Sign in with Facebook
Nathan's Reviews > The Giving Tree
The Giving Tree
by
by
I know that many people have a sentimental love for this book, and I respect that -- you can't rationalize emotional connection. And generally, I like this author. But with this book, since it inspired no real emotional response in me, I am left with only the rational perspective, which in me was this:
This book troubles me deeply, because it enshrines self-destructive and self-pitying martyrdom as the paragon of love for others. And I think there is already far too much of this in our society. This book seems to say that if you really love someone else, you will damage yourself, cripple yourself, tear down your boundaries, destroy yourself for them. And further, it implies that those who are loved must by nature use and devour those who love them. An incredibly unhealthy model for love and relationships, especially for a child's book.
I am a parent of two, and though many parents have offered up this book as representative of the true nature of parental love, I cannot agree. If I were to raise my children this way, I feel I would only be teaching them to take selfishly from those who love them, to use people up and always expect more -- and on the flip side, I would be teaching them that if they love someone then they have to give of themselves until it hurts, have to live without boundaries of any kind.
Instead of raising my kids this way, I feel it's important to teach them to respect those who love them and care for them, to not take from others so much that it damages; I feel it's important to teach them that even in love we all must maintain our boundaries, our integrity. I feel it's important that my kids, and all kids really, understand that real, healthy love does not demand destruction or diminishment of anyone involved in it, that in fact real and healthy love ultimately heals and builds up those who participate in it.
I suppose that this book may have been intended as an anti-lesson, an example of how NOT to behave -- but if so, then it was not made clear that this was the case, because most people who read this book seem to take it as an ideal example of love.
Certainly it's possible to not take it so seriously; but when the underlying message and philosophy is so concentrated and heavy-handed, it's hard to avoid tasting it in every passage.
It reminds me of that other beloved childhood book about love, where the young boy's mother is so obsessive about cuddling him and tucking him in at night that even as he gets older and older, she follows him around, sneaks into his college dorm, sneaks into his home as an adult, takes him from his bed with his wife still sleeping and reassures him (herself?) that he'll "always be my baby". *shudder*
Overall: Sweet, but to the point of being cloying, and a disturbing message. =/
This book troubles me deeply, because it enshrines self-destructive and self-pitying martyrdom as the paragon of love for others. And I think there is already far too much of this in our society. This book seems to say that if you really love someone else, you will damage yourself, cripple yourself, tear down your boundaries, destroy yourself for them. And further, it implies that those who are loved must by nature use and devour those who love them. An incredibly unhealthy model for love and relationships, especially for a child's book.
I am a parent of two, and though many parents have offered up this book as representative of the true nature of parental love, I cannot agree. If I were to raise my children this way, I feel I would only be teaching them to take selfishly from those who love them, to use people up and always expect more -- and on the flip side, I would be teaching them that if they love someone then they have to give of themselves until it hurts, have to live without boundaries of any kind.
Instead of raising my kids this way, I feel it's important to teach them to respect those who love them and care for them, to not take from others so much that it damages; I feel it's important to teach them that even in love we all must maintain our boundaries, our integrity. I feel it's important that my kids, and all kids really, understand that real, healthy love does not demand destruction or diminishment of anyone involved in it, that in fact real and healthy love ultimately heals and builds up those who participate in it.
I suppose that this book may have been intended as an anti-lesson, an example of how NOT to behave -- but if so, then it was not made clear that this was the case, because most people who read this book seem to take it as an ideal example of love.
Certainly it's possible to not take it so seriously; but when the underlying message and philosophy is so concentrated and heavy-handed, it's hard to avoid tasting it in every passage.
It reminds me of that other beloved childhood book about love, where the young boy's mother is so obsessive about cuddling him and tucking him in at night that even as he gets older and older, she follows him around, sneaks into his college dorm, sneaks into his home as an adult, takes him from his bed with his wife still sleeping and reassures him (herself?) that he'll "always be my baby". *shudder*
Overall: Sweet, but to the point of being cloying, and a disturbing message. =/
1140 likes · Like
鈭�
flag
Sign into 欧宝娱乐 to see if any of your friends have read
The Giving Tree.
Sign In 禄
Reading Progress
Started Reading
January 1, 1998
–
Finished Reading
January 8, 2008
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-50 of 149 (149 new)
I disagree that there is "far too much of this in our society". I know of too few examples. While the tree is clearly the heo and the boy the villian, I don't think Silversten was pushing us to emulate the behavior of either. I think he was trying to show that the giver of love was, in the end, happier than the selfish taker. Of course the moral isn't to love our children as the tree does or raise our children to be the boy, the boy is miserable. I think it was more simply that there is pleasure in giving.
Lostinanovel wrote: "I disagree that there is "far too much of this in our society". I know of too few examples. While the tree is clearly the heo and the boy the villian, I don't think Silversten was pushing us ..."
Great response to the review- I thought the same thing!
Lostinanovel wrote: "I disagree that there is "far too much of this in our society". I know of too few examples.When I said that there is already "far too much of this in our society, I was referring specifically to "self-destructive and self-pitying martyrdom as the paragon of love for others". Did you perhaps miss that, or are you saying that you think there should be more examples of self-destructive and self-pitying martyrdom being put forth to others as the paragon of love?
I thought I was some sort of outcast for not loving this book. I have always hated it and bristle at the mention of it. I know many take it as an allegory for love, but I have seen it simply in the context of Man and Nature. With Nature giving and giving and Man taking.
...if you really love someone else, you will damage yourself, cripple yourself, tear down your boundaries, destroy yourself for them. And further, it implies that those who are loved must by nature use and devour those who love them. An incredibly unhealthy model for love and relationships, especially for a child's book. honestly, you're right. I've heard of this sort of thing in almost every sappy book I read.
I don't think the intent was for the book to be a model of relationships, nor was it saying that those who are loved, by nature, use and devour those who love them. THAT boy did, and the book showed how unhappy THAT boy was. I think the message was to appreciate those that love you unconditionally and not take advantage of such a precious gift. Although, if interpreted a certain way, I can understand how the tree could be seen as sending an unhealthy message. Again though, I don't think the story was meant for children to read and emulate the characters, simply to appreciate the people that care about you. I think this is a matter of authorial intent vs. reader interpretation.
Very interesting and thought provoking review. I had NO idea that the rest of the world viewed this story as the picture of ideal love. Even as a little girl I always thought the moral of the story was that if you choose a selfish path in life, not only do you harm those around you, but you end up old, alone, and unfulfilled.
I agree with most of what you said. If you keep giving away pieces of yourself in a relationship, eventually there isn't much left of the original person to love. Relationships are all give and take without compromising who you sincerely are within. When people break you into little pieces because they feel entitled to do so, what is left of you as a person? I will read this book with my 13 year old son very soon. He is at the age where girls are getting interesting to him. I want him to know the right way yo treat a woman is NOT this way.
I've always felt the same way about this book. I only added it myself so I could give it a one star review. That it displays an unhealthy relationship is one thing, but that so many people get sentimental and warm hearted over the twisted thing is baffling.
hahaha Danielle, I've been there before - adding to give a one star rating!
I agree a lot, I've always felt this way about this book, it's like all kinds of people were saying like "oh it's so sad because that is what kids have to end up doing to their parents in order to become good adults!" and I'm like... yeah... maybe if they are really selfish assholes that's what they would do...
The Story about Ping just pissed me off this past week. It's so well loved and it's about beating a little duck. Go figure.
I totally agree with you. This book creeps me out.
"This book troubles me deeply, because it enshrines self-destructive and self-pitying martyrdom as the paragon of love for others." I find it interesting that the people who hate this book all seem to agree that it was intended as a model for how to love. They never take it as a warning of exactly what you describe in your review. It could be that Shel Silverstein agrees with you completely. Of course, a sign of great art is that it is open to interpretation and allows for the different experiences that the readers bring with them. I love the book because the tree was loving the boy the only way it knew how, even if he was completely wrong to do so. I don't take it as a morality tale.
Actually, I hated it and I don't know what the hell it was intended for. Nor do I care to find out quite honestly. I'm just letting you know that your statement is all encompassing but it's wrong. I have some friends who hated this and felt differently - is varying stages - than the commenters here.
I guess you could say *most* and be correct. But definitely not *all*.
I agree that this book can be a terrible example for relationships if you don't talk with your child about it. When I read this to my son (age 3) I ask lots of questions like: "how do you think the tree felt" and "how does the boy feel" and "what could they have done differently to be better friends" and "what could the boy have done to earn money instead of ruining the tree?" and "what could you do if a friend tried to take your clothes, toys, shoes, and house? Would you like that? what might you say?" Sometimes it's nice to have a book where you can ask your child deeper questions and make them figure out what is right and wrong rather than the fluffy crap that some people put in children's books these days. This is a book that I would use as a teaching tool with my son, more so than just a bedtime, feel good story.
I think that you took the message the wrong way. We don't need to destroy ourselves for the ones we love. The tree gave herself to the boy because she loved him. Love is one of the most, if not THE most, powerful forces of the universe and the tree was being selfless. That's what love is all about.
Well, yes, but I see that as part of the problem -- this ideal of love being put forward is that love, really big fundamental love, is selfless. That love means just constantly chopping off parts of yourself for your loved one to use up and take for granted. That love means not caring if your enabling and coddling and absence of self leads to your loved one becoming oblivious, narcissistic, and a user. I agree that love is one of the most (if not the most) powerful forces of the universe. I just don't equate love with lack of self.
It's just a book. Little kids don't think of it that way. To them it's just cool that a tree was talking. At least for me it was. I knew trees didn't really do that I just thought it was really awesome that someone came up with that ...
Tierra wrote: "It's just a book. Little kids don't think of it that way."I'll agree that little kids don't think of it that way -- which, again, is part of the problem. This kind of subconscious conditioning slips in unnoticed, under the kids' minimally-developed radar, not filtered or evaluated by the conscious mind. It's just set before them as a model of love, and they accept it and think it's cool.
"Just a book", though -- can't agree with that dismissive attitude. Books can and have changed the world.
Melissa -- good lord, yes, if you don't talk to your child about the book after (or while) reading it, then it would be bad!I'm not saying, by the way, that this book is so awful and horrendous that the damage it does can't be undone by good parenting, communication, and discussion with your kids. It can, in fact, lead to worthwhile lessons, interesting conversations, and opportunities to transmit values.
But then, finding a dead kitten on the road outside your house can do all those things, too. Doesn't mean that dead kittens are a good thing, you know?
my second garde teacher she used to read this to me
Ha you are nuts lol
I'm glad that Nathan Graham wrote this review. The irony of this book being read to children of Mothers in a shelter for battered woman seemed to escape the women who worked there and the women who ran the place. As far as it being only a children's book what you accept as normal and what you model for your children is what stays with them much closer than anything or anyone else. You don't see children picking up this book and reading it as much as you see an adult and a child.
I've got to second some of the other commenters here--to read this book as a model of love is, I think, to miss the point entirely. I grew up having this book read to me and never once did that occur to me. For me it was about growing old and leaving home, and the complexity of our relationships. Shel Silverstein is not a moralist, he doesn't deal in good and evil but what it means to be human. I think everyone has asked too much of a loved one at some point in their lives, Silverstein directs our attention to this truth. Also, comparing this book to finding a dead kitten is a tad bit hyperbolic don't you think?
Love your comment. It really made me rethink the entire book. You're right, to just give and give until there's nothing but a tree stump left of you is not love, it's being a martyr. Many parents today live like martyrs, me included. This book actually tells a frightening story of giving and giving bug never getting anything back in return.
I thought I was weird for not liking this book! Your review is spot on! It has conflicting messages and definitely not something I want my children to become enamored with.
Yeah, this book is the worst! I never read it to kids at school. I agree 100%!
I haven't read it - I was trying to find a book about a tree that I loved as a kid. This sure ain't it! I just read the synopsis and thought "Ah no thanks, that sounds seriously deranged". Your review confirms my suspicion!
Nathan thanks for your perpective. You may have just saved me a foutune in counseling fees :)... <3 and light to u.
If all these adults can't agree on the message of this book, how can a four year old be expected to grasp it? Want to teach kids about love and service? Read The Little Engine That Could. Clear message, happy story and bright, colorful pictures that will send them off to sleep with a smile on their face and the cheerful mantra, "I think I can," running through their heads.
I love this review! It's all the thoughts I have had, but expressed way better than I ever could.
You have to think like a child to understand~ PK/K teacher forever
Janae wrote: "If all these adults can't agree on the message of this book, how can a four year old be expected to grasp it? Want to teach kids about love and service? Read The Little Engine That Could. Clear mes..."Oh my! I forgot about that GORGEOUS BOOK!!! oh i'm gonna buy myself a copy again. 41yo and I wouldnt mind hearing that mantra running through my head again. Thanks for reminding me!
Is the controversy possibly based on a construed definition of unconditional love? If you read this book through the eyes of society it contains a completely different message than when read with the innocence of a child.
Hilarious. Grown children bringing all of their biases and stacked preconceptions into the interpretation of a harmless children's book, and coming away unable to grasp a simple piece of art. I'm sorry that you trust your children so little that you are terrified of them coming to their own conclusions about something you yourself have outgrown the ability to comprehend. If you were a better parent perhaps you wouldn't care what they grew up believing so long as they were smart about it. Something to think about.
Damon wrote: "Hilarious. Grown children bringing all of their biases and stacked preconceptions into the interpretation of a harmless children's book, and coming away unable to grasp a simple piece of art. I'm sorry that you trust your children so little that you are terrified of them coming to their own conclusions about something you yourself have outgrown the ability to comprehend. If you were a better parent perhaps you wouldn't care what they grew up believing so long as they were smart about it. Something to think about..."Wow. Touched a nerve, have we? This book is certainly a sort of sacred cow for many, that's certain.
Everyone's mileage may vary, certainly. As for me, this book disturbed me when I was a kid and had it read to me. And as for my kids, my little daughter came home from grandma's house where it was read to her, asked why the boy was so mean to the tree, and said she didn't like the book because "the boy chopped the tree up to pieces."
Not the end of the world, certainly, and it surely didn't warp or ruin anyone -- no one has suggested any of that.
You reach far and presume much with your obviously emotionally-skewed inferences about how much or how little we trust our children, much less the ones about what we can and cannot comprehend. And your saying that we should be better parents simply makes me suspect you're just a troll trying to get a rise out of people on a public board. Seriously, who discusses like that? Speaking of smart kids and proper upbringing, that is.
Maybe it would actually be productive to speak in clear terms and without personal attacks. What is it you, Damon, feel we have failed to grasp?
Dylan wrote: "To read this book as a model of love is, I think, to miss the point entirely. I grew up having this book read to me and never once did that occur to me. For me it was about growing old and leaving home, and the complexity of our relationships.Well said, Dylan. Several here have made similar points, and I don't fully disagree -- perhaps it's not so much Silverstein's intentions I have a problem with, as the place and meaning this book has gained in our culture. You may not have had it pushed as a sweet story of love, but as far as I've seen the vast majority of people have. Most children are introduced to this as, look how much the tree loves the boy, and look what love does to people. In my most cynical and bitter times I might agree, but it disturbs me to see love painted thus for children, even if that wasn't the author's intent.
Comparing this book to finding a dead kitten is a tad bit hyperbolic don't you think?"
I'll concede to that, I suppose. Though I would say that a book depicting a child who chops a parent figure down with an axe, hacking off limbs and ultimately fashioning a vehicle from the corpse, isn't necessarily less viscerally disturbing than a dead cat.
Wow- thanks for that review- i had never thought of the story that way. Even as a child, i always cried at the end- just like i did at the end if "The Lorax"- Suess's deep and woefully accurate portrayal of corporation's disregard for mother earth in their pursuit of money fueled by greed and the common attitude of some that our earth is here to use and abuse as we please since judgement day is near. As a overly sensitive emotional child, shy and tense even into adulthood, i never knew why it made me so sad until my mom, who happened to be a teacher would talk me thru my reaction, helping me to see why a nature and animal lover like myself would cry over a tree offering her last part to a bitter old man , and then still loving that little boy she still feels is somewhere inside the sad old man. She wants so bad to please him to help him be happy that she gives the only thing she has- herself. Sort of like the Lorax, i feel it is a sort if parable meant to help us feel what our earth would say if she could tell us to please stop raping her lands, oceans, and natural resources. Today the story is even more relevant with the threat of global warming- which one could say is our earth's way of warning us that it is imperative that we start taking care of her for our children, and that judgement day is the hoax, not Global Warming, and water shortages in the future. I admire Shel and Seuss for their brave, beautiful commentary on the choice we have as humans inhabiting this earth, to destroy or heal our planet.I tried reading the Lorax to my first graders- and asked them what the message was- not one of them could grasp it- so i know not many kids are as emotionally sensitive and/ or have a parent that helps them process their feelings or-reaction to a book. My mom really was a great mom, and still is and i thank her for bringing me up to be a secular humanist,which is what i wish all people would strive to be,
Very interesting review.
This review gave me a good perspective of the book I agree with you.
Hello, Bart. Welcome to the "We Disagree Therefore You're Stupid" club. Please sit with your fellow club members over by the fountain.You said, "The overwhelming majority of children come away repulsed." Which I'll assume you didn't do actual studies for and is thus anecdotal. Okay; maybe that's true. In my experience, most people remember this book fondly, referring to it as a sweet example of parental love and giving. Also anecdotal. Maybe that's true. Who the hell knows.
But I'm right. =)
And hey, WDTYS club -- you are cordially invited to spread your wrath to my other reviews. Specifically, my review for the similarly horrifying book, "Love You Forever", which you can read here: /review/show...
Spot on review! I never got why this book took off. It's just awful. LOL
Spot on! I was assigned this book to read for my Lit for Youth class ...I understood the book was a children's classic. After reading it, I thought, "Really!?" This is a horrible book! It's cruel and vile! Firstly, That kid is rotten and mean. Secondly, the tree is loving, but the tree also has no self - respect or dignitity. I think it's a horrible book to give to children to read! As a librarian, I would never use this book for storytime.
You know the book is about his wife... How she always helped him through life and grow as a person until she died really young because of a hereditary brain disease. It's not about how life works in a parasitic relationship it's symbolism for how even though his wife died he is still able to live on and grow while cherishing her remaining tree stump of memories that remain there forever.
You asked, "Have you ever loved someone so much that you would give anything for that person's happiness even though it hurt you"... this is an example of exactly why I think this book is terrible -- the widespread idea that how much damage you take is a measure of how much you love someone.
So the answer I would give to your question is, no, I've loved with a far greater love than that martyrish, petty love of self-mutilation. I have loved someone so much that I refused to mutilate myself for them, which is I think a far greater love than the ultimately self-indulgent love of the Martyr. I love my children so much that I would never even consider warping their minds with the idea that the more you let someone hurt you, the more you love them. I have seen the results of that kind of thinking on people, and it's an ugly, terrible thing.
Whichever character is primary, it's still no good. If I had a cartoon parent-tree and it really loved me, then I would rather it refused to hurt itself "for me", taught me the lesson of moderation, and then was able to be there with me as I became an adult. The tree in the book gave the child a bunch of material goods with only transient value, taught to boy to value goods over the welfare of someone who loved him, and then when the boy grew up it was dead and gone. As a teacher, FAILURE. As a companion, FAILURE. As an enabler? Success.
Certainly heartache is a part of love. A part to be accepted, endured, weathered -- not SOUGHT after, for gods'sakes! There is enough pain and loss in the world as it is, we don't need to go around creating it and calling it "love".
I agree that this seems to fit in with the orthodox perception of Jesus and his teachings, and indeed I agree that many Christians would say that Jesus would be proud of the lessons this book teaches. This is one reason I am not a Christian, at least not in the sense of the orthodoxy that would embrace this book.
Thanks again for the comment!