as a parent, and in the Giving Tree, the boy never has that experience, perhaps because, well, he isn't a tree. But he never, even as an old man, appears to understand what the tree has done for him, which takes away the sense of any of this being all right at all.
Not to mention the fact that, although perhaps there are parents who would read this book and think, "yes, that is what it is like, I am that tree," it has got to be the most intense guilt trip in print for a kid. Kids *aren't* prepared to understand the notion of love involving sacrifice. If they get that message at all, it's just going to make them feel unbearably guilty for their own existence in a way that they can never fix.
Perhaps I am reading too much into a simple terrible book extolling codependency, but it's an alternate reading to consider, anyway.