"The Giving Tree" story

Post Reply New Topic

I'm sure many people are familiar with the story "The Giving Tree" by Shel Silverstein (full text here: http://oldpoetry.com/opoem/60911-Sheldon-Allan-Silverstein-The-Giving-Tree). Traditionally, people say it's a sweet story about an altruistic tree, and person who never truly abandoned it. Maybe I have the jaded bitterness of a 66-year-old man in a 26-year-old body, but that story bothers me. While on the surface, it's about a selfless giver and a faithful friend, it definitely has a dark side if you look closely.

In the story, as soon as the boy becomes a teenager, he changes from a loving playmate to an ungrateful taker. First, he wants the apples, which a tree can provide with little sacrifice on her part (the pronoun "she" is used to refer to the tree in the story). Then, he wants branches to build a house; the tree gives up much of herself, but still vaguely resembles a tree after than. Then, he wants the trunk to build a boat, leaving only a stump. Finally, when the old map comes back to what's left of the tree, she still offers him a place to sit. The boy/man never says thank you, and no reconciliation occurs between them, either. That's a massively one-sided relationship! (Well, in nature, the relationship between plants and animals is just that, but I don't think that's what Silverstein had in mind when he wrote the story.)

I've read reviews of it around the internet, and I was surprised by how many people have the same outlook. There are few redeeming aspects of the story. It's too deep for younger children, too sad for older children, and too simplistic for teens and adults. While it's a nicely written classic and a great source for making references to it, it just seems out of place in the rough, cold world we live in today. Anyway, what do you guys think? Post your take on it.

Last edited by Aspie1 on 08 Nov 2009, 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thanks for sharing this.

I haven't heard this story before but I can definitely relate to the synopsis that you gave.

This is actually the story of me and my wife BUT in my case:

I took most of the apples and a lot of the branches and stopped there (I think).

My father loved gardening and he loved nature and I know that even when entire limbs are cut back on a healthy tree, they can grow back and quite quickly, depending on the climate.


I think the story could act as a warning to those with AS who happen to be in a relationship that they want to preserve.

It could also be of some comfort to non AS partners who have not had their 'trunk' taken away to make a boat, that things could be very much worse.


Our relationship has already improved significantly just as a result of the new awareness of my AS and the information that we are both getting from my voracious reading about AS.

I think I will share this story with my wife.

Does it not have a religious undertone? Is the tree not God?

Sound like a parable, which is considered one of the highest forms of communcation.

Thanks

I did always find the story very sad. I guess because I've always felt so alone, I have issues with anthropomorphizing, like I always had this fear of my stuffed animals feeling abandoned. "The Giving Tree" has always made me cry, or want to cry. I guess that's better, if it is supposed to be God. I'm still getting all teary thinking about it, though.

The tree could not symbolize God since He cannot be consumed. The tree is simply a tree, and it has been placed there for our consumption.

Another story I have heard illustrates the same kind of thing from two perspectives, those of the chicken and the pig in relation to breakfast. The chicken freely gives her eggs on a regular basis without complaint, but the pig can only produce one belly for bacon.

A life of giving to others is what all of this is all about, and the principle here is about giving without complaint.

I understand your point. In reality, humans use trees like that all the time. The difference is that this story portrays the tree as a sentient being. Perhaps the story is about being thankful towards nature, because nature can service humans in various ways? But then the boy/man never thanks the tree? Perhaps because he thinks of it as "only a tree"?

Perhaps children are supposed to sympathize with the tree giving up so much for the boy/man, and therefore appreciate trees more?

Sure. Having dominion over plants and animals does not include liberty for thoughtlessness, imprudence, squander or waste.

Personally I find the poem too soppy and sentimental, and really is not my cup of tea. It reminded me of countless times of my own gullibility and naivety, and of the fact that if you turn the other cheek the bully will secretly laugh and abuse you one more time.

I've read the responses, and they're pretty good. But I'd say that this story has two sides: on one hand, it's a sweet story about generous tree; on the other hand, it's a dark story about a selfish boy. My high school English teacher would describe this story as a tragedy, in the classic literary definition of that word. In that sense, a tragedy has the following characteristics:
* The main character is largely good, but has just enough flaws to lead him/her on the path toward harm or destruction.
* Conflict and sadness intensifies as the story progresses.
* Moral choices are presented to the main character, but he/she makes the wrong ones, and can't be fully blamed for it.
* At the end, things are made right, but at a very high cost.
If these definitions aren't met, then it's a sad story, but not a true tragedy.

So let's see how "The Giving Tree" fits these definitions. It's safe to say that this story has two main characters. At the beginning, the boy and the tree have a respectful relationship: the boy sleeps in the shade (which requires no effort on the tree's part), he's not heavy enough to break the branches while swinging on them, and only takes a small number of apples and leaves at a time. Then he becomes a teenager, no longer wishes to play on the tree, and instead demands its resources. The tree gives him all of the apples; it's something that'll take a year to recover, but the tree itself remains intact, so there is a lot of hope left.

When the boy becomes an adult, he wants the branches, and the tree agrees. Branches can take many years to grow back, and the tree is disfigured in the process, but there is still slight hope for recovery. The trees agrees to give up its branches nonetheless. Then, as the boy gets even older, he wants the trunk to build a boat. The tree gives up its trunk, leaving itself nothing but a stump. All hope for recovery is lost at this point. All throughout in the story, the boy has the option to say "this isn't right; I can't take this" or ask to take less than the tree is offering, but chooses not to.

Finally, the boy becomes an old man. The tree laments having nothing left to give, but all the old man needs is a place to sit. The tree lets him use the stump, and feel happy about doing it. In a way, the story came full circle. The tree and the boy have the same relationship as at the beginning: he's not using any of the tree's non-renewable resources, and it would seem like things are right again. But it has a very high cost. The tree has been reduced to a stump, and the boy is now a tired old man. Both of them lost a great deal, and neither of them came out better in the end.

So, that's my take on this. I came to this conclusion from a combination of a personal opinion and various comments around the internet. If anyone has something to add, feel free.

Last edited by Aspie1 on 08 Nov 2009, 3:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.

The thing I finally learned there is that the matter of turning the other cheek had been misrepresented to me. Nothing sane ever suggests allowing ourselves to be bullied. When I was young, a preacher's son in the church where I grew up used to get me off to the side somewhere whenever he could and punch me in the gut. One morning after "church" I was physically ill from what he had done and I could not eat lunch. My dad told me to "clean his clock" the next time he did that, and somehow I mustered the courage to "slap him silly" later that evening ... and that whimpering bully never ever messed with me again.

Turning the other cheek is only about willingly accepting a sentence imposed upon us for wrong-doing. When a man had been judged guilty and had been ordered to accept a slap from the person he had offended, he was to "turn (expose) the other cheek also" and take two slaps.

The same is true of the idea of "going the second mile". Roman soldiers had rights to make people carry their stuff for them for a mile, and the idea is to show no complaint and go two.

That is the problem about sayings and writings - people have a tendency to mess with the original intent to suit their own purposes. When we are instructed to "turn the other cheek", what is actually meant is not to escalate a situation needlessly. It does not mean "become someone else's punching bag" - that would not fit in with how the church describes Jesus, he wouldn't have condoned needless suffering. I turned the other cheek with my aunt for years, for the sake of my family, in that I did not tell her exactly what a jerk she was, but when she came roaring into my house screaming abuse at me this summer, fully expecting me to whimper and whine like a beaten dog, I threw her out. Actually, if I go by the true definition, I was following the "turn the other cheek" rule because had she been allowed to stay then I might have gotten into a shouting match with her, and that would have escalated things.

I also have thoughts about the "Golden Rule" too. If you do unto others as you would like them to do unto you, it would follow that if someone treats me abusively, then they should get a little of that back, because this is what they asked of me. My mom thinks I am misinterpreting this but again, the messages is really "treat your fellow human being with respect", not "invoke a rule when you are feeling hard done by, although you don't seem to care if you live by the same rules or not...".

Back to the children's books. Actually, I hate the message of the giving tree. Be abused and like it, and if you are stronger than something/someone, you have a right to abuse them. I would rather see people reading to their children native american tales (in which you find a great lessons about respect and consequences of wrong doing to your fellow creatures), or greek/roman myths, which have a lot of similarities (stealing fire was a great benefit, BUT if you break the current laws, expect to be punished for it), and Grimms fairy tales or Aesops fables, which all have lessons to teach (never meant for children, but for adult behavior, but still great lessons to be learned).

The modern children's books I find to be questionable anyway. I had the misfortune of reading some to a sick child and I was disgusted in that they start out with a plot, and instead of a resolution, suddenly everyone becomes friends and that is the end of the book. It was not a satisfying conclusion. Some of them are downright creepy, like "love you forever" - mothers who are sleep deprived and still hormonal I think (and that is my very own opinion, and if a mom here likes the book and isn't sleep deprived/hormonal, then obviously the statement doesn't apply to you) really like this book for the sentimentality, but don't start thinking about the old lady stalking her kid and sneaking in late at night to cuddle her grown son because it may give you nightmares you wouldn't believe....shudder. Give me Dr. Seuss any day over that dribble.

Jesus, then. Godly love, in a human form that can suffer, be alone, afraid, and die. (Yes, I know that's an over-simplification..)

Anyone else a fan for the Ender's Game books? There are brother trees, that sacrifice themselves to become tools that the Pequeninos need. They're thankful for it, though.

I've heard it both ways, and here's my 2 cents.

1. The tree is an example of selfless giving in it's purest form. Giving because it loves to give as giving is its own reward.

2. The story shows (potentially) the foolishness of giving to someone who is ungrateful and never reciprocates. However, the only think keeping the tree from being a "victim" is that the tree never asked for anything in return for what it gave...leading you back to the above observation.

For a children's book, it's really effective for making a child think about the deeper issues of giving and relationships.

This story makes me think of the relationship I have with my mother. All my life, my mother has watched me, protected me, made sacrifices for me (often at the neglect of my brother and sister). When I was born, she was twenty-six, young, healthy and now she has liver and kidney failure, heart problems, arthritis, diabetes -- she even needs a machine to help her breathe when she sleeps at night. I am twenty-eight and still go to her with my problems in the same way I did when I was seven. When I was a baby, I needed to be with my mother all the time and cried whenever she went away. I guess some things never change.

I often think about my father, who has known my mother since was seventeen, and wonder what it must be like to have seen someone in the prime of his/her youth and then watch him/her gradually grow older, change and decline; to effectively witness a person's whole life. This is quite an awesome thought.

I read that story as a child; I thought it ok, up until she chopped down the trunk. In the version I read, the old lady dies sitting on the stump (the human was female) and the next day the tree is regrown. I have a feeling this was just thrown in to soften the blow.