Book Blog Mod. 1: The Giving Tree
Module #1: The Giving Tree
Silverstein, S. (1964). The Giving Tree. New York: HarperCollins Childrens Books.
This book is a notorious children's classic. Shel Silverstein, known for his whimsical poetry such as Where the Sidewalk Ends and his song lyrics such as A Boy Named Sue here turns his hand to a fable of the relations between a child and a tree. The tree loves the boy, and gives him all that he asks for as he ages, until by the time the boy is an old man, the tree is nothing but a stump, and at the end of the boy's life, that is enough.
I hadn't read this book since kindergarten, and so I had never realized just how incredibly CREEPY this book is. The tale of a character giving up all parts of herself for a boy who never shows gratitude, thanks, or even love after childhood... it's frightening. I'm not certain it's written to be a bad thing either, since the last line of the book is, 'and the tree was happy.'
It's one thing to give for your friends; it's another to give up everything for someone who never acknowledges it. I certainly don't see this story as "a moving parable about the gift of giving and the capacity to love." If anything, I see it as a dark side of giving, where all identity and possessions are given on behalf of someone who doesn't respect those sacrifices.
It seems that I'm not the only person who's considered this. Common Sense Media describes the message as subject to interpretation, be it "a wonderful motherly love," or "a cautionary tale about the need to set limits or protect the Earth's resources," and Edutaining Kids also discusses the subjective views of the book, "a sad tale of codependency," or "a story about the unconditional love a parent gives a child," and decides that in the end, it's a good thing that its "meaning is left open to interpretation." A thought I hadn't had, but it makes me think some more. In a genre where morals are spoon-fed and sledgehammer blunt, a subtle story that allows children to come to their own conclusions is probably better.
Considering this book's classic status and its ability to be interpreted in drastically different ways, it has earned its place on library shelves for both children and adults. It's a story time classic, and probably should be re-read by adults whose mindframe will have changed a lot. I know mine did!
I find this book a lot less creepy and a lot more interesting now.
Silverstein, S. (1964). The Giving Tree. New York: HarperCollins Childrens Books.
This book is a notorious children's classic. Shel Silverstein, known for his whimsical poetry such as Where the Sidewalk Ends and his song lyrics such as A Boy Named Sue here turns his hand to a fable of the relations between a child and a tree. The tree loves the boy, and gives him all that he asks for as he ages, until by the time the boy is an old man, the tree is nothing but a stump, and at the end of the boy's life, that is enough.
I hadn't read this book since kindergarten, and so I had never realized just how incredibly CREEPY this book is. The tale of a character giving up all parts of herself for a boy who never shows gratitude, thanks, or even love after childhood... it's frightening. I'm not certain it's written to be a bad thing either, since the last line of the book is, 'and the tree was happy.'
It's one thing to give for your friends; it's another to give up everything for someone who never acknowledges it. I certainly don't see this story as "a moving parable about the gift of giving and the capacity to love." If anything, I see it as a dark side of giving, where all identity and possessions are given on behalf of someone who doesn't respect those sacrifices.
It seems that I'm not the only person who's considered this. Common Sense Media describes the message as subject to interpretation, be it "a wonderful motherly love," or "a cautionary tale about the need to set limits or protect the Earth's resources," and Edutaining Kids also discusses the subjective views of the book, "a sad tale of codependency," or "a story about the unconditional love a parent gives a child," and decides that in the end, it's a good thing that its "meaning is left open to interpretation." A thought I hadn't had, but it makes me think some more. In a genre where morals are spoon-fed and sledgehammer blunt, a subtle story that allows children to come to their own conclusions is probably better.
Considering this book's classic status and its ability to be interpreted in drastically different ways, it has earned its place on library shelves for both children and adults. It's a story time classic, and probably should be re-read by adults whose mindframe will have changed a lot. I know mine did!
I find this book a lot less creepy and a lot more interesting now.