I forgot to mention the Warner Brothers and Sister Dot, with “bologna in their slacks…”
I realize that this is a “children’s” book, and we’re used to children’s books having a very simple, black-or-white interpretation. So it is natural to assume that either the boy or the tree is meant to represent some kind of ideal, or teach us a simple “moral.”
But I think that this book is not meant to represent a good or a bad situation, but simply to represent a REAL situation. The author does not pass any judgement on the tree or the boy. He is not trying to guide is one direction or the other. It is up to you to look at the situation and decide what you think.
So I don’t think the point is “the boy is an asshole” or “the tree is a good parent” or even “the tree is a doormat,” I think the point is just “Look at this. It happens all the time.”
I too don’t think it’s supposed to be an endorsement of the tree’s behavior. Anyone who is absolutely sure that’s the intended meaning is not getting that directly from the text. As I tell my tutoring student while studying for the SAT, “Show me the line reference that clearly says your answer is right”.
I always thought it represented a lot of true situations involving people who didn’t know what else to do. It was a sad, kind of sweet story (in that the tree did love him so much), and a backhanded warning not to be the boy, or the tree, for that matter.
I had a teaching professor who stated authoritatively that the tree was a woman who is taken advantage of by the male. One teacher then said that he’d never read it in English, and that since “arbol” is a male noun in Spanish, it had never occured to him, and he wasn’t any more impressed with the story with the tree as a “woman.”
I myself was kind of insulted that it’s supposedly only women who feel like they give and give and keep on giving, only to get nothing back.
When I read it as a kid, my thoughts were “I’ll be sure not to treat my parents like this.” It actually works beautifully in getting this across. I never thought some people took it as an example of the right thing to do! Weird.
I actually thought this was an urban legend, and I went to Snopes to research it.
Nada. No Snopes page the Snopes search engine can find has the phrase Shining Time Station.
:: egg first contacts face ::
So I go to imdb.com, thinking that if I can’t find out who didn’t play Mr. Conductor, I could at least find out who did.
And it was:
Ringo Starr (1990-1991)
George Carlin (1991-1993)
:: egg smashes on face, begins to fry ::
I have been wrong before. I have been wrong in public before. But rarely have I been so spectacularly wrong.
I’m trying to recall how I first felt upon having the book read to me. I can’t- I think I was sorry for the tree, but since I haven’t reflected on the story since then, I hadn’t really examined the boy’s behavior. I’d have to agree with most of the posters that it’s repulsive, and (perhaps based on nothing) I don’t think the story is usually used as a cautionary tale by the people reading it to their kids/students. But hell, I’m not sure that a lot of people know why they read ‘classic’ books to their kids, they just do it because they’ve been told kids have to be read certain books. 
::trying to restrain murderous rage::
You insulted my favorite childhood book. NOW it’s personal.
The book isn’t supposed to teach you anything. It’s a metaphor for unconditional love, that everybody (if they have a soul) feels at some point in their life. It’s a tale that a child can understand, but deep enough for an adult to appreciate. Not every story smashes your face into some lesson political ideology. Read it, compare it to life, and take what you can from it. Is the tree a doormat? Is the boy an ass? Maybe, maybe not. It appeals to so many people because it’s a real life situation with no easy answer to meditate on. When my mom read it to me, I felt sorry for the tree, and the boy. The tree gave everything when all it wanted was love. The boy was always too busy for companionship, and now that he is grown he realizes what he’s missed out on. That’s what I got from it when I was a kid, anyway. Children, while simple minded, aren’t idiots. Talk to one someday, you’ll be surprised.
If you truly want to know what’s so great about The Giving Tree, stop dissecting it, sit down, and READ it.
Having unconditional love doesn’t mean you’re spineless.
And I always read it as a tragic tale on both sides.
Sorry, but this is ridiculous and insulting. All of the people who have contributed to this thread have obviously read the book very carefully.
I’ve always read it as a cautionary tale, too. “Look how you can take advantage of others and completely destroy them and stil not find happiness. Look at what selfishness does.”
The important thing to me is that the tree is a tree. The tree isn’t a person, though it is personified. The tree represents, to me, any resource that a selfish person could abuse, whether it’s love, money, food, gasoline, a real tree. Demanding and getting whatever you want won’t make you a happy person.
And the book makes me cry like mad.
Julie
Forget about it. Seeing Ringo on that show the first time was a WTF? moment for me then he got replaced by, of all the people on God’s Green Earth, GEORGE CARLIN? WTF cubed.
How about that Missing Piece, huh? Heavy stuff.
I like both these books, but not because of any message they have. (And I am capable of appreciating a well-made message that I don’t agree with.) I thought they were very evocative, and very moving. Just because a story doesn’t tell you how to live your life doesn’t mean it’s a bad story.
Lissener,
If we are going to limit the people who can play in or write for our children’s programs to people who have not had questionable extracurricular activities, we aren’t going to have ANY children’s programming. Who cares what they do in their off time. Its not like they are using subliminal messages to turn the kids into junkies, or something, right?
I like The Giving Tree. That’s all that matters.
I thought I was the only one who despised this book. I feel more normal now.
My interpretation has always been that this is the ultimate Mother Guilt Trip book.
“Look, I chopped myself down for you, and you don’t even visit?”
I’ve always thought it was creepy.
Exactly 
Sorry if I came off too brash, I was just venting. More at Shirley Ujest, who slammed the book pretty hard. I didn’t mean to insult you, lissener. I respect your opinion and all of that, no matter how wrong it might be 
My point is, some things are better off not analyzed. Like The Giving Tree. Leave it alone. Really. It’s just a cautionary tale as jsgoddess suggested. That’s pretty much it. To answer your OP more specifically, yes the book is twisted, and in a way it is a satire - on life. That’s the point. I think.
This is never, ever true.
Well, how about rarely true? 'Cause there have definitely been things I’ve encountered that didn’t need analyzed (at least by me), like the pattern of spray one generates when one sneezes on one’s windshield.
Julie
If you fail to understand The Giving Tree there is a simple experiment that you can conduct that will illustrate the point for you. Go and hurt the child of a loving parent in such a way that the parent will hear the child’s cry of terror, or better yet, go out in the woods and torture a bear cub and see what happens when Mom shows up.
In either case, you are bound to encounter an extraordinarily focussed and implacable individual.
Have you ever seen a parent react to the cry of terror and pain made by their child? This reaction is perhaps the most awesome thing that exists in nature.
But, you really have to feel it to understand. Do you know what it feels like to hold your breath to the point of unbearable pain where every bone and muscle in your body is fighting for everything it can simply to take in breathe?
It’s like that, except worse to hear your child in distress, and it hits you with that level of instinctual intensity.
I could feel the seeds of this planting as I held my daughter when she was born, and I looked at her little muppet face. A billion years of evolution had its way with me and I could feel it happening. It was like when you had your first orgasm and you think “OHMYGOD, what the heck is this?” It’s a little instinctual surprise that your body has in store for you, and It’s scary.
You just get hit with this wave, and are filled with the need to protect and nurture this little thing, and you have no choice in the matter.
But that’s all instinct, and not what The Giving Tree is about.
If unconditional love has any meaning, any Mama Bear, loves it’s Baby in whatever sense of the word you choose.
Mama Bear will destroy herself without hesitation in the act of protecting her child or answering it’s distress.
When my wife was pregnant and had a placenta previa she essentially spent two weeks without moving at all so that the placenta would not detach and our child would have the best possible chance at survival. I really can’t describe the awesomeness of that effort. Try it sometime lay down in a bed, and then just don’t move. Keep it up for two weeks. I don’t think I’ve ever seen somebody lay still with ferocity before. But that’s how she layed there, and her effort and commitment had a palpable force that was scary and disturbing to behold.
But again, all this is instinct. As awesome as it is it’s a commonplace miracle.
I think my parents loved me beyond themselves. It’s hard to explain, but I think they just considered themselves willing tools that existed totally for the benefit of their children.
There were times that I thought there love for me was cloying and scary.
It took me until I had a kid before I really understood it. Now I’m not saying that parenthood gives me some privileged perspective or anything like that, it’s just what it took for me to understand. But here it is:
In the fullness of adulthood, I am at the absolute height of my power in all senses of the world. My ability to earn money, my strength, my intellect, my experience, my endurance, my discipline: The power that I have to do things right now is greater than it has ever been, and dare I say greater than it ever will be.
To say it simply, I am at the summit of whatever it is that I am, whatever it is that is me.
Being where I am right now, anything I do for myself is simply a waste. Like the Giving Tree at the beginning of the story I have achieved fullness.
What is worth doing when you are at the fullness of yourself? Would you add more water to a glass filled to the brim? Would you just hoard it and let it sit there?
This fullness that I’ve achieved doesn’t really reflect on me. I am here by happenstance, and the help of others who gave of themselves and still give to have brought me to this point.
So, what is it that is most worth doing for me?
The only purpose that makes any sense to me is to help others achieve this fullness, reach the height of whatever it is that they are.
Giving of myself to do that is really the only thing that is worthwhile for me, and in fact it guides most of my actions and purpose. Everything I do is for my daughter, to help her become the most fully realized person that she can be.
Helping her in this while seemingly altruistic is also self-serving. I have a purpose. I have meaning.
And, you’re damn right. I’d cut off my limbs for my daughter’s benefit if that’s what it took.
To love her like I do is the most rewarding experience of my life. It feels better and more right than anything else ever has. It is a love that cannot and should not be returned to me. It would be a waste of my daughter’s life and powers to return love like this. It would be unhealthy and self-consuming. I would not want it. But I sure hope she gets to feel this way about her own children. I hope she gets tot feel this level of fulfillment and purpose when she reaches the height of her powers and personhood.
I hope that everybody gets to feel this way about something or someone. I can’t imagine the meaningless of life without such love. I would consider a life lived without it to have been the sick life.
Remember that the tree got everything it wanted. The tree was fulfilled.
I’m with you lissener. I remember seeing this book on a friend’s shelf and deciding to read it because it was always deemed a classic. My friend said it was her favorite book. I gave it a good Freudian analysis as I read it and was just appalled and practically had my friend in tears. I can’t remember the details but I remember thinking the mother/tree was someone who lived vicariously through her children because she had no life of her own. Woe is fucking me. She was a pathetic martyr. The boy was just going through a typical self-centered period - it’s the mother who is the terminal head case.