The Giving Tree

The Giving Tree is an American 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.
This book has been described as "one of the most divisive books in children's literature" by librarian Elizabeth Bird; the controversy stems from whether the relationship between the main characters (a boy and the eponymous tree) should be interpreted as positive (i.e., the tree gives the boy selfless love) or negative (i.e., the boy and the tree have an abusive relationship).
Silverstein had difficulty finding a publisher for The Giving Tree. An editor at Simon & Schuster rejected the book's manuscript because he felt that it was "too sad" for children and "too simple" for adults. Tomi Ungerer encouraged Silverstein to approach Ursula Nordstrom, who was a publisher with Harper & Row.
An editor with Harper & Row stated that Silverstein had made the original illustrations "scratchy" like his cartoons for Playboy, but that he later reworked the art in a "more pared-down and much sweeter style". The final black-and-white drawings have been described as "unadorned ...visual minimalism". Harper & Row published a small first edition of the book, consisting of only 5,000–7,500 copies, in 1964.
The book follows the lives of an apple tree and a boy, who develop a relationship with each other. The tree is very "giving" and the boy ages into a "taking" teenager, a young man, a middle-aged man, and finally an elderly man. Despite the fact that the boy ages in the story, the tree addresses him as "Boy" throughout 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 his girlfriend to the tree and carving "Me +Y.L." (her initials, often assumed to be an initialism 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 when the boy is a teenager, a house from her branches when the boy is a young man, and a boat from her trunk when the boy is a middle-aged man. With every stage of giving, "the Tree was happy".
In the final pages, both the tree and the boy feel the consequences of their respective "giving" and "taking" nature. When only a stump remains for the tree, the boy returns as a tired elderly man to meet the tree once more. She mentions she cannot provide him shade, apples, or any materials like in the past. The man tells her that all he wants is "a quiet place to sit and rest", which the tree, who is weak being just a stump, could provide. With this final stage of giving, "the Tree was happy".
Interest in the book increased by word of mouth; for example, in churches "it was hailed as a parable on the joys of giving". As of 2001, over 5 million copies of the book had been sold, placing it 14th on a list of hardcover "All-Time Bestselling Children's Books" from Publishers Weekly. By 2011, 8.5 million copies of the book had been sold.
In a 1999–2000, National Education Association online survey of children, the book was ranked 24th among the "Kids' Top 100 Books". In the 2007 online "Teachers' Top 100 Books for Children" poll by the National Education Association, the book came in third. It was 85th of the "Top 100 Picture Books" of all time in a 2012 poll by School Library Journal. Scholastic Parent & Child magazine placed it #9 on its list of "100 Greatest Books for Kids" in 2012. As of 2013, it ranked third on a Goodreads list of "Best Children's Books".
The book prompted a diverse scope of interpretations from several critics. These can be summarized:
Ursula Nordstrom attributed the book's success partially to "Protestant ministers and Sunday-school teachers", who believed that the tree represents "the Christian ideal of unconditional love".
Some have interpreted the tree as Mother Nature and the boy represents humanity. The book has been used to teach children environmental ethics. An educational resource for children describes the book as an "allegory about the responsibilities a human being has for living organisms in the environment". Lisa Rowe Fraustino states that "some curricula use the book as a what-not-to-do role model".
One writer believes that the relationship between the boy and the tree is one of friendship. As such, the book teaches children "as your life becomes polluted with the trappings of the modern world — as you 'grow up' — your relationships tend to suffer if you let them fall to the wayside". Another writer's criticism of this interpretation is that the tree appears to be an adult when the boy is young, and cross-generational friendships are rare. Additionally, this relationship can be seen from a humanities perspective, emphasizing the need for helping each other.
A common interpretation of the book is that the tree and the boy have a mother–son relationship, as in a 1995 collection of essays about the book edited by Richard John Neuhaus in the journal First Things. Among the essayists, some were positive about the relationship; for example, Amy A. Kass wrote about the story that "it is wise and it is true about giving and about motherhood", and her husband Leon R. Kass encourages people to read the book because the tree "is an emblem of the sacred memory of our own mother's love". Other essayists put forth negative views. Mary Ann Glendon wrote that the book is "a nursery tale for the 'me' generation, a primer of narcissism, a catechism of exploitation", and Jean Bethke Elshtain felt that the story ends with the tree and the boy "both wrecks".
A 1998 study using phenomenographic methods found that Swedish children and mothers tended to interpret the book as dealing with friendship, while Japanese mothers tended to interpret the book as dealing with parent–child relationships.
Christopher Westley, writing for the Mises Institute (an anarcho-capitalist think-tank), describes the tree-boy relationship as similar to a socialist or communist government that extracts far too much from its citizens while not providing anything back in return. He describes this unsustainable and parasitic relationship as something toxic and ought to be avoided at all costs, regardless of whether on an individual level, such as two lovers, or a parent and child, or on the level of voter to their government.
Some authors believe that the book is not actually intended for children, but instead should be treated as a satire aimed at adults along the lines of A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift.
Elizabeth Bird, writing for the School Library Journal, described The Giving Tree as "one of the most divisive books in children's literature". Criticism revolves about the depiction of the relationship between the boy and the tree.
Winter Prosapio said that the boy never thanks the tree for its gifts. In an interview with Horn Book Magazine, Phyllis J. Fogelman, an editor with Harper & Row, said the book is "about a sadomasochistic relationship" and "elevates masochism to the level of a good", which mirrors Mary Daly's analysis in Gyn/Ecology: the Metaethics of Radical Feminism.
One college instructor discovered that the book caused both male and female remedial reading students to be angry because they felt that the boy exploited the tree. For teaching purposes, he paired the book with a short story by Andre Dubus entitled "The Fat Girl" because its plot can be described as The Giving Tree "in reverse".
Ruth Margalit further relayed the damaging message that mothers sometimes have by receiving The Giving Tree as a gift; she quotes children's book author Laurel Snyder who said, "When you give a new mother ten copies of 'The Giving Tree,' it does send a message to the mother that we are supposed to be this person."
The photograph of Silverstein on the back cover of the book has attracted negative attention, with some people finding it frightening.
A short animated film of the book, produced in 1973, featured Silverstein's narration.
Silverstein also wrote a song of the same name, which was performed by Bobby Bare and his family on his album Singin' in the Kitchen (1974).
Silverstein created an adult version of the story in a cartoon entitled "I Accept the Challenge". In the cartoon, a nude woman cuts off a nude man's arms and legs with scissors, then sits on his torso in a pose similar to the final drawing in The Giving Tree in which the old man sits on the stump.
University of Illinois Springfield professor Jacqueline Jackson and Carol Dell (1979) wrote an "alternative version" of the story for teaching purposes that was entitled "The Other Giving Tree". It featured two trees next to each other and a boy growing up. One tree acted like the one in The Giving Tree, ending up as a stump, while the other tree stopped at giving the boy apples, and does not give the boy its branches or trunk. At the end of the story, the stump was sad that the old man chose to sit under the shade of the other tree.
In 2010, two parodies were published by different authors, The Taking Tree and The Taking Tree: A Selfish Parody, that use comedy to change the story and its message. And later, writer Topher Payne came up with an alternate ending by modifying the second half of the book, calling it "The Tree Who Set Healthy Boundaries".
The Giving Tree Band took its name from the book. Plain White T's EP Should've Gone to Bed has a song "The Giving Tree", written by Tim Lopez. The 2010 short film I'm Here, written and directed by Spike Jonze, is based on The Giving Tree; the main character Sheldon is named after Shel Silverstein.