You wouldn’t say that you hate it, though if you thought that they would come away with a moral that you approved of. It must therefore be a wrong moral that kids will make for themselves.
The problem is that several people have told that they did not come away with a bad moral, and some of them were even kids when they made those conclusions. So, unless you want all books to have a summary page like a Grimm tale, you have to live with the fact that some things are open to interpretation. It’s very possible that Silverstein wanted people to have to really examine their feelings about people who would act like this, on both sides.
You’re absolutely right, was mixing it up with another story based in Civil War times, methinks. Regardless, it was far from a happy story with all the ends wrapped up nice and snug at the conclusion.
Another nitpick you could have pointed out in my post is Little Orphan Annie is a comic book character, not a children’s lit char…but it still illustrates my point.
Children’s lit isn’t and SHOULDN’T alway be bright and shiny with a happy ending. Life is frequently painful, often uncomfortable, and sometimes brutally tragic in mind-bogglingly unfair ways. There’s no reason children’s lit shouldn’t reflect that.
The Giving Tree presents that idea because it is a real life situation, and a very common one that all children will have to deal with. I’m sorry if it irks you, but giving things to other people, especially at a young age, is a very reliable way of making friends. It doesn’t have to be an expensive material object (or a limb), as you can give a compliment just as well. Hell, I made most of my best long-term childhood friends by giving them part of my lunch or letting them play with my Game Boy. The book shows us what happens when one side gives more than the other. I don’t see where it condones abusing people for material items, and I challenge you to cite an example that backs up your claim. Just from looking at this thread, it seems like most of us interpreted the story as a cautionary tale when we were young, while those that read or re-read it as adults think there’s some hidden agenda at play. Can you honestly imagine a child reading the book then thinking “Ha! The boy got all he wanted from that tree and never had to do anything in return! What a stupid tree!” If a kid really thinks like that, then he/she’s been contaminated before reading The Giving Tree.
Yes, children will apply their own morals and standards to a story, because, well, they’re human. What’s wrong with presenting a real life situation then asking for some critical thinking? Relationships like in The Giving Tree are very common, the child/parent relationship being the most prominent. A lot of the world is pain and suffering, and children need not be sheltered from it. There are a lot of books out there that deal with these themes very gently and thoughtfully. If all the child is presented with is sunshine and candy, he/she’ll grow up to be a very imbalanced person, just as much so if you only showed a child the evil and abusive side of life.
I’m curious to know if they came up with that theory after you told them to present something. Was it a school assignment?
I’m thinking about what I took from this as a kid. I didn’t particularly like the book as a child, but I don’t think it was harmful; actually, I think it really, really bothered me.
Definitely the moral wasn’t that the tree was doing the right thing. If I took anything from it, it was, is this how my parents see me? Are they giving me everything, and am I taking from them selfishly?
The tree was absolutely a mother figure in the story. I think it gave me a different perspective on what parents went through.