The Giving Tree question

Elizabeth wrote: "People that are so down on this book because the "happy ending" is not so happy are missing the point. Not everything and certainly very little times do things in life have the perfect happy ending..."

I totally agree with you Elizabeth.
Another interpretation could be, relationship between parent and child, the meaning of unconditional love and support...
Enjoy your special time with your three year old son.

I could support the book along those lines, sure. Books don't have to have happy endings, etc. I bought this book brand new based on glowing reviews, and read it out loud, blind, to my young girls. It horrified me. Why? Because I had just lent my voice to the idea that a female can actually give until she is killed by it, used up, cast aside.
For older kids this would be a good book for discussion. For really little kids, the ones who believe what I say and just absorb, this book could be a nightmare.
That's our experience in our household. The book simply did not work for us.
Just as you mention the relationship to nature, which is an excellent interpretation, the book can have a different message for girls.
With preparation, I might have used it when my girls were older as a demonstration of what not to do...but then, it is so hard finding good books that demonstrate the things we actually do want to do in life, that spending much time on ones that do not actively contribute to our goals as a family seems like a waste of time. Did that long winded sentence get its idea across?

I have heard that The Giving Tree is a Christian allegory. The tree being Christ and ultimate forgiveness. I'm not sure if Shel Silverstein meant it that way or not.

I think most people do 'get' the book - that's why it's such a successful, popular book. The metaphor can be looked at in so many different ways, from individual to family to society.

For myself, I'm just happy that my boys can read now, because I couldn't read The Giving Tree without tearing up! So now when I get to the last couple of pages, I just tell my sons to read it out loud to me. :)

Sometimes I think we worry too much about how a book will affect a child. When I re-read the fairy tales I read as a kid, I am shocked at the violence. But I think kids know they are not true and the violence, like that in cartoons like the roadrunner ones, somehow allow a release of emotion that kids need. I first read The Giving Tree as an adult and was devastated. It was so sad. But I would read it to kids and would like to know how it makes them feel.

The way I see it, if the book's making some people angry with its content, then the author did something right. To me it means that he wrote something relevant. Something we can talk about. I don't think that people who either loved, or hated the concept necessarily missed the point. I think this book has a real knack for dragging out the individual values of many of its readers. To me, regardless of what it perpetuates, it's at least decent literature.

Amy, this isn't the first time I've ever seen someone suggest that it perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes. A professor of mine once brought it up, in fact, and I can't say I entirely disagree with that. Perhaps this is a book I'd personally save for kids when they hit an age where they can discuss gender/racial/sexual orientation/etc. stereotypes critically. I'm not sure what that age would be personally, but it's something that I think about from time to time. It's necessary not to cast this off as mere garbage, though, in my opinion. To find out what's right, we must examine what's wrong, too. I absolutely agree that books free of as many unfortunate stereotypes as possible are always a good to have around, though.

Granted, my only experience with children was working in the children's department of a library for two years and, of course, having once been a child myself. Maybe it's because I'm fairly bright (or so my GPA at two different colleges would suggest) but I've never really thought ignorance was bliss. I found it annoying, if anything, and being sheltered and ignorant got me into some trouble that I don't care to discuss. Where certain world truths have left a bitter taste in my mouth as an adult, I don't think that I would be better off not pursuing some understanding of the world. I think it's important to teach kids to think critically and seek answers as much as they can, even if they don't always like what they see. They'll have to deal with that sooner or later anyway, but that's just me.

That being said, even if this book does have some harmful stereotypes, gendered, societal, or otherwise, I wouldn't want to hide it from a kid completely. I'd want them to read it and tell me what they think, something hopefully beyond "I liked it" or "I hated it" and this is one of those books where it's a bit difficult to leave it at that, and that's what I appreciate about it. Whether you love or hate this book, it is capable of dragging people out of their shells to express some sort of opinion: their values, their world view, their various interpretations. It's great!

Me? I loved this book the first time I read it (at 20, heh. I wasn't much of a reader as a kid sadly), not because of its story per se, but because I knew it would be a worthy topic of discussion. I thought it was clever, and agree with you, Elizabeth, entirely when you say that neither are truly happy in the end. I personally see the tree and the boy as a metaphor of two extremes: altruism and egoism. I'd take it a bit farther and suggest that selfless and selfish behavior cannot seem to exist without one another, hence why the boy and the tree meet again and again. The tree is stripped to its core. The boy is never satisfied. Where on the spectrum would you fall? Me? I'd like to fall as close in the middle as I can, to give if I can, to take if I must, but to never lean too far either way, because both extremes eventually lead to unhappiness.

That being said, I think that this book is something adults should read, perhaps even more than kids. You're never too old to read a "childrens" book, I hope. ;)

If reading with a younger person, it is best to have a discussion with him/her after reading to see if the proper message was conveyed. A child should empathize with the tree and know that perpetual greed and consumption (the boy) can hurt the ones you love (the tree).

I understand that people have affection for this book, but for me, the main problem is not the allegory, the issues of one side of a relationship giving everything and the other side taking without thanks, or the comparison with parental/child relationships.

The problem for me lies in the gendered stereotypes that the tree and the boy represent. The boy takes and takes -- and is gendered male. The tree gives and gives -- and is gendered female. Just as classical Snow White and Cinderella wait passive for their princes to save them while Jack goes out to slay the giant and make his fate, this book is a guidebook to harmful sexist stereotypes.

If you want your children to grow up strong and free of these stereotypes, why not expose them to The Paperbag Princess or something that will call these stereotypes into question?