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!

[pinkfinity.livejournal.com]

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.

[psychic-serpent.livejournal.com]

Hehe. No, you're not a Mary Sue. You also don't live on a Swiss alp. Don't know where you stand on goats, though. :D

Was Eloise on the list? I don't recall seeing it. Eh. Probably too much fun. ;)

[ascian.livejournal.com]

"Don't know where you stand on goats, though."

Between the horns! Hah! ^_^

[cedarlibrarian.livejournal.com]

The 9-12 list isn't half bad, but OMG the YA list? SO. HORRID. What are they thinking? Why is the most recent book on that list published in 1993? Why isn't Monster on there?

Maybe they're thinking that YAs aren't really children and don't deserve to have books on the list? Or maybe they haven't read anything for YAs published after 1993 'cause, you know, it's nothing but sex and violence.

[psychic-serpent.livejournal.com]

Well, as I said, preserved in amber. They included The Boxcar Children on the list, after all. Why am I not surprised that there's almost nothing in the YA section?

And hey--sex and violence? No fair. When I was a teenager I had to read adult books to get my sex and violence. ;)