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

After my first knee-jerk comment, something more thought out...

[mereilin.livejournal.com]

I stewed about this book for a solid week after I first read it last spring, and decided that I absolutely hate it, and my husband (after reading it to Danny every night at bedtime for a week) was in full agreement. Our general consensus is that the tree is a pathetic doormat and the boy is a selfish, insensitive jerk.

I got a bunch of comments when I first posted my initial reactions to the book, and I was surprised to realize that there are many people who have found this story beautiful and inspiring.

But what I think is this: If it's actually a parable about a parent's love for their child, it's missing something that I think is critical. Parents do give unselfishly to their children, and sacrifice a lot to make them happy. But ultimately children grow up and become parents themselves, and the cycle continues. To apply the parent/child paradigm to this story is to assume that parents can only be truly happy when they spoil their children at the expense of their own well-being and yet, somehow, manage never to prepare them to be responsible, giving adults.

The boy grew up, but never grew past the selfish child. In all his long life, he learned nothing at all from the tree that gave up her very life for him, which sort of makes her sacrifice pointless. The tree is dead, incapable of giving anything to anyone else; the boy is by then obviously a very old man who's going to die soon. The world is not a better place because of their existence.

Go ahead, says the tree. Use me, cut me up, leave me for dead -- I'll be happy if you're happy. But the thing is, he isn't happy until there's nothing left of her but a stump for his sorry old ass to sit on, and even then he seems more worn out than actually happy. If you turned the page to see what happens next, would he just get up and hobble away again, leaving the tree stump alone in the forest? Would he die right there, to finally give the tree what he wouldn't give her in life?

I don't think there's anything in that story that I want to emulate, nor that I want my kids to emulate. Kindness and giving are beautiful things; finding contentment in continually being abused by someone you love and care for is not.

For more discussion on this, both pro and con, check out the following link:

The Giving Tree: A Symposium

Re: After my first knee-jerk comment, something more thought out...

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Oh, many thanks for the link! I have always appreciated the articles I've read in First Things.

Re: After my first knee-jerk comment, something more thought out...

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

The boy grew up, but never grew past the selfish child. In all his long life, he learned nothing at all from the tree that gave up her very life for him, which sort of makes her sacrifice pointless.

How do we know that?