OK, yes. I know that this is the dorkiest thread you will probably ever read. But you’re here, so who remembers that Shel Silverstein book, The Giving Tree ?
Well. I was watching an old Simpson’s episode the other day, and you know how during each intro, Bart’s always writing a different sentence on the blackboard? This time he was writing, “The Giving Tree is not a chump”.
I laughed out loud.
But then I started to wonder if that was true. 
What do you think? 
I’d say no, because the giving tree was happy that way.
Much like a parent would give everything to see that their child is happy.
Although it certainly seems the tree was being taken advantage of. I suppose the story could go either way. If you’re a giving type person, you see the tree as a role model of the spirit of giving. If you’re a cynical type, then you see the tree as an example of why you shouldn’t bother giving, because then people just want more and more.
I never really liked The Giving Tree because I always thought it was sad - the little boy just took and took and never came to visit except when he was bummed out and needing something. It seemed that the little boy despite his gifts from the tree was perpetually unhappy and in the end he cut down his gorgeous tree and was left with a dry and shriveled stump. A very depressing story in my opinion.
Sheesh! I thought I’d NEVER get a reply!
At any rate, that begs the question of whether the tree is even MORE of a chump for grinning through the loss of life & limb, just for that selfish little skank boy. 
I have never liked the book. The tree is codependent and the little boy is the manipulator. It is a very sick sick book.
I think it was Scylla who a while ago deconstucted “The Giving Tree” I’ll try and find it. The ensuing discussion basically was about the tale of mysogeny that is “The Giving Tree”
I had always not liked the story, that discussion just let me know why.
Mysogyny, duh!
Oh, find it! Find it! I need validation… and so does Bart Simpson!
Really, when you think about it, the book does kinda suck. In one way, it’s sort of like a sitcom: you take it for what it is, don’t read too much into it, and maybe it gets your kid to sleep at night.
On the other, it is a children’s book, which could be construed as a learning tool… and what is it teaching?
Interesting. Very.
And, Shirley Ujest, I see your point; here’s a tree who could have grand aspirations (to reach the sky!), yet happily whittles herself down to a stump for a manipulative little kid.
Food for thought, that one…
I donno if it’s sick… but I don’t think I agree with the message either.
I much prefer the philosophy of The Missing Piece.
I even have a tune for the song:
*Oh I’m lookin’ for my missin’ piece
I’m lookin’ for my missin’ piece
Hi-dee-ho, here I go,
Lookin’ for my missin’ piece.
*
But I always have to snicker at the title of the sequel:
The Missing Piece Meets the Big O
If The Living Tree bothers you, go read Uncle Shelby’s ABZ to your kid instead. It’ll probably be the last Shel Silverstein book you ever buy for your kids…
Forget Shel, my kids are going to be raised on a diet of Edward Gorey. THAT’S some brilliant stuff.
heheheh… I love Uncle Shelby’s ABZs
As I posted in an earlier thread (which search isn’t finding yet), the late Dr. Leo Buscaglia said of this book in one of his TV lectures, “That’s not love, that’s SICK!”
Exactly. I see this tree doesn’t know how to be anything else but a servant to her greedy manipulative child., but you said it much better than I.
But it’s a TREE. What else is it going to do? It’s basically takng up space as it is, so it might as well sacrifice itself (voluntarily, no less) so that someone else more mobile might be happy.
Besides…Maybe I am just an old softie. It is kind of sweet. Sigh…just watch me enter into a codependent relationship in a few years…
I took a class last semester called “The Ethical Implications of Children’s Literature.” Despite the grand title, the class was a very open non-politically correct discussion about just what we actually learned from our picture books, our fairy tales, our junior fiction, etc. We, sorta, came to the conclusion that The Giving Tree, to children, was a lesson on the effects of greediness, and, to parents, a metaphor about the effects of overindulging children. Basically, the tree was a Codependant-Enabler to the child.
There is a discussion of the book in this thread. It’s a hijack of a discussion of Shel Silverstein poems.
That’s all I’ve found so far.
<The Champ>
That Giving Tree shoulda took up with some Ents and learned to kick ass! I mean, bein’ nice ta people is one thing but nobody sez ya hafta be a doormat.
</The Champ>
If I were to read this to my kids (we don’t own a copy as I find it depressing) I’d explain that giving is all and good, but that no one can give to others that has not first given to one’s self. Yes, give your time, if you have time for yourself. Give your money, if you’ve taken care of your needs first. It is possible to give too much, like the tree, but unlike the tree, it doesn’t result in happiness.
Thanks, Arden Ranger! I was both entertained (by the poems in that thread, most of which I remember–does that make me an old fart?), and edified (by the discussion of TGT). Funny how you can go your whole life without REALLY thinking about something…
…and then Bart Simpson helps you get it all into perspective!
Actually, though, it’s a really good thing for me to be thinking about right now… my niece and nephew (only ones I’ve got) will be turning a year old soon, which means the time is coming when I’ll be able to screw 'em up real good by reading them the wrong book!
Seriously, though, thanks to all of you who posted responses. Really got me thinking.