I think it’s a sweet book, though it always brings a tear to my eye when I read it.
We have it in the house and my kids like to read it, but I don’t enjoy reading it to them because I don’t see it as a children’s book, really. IMO, it’s a metaphor for the parent-child relationship and is about the unconditional love a parent has for his or her child, but I don’t think my kids interpret it that way. They tend to see the kid as a greedy and selfish bastard who ultimately learns that his desire for material things doesn’t make him happy like his friendship with the tree does. That’s a pretty good message for them to take away from it, I think.
A few years ago, my wife gave a copy to her mother for Mother’s Day. It was her way of saying “I am now a parent and understand how you have sacrificed for me, which I appreciate very much.” Her mom was very touched.
It’s interesting to me to see the different reactions here to the book.
I hate this book and refuse to read it to children. I don’t see it as being about a child and parent, but as about a warped male-female relationship, though the tree doesn’t necessarily have to be the woman and the boy the man. It seems to praise the sort of relationship where one party takes without thanking, and the other gives everything at the expense of themselves. (kind of like the martyr component to Nice Guy syndrome, except the tree doesn’t get angry) I don’t see it as being at all cautionary either, just the way things are supposed to be.
You definitely get a different spin on the book after you have kids.
There’s a reason the story’s called The Giving Tree and not The Taking Boy. The tree, not the boy, is what the story is about. I think some folks lose sight of that because we’re used to humans being the central characters in our stories. The boy is just a necessary element to tell the story of the tree. Focusing on him too much makes you lose sight of what the book is really about.
When I was younger, I remember feeling that the kid was just a greedy bastard and the tree was a total doormat and an idiot. Now, I have a kid, and I think I understand: the tree (metaphorical parent) is willing to give every bit of itself for the boy (metaphorical child). What makes the tree happy is being with the child, and there’s nothing the boy can take from the tree that will decrease that happiness.
Before I became a dad, I always heard about parents who didn’t have enough money to feed the whole family, so they’d go hungry and give everything they had to their child so she could eat. I never understood that. Now, I think I know why people would gladly suffer for their kids. She really does mean the world to me, and I would give every part of myself for her. And I’d be happy.
A few pages before, though, the line was “and the tree was happy (but not really).” This colors our perception of the tree’s “happiness” throughout the rest of the book, IMO. There’s no reason to think it would “not really” be happy at that point, yet become genuinely “happy” as the book proceeds and the tree is treated even worser.
That book messed me up really bad as a kid, especially when I tried to make a boat out of my mother. But I know that was wrong now, so they should be letting me out any day now.
I got it when I was a kid, and I still find these interpretations goofy. It’s a classic case of overanalyzing a story. And “sociopathic?” In what way? The point of the story is, parents give a lot to their kids. Kids take a ton and don’t always realize it, but the act of giving makes the parents happy. It’s not exactly Ulysses.
I agree that, like any great book, this book is a Rorschach of the reader, more than a single minded message from the author:
I loved it as a kid, because I knew the tree was my Mommy and she’d love me forever and take care of me and stuff.
I hated it as a young adult with an unexpected child because obviously the boy was an abusive leech and the tree a codependent sucker.
I’m ambivalent about it now as a slightly older mom, this time with a planned child. I see the boy as selfish, because that’s how kids are, and the tree as martyrish, because that’s how moms are, and she gives to him knowing that he’ll never really appreciate everything she does, but that’s okay, because if he’s happy she’s happy, for real and honest and no guilt trips involved.
My mom always loved it because it showed how many different ways the tree could bring joy to the boy throughout his lifetime. She didn’t become useless when he was grown.
I remember reading the book to my kids. When they asked me what the story meant I asked them what they thought it meant. I remember it initiating interesting discussion. Along with Silverstein’s other works, they still have the book.
Not sure exactly what your point is. Clearly the tree isn’t getting treated any better after the “but not really” and that’s all that needs to be true for my own point to go through.
But in any case I’d think the tree is getting treated worser and worser for the same reason I’d think the second dollar you take from me unjustifiedly is even worser than the first.
One of my favorite tales of all time, because it’s so creepy. Well, not quite creepy, but a window into the duality of how we give and take. What makes us happy, the material or the immaterial? It’s obviously both, and can be ugly or beautiful depending on your perspective. The story is an optical illusion more than a rorschach, I think (although I believe one can project themselves into it).
To the boy, the tree was a resource to be exploited for growing in his life. He had nothing he could give the tree in the way the tree was giving to him.
To the tree, seeing how happy its resources made the boy, made him happy.
The only thing they had in common was camaraderie, yet the boy had to go where the tree could not follow, and that’s what made the tree sad.
In the end, the tree was stripped by the boy of all it could give. It considered itself empty and feared the boy wouldn’t love him anymore. But the whole time, the boy did love him. And there was finally one thing that the tree could give him that would never go away… a place for the boy to sit, and be together again with the tree. And that’s nothing the tree had to give him (in the way it always gave in the past), but a place for the boy to give back to the tree.
In the end, what made the tree happy was that after everything has been stripped away from him, the boy still wanted to be with the tree. The tree was done giving… and the tree was happy.
Shel Silverstein’s stuff always creeped me out… it was something about the tone paired with the drawings. We had a book of his, but it wasn’t read very often.
My point? I was asking why you concluded that the tree was being treated even worse. I wasn’t arguing that the tree was being treated any better.
BTW, even if we were to agree that the tree wasn’t being treated any better, I don’t think it logically follows that its treatment had become “even worse.”
All that is left of the tree is a stump. A tree that could have lived longer and enjoyed sunshine and a wonderful life. Cut down to a nub.
When I read this story 25 years ago, my aunt praised it on self-less love and giving. I looked at her like she was demented and said tht the kid in this was killing the tree and the tree couldn’t say NO to the fookin’ kid.
I cringe on just how awful this story really is. It is affirming Co-dependency.
