![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The Giving Tree, urgh
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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mereilin, who provided a link to a symposium at the always interesting First Things about the book.
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.
no subject
I must admit I'm rather confused by your answer, however. I was condemning the selfish boy who grows up to be the old man in the story. Not the Lord. I don't see how you read my entry otherwise.
As far as being ashamed of what I wrote: well, I did make a New Year's resolution to swear less, yes.
But I hope I will always condemn selfishness. And I'm not ashamed of that.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2005-01-12 06:46 pm (UTC)(link)Admittedly I have been known to cuss myself, but I do NOT use that particular term. That's all I was condemning. I didn't mean anything against your rant against "The Giving Tree." In fact, I found it very interesting, as I have never thought about it in that way.
Brian
no subject
no subject
no subject
um, comment from the heathen, but I've always, always read Goddamn as "God, please consign this whatever to the pits, as I know it deserves that fate, and we all know how much you value my opinion on this stuff."
But, anyway. cussing naughty.
no subject
no subject
Or something like that.
no subject