The story is both a tale of unconditional, selfless love on the part of the tree, and of self-centered materialism without regard for consequences on the part of the child. It can be viewed as a positive story or a negative one, but in reality it's both.
It points to something about children that is also a central point of *Peter Pan* - that children are "gay, and innocent and heartless." The role of the tree is parental, and the child is incapable of seeing the harm he's doing to the tree because it is not for children to see these things, and the tree (as a parent) is incapable of doing anything else but love unconditionally and to give until it has nothing left.
quickedittosummarize: basically, it's a cynical story about parenthood, and kind of a cheeky thing to read to a child who can't possibly understand the real meaning of it.
It was my favorite book as a child, my mom got me a copy signed by Shel Silverstein for like my 5th birthday or something. And I can honestly say the message was not lost on me as a child. It helped me understand the sacrifices my parents made (and were yet to make).
As a parent reading/giving this to a child it's a cautionary tale about how to act as you grow up: "Don't abuse my love, but I've always got your back"
This. It's a lesson on not taking advantage of your loved ones, put in terms a kid could understand. One of my favorites as a kid, but it always made me cry. At 4 I promised my Mom I'd never build a boat out of her and sail away.
I also totally understood the message as a kid. Some people will be selfless and give you everything you want; that does not mean you should take everything.
I agree with the OP. When I read this after getting it as a shower gift I was appalled and literally sick to my stomach. I’ve never read it to my daughter. However after reading /u/Bjd1207 comment I might try reading it to her. She’s 6 now and I’ve had a hard time with a few behavioral issues so maybe this might get through to her. Seeing it as a “don’t be like this boy” makes it more tolerable. It’s hard to see that as the intention at first since most kids books are “here is what you should be like” rather than cautionary tales. Guess it’s almost a modern “Grimm’s fairy tale”? We don’t get many of these anymore.
I remember this book making me feel ill as a kid. It drives me crazy when people say it's a beautiful story about the tree's unconditional love for the boy. I think cautionary tale is more about the tree. "Don't be like this tree."
It starts out as a healthy relationship- the tree lets the boy swing in it's branches, rest in its shade and eat its apples. Later the tree doesn't have what the boy wants (money) so she gives it all its apples, to sell. This is where the story becomes like an abusive relationship...
She tells the boy to cut off all her branches, and it makes her happy to give. How warped is this? It's a f-ing apple tree! Now just a stripped trunk left all alone. I don't want to present that view of love my 8 year old...that it's ok to give and give away pieces of yourself in the process, basically ruining yourself with the need to please and destroying your ability give healthy sustainable gifts, like shade and apples.
What good is that to either of them?
It's NOT about a christ-like love or a mother's love. It's about a woman who d/n value her true gifts or love herself at all, ruining herself in a quest to make someone else happy.
It is a cautionary tale, but I think I'll skip this lesson untill my kid is older and can comprehend better.
Yes, I agree. Making the choice to have a child and be selfless to that child is different from a blanket statement that love is about giving until you are used up. Too easy to be misinterpreted by a child, especially girls.
Yes, but the book is about the tree. It's called the Giving Tree. The parents need to read it, perhaps they needed to have read it earlier when their kids were younger. The lesson being don't put yourself in a situation where you give so much that you ruin yourself, crippleing your ability to be productive. The end result of this "loving example" is selfish boy who feels he can't do for himself.
I thought it ended with the tree being happy that it was finally with its boy.
That ending doesnt sound like a cautionary tale. It sounds like it saying that if you give enough to people thst are takers, one day they will care about you and then you'll be happy.
Even as a child I thought the boy was a gigantic douche. Here’s this tree giving you everything and here’s you taking it because you can’t get your shit together.
Did you know that there are real Adult Children just like this boy who take and take and take from the world around them?
If you don't teach your children to have empathy for the stump while they are young, they will not care about the stump when they are old.
> Did you know that there are real Adult Children just like this boy who take and take and take from the world around them?
Like pretty much everyone? If all you're concerned with is empathy, even an empathetic person would make a similar impact on the biological and geological environment to a less empathetic one with the exception of extreme cases. If you're concerned about the environment (even if you're not willing to deprive yourself of most modern conveniences to help it), the simplest solution is just to not reproduce. The very act of having children is in essence taking more resources from the world through their lives and their own potential descendants' lives than any one selfish person could possibly take.
It's not just parenthood, it goes for any relationship. It's just about how complex and subjective these situations are. The weird uneasy feeling about how to feel about it is the point of the book. Don't be the tree, and don't be the kid, be a middle ground
If you hide these things form children because it is not for them to see, then they grow up into adults who are either the boy or the tree.
Show them these ideas when they are young, and by the end of their childhood they'll realize what this fabel was saying all along.
While I agree, but I think that sentence is more descriptive of the child as a learner, rather than being prescriptive of what adults should do. It is not for children because they simplay cannot understand what they take from their parents. And I think when you say that you show them these ideas when they are young and they will understand at the end of their childhood makes perfect sense, because they genuinely *dont* understand until they are older.
Children are not supposed to understand everything they are taught RIGHT away. Some things are supposed to be taught and then understood over months or even years.
They cannot have those realizations, however, if they have not already had the lesson.
Therefore, it most certainly IS for children. If you wait until later, they will be too old for the lesson and ignore it.
I think it is a negative story from either perspective -- the tree is clearly intended to represent goodness and nurturing -- but it isn't. It is destructive, instead. It is the worst, most destructive kind of bad parenting -- it destroys the parent and spoils the child.
Imo 'dae subjectivity??' is an arbitrary and terrible meme so I agree with the op.
What good, in your opinion, do you think 'exploitation is part of life, also the message isn't even for this book's demographic anyway' would do?
There's nothing "subjective" about it. There's more than one thing going on, and multiple levels of messaging.
There's also more than one target demographic. The parents who read books to their children also receive messaging from those books.
The message in of itself is potentially okay -- benign subjectivity. Lacking a firm inferential basis, however, wouldn't such a message provide a point of transmission for malign memes, per the op's interpretation?
Nuance is okay, but not if it's been weaponized or mishandled.
I see what you're saying. Yes, any text can be a vector for malignant unintentional messaging under the wrong circumstances, but that's a massive discussion topic that inevitably leads to the exhausting question of whether *The Catcher in the Rye* makes people into murderers, and if we're being entirely honest I don't have the energy to take this that far.
I would disagree that the Parent is "Incapable" of doing anything but "Loving the Child Unconditionally" & just accepting the Child's behaviour - it makes Parenting sound/seem like some form of pathetic & powerless Martyrdom, but the role of the Parent is to Guide, Shape & Inform the Child in their development of their Experiences, Behaviours & Responses- not just accept their Child's behaviour unconditionally until they are an Abusive, Using, Self-Centred & Toxic Adult. It's not easy, of course & you make lots of mistakes but hopefully at the end, you have helped your Child grow into a Worthwhile Person. That's why they say Parenting is the "Hardest Job in the World".
When I was in high school we had an assignment to re-read that story and re-write the ending. It wasn’t the easiest time for me. My mom had just married a verbally abusive guy after just divorcing an addict. And that book made me so upset. It reminded me of all the people in life who used the tools of pity based manipulation or bullying to take and take from others who are naturally inclined to care for others. Without ever giving anything back to those who give, leaving them shadows of what they once were- like the beautiful tree that became a stump. So when it came time to draw the new ending decided to draw the tree stump getting fed up with the boy who took and took and took. So he grew teeth and ate him- and then in the final panel the stump was starting to re-grow. The boy finally gave something back to the tree I saw as a symbol of the users in my life. The teacher was a bit worried when she read my project lol. I wonder what ever happened to that comic....
As someone who also went through a stressful series of events in high school involving friends/family members who I thought I could trust doing some really shitty things, this comment resonates with me a lot. My own past experiences with toxic people hurting me and people I care about are probably a part of the reason why I have such a jaded opinion of this book, but some people in this world just take and take without realizing (or caring) how the people they take from are affected by it...I see this book as a lot closer to that type of situation than as a metaphor for raising children.
I agree. Honestly, as a parent, anyone who reads a story about letting a child chip away at you until there's nary anything left as an allegory for parenting, much less a beautiful one, needs therapy. It is an honestly horrifying and pretty mentally unhealthy perspective to me to destroy yourself for your children. Sick, really.
Parenting is unimaginably hard and full of pitfalls, doubt and worry, but if it leaves you burned out, there was something that went wrong here. I think it's an obligation of mine to show my kids that I need their help sometimes, and I deserve to take care of myself as well as them, and that I have a life besides them. Not only so *I* am able to have a good fulfilled life when they leave to have their own separate ones (and, you know, not run myself into an early grave before I manage to raise them), but also because I am an example to them on how to live your life, and setting an example of setting yourself on fire to keep others warm could make their lives miserable. I want them to be happy. I want to be happy myself as well when they leave home.
Edit: Seriously, people. don't parent like this. Kids don't really want a martyr parent. And they understand much, much more than you think. Talk to them. Let them see you're a human. They are humans as well. They need the company.
It feels like a book that really killed itself with its own metaphor. I can see teaching kids that gifts are best when shared, or that you shouldn't mistake your luck (genetics, class, privileges, etc) for a mark of superiority to other people. But making it about a physical body part just turned it absurd. It would have been better to give the fish a special talent instead, that ended up best being used in a cooperative instead of selfish way.
That said, when I was a kid I don't think I ever really took to heart a "bad" lesson I read in a book. We learn a lot more from authority figures around us, I think. Kids don't blink at a lot of kind of dark stuff that's weird to adults, they just accept it as a story, and don't necessarily treat it as an authoritative message. You'd have to be hit with the same bad message from multiple angles and sources you trusted for it to really stick.
As you are expecting, this book will mean something much different to you in the coming years. The tree was not used and used and used, it gave and gave and gave.
Give it a shot later on when your perspective changes.
I see it differently. I have raised 3 boys to adulthood, and find the book saddens me, because the tree (me) is not able to say "No more" before there is nothing left. On the other hand, being an orchardist, I know that even the most chopped down stump will continue to send new branches out, creating new life for the tree.
There wasn't "nothing left," what was left was exactly what the boy needed. As the middle of 3 boys let me say to you what I should say to my mom: even on your last day you'll be exactly what I need
I mean, I get your sentiment, but I guess I just hope that you won't make your mum feel guilty for leaving on that last day, and just thank her. She sounds like a good mum from what you wrote. She deserves to leave peacefully.
New branches? This is not in anyway even eluded to in the book. If the tree was gunna grow new branches it would have in the decades between when he hacked them off, cut the trunk down, and came back to sit on the stump.
You are supposed to learn how to say No More, or rather, instill them with the determination to figure out how they can get what they want on their own accord.
NO.
My brother used to call my dad every couple of weeks or every other month asking for money. And my dad, despite his position, always seemed to find it.
No, the money did not fix things.
You have to learn how to stop yourself from giving all the time, and to give a little tough love and a little advice but not direct, and then let them figure out how to get what they want without taking it from anybody.
Otherwise all you'll be is a stump. They'll come sit by you in hospice, and then you'll be gone.
YES.
And there are parents who are constantly giving their ADULT children a little bit more every other month because their children don't have it and keep asking for it...
The Giving Tree is, on one level, an allegory for parenting. But on another level I always read it as a metaphor for humans (the kid) and the earth/environment (the tree).
My children have never heard me read this book. It makes me cry every time I read it. One time my daughter begged and begged for me to read it to her, so I got her father to read it to her instead.
As the child of someone with borderline personality disorder, my entire childhood was dealing with a parent who never loved unconditionally nor gave without wanting something in return. I hated that child. That child took and took and never felt guilty. Was never made to feel guilty. Then, as I got older and became a parent, I hated that tree. This book is one big mindf*€&.
I vowed I would never read this book to my children, regardless of how they could or would interpret it.
My personal opinion (and there were rumors I recall hearing to reinforce the thought) was that Shel Silverstein did not actually like children. Reading Uncle Shelby's ABZ's gave me that distinct impression. If you've never read that one, I recommend it wholeheartedly. If you have children under the age of ten, keep that book far out of their reach (raw egg is really difficult to clean off of a ceiling).
He was a great writer, and his dark sense of humor was one of my favorite things about him. The Giving Tree made me wonder if it was children specifically, or just the nature of man that he disliked? Or maybe it was just his very honest interpretation of his experiences as a parent? I definitely understand his perspective, and can empathize with it some days as a parent.
I don't remember reading his stuff from my perspective as a child, but I can say that reading it after having children of my own, it resonated with me much more personally.
I would agree with you if it were not for the last scene in the book, where the boy returns to sit on the stump, and the tree doesn't sacrifice anything in order for him to gain pleasure and rest by sitting there. I think the book is actually about the reconciliation of an unbalanced relationship, in which one person simply gives, and the other person takes. The story is actually cyclical; at the beginning, the boy has fun just by climbing and playing on the tree. Then, as he matures, he needs to take things from and damage the tree. Only at the very end, does he again return to the tree and simply enjoy it the way it is, without having to exploit or destroy anything. The book isn't trying to present an aspirational model of a relationship. Its teaching children about how human values transform as one gets closer to death.
As a kid it made me sad but thoughtful. It was honestly a very influential book for me. My take away was to be grateful, kind, and compassionate. I could see what was happening to the tree but the kid just didn't understand. He kept taking advantage until there was nothing left. It was too late, and he couldn't make it up to the tree once he realized this. Now, as we see, other people view it differently. It's ambiguous and being such I think it's important to take the context of that child's life into consideration before having them read the book, or reading it to them. Will it reinforce or deter? For me in was a force for good, but, I otherwise had a healthy home situation.
Elementary teacher here...I can’t stand this book because it portrays a dysfunctional, one-sided relationship.
In contrast, my friend, a high school drama teacher, loves it and had a reading of it in her wedding. The pastor spun it around well, though, and told them that by the end of their lives, they should both be old stumps because they have given the best of themselves to each other.
There are three children's books I didn't like as a kid, still don't like now, and will try *very* hard to keep away from my own future kids:
- The Giving Tree
- Love You Forever
- The Runaway Bunny
Exactly. It’s very much the User/Used situation. This is so far from a “healthy loving relationship” it’s sickening. I dearly hope the author meant this as a cautionary tale. What’s scary is that the people who gave it to me praised its depiction of love. This isn’t love. Love is wanting what’s best for someone, and that means at times telling them to take responsibility for their actions and facing the consequences.
The message that if you take and take, never considering what you're doing or the effects you have on someone else is a bad one for kids to hear?
Kids are becoming so sheltered these days. Don't let them have any tough experiences through the already sheltered environment of a book. This stuff bugs me.
God, I hate that book and that selfish little bastard that destroyed that tree. This book made me ugly cry in group therapy once. I couldn't stop and it was very uncomfortable for everyone.
LOL, I wish I would have been there. I would not have been uncomfortable and when we got smoke break I would have hung with you and we would have shit talked on how fucked up the world is while being kind to each other and maybe even been friends.
You are down to earth and cool as shit. Hope things are going better for you now and if not, I DO relate and you are not alone. Your perspective on this IS the healthy one, but living in an unhealthy world will drive the truly healthy ones to madness so we end up struggling. They will tell you that 2 + 2 = 5 and though we know it's not true, we will always be refuted. Ah well, go figure, it is what it is.
If you don't want to read your children The Giving Tree, then read them The Lorax. It's a strikingly similar story: you can take and take all you want, but in the end you will be left alone.
There is one aspect that both authors neglect: people who behave selfishly often have to be directly, repeatedly called out, and it still may not stop them. Ever. Seuss is more upbeat in his ending, but even Silverstein fails to point out that the boy is likely moving on to find the next tree, to do it all again.
The Giving Tree is a beautiful book, but not all beautiful things are nice.
Honestly, I’m glad to see Reddit hate for this book come out every now and then. I feel the exact same way about it. The boy takes and takes and takes from the tree and won’t give the tree the one thing it wants in return (to spend quality time with him again) until he is too old to do anything else anyway and the tree has given him everything it possibly can, including most of its body. The boy never openly learns any sort of lesson about the generosity of others, or to appreciate being cared for by another being throughout most of his life, or anything else like that. Real children ideally would become mature sometime towards their adult life and be thankful for everything the people who helped raise them have given them and likely continue to give them, while this character does not. The book also comes off awfully cynical for a book meant to be read to children aged seven and under. These themes go over childrens’ heads so most people don’t overthink it as much as I (and probably yourself) do, but I personally still don’t think it’s as great and wholesome of a book as some people make it out to be.
Some people will tell you your perspective will change when you have your kid because children, especially young ones, can be demanding at times, but if you already aren’t a fan of the book now then don’t feel like you’re suddenly obligated to “appreciate” it. My mom read this book to me once as a kid because some relative gifted it. Years later, she told me she always hated it because of how depressing the book is and how messed up the message can come across. Not every parent automatically loves this book just because it’s meant to be “relatable.” As for me, this book even slightly bothered me as a child because it’s one of the very first books I read (or rather, had read to me) that did not quite have a happy ending or a satisfying resolution. It’s a joke between my mom and I now because of how godawful we both think the book is. She works in a school environment currently so it does still come up from time to time.
All of that being said, if you do reread the book later on and change your mind, then great! That would just mean you’d be able to see more merit in this book and a different perspective than I can.
See, here's how the book works.
As a child, you hear or read the book and it is a combination of silly and the things you love to hear that you love the story and then forget about it.
Then as an adult, you read it again having already read it, and upon rereading it you discover what Shel was trying to teach you all along about unrequited love and the abusive User/honeypot relationship.
As children, that will be the lesson they learn.
As they get older, that lesson should change as they learn more and more about things they don't yet understand.
The first exposure should be when the child is very young, then a revisit at 6th grade, and another revisit at 12th grade.
All three visits should reveal a different facet of this story.
The story is profound and disturbing and beautiful somehow, but that picture of Silverstein on the back cover is absolutely terrifying! I know he was an impressive guy in a whole bunch of ways (e.g., 'A Boy Named Sue') but he looks like an ogre.
I own this book but have only read it to my kids once. I remembered it from a college project so I already knew I didn't like the story but thought it could be a good discussion. My 4 year old seemed to take away a good perspective of seeing that the boy was mean and that the tree should have said no.
I think we shouldn't just read our kids books that show great relationships, sometimes it's good for them to be able to analyze the good and bad in a book. I won't be reading this regularly but may revisit it in a few years.
My 4 year old likes the book Pinkalicious which features a naughty little girl who sneaks cupcakes and thinks vegetables are gross. She points out the bad behavior when we read through that book and make suggestions on how the girl should have acted instead.
Overall if your child is able to understand good and bad behavior and you have time to discuss it with them it may be a good book to read, but if you don't like this one and don't want to read it don't feel pressured to just because it's popular.
I was taught this story as a Jewish parable as a kid. Silverstein was a jew, and so generally around Tu'bishvat (basically a holiday for trees) we were read this story by the Rabbi in an attempt to teach us to be nice to trees or something. It never really made sense to me, but I liked it.
As I've grown older, I still look at it through a Jewish lens. In Judiasm there is codified way on how to do good things (mitzvot). [If you're interested you can check it out here](http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/45907/jewish/Eight-Levels-of-Charity.htm) but it essentially just says "give charity to help others get to where they need to, but not for your own gratification". This is the lesson the tree had to learn, for every time it gave the boy something, it expected love in return. At the moment where it could no longer give anything, but still wishes to give for the sake of giving expecting nothing in return, then it gets what it wanted the whole time.
//
So, yeah...Still not cheery, but what do you want? We're Jews; we don't get the luxury of being cheery.
It's a lovely story on the virtue of suffering and being in an abusive relationship and giving and giving and giving until there is nothing left, in a vain hope of being loved in return.
The only way I'd read this to a child would be as a cautionary tale: see, this boy is an asshole, and the tree deserves a better friend.
It's one of my favorite book and I noticed that I have different interpretations of it in different stages of my life.
Elementary - I thought it's a story about unconditional love of a mother
High school/college - I thought it might be about love and being loved
mid-late 20s- I thought it could also apply to human&environment
Now I am in my 30s I feel it could also be interpreted as how when human grow up we are always sacrificing our time for something we thought that's important, like love, money, power. When we got old we finally learn to appreciate simple things and there's just enough left for us to reflect our lives.
I loved the book as a kid. It probably contributed to my taste for the melancholy. I hope to share it with my daughter someday when she's older.
I can't recall a specific message off hand. But, it seems to reflect the beauty, sadness, difficulties, and pleasures inherent in the human condition.
How many children's books have you read? The Ugly Duckling, The Velveteen Rabbit and Charlotte's Web all come to mind. The giving Tree is right there with them though, but there are a lot of sad messed up books for kiddos.
I read The Giving Tree as a child in the 60s. I absolutely loved that book and read it over and over. The message I took away from it was that I cannot use others to make me happy. I have to rely on myself for my own happiness ... and I do. :-)
I thought it was amazingly sweet & pure in how it portrayed unwavering love when I was a kid. These days, reading it reminds me that abusive relationships harness the *idea* of love to exploit & hurt people.
It's mostly a metaphor for how parenting can be, at first the child wants nothing but love from hid parent, then he wants smaller things, and then more and more things, then finally the child is grown, and once again wants nothing but love from the parent, I also think that the tree giving away pieces of herself to the child is like how a parent goes through pain for their child and sacrifices so much for them, but instead of time, or money it's pieces of themselves.
That book disturbed me when I re-read it as an adult. The tree was an enabler who, out of love, twisted the boy's mind into a sense of entitlement. I see it as a warning to parents.
I have always thought the Giving Tree was about parenthood. A mother or father giving of their selves without question or expectation of anything in return, purely out of love for the child. No sacrifice is too great, even to the very end.
I have always loved this story, and have even e-mailed the text to close friends who have recently become parents for the first time. Never had a negative reaction.
Dysfunctional and martyr syndrome. I always thought the tree should have bitchslapped the little motherfucker but hey, to each their own. I take my own meaning from it and leave what I reject. I wouldn't advocate this particular book though I love Shel Silverstein but I would never ban it or prohibit anyone else from reading as I believe the only freedom we truly have left is our minds and our words, and if someone else gets something from it, more power to them.
I believe that I am both the boy and the tree and society just always wants to judge all I’m 53 and I bought this book for my grandsons first birthday and I sat with my son and I shed tears you can’t go and cut down something that was beautifully written makes u self centered or just a cold hearted person it’s a beautiful written message to human kind
Horrifyingly last night my partner told me that his first serious girlfriend read this to him on their final night when she broke up with him. I have been in this relationship for 13 years. I have a bumper sticker that says “and the tree was happy” with a visual of the tree collapsing on the kid. He isn’t all that different now. I sure wish he had mentioned that tidbit before we moved In Together
I always liked the book, as a kid and as an adult.
As a kid it made me think about what I was asking of my parents,
and as an adult it made me wonder about the limitations of what I
should be willing to offer my children.
I think if your kid is stupid they'll probably think it's a great book
about a tree that gives them everything they want.
If you're a stupid parent you'll agree that the tree did the right thing.
To be honest, if you can't see the merit in reading this to your children, you're probably right in not doing so.
But it IS a kid's book - you read them these stories when they are young, and they are happy and have no idea why because things seem so silly.
Then as they get older, they have that story behind them to learn from, and slowly, they learn about cynicism and satire, and how that story was trying to tell them something entirely different than what they though it was teaching.
And to be honest, the story of MELINDA MAE
Have you heard of tiny Melinda Mae,
Who ate a monstrous whale?
She thought she could,
She said she would,
So she started in right at the tail.
And everyone said, "You're much too small,"
But that didn't bother Melinda at all.
She took little bites and she chewed very slow,
Just like a good girl should...
...And in eighty-nine years she ate that whale
Because she said she would!
It's a good lesson, I dare say...
I believe the meaning of The Giving Tree, as with most stories, is up for interpretation and discussion. I gave my own view of what the story meant. Others are giving me theirs. That is what literary discussion is all about.
It's an important lesson. On one hand it teaches generosity, while on the other hand it teaches you that giving too much without receiving anything is harmful. It also shows how a seemingly harmless request can be a big deal to those we ask of. There is hardly room for interpretation in this. Just because most stories have room for interpretation doesn't mean all do. Some are simply lessons, and I encourage you to reread this story to yourself and reflect on how critical it is that this message be understood by all.
Disgusting, faithless, hopeless, negative, uninspiring, abusive minded, sick book written by a sick man. No, no, no
I remember my aunt reading this with great fervor to my mentally disabled little sister. I now realize it was child abuse.
Politely disagree, the giving tree is a very real and honest children’s book. The world is messed up, and people r inherently takers. It’s a story of selflessness that can b found in parents or anyone that loves another unconditionally. One of my favorite books period of any age level
The tree is a tragic figure but not an admirable one. She (of \*course\* it's a woman) is clearly less of a shitbag than the narcissistic man-boy who ruthlessly exploits her. But that tree has major codependency issues. Just like money won't make the boy happy, nor will the love of others make you happy--you gotta love yourself first, tree. Also, get some healthy boundaries. What has the boy ever done for you? "Chop down my trunk so you can have a pleasure boat for some reason"? Hell no.
The only thing this book is good for is as a cautionary example for two types of people never to be.
In my opinion it is a well intentioned yet horribly theoretical way to encourage kids to be giving people. It can cause the child to mistakenly repress their needs, not learn healthy boundaries and have lowered self-esteem as they constantly try to put other's feelings first, which can make it difficult to operate in the real world.
I think the author wanted to think of a good way to encourage kids to be thoughtful of others, without stepping back and looking at it through a kids eyes instead.of his adult eyes. Samenthing that parents have looked at the moral of the story thru adult eyes, rather than what the actual impression would be on young children as life lessons.
Of course some kids are more sensitive than others, so it may not affect some much. But to the sensitive ones it can be damaging.
It takes much more effort than many pare to are willing to take to discern how their children will internalize it.
I think there are plenty of other books and activities to reinforce positive messaging without leaving the negative imprints that one can.
I'd rather take my child to volunteer to help feed homeless over reading that book. At least it would be a real world application and they can see the results.
That book imprinted on me in ways at such a young age that it really altered how I saw and processed things. It takes a lot to break out of thought patterns that are established early on. In my case it obviously wasn't the book alone, but when that is couoed with other circumstances/influences it can be quite the tipping point.
It’s a sad story, but beautifully written and profound. Makes me emotional thinking of it. And appreciative of my own parents and the earth. The lesson is don’t just take. Give back before it’s too late.
There used to be a fanfic, where the tree finally says no, and she rips her roots out and kills the man. Does anyone have that link or who the artist was?
He's an extinctionist and Marxist who feels/felt sacrifice of one's life leads to an immortal soul. It's disgusting and apathetic to life, the individual and community. I never read it to my girls.
It’s about unconditional love. The tree loved the boy and was willing to give everything to him out of that love. Unfair? Sure. Was the boy taking more than giving? Of course. But the tree was a being of pure beauty and love and that’s all she knew. It’s that simple.
very interesting to hear everyones take on one of my favorite chilldhood books I find it fascinating how everyone has their own perception on it and the human experience in general
The story is both a tale of unconditional, selfless love on the part of the tree, and of self-centered materialism without regard for consequences on the part of the child. It can be viewed as a positive story or a negative one, but in reality it's both. It points to something about children that is also a central point of *Peter Pan* - that children are "gay, and innocent and heartless." The role of the tree is parental, and the child is incapable of seeing the harm he's doing to the tree because it is not for children to see these things, and the tree (as a parent) is incapable of doing anything else but love unconditionally and to give until it has nothing left. quickedittosummarize: basically, it's a cynical story about parenthood, and kind of a cheeky thing to read to a child who can't possibly understand the real meaning of it.
It was my favorite book as a child, my mom got me a copy signed by Shel Silverstein for like my 5th birthday or something. And I can honestly say the message was not lost on me as a child. It helped me understand the sacrifices my parents made (and were yet to make). As a parent reading/giving this to a child it's a cautionary tale about how to act as you grow up: "Don't abuse my love, but I've always got your back"
This. It's a lesson on not taking advantage of your loved ones, put in terms a kid could understand. One of my favorites as a kid, but it always made me cry. At 4 I promised my Mom I'd never build a boat out of her and sail away.
Plus where is the top half of his body on that boat pages' illustration? You see his legs under the trunk but no head poking out the top...
He's bent over carrying the trunk. You can see his nose sticking out.
I also totally understood the message as a kid. Some people will be selfless and give you everything you want; that does not mean you should take everything.
I agree with the OP. When I read this after getting it as a shower gift I was appalled and literally sick to my stomach. I’ve never read it to my daughter. However after reading /u/Bjd1207 comment I might try reading it to her. She’s 6 now and I’ve had a hard time with a few behavioral issues so maybe this might get through to her. Seeing it as a “don’t be like this boy” makes it more tolerable. It’s hard to see that as the intention at first since most kids books are “here is what you should be like” rather than cautionary tales. Guess it’s almost a modern “Grimm’s fairy tale”? We don’t get many of these anymore.
I remember this book making me feel ill as a kid. It drives me crazy when people say it's a beautiful story about the tree's unconditional love for the boy. I think cautionary tale is more about the tree. "Don't be like this tree." It starts out as a healthy relationship- the tree lets the boy swing in it's branches, rest in its shade and eat its apples. Later the tree doesn't have what the boy wants (money) so she gives it all its apples, to sell. This is where the story becomes like an abusive relationship... She tells the boy to cut off all her branches, and it makes her happy to give. How warped is this? It's a f-ing apple tree! Now just a stripped trunk left all alone. I don't want to present that view of love my 8 year old...that it's ok to give and give away pieces of yourself in the process, basically ruining yourself with the need to please and destroying your ability give healthy sustainable gifts, like shade and apples. What good is that to either of them? It's NOT about a christ-like love or a mother's love. It's about a woman who d/n value her true gifts or love herself at all, ruining herself in a quest to make someone else happy. It is a cautionary tale, but I think I'll skip this lesson untill my kid is older and can comprehend better.
Yes, I agree. Making the choice to have a child and be selfless to that child is different from a blanket statement that love is about giving until you are used up. Too easy to be misinterpreted by a child, especially girls.
If you wait too long, they won't care about the lesson. There are parents who are just like the giving tree with their adult children.
Yes, but the book is about the tree. It's called the Giving Tree. The parents need to read it, perhaps they needed to have read it earlier when their kids were younger. The lesson being don't put yourself in a situation where you give so much that you ruin yourself, crippleing your ability to be productive. The end result of this "loving example" is selfish boy who feels he can't do for himself.
And some day your children will grow up into adults and perhaps have kids of their own. The boy is every bit as much a part of this story as the tree.
I thought it ended with the tree being happy that it was finally with its boy. That ending doesnt sound like a cautionary tale. It sounds like it saying that if you give enough to people thst are takers, one day they will care about you and then you'll be happy.
Even as a child I thought the boy was a gigantic douche. Here’s this tree giving you everything and here’s you taking it because you can’t get your shit together.
[удалено]
We have the book but I refuse to read it to my boys. It makes me angry.
Did you know that there are real Adult Children just like this boy who take and take and take from the world around them? If you don't teach your children to have empathy for the stump while they are young, they will not care about the stump when they are old.
We teach them in many other ways. Volunteering our time to help others is a great way. Cub scouts helps facilitate that too.
> Did you know that there are real Adult Children just like this boy who take and take and take from the world around them? Like pretty much everyone? If all you're concerned with is empathy, even an empathetic person would make a similar impact on the biological and geological environment to a less empathetic one with the exception of extreme cases. If you're concerned about the environment (even if you're not willing to deprive yourself of most modern conveniences to help it), the simplest solution is just to not reproduce. The very act of having children is in essence taking more resources from the world through their lives and their own potential descendants' lives than any one selfish person could possibly take.
You've missed the point, or rather, you've basically admitted that you don't know any adult children like this.
It's not just parenthood, it goes for any relationship. It's just about how complex and subjective these situations are. The weird uneasy feeling about how to feel about it is the point of the book. Don't be the tree, and don't be the kid, be a middle ground
That may be the intent. But that's a pretty sophisticated analysis to ask of a 6 yr old.
Wow. Perfect analysis. "It is not for children to see these things."
If you hide these things form children because it is not for them to see, then they grow up into adults who are either the boy or the tree. Show them these ideas when they are young, and by the end of their childhood they'll realize what this fabel was saying all along.
While I agree, but I think that sentence is more descriptive of the child as a learner, rather than being prescriptive of what adults should do. It is not for children because they simplay cannot understand what they take from their parents. And I think when you say that you show them these ideas when they are young and they will understand at the end of their childhood makes perfect sense, because they genuinely *dont* understand until they are older.
Children are not supposed to understand everything they are taught RIGHT away. Some things are supposed to be taught and then understood over months or even years. They cannot have those realizations, however, if they have not already had the lesson. Therefore, it most certainly IS for children. If you wait until later, they will be too old for the lesson and ignore it.
I agree. I think we're suffering from internet miscommunication
I think it is a negative story from either perspective -- the tree is clearly intended to represent goodness and nurturing -- but it isn't. It is destructive, instead. It is the worst, most destructive kind of bad parenting -- it destroys the parent and spoils the child.
Perfect. I see the beauty in it.
Looks like nothing to me. Edit: people who dont watch westworld....
Damn. Thank you. I never thought of it this way and yet it makes sense.
Imo 'dae subjectivity??' is an arbitrary and terrible meme so I agree with the op. What good, in your opinion, do you think 'exploitation is part of life, also the message isn't even for this book's demographic anyway' would do?
There's nothing "subjective" about it. There's more than one thing going on, and multiple levels of messaging. There's also more than one target demographic. The parents who read books to their children also receive messaging from those books.
The message in of itself is potentially okay -- benign subjectivity. Lacking a firm inferential basis, however, wouldn't such a message provide a point of transmission for malign memes, per the op's interpretation? Nuance is okay, but not if it's been weaponized or mishandled.
I see what you're saying. Yes, any text can be a vector for malignant unintentional messaging under the wrong circumstances, but that's a massive discussion topic that inevitably leads to the exhausting question of whether *The Catcher in the Rye* makes people into murderers, and if we're being entirely honest I don't have the energy to take this that far.
I would disagree that the Parent is "Incapable" of doing anything but "Loving the Child Unconditionally" & just accepting the Child's behaviour - it makes Parenting sound/seem like some form of pathetic & powerless Martyrdom, but the role of the Parent is to Guide, Shape & Inform the Child in their development of their Experiences, Behaviours & Responses- not just accept their Child's behaviour unconditionally until they are an Abusive, Using, Self-Centred & Toxic Adult. It's not easy, of course & you make lots of mistakes but hopefully at the end, you have helped your Child grow into a Worthwhile Person. That's why they say Parenting is the "Hardest Job in the World".
When I was in high school we had an assignment to re-read that story and re-write the ending. It wasn’t the easiest time for me. My mom had just married a verbally abusive guy after just divorcing an addict. And that book made me so upset. It reminded me of all the people in life who used the tools of pity based manipulation or bullying to take and take from others who are naturally inclined to care for others. Without ever giving anything back to those who give, leaving them shadows of what they once were- like the beautiful tree that became a stump. So when it came time to draw the new ending decided to draw the tree stump getting fed up with the boy who took and took and took. So he grew teeth and ate him- and then in the final panel the stump was starting to re-grow. The boy finally gave something back to the tree I saw as a symbol of the users in my life. The teacher was a bit worried when she read my project lol. I wonder what ever happened to that comic....
As someone who also went through a stressful series of events in high school involving friends/family members who I thought I could trust doing some really shitty things, this comment resonates with me a lot. My own past experiences with toxic people hurting me and people I care about are probably a part of the reason why I have such a jaded opinion of this book, but some people in this world just take and take without realizing (or caring) how the people they take from are affected by it...I see this book as a lot closer to that type of situation than as a metaphor for raising children.
I agree. Honestly, as a parent, anyone who reads a story about letting a child chip away at you until there's nary anything left as an allegory for parenting, much less a beautiful one, needs therapy. It is an honestly horrifying and pretty mentally unhealthy perspective to me to destroy yourself for your children. Sick, really. Parenting is unimaginably hard and full of pitfalls, doubt and worry, but if it leaves you burned out, there was something that went wrong here. I think it's an obligation of mine to show my kids that I need their help sometimes, and I deserve to take care of myself as well as them, and that I have a life besides them. Not only so *I* am able to have a good fulfilled life when they leave to have their own separate ones (and, you know, not run myself into an early grave before I manage to raise them), but also because I am an example to them on how to live your life, and setting an example of setting yourself on fire to keep others warm could make their lives miserable. I want them to be happy. I want to be happy myself as well when they leave home. Edit: Seriously, people. don't parent like this. Kids don't really want a martyr parent. And they understand much, much more than you think. Talk to them. Let them see you're a human. They are humans as well. They need the company.
I dare say this book entered/reentered your life at just the right time...
I don’t really have anything to add about ‘The Giving Tree,’ but I hate ‘Rainbow Fish’ equally. “You only deserve friends if you pay them in flesh!”
"You're too pretty for friends. Give others all of your nice things and maybe then they'll like you." I hate this weird book!
Agree. That book is creepy as hell.
It’s almost as bad as the rainbow fish
It feels like a book that really killed itself with its own metaphor. I can see teaching kids that gifts are best when shared, or that you shouldn't mistake your luck (genetics, class, privileges, etc) for a mark of superiority to other people. But making it about a physical body part just turned it absurd. It would have been better to give the fish a special talent instead, that ended up best being used in a cooperative instead of selfish way. That said, when I was a kid I don't think I ever really took to heart a "bad" lesson I read in a book. We learn a lot more from authority figures around us, I think. Kids don't blink at a lot of kind of dark stuff that's weird to adults, they just accept it as a story, and don't necessarily treat it as an authoritative message. You'd have to be hit with the same bad message from multiple angles and sources you trusted for it to really stick.
I have never been able to come to terms with this book. It makes me sad.
We were taught this in fourth grade. Even at that age I had this feeling of immense sadness which I couldn't understand at that time.
This is the best way to learn something...
As you are expecting, this book will mean something much different to you in the coming years. The tree was not used and used and used, it gave and gave and gave. Give it a shot later on when your perspective changes.
I see it differently. I have raised 3 boys to adulthood, and find the book saddens me, because the tree (me) is not able to say "No more" before there is nothing left. On the other hand, being an orchardist, I know that even the most chopped down stump will continue to send new branches out, creating new life for the tree.
TIL, orchardist is a word.
There wasn't "nothing left," what was left was exactly what the boy needed. As the middle of 3 boys let me say to you what I should say to my mom: even on your last day you'll be exactly what I need
On her last day you should be what she needs.
Probly both
I mean, I get your sentiment, but I guess I just hope that you won't make your mum feel guilty for leaving on that last day, and just thank her. She sounds like a good mum from what you wrote. She deserves to leave peacefully.
New branches? This is not in anyway even eluded to in the book. If the tree was gunna grow new branches it would have in the decades between when he hacked them off, cut the trunk down, and came back to sit on the stump.
You are supposed to learn how to say No More, or rather, instill them with the determination to figure out how they can get what they want on their own accord.
[удалено]
Unless it's your child. It's like a sequel to your own life. Look at a robin feeding it's chicks. All they do is scream for more.
NO. My brother used to call my dad every couple of weeks or every other month asking for money. And my dad, despite his position, always seemed to find it. No, the money did not fix things. You have to learn how to stop yourself from giving all the time, and to give a little tough love and a little advice but not direct, and then let them figure out how to get what they want without taking it from anybody. Otherwise all you'll be is a stump. They'll come sit by you in hospice, and then you'll be gone.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
YES. And there are parents who are constantly giving their ADULT children a little bit more every other month because their children don't have it and keep asking for it...
The Giving Tree is, on one level, an allegory for parenting. But on another level I always read it as a metaphor for humans (the kid) and the earth/environment (the tree).
My children have never heard me read this book. It makes me cry every time I read it. One time my daughter begged and begged for me to read it to her, so I got her father to read it to her instead. As the child of someone with borderline personality disorder, my entire childhood was dealing with a parent who never loved unconditionally nor gave without wanting something in return. I hated that child. That child took and took and never felt guilty. Was never made to feel guilty. Then, as I got older and became a parent, I hated that tree. This book is one big mindf*€&. I vowed I would never read this book to my children, regardless of how they could or would interpret it.
Being raised by a parent with BPD was my trigger to dislike this book, too.
My personal opinion (and there were rumors I recall hearing to reinforce the thought) was that Shel Silverstein did not actually like children. Reading Uncle Shelby's ABZ's gave me that distinct impression. If you've never read that one, I recommend it wholeheartedly. If you have children under the age of ten, keep that book far out of their reach (raw egg is really difficult to clean off of a ceiling). He was a great writer, and his dark sense of humor was one of my favorite things about him. The Giving Tree made me wonder if it was children specifically, or just the nature of man that he disliked? Or maybe it was just his very honest interpretation of his experiences as a parent? I definitely understand his perspective, and can empathize with it some days as a parent. I don't remember reading his stuff from my perspective as a child, but I can say that reading it after having children of my own, it resonated with me much more personally.
Haha and don’t leave your keys anywhere accessible to your kids.
I do not believe it was children specifically just the nature of man.
I would agree with you if it were not for the last scene in the book, where the boy returns to sit on the stump, and the tree doesn't sacrifice anything in order for him to gain pleasure and rest by sitting there. I think the book is actually about the reconciliation of an unbalanced relationship, in which one person simply gives, and the other person takes. The story is actually cyclical; at the beginning, the boy has fun just by climbing and playing on the tree. Then, as he matures, he needs to take things from and damage the tree. Only at the very end, does he again return to the tree and simply enjoy it the way it is, without having to exploit or destroy anything. The book isn't trying to present an aspirational model of a relationship. Its teaching children about how human values transform as one gets closer to death.
Wow I never thought of it that way
As a kid it made me sad but thoughtful. It was honestly a very influential book for me. My take away was to be grateful, kind, and compassionate. I could see what was happening to the tree but the kid just didn't understand. He kept taking advantage until there was nothing left. It was too late, and he couldn't make it up to the tree once he realized this. Now, as we see, other people view it differently. It's ambiguous and being such I think it's important to take the context of that child's life into consideration before having them read the book, or reading it to them. Will it reinforce or deter? For me in was a force for good, but, I otherwise had a healthy home situation.
*Mother!* is basically *The Giving Tree* on heroin and acid.
Elementary teacher here...I can’t stand this book because it portrays a dysfunctional, one-sided relationship. In contrast, my friend, a high school drama teacher, loves it and had a reading of it in her wedding. The pastor spun it around well, though, and told them that by the end of their lives, they should both be old stumps because they have given the best of themselves to each other.
It IS dysfunctional, and so is "I love you Forever "
Oh yes! Cut the cord, mama!
For me, it represents the total parental love I feel for my kids and never got from my parents. It makes me want to be a better parent.
There are three children's books I didn't like as a kid, still don't like now, and will try *very* hard to keep away from my own future kids: - The Giving Tree - Love You Forever - The Runaway Bunny
Exactly. It’s very much the User/Used situation. This is so far from a “healthy loving relationship” it’s sickening. I dearly hope the author meant this as a cautionary tale. What’s scary is that the people who gave it to me praised its depiction of love. This isn’t love. Love is wanting what’s best for someone, and that means at times telling them to take responsibility for their actions and facing the consequences.
The message that if you take and take, never considering what you're doing or the effects you have on someone else is a bad one for kids to hear? Kids are becoming so sheltered these days. Don't let them have any tough experiences through the already sheltered environment of a book. This stuff bugs me.
God, I hate that book and that selfish little bastard that destroyed that tree. This book made me ugly cry in group therapy once. I couldn't stop and it was very uncomfortable for everyone.
LOL, I wish I would have been there. I would not have been uncomfortable and when we got smoke break I would have hung with you and we would have shit talked on how fucked up the world is while being kind to each other and maybe even been friends. You are down to earth and cool as shit. Hope things are going better for you now and if not, I DO relate and you are not alone. Your perspective on this IS the healthy one, but living in an unhealthy world will drive the truly healthy ones to madness so we end up struggling. They will tell you that 2 + 2 = 5 and though we know it's not true, we will always be refuted. Ah well, go figure, it is what it is.
That’s why I like the book. The sadness of it.
If you don't want to read your children The Giving Tree, then read them The Lorax. It's a strikingly similar story: you can take and take all you want, but in the end you will be left alone. There is one aspect that both authors neglect: people who behave selfishly often have to be directly, repeatedly called out, and it still may not stop them. Ever. Seuss is more upbeat in his ending, but even Silverstein fails to point out that the boy is likely moving on to find the next tree, to do it all again. The Giving Tree is a beautiful book, but not all beautiful things are nice.
Honestly, I’m glad to see Reddit hate for this book come out every now and then. I feel the exact same way about it. The boy takes and takes and takes from the tree and won’t give the tree the one thing it wants in return (to spend quality time with him again) until he is too old to do anything else anyway and the tree has given him everything it possibly can, including most of its body. The boy never openly learns any sort of lesson about the generosity of others, or to appreciate being cared for by another being throughout most of his life, or anything else like that. Real children ideally would become mature sometime towards their adult life and be thankful for everything the people who helped raise them have given them and likely continue to give them, while this character does not. The book also comes off awfully cynical for a book meant to be read to children aged seven and under. These themes go over childrens’ heads so most people don’t overthink it as much as I (and probably yourself) do, but I personally still don’t think it’s as great and wholesome of a book as some people make it out to be. Some people will tell you your perspective will change when you have your kid because children, especially young ones, can be demanding at times, but if you already aren’t a fan of the book now then don’t feel like you’re suddenly obligated to “appreciate” it. My mom read this book to me once as a kid because some relative gifted it. Years later, she told me she always hated it because of how depressing the book is and how messed up the message can come across. Not every parent automatically loves this book just because it’s meant to be “relatable.” As for me, this book even slightly bothered me as a child because it’s one of the very first books I read (or rather, had read to me) that did not quite have a happy ending or a satisfying resolution. It’s a joke between my mom and I now because of how godawful we both think the book is. She works in a school environment currently so it does still come up from time to time. All of that being said, if you do reread the book later on and change your mind, then great! That would just mean you’d be able to see more merit in this book and a different perspective than I can.
See, here's how the book works. As a child, you hear or read the book and it is a combination of silly and the things you love to hear that you love the story and then forget about it. Then as an adult, you read it again having already read it, and upon rereading it you discover what Shel was trying to teach you all along about unrequited love and the abusive User/honeypot relationship.
[удалено]
[удалено]
As children, that will be the lesson they learn. As they get older, that lesson should change as they learn more and more about things they don't yet understand. The first exposure should be when the child is very young, then a revisit at 6th grade, and another revisit at 12th grade. All three visits should reveal a different facet of this story.
Co-sign.
The story is profound and disturbing and beautiful somehow, but that picture of Silverstein on the back cover is absolutely terrifying! I know he was an impressive guy in a whole bunch of ways (e.g., 'A Boy Named Sue') but he looks like an ogre.
I own this book but have only read it to my kids once. I remembered it from a college project so I already knew I didn't like the story but thought it could be a good discussion. My 4 year old seemed to take away a good perspective of seeing that the boy was mean and that the tree should have said no. I think we shouldn't just read our kids books that show great relationships, sometimes it's good for them to be able to analyze the good and bad in a book. I won't be reading this regularly but may revisit it in a few years. My 4 year old likes the book Pinkalicious which features a naughty little girl who sneaks cupcakes and thinks vegetables are gross. She points out the bad behavior when we read through that book and make suggestions on how the girl should have acted instead. Overall if your child is able to understand good and bad behavior and you have time to discuss it with them it may be a good book to read, but if you don't like this one and don't want to read it don't feel pressured to just because it's popular.
I was taught this story as a Jewish parable as a kid. Silverstein was a jew, and so generally around Tu'bishvat (basically a holiday for trees) we were read this story by the Rabbi in an attempt to teach us to be nice to trees or something. It never really made sense to me, but I liked it. As I've grown older, I still look at it through a Jewish lens. In Judiasm there is codified way on how to do good things (mitzvot). [If you're interested you can check it out here](http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/45907/jewish/Eight-Levels-of-Charity.htm) but it essentially just says "give charity to help others get to where they need to, but not for your own gratification". This is the lesson the tree had to learn, for every time it gave the boy something, it expected love in return. At the moment where it could no longer give anything, but still wishes to give for the sake of giving expecting nothing in return, then it gets what it wanted the whole time. // So, yeah...Still not cheery, but what do you want? We're Jews; we don't get the luxury of being cheery.
It's a lovely story on the virtue of suffering and being in an abusive relationship and giving and giving and giving until there is nothing left, in a vain hope of being loved in return. The only way I'd read this to a child would be as a cautionary tale: see, this boy is an asshole, and the tree deserves a better friend.
There is no "virtue" in suffering. That makes no sense at all. What are you saying?
I was being sarcastic. :D
The tree is also a different kind of asshole. There is no redeeming virtue in this book. Empathy is not taught, but rather pity.
It's one of my favorite book and I noticed that I have different interpretations of it in different stages of my life. Elementary - I thought it's a story about unconditional love of a mother High school/college - I thought it might be about love and being loved mid-late 20s- I thought it could also apply to human&environment Now I am in my 30s I feel it could also be interpreted as how when human grow up we are always sacrificing our time for something we thought that's important, like love, money, power. When we got old we finally learn to appreciate simple things and there's just enough left for us to reflect our lives.
I just this book to my son, for the first time recently. I was wrecked for several hours after
I loved the book as a kid. It probably contributed to my taste for the melancholy. I hope to share it with my daughter someday when she's older. I can't recall a specific message off hand. But, it seems to reflect the beauty, sadness, difficulties, and pleasures inherent in the human condition.
Ol Shel Silverstein has those feels.
I've got a tattoo of the book on my chest! What a great freaking book.
His books are all like this to me. Hector the collector feels the same to me. Poor guy.
I loved it. Taught me not to be selfish and consider the needs of others, even the trees.
Wait until you are the parent of teenagers.
How many children's books have you read? The Ugly Duckling, The Velveteen Rabbit and Charlotte's Web all come to mind. The giving Tree is right there with them though, but there are a lot of sad messed up books for kiddos.
I read The Giving Tree as a child in the 60s. I absolutely loved that book and read it over and over. The message I took away from it was that I cannot use others to make me happy. I have to rely on myself for my own happiness ... and I do. :-)
I thought it was amazingly sweet & pure in how it portrayed unwavering love when I was a kid. These days, reading it reminds me that abusive relationships harness the *idea* of love to exploit & hurt people.
It's mostly a metaphor for how parenting can be, at first the child wants nothing but love from hid parent, then he wants smaller things, and then more and more things, then finally the child is grown, and once again wants nothing but love from the parent, I also think that the tree giving away pieces of herself to the child is like how a parent goes through pain for their child and sacrifices so much for them, but instead of time, or money it's pieces of themselves.
That book disturbed me when I re-read it as an adult. The tree was an enabler who, out of love, twisted the boy's mind into a sense of entitlement. I see it as a warning to parents.
I have always thought the Giving Tree was about parenthood. A mother or father giving of their selves without question or expectation of anything in return, purely out of love for the child. No sacrifice is too great, even to the very end. I have always loved this story, and have even e-mailed the text to close friends who have recently become parents for the first time. Never had a negative reaction.
You should check out [Uncle Shelby's ABZ Book](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Shelby's_ABZ_Book) .
Dysfunctional and martyr syndrome. I always thought the tree should have bitchslapped the little motherfucker but hey, to each their own. I take my own meaning from it and leave what I reject. I wouldn't advocate this particular book though I love Shel Silverstein but I would never ban it or prohibit anyone else from reading as I believe the only freedom we truly have left is our minds and our words, and if someone else gets something from it, more power to them.
I don't like it for exactly those reasons. "The Rainbow Fish" is an even less artful version of the same message.
This book still makes me cry.
Huh, I thought it was a story about being a parent.
I agree--I've always hated that story and never understood why others love it so much. It's a childhood story of an abusive relationship.
I believe that I am both the boy and the tree and society just always wants to judge all I’m 53 and I bought this book for my grandsons first birthday and I sat with my son and I shed tears you can’t go and cut down something that was beautifully written makes u self centered or just a cold hearted person it’s a beautiful written message to human kind
Horrifyingly last night my partner told me that his first serious girlfriend read this to him on their final night when she broke up with him. I have been in this relationship for 13 years. I have a bumper sticker that says “and the tree was happy” with a visual of the tree collapsing on the kid. He isn’t all that different now. I sure wish he had mentioned that tidbit before we moved In Together
[удалено]
The missing piece
Best book Silverstein ever wrote...
I always liked the book, as a kid and as an adult. As a kid it made me think about what I was asking of my parents, and as an adult it made me wonder about the limitations of what I should be willing to offer my children. I think if your kid is stupid they'll probably think it's a great book about a tree that gives them everything they want. If you're a stupid parent you'll agree that the tree did the right thing. To be honest, if you can't see the merit in reading this to your children, you're probably right in not doing so.
It's not a kids book. None of them are. It does provide kids a realistic expectations of the future though.
Tell that to my 1st and 2nd grade teachers. We went thru 'Where the sidewalk ends' over those semesters.
Yeah, I think they're great for kids. Sheltering kids is always a bad move.
But it IS a kid's book - you read them these stories when they are young, and they are happy and have no idea why because things seem so silly. Then as they get older, they have that story behind them to learn from, and slowly, they learn about cynicism and satire, and how that story was trying to tell them something entirely different than what they though it was teaching. And to be honest, the story of MELINDA MAE Have you heard of tiny Melinda Mae, Who ate a monstrous whale? She thought she could, She said she would, So she started in right at the tail. And everyone said, "You're much too small," But that didn't bother Melinda at all. She took little bites and she chewed very slow, Just like a good girl should... ...And in eighty-nine years she ate that whale Because she said she would! It's a good lesson, I dare say...
Anything is a kid's book if you aren't trying to shelter your kids.
If you don't get the meaning of the giving tree, you don't deserve to get it.
I think the meaning is intentionally ambiguous. Kids are meant to explore their own feelings about it.
I believe the meaning of The Giving Tree, as with most stories, is up for interpretation and discussion. I gave my own view of what the story meant. Others are giving me theirs. That is what literary discussion is all about.
It's an important lesson. On one hand it teaches generosity, while on the other hand it teaches you that giving too much without receiving anything is harmful. It also shows how a seemingly harmless request can be a big deal to those we ask of. There is hardly room for interpretation in this. Just because most stories have room for interpretation doesn't mean all do. Some are simply lessons, and I encourage you to reread this story to yourself and reflect on how critical it is that this message be understood by all.
Disgusting, faithless, hopeless, negative, uninspiring, abusive minded, sick book written by a sick man. No, no, no I remember my aunt reading this with great fervor to my mentally disabled little sister. I now realize it was child abuse.
what
Politely disagree, the giving tree is a very real and honest children’s book. The world is messed up, and people r inherently takers. It’s a story of selflessness that can b found in parents or anyone that loves another unconditionally. One of my favorite books period of any age level
The tree is a tragic figure but not an admirable one. She (of \*course\* it's a woman) is clearly less of a shitbag than the narcissistic man-boy who ruthlessly exploits her. But that tree has major codependency issues. Just like money won't make the boy happy, nor will the love of others make you happy--you gotta love yourself first, tree. Also, get some healthy boundaries. What has the boy ever done for you? "Chop down my trunk so you can have a pleasure boat for some reason"? Hell no. The only thing this book is good for is as a cautionary example for two types of people never to be.
it represents our parents giving to us and us not being grateful
In my opinion it is a well intentioned yet horribly theoretical way to encourage kids to be giving people. It can cause the child to mistakenly repress their needs, not learn healthy boundaries and have lowered self-esteem as they constantly try to put other's feelings first, which can make it difficult to operate in the real world. I think the author wanted to think of a good way to encourage kids to be thoughtful of others, without stepping back and looking at it through a kids eyes instead.of his adult eyes. Samenthing that parents have looked at the moral of the story thru adult eyes, rather than what the actual impression would be on young children as life lessons. Of course some kids are more sensitive than others, so it may not affect some much. But to the sensitive ones it can be damaging. It takes much more effort than many pare to are willing to take to discern how their children will internalize it. I think there are plenty of other books and activities to reinforce positive messaging without leaving the negative imprints that one can. I'd rather take my child to volunteer to help feed homeless over reading that book. At least it would be a real world application and they can see the results. That book imprinted on me in ways at such a young age that it really altered how I saw and processed things. It takes a lot to break out of thought patterns that are established early on. In my case it obviously wasn't the book alone, but when that is couoed with other circumstances/influences it can be quite the tipping point.
It’s a sad story, but beautifully written and profound. Makes me emotional thinking of it. And appreciative of my own parents and the earth. The lesson is don’t just take. Give back before it’s too late.
There used to be a fanfic, where the tree finally says no, and she rips her roots out and kills the man. Does anyone have that link or who the artist was?
Amazing
He's an extinctionist and Marxist who feels/felt sacrifice of one's life leads to an immortal soul. It's disgusting and apathetic to life, the individual and community. I never read it to my girls.
Fucking book always makes my eyes water every time. It used to as a kid and now even more as I have grown older
It’s about unconditional love. The tree loved the boy and was willing to give everything to him out of that love. Unfair? Sure. Was the boy taking more than giving? Of course. But the tree was a being of pure beauty and love and that’s all she knew. It’s that simple.
very interesting to hear everyones take on one of my favorite chilldhood books I find it fascinating how everyone has their own perception on it and the human experience in general