What do you think The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein is really about? Unconditional love(the tree) or selfishness(the boy) Do you think it teaches to give no matter your sacrifice or is it a cautionary tale about giving too much? Do you have other theories on it?
I think both your answers are relevant. Also--you don't know what you have until it's gone. Maybe look before you leap? It's a beautiful book in a way.
For those that have never read it. Here it is...except without the pictures obviously. The Giving Tree By Shel Silverstein Once there was a tree.... and she loved a little boy. And everyday the boy would come and he would gather her leaves and make them into crowns and play king of the forest. He would climb up her trunk and swing from her branches and eat apples. And they would play hide-and-go-seek. And when he was tired, he would sleep in her shade. And the boy loved the tree.... very much. And the tree was happy. But time went by. And the boy grew older. And the tree was often alone. Then one day the boy came to the tree and the tree said, "Come, Boy, come and climb up my trunk and swing from my branches and eat apples and play in my shade and be happy." "I am too big to climb and play" said the boy. "I want to buy things and have fun. I want some money?" "I'm sorry," said the tree, "but I have no money. I have only leaves and apples. Take my apples, Boy, and sell them in the city. Then you will have money and you will be happy." And so the boy climbed up the tree and gathered her apples and carried them away. And the tree was happy. But the boy stayed away for a long time.... and the tree was sad. And then one day the boy came back and the tree shook with joy and she said, "Come, Boy, climb up my trunk and swing from my branches and be happy." "I am too busy to climb trees," said the boy. "I want a house to keep me warm," he said. "I want a wife and I want children, and so I need a house. Can you give me a house ?" "I have no house," said the tree. "The forest is my house, but you may cut off my branches and build a house. Then you will be happy." And so the boy cut off her branches and carried them away to build his house. And the tree was happy. But the boy stayed away for a long time. And when he came back, the tree was so happy she could hardly speak. "Come, Boy," she whispered, "come and play." "I am too old and sad to play," said the boy. "I want a boat that will take me far away from here. Can you give me a boat?" "Cut down my trunk and make a boat," said the tree. "Then you can sail away...and be happy." And so the boy cut down her trunk and made a boat and sailed away. And the tree was happy ... but not really. And after a long time the boy came back again. "I am sorry, Boy," said the tree,"but I have nothing left to give you. My apples are gone." "My teeth are too weak for apples," said the boy. "My branches are gone," said the tree. " You cannot swing on them - " "I am too old to swing on branches," said the boy. "My trunk is gone, " said the tree. "You cannot climb - " "I am too tired to climb" said the boy. "I am sorry," sighed the tree. "I wish that I could give you something.... but I have nothing left. I am just an old stump. I am sorry...." "I don't need very much now," said the boy. "just a quiet place to sit and rest. I am very tired." "Well," said the tree, straightening herself up as much as she could, "well, an old stump is good for sitting and resting Come, Boy, sit down. Sit down and rest." And the boy did. And the tree was happy.
Fascinating book. Extremely cynical interpretation incoming... The Giving Tree at first presents itself as a morality tale, but it's not--not in the classical definition at least. A classical morality tale (Aesop's Fables, Greek myths, Shakespeare plays, etc) have 2 essential components: 1) The protagonist commits some moral error. 2) The protagonist is punished for the error. Sometimes, not always, to cement the point there is a 3rd criterion, 3) The protagonist repents. Now let's look at the giving tree. If we accept the boy as being the protagonist (for now, see my last paragraph if you consider the tree as the protagonist), then the protagonist definitely commits a series of moral errors. But he is never punished. And he never even remotely shows any repentance, guilt or acknowledgement of his moral failure. To the bitter end, he uses the tree until there's nothing left, even planting his lazy ass on top of his friend at the end of the story. So if this is not a classical morality tale, what is it? It's a (deliberately) bastardised morality tale where the protagonist commits the crime but essentially gets away with it. The "moral" of the story is basically that people suck. End of story. Nothing to feel good about. People suck, fade to black. Now it's possible that the tree is the protagonist; after all, it's basically told from the tree's vantage point. We never follow the boy, nor are we given any real insight to what the boy is thinking. Our thoughts are with the tree. I think this is an interesting interpretation, but then the story takes on an extremely chilling "moral". If we accept that the tree is the protagonist, and the tree indeed gets punished relentlessly, then we have to go back to the 1st point and ask ourselves what was the tree's moral failure. The answer is that the tree was too giving. In other words, Silverstein's message would be something akin to: if you are too kind, then you only have yourself to blame for the consequences. The story does end on the twist that the tree was happy, and I'm sure that plants in our minds the concept of absolute selflessness to the point of immunity from punishment: a truly selfless soul wouldn't mind being used, abused & mutilated. But I can't accept that as Silverstein's message because there's no real, honest closure on that thought. It's more like a sarcastic happily-ever-after ending. Given Silverstein's body of work tilting toward dark, morbid, cynical humour, I think he intended for this story to leave us feeling unsettled at best, possibly even disturbed to our core. It reminds me of a lot of the famous writers of the time: Vonnegut, Douglas Adams, Joseph Heller. Tons of irony, sarcasm and dark stuff man!
I had been feeling like I was the giving tree and that people would just take and take until there was nothing left but now I realize that just because the tree gave away her apples doesn't mean she won't bloom again and make more, just because he cut her branches doesn't mean she can't grow them back and even a stump can regrow into a tree again. Another point I would like to make is that while a person might wait for someone else it does not mean they have to stay stuck in the same place like the tree did.
