This is even farther afield than the Halloween post, but what the heck, it’s Saturday morning. I mentioned this elsewhere and got a few “I’m not alone!” responses, so I figured I’d throw it up here. Here it is:
I hate “The Giving Tree” by Shel Silverstein. It’s a horrible children’s story with no redeeming features so far as I can see. It’s about a boy who takes and takes and takes with no thought about the effect his self-centered greed has on the giver, and it’s about a tree that kills itself giving to the ungrateful little puke. Neither character in the tale is acting in an admirable fashion. The tree comes closest, I suppose, with its generosity, but giving to death in the hopes that it will make someone love you isn’t healthy either.
I know you all come here for the children’s book reviews. Next time, I’ll give “The Little Red Hen” what for.
I like that book. I think that “If you’re lucky enough to have someone love you unconditionally, try giving something in return” is a decent message for a book.
Although I did receive that book as a “gift” from a girlfriend once who obviously wanted me to see that the tree represented her.
Mostly, the vibe of that book reminds me of my dogs, who wait all day just for me to come home and give them a pat on the head.
Apparently this book has been around a long time, probably longer than it deserves. We had it for our kids back in the ’80s, and it always bothered me because it was so sad, a life wasted in taking and a “life” spent thanklessly. I felt it was guilt-inducing.
Do you suppose it’s back in favor now because it can be taken so literally vs. allegorically due to today’s heightened awareness of environmental abuse?
See, I agree with the first commenter – I think this is a good story. Shel Silverstein was known for his odd way to telling stories with morals. He would often exaggerate the bad to show you the good and I think this is such a case.
It reminds me of the movie Beaches. You can only take so much before of someone’s selfishness before you die literally or figuratively. This story highlights that perfectly.
I love Shel Silverstein, so I’m biased. But he was one of my favorite authors as a child. I think he was brilliant.
I love this story: Where does self-sacrifice get you? Well, ask the tree. I know that’s not what Silverstein intended, but how can you miss it? At some point, you have to say ‘ENOUGH!’ to a mooch.
I always thought it was a Christian message, with the tree representing God.
After talking about this with my wife for the last ten minutes, I think the tinge of horribleness is what makes this book meaningful! Also, it does not end horribly, both the boy and tree are happy on the last page, if I remember correctly.
As a kid I thought it was absolutely wretched. Haven’t read it as an adult and you know… I don’t want to.
I love Shel Silverstein, so I’m biased. But he was one of my favorite authors as a child. I think he was brilliant.
I discovered Shel Silverstein in Playboy magazine. I think it was the 1960s or 1970s. I’m not sure, but it was WELL before he wrote the “Boy Named Sue” song that Johnny Cash recorded.
If you were reading the stories, instead of looking at the pictures, in your childhood, does that mean that your misspent youth wasn’t really misspent?
A story that illicits so much thoughtful,varied commentary is a good story.
elicits….
Yeah, for me, the kid took and took and nothing he took made him happy, but in the taking, he killed the tree without, apparently, caring much about the sacrifice of the tree. The tree, in turn, gave and gave, killed itself, and didn’t make the kid’s life substantially better. Only when both kid and stump were old and wrecked, beyond giving and taking, did their dysfunctional relationship result in anything like mutual affection.
To me, I guess the horribleness comes from the fact that there is no reciprocity from the kid and the giving was actively destroying the tree.
I would never be friends with the tree. I don’t want the burden of having to always worry that I am asking too much of someone or trampling over them. I expect my friends to say, “no, sorry, I’m still using that branch right now” and off I go to find another solution.
In Harry Chapin’s version, the tree would eventually become way too busy to be victimized by the boy.
T said: “Although I did receive that book as a “gift†from a girlfriend once who obviously wanted me to see that the tree represented her.”
I had to laugh as I once wasn’t so subtle. The title of the book I gave was “The Peter Pan Syndrome: Men Who Have Never Grown Up”
Cold, I know…..
That’s funny.
I just was like, “Cool! A children’s book!” and pretended I didn’t get it.
I’m with you, Doug – the boy is loathesomely selfish and the tree gives to the point of literal self-destruction. They are only happy together when both are utterly wrecked.
If you take it as literally as it tells then you are on the complete brink of stupidity. The book is simply about giving to make someone happy in their own life. I would give my friend anything, even one of my kidneys if it came right down to it. It’s about being selfless.
If you read the end of the book they are both alive and happy. The tree is not dead for it is still a stump. Sure, that is not accurate when it comes to reality but once again you must remember, it is a children’s book.
Why would you burst into a conversation with the stupidity thing? I mean, would you burst into someone’s house where you were a new guest and say, “hi stupid!”
But, then, that goes along with the book, I guess: a kid so self-centered, he kept taking and taking and taking until his “friend” was nothing more than a stump. Maybe the tree was selfless, but suicidally so. And the kid was anything but selfless. Just kept sucking the life out of the tree because it let him. And no one was happy until both were past giving and taking.