User Reviews
Rating: really liked it
HEY, KIDS AND SHEL SILVERSTEIN FANS! COME OVER HERE AND READ THIS!Okay, this some motherfuckin' fucked-up shit right here.
The Giving Tree is the straight-up wack story of how this selfish little ass-faced prick kicks it with this full-on saintly tree. Ever'thin' fine for a while, y'all, with the lil' prick all gettin' up in there an' sayin' to the tree, "Yeah, you know you mah bitch," but then all of a sudden, this jumped-up prick go through puberty, get his chia on or some such shit, and so he's off screwin' the skank-ass bitches on the block all damn day and can't spare one motherfuckin' minute for this poor old tree who waitin' for him and lookin' all motherfuckin' sad an' droopy an' shit. So this little punk-ass bitch come up on the tree -- this is a motherfuckin' tree, hear? -- and ask her ['cuz she a sexy-ass lady-tree] fo' some g's. Well, the tree is all, like, "I ain't got no cash, bitch. What part o' me say ATM on it? Mmm-hmmm. I thought so..." And she shoulda held up there, but -- no -- this tree gets all fuckin' benevolent and be, like, "Well, I got mad apples you can go hustle on the streets." So this ass-faced prick just, like, boosts all these goddamn apples an' leaves this tree with, like, its weave all out an' shit. So next, after workin' the streets wit his crew, little bitch boy come back, lookin' all older an' jacked-up, and ask the motherfuckin' tree for a goddamn crib. So the tree like, "Hol' up. Do you even fuckin' see Coldwell Banker all up an' down in here? I think not." But then, being all kindly an' shit, the tree is, like, "But I got mad branches..." And what? She motherfuckin' takes it up back again fo' this fool. Later, another goddamn time, punk-ass bitch come back, lookin' all old an' saggy and wack now, and he like, "Bitch, what you got fo' me now?" "Awww, hell naw," tree says, but then she start gettin' all soft an' shit again an' say, "Why don' you cut down my trunk or some such shit and go 'head and whittle a pimped-out yacht, full-on Hamptons-style?" He, like, "Yeah, I thought so, bitch." And then -- guess the fuck what? -- little shriveled-up, played-out mack come on back wit his ass all hemorrhoided-up an' shit. He look straight-up nasty and old. Tree is, like, "I know you ain't come t'ask me. All's I got is a motherfuckin' stump, you ass-faced motherfucker. How you gon' come back at me like that?" This punk-ass bitch is all drooling and jacked-up and just wanna sit the hell down. What do the motherfuckin' tree do? She say, "Hell no! You motherfuckin' fucked-up fucker, get yo' motherfuckin' ass face out o' here fo' I cut you up good: give you some stank-ass mad tree fungus, motherfucker!" The motherfuckin' end, motherfuckers.
Okay, so that's not really the way
The Giving Tree ends, but maybe it's the way it should. Some time ago, my ex-girlfriend and, afterward, long-time co-dependent friend gave me
The Giving Tree as part of my birthday gift. I loved it, but I hated it, too, because I felt so bad for the tree who is endlessly shat upon by this worthless "Boy"--as he is always known, regardless of age; I longed to console the tree and, maybe a little, to condemn this book as yet another emotionally-scarring "children's" entertainment in the manner of
Old Yeller. Don't give me any shit about learning valuable lessons. The only lesson I learned was that human beings are nothing but steaming piles of corn-freckled feces, and that I wanted to found a not-for-profit shelter for unloved trees and rabid dogs and any other nonhuman thing, living or not, which was either unwanted or despised.
Having said all this -- and although I don't approve of the treatment of the giving tree -- this book is very moving and very delicate. The delicacy is somewhat counteracted when the reader turns over the book and sees the author photograph of a thoroughly evil-looking Shel Silverstein. He looks like the sort of person who would burn down whole forests of rare giving trees just for kicks. Picture Othello just before he strangles Desdemona.
If you -- and, yes, I'm talking to you personally -- are not moved by the plight of the tree after reading this book, then perhaps it's time to go an' check yo'self: are you the givin' tree or are you the motherfuckin'
takin' tree? Or are you the sneak-out-in-the-middle-of-the-night-an'-steal-all-my-shit tree?
Rating: really liked it
I recently read this book to my little boy.
It's not the first time I've read it. It's probably not even the tenth time. But it's the first time I've read the book in a decade, and given the fact that my memory is like a cheese grater, I like to think I got a pretty fresh experience.
The result is this: I honestly don't know how I feel about this book.
Even if you haven't read the story, you probably know the gist of it. A tree loves a young boy and gives away pieces of itself to the boy to make the boy happy.
On one hand, this story can be taken as an open, honest exhortation toward selfless Agape-style love. Love which asks nothing. Love which gives everything.
On the other hand, this story can be read as a horrifying condemnation of dysfunctional unrequited co-dependance.
After reading the book, I honestly don't know which it is.
On one hand, taking this book at face value is probably a fool's game. Silverstein was a twisted sarcastic bastard. He wrote lyrics for Dr. Hook. (Most notably "Freaking at the Freaker's Ball.") And back in my misspent youth, I discovered a poem of his in one of my Dad's Playboys. It was called "The Great Pot Smoke-Off."
My point is, dude was part of the counterculture. He was full of mocking and meta. And as such, it seems odd that he would write something that seems like an obvious endorsement of Christ-like selflessness... and then that was it.
But on the other hand, when Silverstein was having fun with you, he usually didn't pussyfoot around. One of his earliest publications was "Uncle Shelby's ABZ book." Which *looks* like a kid's book, but is clearly not:
Here's a piece from the page on Potty Training:
"See the potty
The potty is deep
The potty has water in the bottom.
"Maybe someone will fall into the potty and drown.
"Don't worry. As long as you keep wetting your pants, you will never drown in the potty."
Not a lot of ambiguity here. His tongue is pretty clearly in his cheek.
But when I read through The Giving Tree, I don't see the author winking at me from behind the scenes. The story *seems* to be straightforward.
But here's the thing, even if the story *is* straightforward, I don't know how I feel about it. Is the boy selfish in the story? Absolutely. He's a little shit. Yet he doesn't get one bit of comeuppance. We kinda want him to, but that's not what happens. The boy doesn't seem to learn a lesson. And neither does the tree.
That seems to imply there is no lesson to be learned here.
Let's be clear. The tree is *happy* at the end of the book. There's no ambiguity about that. It's entirely possible that the tree has acted in its own best interest. It's entirely possible that the tree, if you'll forgive the expression, is acting according to the Lethani.
Even after thinking it over for a couple days, still I don't know how I feel about it. That's a rarity for me.
For that reason, I'm giving this five stars. If you write a book that leaves me asking questions. If you write a book that people can have legitimate disagreements about. If you write a book that people can still wrangle over after fifty years… that's pretty clearly a five-star book.
Rating: really liked it
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. =/
Rating: really liked it
Co-dependent tree needs to set some fucking boundaries.
Rating: really liked it
Scrolling down, it seems several reviewers resent this book's apparently heavy-handed message about selfishness/selflessness. I can totally understand why they find it upsetting or sappy. Overbearing, even. But I don't agree.
Some fascinating theories have been put forth about
The Giving Tree. It's deceptively simple on its surface, yes. But if this were truly just some hard and fast hippie dippy morality tale, would its two main characters (living natural tree, growing human boy) and their relationship have weathered such extensive interpretation over the years?
Professor Timothy Jackson from Stanford University (found on Wiki):
Is this a sad tale? Well, it is sad in the same way that life is sad. We are all needy, and, if we are lucky and any good, we grow old using others and getting used up... Our finitude is not something to be regretted or despised, however; it is what makes giving (and receiving) possible. The more you blame the boy, the more you have to fault human existence. The more you blame the tree, the more you have to fault the very idea of parenting. Should the tree's giving be contingent on the boy's gratitude? If it were, if fathers and mothers waited on reciprocity before caring for their young, then we would all be doomed.An admirable assessment from a theologian... although as a wee grub, my perception was different. My own folks, secular humanist scientists who taught me a "recycle, reduce, reuse" mantra at around age four, introduced me to
The Giving Tree around the same time we started reading
The Lorax. (Another seminal doozy!) Perhaps due to their influence on my early development, I came away from both books with a lot of very heavy, persistent questions concerning humanity's careless attitude towards ye olde Mother Earth.
Without question, we're a species that generally takes and takes from the environment, thanklessly and thoughtlessly. Sadly this seems to be a trend that will continue until both we and the earth's resources are completely exhausted. (That is, unless we can all somehow convince ourselves AND our kids to turn it around.)
Ever notice that throughout the course of the tale, the little boy just "wants" things from the tree? Only at the very end of his life does he actually "need" something from her... a place to rest for a moment, to be at peace.
Anyhoo. Aspects of human behavior introduced to me in this book continue to flummox and obsess me in adulthood. Rereading it now only reinforces my lifelong desire to give something back to our weary but still beautiful mother earth, who seems to have no choice but to submit to our endless taking.
Silverstein fable is empathetic and open-ended. At its core, it reflects humanity's short-sighted, often lifelong inability to distinguish want from need, but it does not damn us for it.
Rating: really liked it
The Giving Tree, Shel SilversteinThe Giving Tree is a children's picture book written and illustrated by Shel Silverstein. First published in 1964 by Harper & Row, it has become one of Silverstein's best known titles and has been translated into numerous languages.
The book follows the lives of an apple tree and a boy, who develop a relationship with one another. The tree is very "giving" and the boy evolves into a "taking" teenager, a middle-aged man, and finally an elderly man. Despite the fact that the boy ages in the story, the tree addresses the boy as "Boy" his entire life.
In his childhood, the boy enjoys playing with the tree, climbing her trunk, swinging from her branches, carving "Me + T (Tree)" into the bark, and eating her apples.
However, as the boy grows older, he spends less time with the tree and tends to visit her only when he wants material items at various stages of his life, or not coming to the tree alone (such as bringing a lady friend to the tree and carving "Me +Y.L." (her initials, often assumed to be an acronym for "young love")) into the tree.
In an effort to make the boy happy at each of these stages, the tree gives him parts of herself, which he can transform into material items, such as money (from her apples), a house (from her branches), and a boat (from her trunk).
With every stage of giving, "the Tree was happy". ...
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز چهاردهم ماه می سال 2009میلادی
عنوان: درخت بخشنده؛ نویسنده: شل سیلورستاین؛ مترجم: سیما مجیدزاده؛ مشهد، گل آفتاب، 1383 در 55ص؛ شابک 9645599326؛ چاپ هفتم 1388؛ چاپ دهم 1392، شابک 9789645599322؛ موضوع داستانهای خیال انگیز از نویسندگان ایالات متحده آمریکا - سده 20م
مترجم: هایده کروبی؛ تهران، انتشارات فنی ایران، 1385، در 36ص؛ شابک: 9643891739؛
مترجم: مونا ماشی؛ تهران، ماشی، 1387، در یک جلد؛ شابک 9786009060184؛
مترجم: کمال برزگر بفرویی؛ قم، فراکاما، 1390، در 52ص؛ شابک9786009241309؛
مترجم: امیرحسین مهدی زاده؛ تهران، نشر نو، آسیم، 1392، در 58ص؛ شابک9789647443784؛
مترجم: کمال مرادی؛ تهران، پلک، 1392، در 104ص؛ شابک9789642862290؛
مترجم: صفورا نراقی؛ تهران، البرز فر دانش، 1393 ، در 44ص؛ شابک9786002022622؛
مترجم: هرمز ریاحی؛ تهران، انتشارات خروس، 1391 ، در 58ص؛ شابک9786009453924؛
سیلور استاین، نام آوری خویش را به عنوان نویسنده ی ادبیات کودکان؛ مدیون همین کتاب است؛ داستانی درباره: یکی که میبخشد، و دیگری که میستاند؛ داستان در مورد درختی ست که «سایه»، «میوه»، «شاخه» و حتی «کنده اش» باعث شادی پسرکی میشود
متن داستان درخت بخشنده و مهربانروزی روزگاری درختی بود ….؛ و پسر کوچولویی را دوست میداشت؛ پسرک هر روز میآمد، برگهایش را جمع میکرد؛ از آنها تاج میساخت، و شاه جنگل میشد؛ از تنه اش بالا میرفت؛ از شاخه هایش آویزان میشد، و تاب میخورد، و سیب میخورد؛ با هم قایم باشک بازی میکردند؛ پسرک هر وقت خسته میشد زیر سایه اش میخوابید؛ او درخت را خیلی دوست میداشت؛ خیلی زیاد؛ و درخت خوشحال بود؛ اما زمان میگذشت؛ پسرک بزرگ میشد؛ و درخت بیشتر تنها بود؛ تا یک روز پسرک نزد درخت آمد؛ درخت گفت: «بیا پسر، ازتنه ام بالا بیا، و با شاخه هایم تاب بخور، سیب بخور، و در سایه ام بازی کن، و خوشحال باش.»؛ پسرک گفت: «من دیگر بزرگ شده ام، بالا رفتن و بازی کردن، کار من نیست؛ میخواهم چیزی بخرم، و سرگرمی داشته باشم؛ من به پول احتیاج دارم؛ میتوانی کمی پول به من بدهی؟»؛ درخت گفت: «متاسفم، من پولی ندارم»؛ من تنها برگ و سیب دارم؛ سیبهایم را به شهر ببر بفروش؛ آن وقت پول خواهی داشت، و خوشحال خواهی شد؛ پسرک از درخت بالا رفت؛ سیبها را چید و برداشت و رفت؛ درخت خوشحال شد؛ اما پسرک دیگر تا مدتها بازنگشت …؛ و درخت غمگین بود؛ تا یکروز پسرک برگشت؛ درخت از شادی تکان خورد؛ و گفت «بیا پسر، از تنه ام بالا بیا، با شاخه هایم تاب بخور، و خوشحال باش»؛ پسرک گفت: «آنقدر گرفتارم که فرصت بالا رفتن از درخت را ندارم، زن و بچه میخواهم، و به خانه احتیاج دارم؛ میتوانی به من خانه بدهی؟»؛ درخت گفت: «من خانه ای ندارم؛ خانه ی من جنگل است؛ ولی تو میتوانی شاخه هایم را ببری؛ و برای خود خانه ای بسازی و خوشحال باشی»؛ آنوقت پسرک شاخه های درختش را برید و برد، تا برای خود خانه ای بسازد؛ و درخت خوشحال بود؛ اما پسرک دیگر تا مدتها بازنگشت؛ و وقتی برگشت، درخت چنان خوشحال شد، که زبانش بند آمد؛ با اینحال به زحمت زمزمه کنان گفت: «بیا پسر، بیا و بازی کن»؛ پسرک گفت: «دیگر آنقدر پیر و افسرده شده ام، که نمیتوانم بازی کنم؛ قایقی میخواهم، که مرا از اینجا ببرد، به جایی دور، میتوانی به من قایق بدهی؟؛ درخت گفت: «تنه ام را قطع کن و برای خود قایقی بساز؛ آن وقت میتوانی با قایقت از اینجا دور شوی؛ و خوشحال باشی»؛ پسر تنه ی درخت را قطع کرد؛ قایقی ساخت، و سوار بر آن از آنجا دور شد؛ و درخت خوشحال بود؛ پس از زمانی دراز، پسرک بار دیگر بازگشت، خسته، تنها و غمگین؛ درخت پرسید «چرا غمگینی؟ ای کاش میتوانستم کمکت کنم؛ اما دیگر نه سیب دارم، نه شاخه، حتی سایه هم ندارم برای پناه دادن به تو»؛ پسر گفت: «خسته ام از این زندگی، بسیار خسته و تنهام؛ و فقط نیازمند با تو بودن هستم، آیا میتوانم کنارت بنشینم؟»؛ درخت خوشحال شد، و پسرک پیر، کنار درخت نشست، و در کنار هم زندگی کردند؛ و سالیان سال، در غم و شادی به زندگی ادامه دادند؛ …)؛ پایان
دوستان خوبم، آیا شرح داستان، چیزی به یاد ما نمیآورد؟ بیشتر ما شبیه پسرک همین داستان هستیم، و با مادر، و پدر خود، چنین رفتاری داریم؛ درخت همان مادر و پدر ماهاست، تا وقتی کوچکیم، دوست داریم با آنها بازی کنیم؛ سپس تنهایشان میگذاریم، و دوباره زمانی به سویشان برمیگردیم، که نیازمند هستیم و گرفتار، برای مادر و پدر خود، وقت نداریم، آیا تا به حال به این فکر کرده ایم، که مادر و پدر، برای ما همه چیز را فراهم میکنند، تا ما را شاد نگاه دارند، و با مهربانی چاره ای برای رفع مشکلمان، پیدا میکنند، و تنها چیزی که در عوض از ما میخواهند، این است که تنهایشان نگذاریم؛ به مادر خود عشق بورزیم، و به پدر، احترام بگذاریم، فراموششان نکنیم؛ برایشان زمان اختصاص دهیم؛ همراهیشان کنیم؛ شادی آنها در دیدن روی ماهاست؛
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 17/06/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 20/05/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
Rating: really liked it
Should Be Called The Codependent TreeThere is a boy and a tree. The boy constantly asks the tree for things. Even as the boy grows old, he never stops asking the tree for assistance. He never does anything for the tree. And the tree is happy.
Every time I read this book, it gives me a queasy feeling. It is a visceral reaction. This book doesn’t sit right with me. Why would anyone have to be a shell of themselves to make someone else happy? Why does a one-directional relationship make the tree happy? Why does the boy think it is okay to keep asking of the tree when he never gives back? Why doesn’t the boy mature as he gets older?
2022 Reading Schedule
Jan Animal Farm
Feb Lord of the Flies
Mar The Da Vinci Code
Apr Of Mice and Men
May Memoirs of a Geisha
Jun Little Women
Jul The Lovely Bones
Aug Charlotte's Web
Sep Life of Pi
Oct Dracula
Nov Gone with the Wind
Dec The Secret Garden
Connect With Me!
Blog Twitter BookTube Facebook
Rating: really liked it
Yes, the boy is a selfish bastard, who doesn't deserve the love and generosity he gets time and again. Anyone who read this book as a child is well aware of this fact.
Nonetheless, I'm shocked to see how many disliked it. My only thought is that many readers allow their hatred for the boy to be confused with hatred for the book. Does the book condone the boy's behavior, or simply seek to tell a narrative? Does the quality of a book suffer when the moral quality of its characters flags?
It is the job of narrative to relate a story. It is the job of a classic to relate a timeless story, to which countless readers of any age can relate. So whence the hatred? Is it because so many readers have known people who have taken and taken with such unrelenting fervor that they then displace this hatred onto a book that merely tells a story so fundamental it can't help but arouse feelings in any human who reads it?
Silverstein, in my opinion, reached his peak with this book, so simple, and so pure, and more timeless than any book I can think of (at the moment).
Rating: really liked it
I added this book to my shelf years ago in the physical world. I've read it, I don't know how many times, mostly aloud to children.
In conversations with other people, I've discovered that there is strong dislike for this book. I like this book, mostly because it does make me uncomfortable. I'd say the same thing about Shel Silverstein's The Missing Piece.
You can read either of these books in less than 15 minutes, so I'm not going to worry too much about a spoiler. Basically, the tree is friends with a boy. The tree gives freely of itself to the boy, from being a place to play to furnishing apples, to finally sacrificing itself to be lumber. The tree never expresses any regret for being so generous. It never questions what the boy requests of it. Even when the boy is an old man, and the best the tree can offer is to be a stump for the boy to sit on, there is never any resentment.
I very much like that Silverstein never signals to the reader how he thinks the reader should react to the story. He has the same technique in The Missing Piece. He tells the story simply and leaves it up to the reader to judge the characters.
I like that. It's not easy, but I like it.
In a time when many children's books are telling children what to think or feel, when many books for kids have become entirely too preachy, I think a book where the adult can close it and say, "Well, what do you think about that?" is a very good idea. It's easy to agree that the boy is selfish. But what about the tree? And, again, the same is true of The Missing Piece. Good books that make kids (and adults) think.
Rating: really liked it
Here's the book I
really want to read:
Rating: really liked it
So it is Christmas time, and my wife likes to have all of us—my wife and I, and our three years old twins—do a different event each night during Advent as a family. I like this practice; it is little things like this that keep our family strong. Tonight’s event was reading Christmas themed books.
We decided to read THE GIVING TREE as well as three other Christmas books. Had I foreseen what was about to transpire I would have omitted THE GIVING TREE from my selection.
Allow me to replay said event:
The setting: Mommy and Daddy's bed.
After a torturous time of getting my kids to brush their teeth, put on their pajamas, and convinced that they should only bring two stuffed animals apiece to bed, I began to read the books. The first book went well. The kids laughed. My wife and I smiled. The second book was just as good as the first book. More laughter. More smiles. Then it was time for THE GIVING TREE. Now I’ve read all of Shel Silverstein’s books. I find them quite enjoyable and zany and creative.
THE GIVING TREE was no different. Or so I thought. You see, I never really paid much attention to the story. Well that’s not entirely true. I have always liked the message about giving when others are constantly taking. And Christmas time is a perfect time to share this message.
But my son, Noah, interpreted the book differently.
As I read the book I focused on how the little boy grows into a man and loses his innocence of giving, taking on a more selfish attitude. My son saw the boy growing older. When the tree gave everything but its stump to the boy as a man, I saw this as a generous message of charity. Noah saw it as the man killing the tree. But that’s not all.
An excerpt of the night:
Me: The End. That was a good story.
Noah: I didn’t like it.
Me: Why? The tree was very generous, and the man realized that he had only taken and never given back.
Noah: (Staring blankly at me as if I had just finished reading him my bank statement.)
Me: What didn’t you like about the story?
Noah: The boy grows old and kills the tree and is now going to die.
Me: (Inwardly: SSSSSHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!! The death subject.)
Me: No, honey. The tree gave its branches and trunk to the man—
Noah: The boy killed the tree. And now the boy is old and is going to die.
Me: No, buddy. The tree just changed. And the little boy lived a long life—
Noah: And now he is going to die.
Me: (FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!! Inwardly, of course.)
So having no other way to combat my son’s determination to prove that the tree was murdered and that the little boy was now an old man and was going to die soon, I did what every father should do in this matter.
Me: Ask Mommy what she thinks, buddy.
Rating: really liked it
Please visit our blog at www.twogalsandabook.com to see this and other reviews!
The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein is a must read for children. It's a story that can bring tears to your eyes. Children can learn about the importance of caring, giving, and how we should treat others.
This essential and childhood favorite still remains a part of our home library.
5*****
Rating: really liked it
“Once there was a tree, and she loved a little boy.”
The Giving Tree ~~ Shel Silverstein 
I recently reread
Shel Silverstein's The Giving Tree. It was the first time in many years I have read it.
I love this book ; I always have. But, reading it as an adult, over 30, was so different this time around. The warm fuzzies of past reads were missing. Now, it made me feel sad, and empty. This go around, I saw it not as a parable of generosity and love, but instead I saw it as a story of selfishness, greed and destruction. Perhaps I was influenced this time by events of my past, or by the events of mr trump's follies. Or, maybe, I've become jaded by age ...
The funny thing is, I still love
The Giving Tree . It was powerful the first time around, and even more so this time. What can you say about a book that had a profound impact on you in your youth and again, years later but in a totally different way. The tree is selfless (me as an adult) and the boy becomes selfish (me in my youth) ~~ and let's not talk about the thing's I've (the boy) done for love.
Yup, I can relate.
Rating: really liked it
Horrific relationship between a selfish unappreciative child and an enabling self-sacrificing mother who has no purpose in life other than to give herself away. I keep expecting a missing page to show up where he pisses all over the tree stump at the end.
I think this is offensive and despicable.
It is a horrible lesson for children. I'd rather see more literature that honors and respects the sacrifices that parents make, rather than this book's actual focus: demonstrating the expectations that this black hole of a child has.
I feel that sacrifice, without a concept of self, gives less weight to the sacrifice.
This could be rewritten with a hungry boy eagerly gnawing on the scraps that his mother is cutting off from her body.
Rating: really liked it
This book review is now available on my blog at https://www.skylarb.com/single-post/2...
