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?
no subject
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?