Although I think The Giving Tree is a rather awful book, it’s not nearly as horrible as the parents who gush about how wonderful a metaphor for parenting it is. And not just because the tree doesn’t actually do anything to actually parent the child (maybe, teach him not to be such a greedy little shit).
No, it’s horrible because the people who gush about it only do so to stealth brag about what a wonderful parent they are, implying that they nobly give and give as their children take everything from them. I’ve always kind of wanted to ask one of them which Giving Tree gave them the lumber for that cross they keep nailing themselves up on for everyone to see.
Now that my nephews and niece are older, I don’t run into many anymore. When they were 2-3, just about every birthday party when someone started a conversation about reading to kids, there’d be a Giving Tree martyr there.
But also, I think that it might seem strange because more and more people in “more-developed” cultures find the idea of self-sacrifice for the family or for the children to be passe. And I find that kind of disturbing too.
Do we have so many single-parent homes because only a fool would sacrifice his/her wants and needs for the family?
I’m always amused when I hear parents or teachers talk about this wonderful children’s book. I agree that it’s crap. Mostly because I think it’s cloying and sentimental.
I also think it’s funny that these people (the fans) apparently aren’t aware of Silverstein’s considerable body of work as a songwriter, including such memorable songs as “I Saw Polly in a Porny,” “Freaking at the Freaker’s Ball,” “Stacy Brown Got Two” (Stacy was a very well-endowed man), “The Word’s Greatest Smoke-Off,” “I Got Stoned and I Missed It,” and plenty of others that might make them feel that Silverstein was perhaps not really just a warm-hearted author of a beloved childrens’ book.
Sorry if that came off as overly personal, but saying the book describes a particular relationship if very different from saying it endorses it. The book shows a relationship where the boy takes and takes and takes as the tree gives and gives and gives; that’s not the same as saying the book teaches or guilt trips. That seems to be responsible for a lot of the disagreement here- people feel that either this book is teaching a bad lesson to kids or it’s guilting parents, and while I’m not sure about some of these interpretations I don’t think it’s trying to do either one.
It’s a horrible, sad book. But life is horrible and sad.
Parents are going to end up as stumps, and children are going to grow miserable and old no matter what their parents do. Some people cling to the supposed value of being selfless as a way of avoiding the horror of life, and the basic message of the book is that no, you can’t escape it that way.
Did you read the same book as the rest of us? This is a cloying sentimental happy-happy joy-joy book–about a tree that destroys itself trying to please a miserable little boy?
Of course I don’t think you should find the boy “likeable”. He isn’t likeable. I’m confused by your assertion that you don’t like things with unlikeable characters. Darth Vader is an unlikeable character, he blew up Princess Leia’s whole planet. That means you shouldn’t like Star Wars.
The boy in the Giving Tree is a selfish unlikeable jerk. Darth Vader is a mass murdering unlikeable jerk. You hate the Giving Tree and Star Wars because both have unlikeable characters.
Or maybe I’m teasing you a bit. The Giving Tree is a pretty dark fable, and if you didn’t like it that’s a perfectly reasonable response.
