As a child I hated this story. I was furious with the boy for being so greedy. I was mad at the tree for being so complacent. Further, it felt like an assault on nature. Just take take take, and there will be no consequences.
Even as an adult this story depresses me. Is there any other way to read it, or is it truly a depressing tale of greed and submission? Or is this merely my own jaded view not allowing me to see a deep unique love?
I would like to agree with you Vihaga, but nowhere do I see the text suggesting any caution. The boy is happy. The tree is happy. Everything works out perfect.
There is no indication in the text that either party is behaving poorly.
I had never considered the story in relation to a parent/child relationship. The tree clearly is a parent, and is giving to his child unconditionally. It makes sense here, in that a parent’s love should be there forever unconditionally.
I would like to see a little reciprocation though.
I’m not sure there is a straightforward message. I love this book for that reason. Shel Silverstein does not treat his children readers as automatons to be programmed by children’s literature. His literature is tinged with a subversive touch, and he treats his readers as individuals who are capable of drawing their own conclusions. In my opinion, the book is clearly meant to encourage discussion and thinking, and not be a straightforward morality play. Personally, my interpretation would lean towards the codependency angle, but I do think the “meaning” has been left intentionally ambiguous.
It is an awful, awful, awful story, designed only to make you feel bad about yourself. Even Jesus Christ Himself would feel like a shitheel after reading it. My wife thinks that it is a sweet story about unconditional love, but I can’t stand to see it on our kids’ bookshelf; I take it off and hide it when I see it, but it keeps turning up like a bad penny. I would throw it away, but then I would just feel worse about myself. It is pure pharmaceutical grade guilt fuel. My wife wanted to know why I hate the book so much but I was physically unable to talk about it without my throat closing up. It’s the anti-tasp: just the sight of the cover can stimulate your despair center from ten paces away.
That story has always creeped me out. I don’t like to read it. (I think it did my mom too, since we had plenty of Silverstein on our bookshelves but not that one.)
A t-shirt that I have long coveted states something like: “The Giving Tree: promoting arborcide and greed since 1964”
It is not a book for the child – it is a book for the parent.
Even worse, it is a book that makes martyr parents feel superior about themselves. The entire book reinforces how wonderful and selfless and whatever the parent (= Giving Tree) is.
Meanwhile, the message it conveys to the child is that they are like the horrid little monster, forcing their parent to chop themselves up.
Parents who like this book seem to be self-centered, needy, and with a martyr complex. All the ones I’ve met who rave about how wonderful the book is are the type whose entire life revolves around their children, don’t really have any identity apart from their children, and tend to try to relive their own life through their children.