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

[ambtiondata.livejournal.com]

I think I must have read that once at some point, but from your description it seems one of those books that would make a greater impression on me now than as a child, as I had a loving and secure family life and none of the themes resonated with me or dug anything out. I love what you wrote about it though - that was an extremely wonderful and productive rant. I like your alternate version too, as far as giving a good message. I generally do like to see quirky, darker than would be expected themes in children's books, but it needs to be balanced. I haven't read many children's books at all lately though. The only I can make an example of are the Series of Unfortunate Events books - they've got some pretty depressing themes of adult incompetency, but you're never left feeling quite so depressed at the end as Lemony Snickett leads you up to expect because the children themselves have such a close, unwavering bond of love and companionship, which overshines the evil and negligence done to them. Which is not to label the above as great literature, just to explain that while I do like the fact that The Giving Tree has ambitious regard for children and their capabilities of understanding, it needs positive themes as well (not necessarily instead of) to be a truly remarkable story. As it stands, yeah, it could be quite a damaging thing to put in the mind of any kid it might resonate with.

Again though, I truly loved reading your post.