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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-01-12 05:08 pm (UTC)I did a quick Google for criticism of the book, and I found this, from a class syllabus:
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.