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

[tromboneborges.livejournal.com]

Excuse the length, as I think I got rather carried away. This is not really meant as a defense of the Giving Tree, as I think all of what you said is correct, and, personally, it gives me the willies. The bad-relationship willies.

But I think the best light in which to see it is as a cynical metaphor for *parenting*, not couple-hood. I think the idea is to represent the self-sacrifice of parenting -- that you give everything of yourself, again and again, without question, because it is what your child needs, and sacrifice things that you might want to do and be so that your child might have the things they need. And that sacrifice, although real, makes you happy anyway, because you put the happiness and success of your child, often, above your own. And your child doesn't really understand, while growing up, what those sacrifices really mean.

Now, I think that this is an incredibly cynical view of things, as what Silverstein *fails* to do is give any reason why the tree should be happy to have the boy around in the first place, other than that we are vaguely told that the tree loves the boy. Clearly in actual parenting the sacrificing may often be thankless but it is not *reward*less. The tree appears to get *nothing* in exchange for its sacrifice, and no parent (well, no good parent) would say that they get nothing out of being a parent. That's just silly.

Also, the cycle of parenting seems, to me anyway, to involve children growing up and becoming parents of their own and doing the same sacrificing and only then understanding what it is to give of yourself as a parent, and in the Giving Tree, the boy never has that experience, perhaps because, well, he isn't a tree. But he never, even as an old man, appears to understand what the tree has done for him, which takes away the sense of any of this being all right at all.

Not to mention the fact that, although perhaps there are parents who would read this book and think, "yes, that is what it is like, I am that tree," it has got to be the most intense guilt trip in print for a kid. Kids *aren't* prepared to understand the notion of love involving sacrifice. If they get that message at all, it's just going to make them feel unbearably guilty for their own existence in a way that they can never fix.

Perhaps I am reading too much into a simple terrible book extolling codependency, but it's an alternate reading to consider, anyway.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, I hadn't stated it in my entry, but yes, absolutely I can read it as either bad male/female relationships in general or unbalanced mother/child relationships in particular. And of course it's the mother, not the father: after all, in our culture it's the mothers who are sooooo extolled by everyone for being utterly self-sacrificing (especially politicians, who don't want to actually pay them or support them for for the work they do).

And of course, if we can hoodwink/brainwash mothers into thinking total self-abnegation, even self-annihilation in the service of parenting is admirable, it gets the rest of society (especially those parsimonious politicians) off the hook.

Of course, you end up with yet the next selfish generation and a lot of destroyed mothers. Tree stumps indeed. Argh.

[tromboneborges.livejournal.com]

Hm. I suppose that what I meant was that the book is less creepy if it is being descriptive, not prescriptive. If the message of the book is "parents are often self-abnegating in service of their children, and this comes out of love and is real and intended, even though it isn't necessarily good for the parent and the child doesn't really understand what the parent has done." And as a descriptive work, yes, of course it is the mother, not the father, because, unfortunately, it our culture it has historically been the mothers who are extolled for being self-sacrificing.

I do, however, agree that if Silverstein's message is, this is great and should be kept up, the book is, well, maybe dangerous is the right word? If Silverstein's message is, this is the way it is in our culture, then the book remains creepy, and is simplistic to the point of being problematic, but I don't think in that case it's evil.

[pinkfinity.livejournal.com]

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.

[psychic-serpent.livejournal.com]

I thought that it was interesting that you mentioned being Christian and not liking this book in your post, because I don't see anything particularly Christian in it at all. When Christ told the story of the prodigal son, it was about a FATHER and his sons, and the prodigal returned and asked for forgiveness, which was the real reason that the father wanted to celebrate. (He was glad that his son had learned his lesson and had returned safely, when that wasn't necessarily a given; if he wanted to celebrate being walked all over by his son he would have held the party before he'd left.)

So--no. I don't see it as Christian in terms of gender roles (Jesus was actually quite subversive about this--look at the whole Mary and Martha thing) or in terms of giving without expecting anything in return. This is not depicted by Jesus himself as a good or admirable thing on either side of the giving/receiving divide. I hate it when conservatives try to warp this into mothers/wives needing to give of themselves the way this tree does. It's so unhealthy and not at all what Christ ever advocated.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

You're right, and I should have clarified further. What I meant is, I think that many people assume that this is what Christianity should be, but to me it isn't. You're right, the story of Mary and Martha is an excellent counterargument to The Giving Tree.

[jbru.livejournal.com]

Chapter:verse for the Mary and Martha story? (For those of us not so versed in our holy books.)

[castiron.livejournal.com]

Luke 10:38.