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]

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.