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

[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.