Sign up for a 14-day free trial and enjoy all the amazing features MyHeritage has to offer bit.ly/SolarSands Corrections: 5:45 - I say "humans and hunters" and I meant "lions and hunters" 16:10 Yes it is probably moreso that the tree is "happy but not really" because the boy says explicitly that he is sailing far away presumably forever, probably less so to do with "recognizing a pattern" lol. I should have explicilty said this. 37:11 - 1973 is 9 years after 1964 not 7
Nothing bad has ever happened ever. I know this because bad things that happened in the past make people uncomfortable, so we're not allowed to talk about it.
As a child, when i read the book, i felt a secondhand guilt on behalf of the boy. I always felt like that emotion was the goal of the story. Getting children to reflect on their relationships to other people.
This is the best analysis and interpretation Ive seen. Childrensbooks are supposed to teach kids life lessons in a way they enjoy and understand. This can be done by telling the kid the moral at the end, or by evoking the moral in the kid through smart storytelling (which this book does). Like his mom and dad said, the boy feels very one dimensional except at the end, whereas the tree is the one we love and root for and feel more real. The story makes us sympathize with the tree and how kind she is, and makes us want her to be happy because she gives so much. The boy takes takes takes, and the tree is happy for him anyway. Except when the book says "but not really". This line is brilliant because it shows us that even though the tree is still happy for the boy, she is still suffering and sad by how much she has to sacrifice the book makes kids want to avoid being the boy, to avoid taking so much without showing gratitude. It trashes kids that even if the person who is giving is smiling while doing it, that doesnt mean we should keep taking without giving anything in return. In the end, the tree becomes happy again when the boy finally gives her what she wants, by spending time with her even if he only did it because he needed somewhere to sit. It both reinforces how humble and kind the tree is, while also pushing the reader to show gratitude even in any way they can even if it feels insignificant. I mean how can the boy possibly repay her for everything she did for him? He cant, but be just sat with her and that made her happy.
which... is good to a certain degree. i had a father who would remind us how expensive and exhausting having kids was on more than one occasion, and it basically made me feel guilty for fucking existing, which isn't fair to an 11 year old. its one thing to teach kids not to be greedy, its another to make them feel guilty that they have, ya know, needs and wants, like everyone does???
@@sovietunion7643 Ultimately I dont think guilt is the right word for it, rather the story encourages kids to *appreciate* the sacrifices their parents make for them. Theres a difference between being shown through a story that you should be thankful for those sacrifices, vs being constantly made to feel like a burden by the people who *should* be happy to make sacrifices for you.
It pisses me off when people interpret a work of art negatively and then go, "this means the creator is a bad person" or "the creator is a bad person, i guess that explains this terrible work of art." What a terrible, reductive way of reading creativity.
That "psychiatrist" seems like yet another over-educated airhead who's all academia and zero knowledge. "Um yeah if I allot diagnoses 57-B to this pattern of behavior, people will be so impressed by my ability to regurgitate psychiatry textbooks." Having a doctorate seldom makes for a wise intellectual who can apply knowledge abstractly, just someone who proved they can take tests well.
Yeah, this gets on my nerves too. Amazing, inspiring people can make incredibly disturbing or unsettling art, and be no less wonderful because of it. Same is true in reverse. Some great artists have turned out to be terrible people, but that doesn't mean their work, once so revered and moving, was suddenly made worthless and "always trash". It is an uncomfortable truth, but a necessary one to understand, I think
exactly this, i see too many people hating on pieces of art that are so beautifully written or painted, just because the artist behind it was a bad person
This attitude is seriously detrimental to art, because now whenever someone doesn't like a work of art be it a song, or film the first thing they do is an attack upon the creator.
The super harsh critics of this book saying that at the end “there’s nothing left” are too focused on the outcome. “the tree gives and gives and gives for what?” so that the boy could grow up loved, so that he could know he was always loved, and so that he could live his whole life having a home to come back to for comfort and support, that’s what it was all for. And although it’s not under better circumstances, the boy does come back at the end of his life to spend time in this place of comfort and love, his home, with the tree.
I mean, he does. But at the end, he's still not happy. He has a place to settle for. But is that really true comfort? Besides, at that point, knowing you took everything away from the person who cares the most about you, and knowing it's too late to go back... Would YOU feel comforted? I know i wouldn't. Heck, i'd be filled with dread. I don't think the experience shown in the book was meant to be a good thing.
I think it is entirely up to interpretation. A truly selfless sacrifice is not something to be only saddened by. It can be a beautiful thing. I always associated the tree with a motherly figure. As a mother, I'd give all of myself to my children. And I would not want them to be sad for this. He is sad she is gone, not because he feels a burden. @thatoneundertalefanatic
@@carcarbinx98 and that's why i don't want to be a dad. I don't want to stop valuing myself as a human being and to just dedicate myself in my entirety to someone else
@@thatoneundertalefanatic There's a healthy balance that is hard to find, but ultimately, you are indeed doing so. My life could be entirely different. It's surreal to think about.
Referring to the video by Doctor Ramani, I don't really get the idea that writing a story about an abusive relationship necessarily means that you're fucked in the head or something
Goes to show that even psychologists, those trained and educated on how the mind works and how to help, have biases. Her response reminds me of the "if you are a hammer, all you see are nails" dilemma.
i really don't like it when people say books like this are too complex for children. i read this book when i was a very young child, and i knew what it was trying to tell me very easily. children are not stupid, they can understand very complex, deep, and emotional things. i remember very distinctly how reading this book humanized my mother to me. when you're very young, you might often think of your parents as wells that you can draw from infinitely, in one way or another - be it emotionally, or materially depending on your situation, whether you're poor, etc. but it was so obvious to me that the tree was like a mother who gave too much of herself, and it made me think about my own mother in a very different way. i came to appreciate her more, and it made me want to be more giving myself. i think it's actually very important for children to experience these types of stories, in order to broaden their experiences in a safe way, and allow them to think critically about their feelings and about the other people around them. it was stories like this that always left lasting impressions on me that i carried through many years of my life.
It was too painful for me. I understood what it meant, but it made me cry for months. It wasn't really a safe way for me to learn it because it turns out I have mental health issues and am very prone to suicidal ideation. I couldn't cope as a child. I was too young. Please consider that some children are MUCH more sensitive than others. I felt so much guilt. And, I truly considered the idea that maybe the book was supposed to represent love. There are so many possible misinterpretations which can easily be more likely based on home circumstances. If I did think of the tree as my mother, it would not have been good. I already had too much guilt and struggled with verbal abuse that could've easily escalated into physical territory. Also, some children mature faster than others. I'm aware that I was much faster in some aspects and simply f***** in others. It's just ... not something a child needs. There are much better ways to learn. If you focus on teaching a child to be selflessness until individuals prove boundaries are needed, they will easily come to these conclusions on their own. As they age, they deepen their understanding of why naturally.
I completely agree. I hate when people claim that something is too complex for them to understand and in my opinion really shows how little they actually socialize with kids in the first place. Kids understand this stuff, they can make their own interpretations, and it's important for their growth for them to do so. I think a lot of people think children are stupid simply because they tend to be unwise.
I wish I had read this book more carefully as a child. Or maybe I was the stupid child that these adults assume all kids are like, because I never understood the metaphor. I dehumanized my mother her whole life, expecting her to always give without receiving because that was her job. I regret it every day, and long for a stump to return to.
As a parent, the idea that a child cannot understand such things is ridiculous. Children are capable of processing complex emotions. If anything, a child *should* have the opportunity to grapple with such complex emotional ideas. As a parent, there is nothing more "parental" than sacrifice. Your time, your patience, your money, your health, your dreams... You must, *must* sacrifice to raise children. Too many people look at the book as a relationship between equals, but the tree was never an equal, it was parental. My mother told me, "You'll grow old but you'll always be my baby." And to the tree, to her, he will always be her "boy".
All relationships involves give and take. Every child will, on some level, engage with other children by either being more giving or taking; the idea that this will be foreign, or too complex, for a child is absurd. The story feels so powerful (in my opinion) because it takes to an extreme a fundamental aspect of all social interactions.
Yes, thank you. I absolutely abhor the idea so many people seem to have that children are incapable of understanding deep and complex subjects. And that everything for children must be perfect happy, colourful and straightforward. It's an insult to children, most of whole have to deal with real world difficulties. Divorce, death of a family member, abuse, poverty etc. are real things that real children go through. If everything we feed them is purely happy and go lucky, what good is that going to do for them? It won't help them prepare for or deal with anything in the real world. In short, kids aren't idiots, and they deserve better than mindless junk in their books, movies and tv shows.
Your point about sacrifice is also 100% spot on. Although kids shouldn't be ungrateful and learn to give back as they grow older, the very nature of being a parent IS to sacrifice. That's the beauty of parenthood. That parents would literally give their lives for their children without even a shred of hesitation.
I seem to recall a study that found that children who are confronted with difficult topics while children (of course in a way that doesn't actually hurt them) grow up to be better adjusted adults.
I very much agree the book was parental and not equal. That being said, give and take dynamics can appear anywhere, including friendships so I don't think this book is inappropriate for most kids that can grasp metaphors. Maybe it could have them reflect on any relationships they are giving or taking too much from. Still, maybe it would be nice if there were a call to action at the end, such as the tree and boy acknowledging ways they could have improved things just for that learning aspect of children's books In regards to parental sacrifice, yes of course there are things that parents give up so they can raise their kids as best they can. One message I took away from this book, however, is that some sacrifices become unnecessary and a once selfless act can become a selfish behaviour. The tree continues to sacrifice herself to nothing as the boy grows older after the book states the tree is sad following the boy's absence. The tree tells the boy that accepting those sacrifices will make him happy, not as advice but as a statement. I don't think either character is malicious or intentionally selfish, I see it as a warning of what might happen when someone struggles to accept relationship dynamics change but in the end, the boy came back even when the tree had nothing left to offer
I disagree with the idea that this book is too complicated for children to understand as it was my favorite book as a kid. When I first read the book I understood that it was about a parents unconditional love for their child and I thought the ending was bittersweet; it was the first time I read a children's book that didn't have the "and everyone lived happily ever after" ending which I found refreshing and I ended up thinking about it for a while after I read it
@@lenchasanchez5158 what happens when you go over both phases? I am currently, only busy with helping people set their lives straight if I met them before, finishing being a good person, I've decided that I've helped enough and have suffered way too many permanent physical scarrings to endure on. Have you actually been past both?
The man from the bookclub points out that the human character, even as an old man, is still referred to as a "boy." This reinforces the motif of the tree as a maternal figure! Because no matter how old he gets, she will always view him as a boy. And she will always love him
why is everyone here so dedicated to strictly gendering a tree? i never saw it as a mother or a woman growing up. could it not be a commentary on the relative shortness of human life compared to that of, say, a tree? i also thought that’s what was implied by the massive passage of time between the interactions with the boy and the tree
@@fairyeaterwell, everyone has their own interpretations! motherhood is indeed a very common theme in a lot of children's books, and though perhaps the more egalitarian view would associate the tree as a parent, it is generally the norm (not necessarily what is good or bad - just what is commonplace) to associate unconditional generosity with motherhood. but I think your interpretation is just as interesting and valuable. there is certainly a theme of time in the book, and how time does not change unconditional love. all's this to say - multiple interpretations can exist! it's far more interesting to discuss and share them all than insist one is more correct over the others :)
@@fairyeater Because the tree can also act as a representation of Mother Nature, something that humans have gendered as female for as long as we've been able to write, and likely long before that even. Personally, I believe the tree is meant to act as a parental figure to the boy (as do a lot of people), and most will liken it's sacrificial nature and unconditional love for the boy to a mother.
@@fairyeater A lot of languages have 'tree' as a gendered noun in the feminine declension, such as Latin. Objects being gendered is a part of most human societies - I do not know why, or if anyone really does, as every language teacher I have been with have not been able to explain as to why this is - anyways, as such, many people will see objects as either 'feminine,' or 'masculine,' or even 'neuter' (which is literally translated as "neither" from Latin). I see the gender movement of today's society as almost a revival for the concept of gender in the English language and other "developed" languages [I use quotation marks here as I personally believe the most developed language to exist would be the Sanskrit language (the ancestor to modern languages in the Indian subcontinent), at least in written form].
The "The Tree was happy... but not really" line being on _that_ particular interaction has a simple explanation that I didn't see anyone bring up -- The Tree is not happy, because the boy is leaving. The Tree helps The Boy leave because it still wants to help, but wishes The Boy wouldn't leave.
Another interpretation I thought of was that Shel Silverstein put it at that specific part to reframe and recontextualize the lines before it while your reading. That single line acts as the seed of doubt that causes you to wonder more truly if the tree really is happy giving everything she has to the child.
I think it comes at that specific interaction because, compared to any prior time, the tree truly believes that what it had to give was taken from it, permanently. What could it offer as a stump? Surely the boy won't be back, there's nothing left to come back to. And yet miraculously, the stump ends up being exactly what the boy needs, and he does come back, and she is happy without caveat.
Yeah. Like. I saw it as a kind, cozy, and forlorn little tree, giving all of it's love to another, and the boy finding his way back with time. A sad, sad thing. But touching. And warm. It helps thst i really liekd shel silverstein's works before it, and hsed to read a lot of childrens poetry stories and prose.
I think Solar Sands’ mother caught on to an extent. The book is about unconditional love. Unconditional love doesn’t always appear fair from the outside, It’s not transactional. It can wear one down, and even lead to sadness, but it won’t fade even in the midst of that. That’s why it’s unconditional, and beautifully tragic.
It makes sense with the initial part where the tree gets along with the boy so to the point to start loving his company. But all we know that love hurts, sometimes...
I don’t think the moral is 'unconditional love is tragically beautiful' but rather that said love should be expressed in a way that helps you and the person you care for long term, lest it become something painful. You can feel unconditional love without acting on that feeling in ways that hurt yourself, and the book's sad ending is meant to plead thar readers find those healthy ways. (I don't mean to be rude or contrary, just to add to the discussion)
It is kind of why you see the worst serial killers still get visits from family sometimes. Yes, your son may be a murderer, but he is still your son, and for some people that fact alone means some level of love is unconditionally given.
the idea that this tragedy is the natural outcome of something ppl wanna label as "unconditional love" perpetuates harmful stereotypes about relationships, and you know, just SO WEIRD that the one who feels compelled to give & give till it destroys them is a *lady* & the one who loves, oblivious to how destructive they are, is just a *boy* playing around & living his life i think our boy's a little salty at the tree, tbh. i mean he misses her & blames himself, but he can see in hindsight that she had a lot of control over how much he hurt her. it's not okay to use a person who loves you as the instrument of your demise
I kind of see her perspective. The boy isn’t selfish. And the tree wants what’s best for the boy. The tree finds happiness in providing for the boy. And honestly sometimes there’s nothing you can do as a parent to make your kids happy and live a fulfilling life. I mean the story about the grandma giving food and herbs kind of reinforces that. It’s pretty easy for us without children to judge the actions of our and other parents. But I have a feeling that once we do have children. Well probably side with the trees actions as justifiable.
A piece of art making you uncomfortable, upset, or even angry doesn’t make it bad. Provoking thought and reflection in the consumer is kind of the entire point of art.
art that makes me feel these emotions are often some of the best, most hard hitting pieces of art. they're some of the most beautiful and wonderful pieces of art, despite not giving off many positive feelings.
Another point that seems nobody is seeing is that the tree never gives what the boy is asking for directly. He is not just pretending; he always asks after expressing what he desires. He asks for money, and the tree gives him apples which he has to sell to gain the money. He asks for a home, and the tree gives him her branches, but he has to build it and create the family he desires. He asks for a boat, and the tree gives him her trunk, but he has to build the boat and restart his life. We don't know what happens before this request, whether he lost his family or was never able to obtain it, but we know he wants to leave. And at the end, as I mentioned in my other message, he could rest anywhere he wanted, but he decided to go back to the tree and ask her.
this is an extremely interesting and complex point of view about this book from the "opposite" opinion that I've never encountered. youve given me a lot to think about, thank you 😊
I also think when he wishes to leave. It isn’t always a bad thing he wanted to. Maybe he realized he growing old, and wished to travel. If he wished to leave and stay gone. He would not have returned, either he changed his mind to wished to return. And at some level the boy cares for the tree, he may not express it. But he returns even after many years, never forgetting the tree. Even when the tree is but a short stump, he still returns. Just to sit next to the tree. Is he a good person? We don’t know. And that makes him more human. You can see yourself as both sides and I like that about it. We are both sides at various points in our lives. For good and bad, we give and we take.
Exactly. The academic that said the boy was harmed due to the giving because it made him not able to fend for himself is so stupid. He literally still has to work and put effort in. It’s crazy how if we see a man cutting down an tree without asking the tree and building a house, he is self reliant, but if he asks the tree and the tree says “take my wood to build a house,” then suddenly a supposed intelligent academic concludes that the boy is not able to fend for himself It is so absurd as to be laughably pathetic
Almost every take in this video just made me realize most humans are dumb. The boy is ‘soulless’ for not being directly given what he asks for but still had to work for it. How is that soulless? Saying the boy is malicious, or wrong for just ‘taking.’ He isn’t just taking ffs; he literally built a house and presumably had a family he supplied for. Saying he just wasted the apples. Wtf. He brought them to market so people could savor their apply goodness. The mom’s, the dad’s take, the book club’s take, the doctor’s take… were all worthless and massively ignorant. Ironically, this makes them the selfish ones that cannot see beyond their own biased perspective. They just inject their emotions into it and ignore everything. Not once did anyone step back and actually analyze it and even ask if their emotional response was even warranted or appropriate. This is true selfishness, when people just operate off their emotions and do whatever and say whatever to satiate them
@@pyropulseIXXI I can see both sides, but I don't see many interpretations of the story as "idiotic" since the story is vague enough for most to project their life experience onto the story. I do think it's wrong to claim any one way is right especially if someone has to use their degree for why they formed their personal interpretation. That said, the story is metaphorical, which is pretty clear given that there's a sentient tree communicating with this "boy" for his entire lifespan. I personally don't think the gender matters heavily in this story, many poems and stories assign genders to things that are not gendered or human to create a relatable metaphor. The core plot is about a give and take relationship dynamic that goes too far. This can happen between any genders. The requests by the boy, and the things he takes and does can't be applied to a literal sense. They're all metaphors, and if you read again you might notice they could be around the basic needs; money = food and water, house = shelter, wife and kids = community. I think the interpretation of the book being one where the boy is heavily reliant on the tree works best when looked at from a caretaker/child dynamic. The boy using the branches to build a house wouldn't not be taking literally in this context, and what he actually does is not important as the main point is the tree (aka the caretaker) sacrifices things they actually needed. It could be a mother giving her son a weeks worth of food she needed for herself, or a father covering his daughters rent when he is behind and at risk of homelessness himself. That's the thing about art, people are able to apply things they have gone through to these metaphors. Both sides are either unaware of how damaging the dynamic is, or unwilling to accept fault and responsibility so it never gets addressed.
The tree is happy "but not really" because the boy is leaving. She's happy because she was able to help him again but sad because he won't be around anymore.
I believe that the interpretation isn't simple enough for a normal child to fully understand. Adults don't seem to be that capable of understanding either. Art is at it's best when left up to interpretation, sure. Me, like many others, read this book as a child. My initial interpretation as a kid was that the tree just simply enjoyed giving, and that boy respectfully utilized this tree throughout his long life. The ending was melancholy as I had recognized that for the boy, it was the end of his life, yet I never feared for the tree's. I saw her as a LITERAL tree (despite it's magical appearance), one that resides in a forest where there are many others like it, yet the boy chose her in specific. What do we expect the boy to do? It's likely that he has his own family. He wasn't raised by this magical tree. He lived an entire life filled with trials and tribulations just as a normal human would. He even brought back some of his first loves to this special tree of his. Many people experience this phenomena. Growing up, we would have our preferred places to meet up. A rock, a tree, an old building, some sort of landmark. As our lives progress and we become swamped with more and more responsibility, it can be difficult to find the time or the will to return to these places. Often we forget about the significance of these landmarks, until seemingly at random our minds dig up core memories, and beckon us to return. The tree in the story had been around far longer than the boy. It was fully grown when he was just a small child, and had not shown signs of deteriorating, even throughout the long life of the boy. The boy had given meaning to this tree, and she potentially felt indebted towards this display of trust and/or interest as nobody else had given her this throughout her entire life prior to meeting him. What @RelativelyBest said is true. She's unhappy because her life's purpose has left. Maybe she's unhappy knowing that the boy is sad and wants to escape, and can no longer help him in her current state. She will likely never be able to grow fast enough to provide anything else meaningful for him in his fading life (we find this to be untrue later on, as even just her stump was enough for the boy as an elder). She made it her life's purpose to provide out of pure altruism. One can even interpret that she was completely fine with making these sacrifices, as she can just grow back, or simply willing to die. That's how I saw it when I was young. The boy was never violent, unappreciative, or demanding. He knew that he could trust this tree in his worst moments, as every time he came back to her he was seeking something in times of dire need. As I've talked about earlier in my reply, many people do this. Returning to childhood places to find something within themselves, reconnecting with a forgotten past. Sometimes these landmarks can be lost to time. I'm only 22, and my little old town has lost nearly all that made it what it once was. The antique shop has been gone for years. The grocery, the hardware store. All of the local businesses were demolished post-covid. The small amount of money these stores made prior to covid came from elderly individuals. In the end of the story, you can see a sense of calm, even a little smile in the now-elderly boy's face. His posture is relaxed and subtly contemplative, like he's reminiscing. I take this as a sign of internal reconciliation in the face of death. Maybe he never had time to reconcile with himself throughout his busy life. Now he finally has time to rest and appreciate the gifts that he was given by the tree. I was never sad for the tree, I was sad for the boy as had I assumed his life to be difficult, his childlike innocence progressively fading as time went on. But at least he dies happy. The tree can grow back, it can live for hundreds of years, humans cannot. I think the tree knows this. For some reason, I have a weird Mandela effect memory about this book ending with the elderly man dying and being buried next to the tree, as the stump begins to sprout a new trunk. Either that, or a sapling grew next the the grave on the opposite side. I can't really remember. This "memory" came to me after watching the end of this video as for some reason it gave me Deja-vu. Maybe I drew a sapling or a grave in this book when I was young? I'm not sure. Honestly, an ending like this could do wonders to cull any negative feelings people might've had for the boy while retaining it's melancholic ending. Could also add some commentary on how nature resumes without us, though in some magical way it'll miss us once we're gone.
This makes me think of parents working to get their child into college, and they’re happy to see them get in and succeed, but that also means their child is growing up and leaving.
I quickly got the impression that the tree was giving in hopes the boy would stay, that she was thinking “after I give him this, he’ll be happy and satisfied, and he’ll stay with me again.” She loved him too much to tell him she was upset at him, so she just kept giving more of herself in hopes that this time would be the last. I think that really speaks to the fact that healthy relationships require you to admit when you’re unhappy, that if somebody really loves you, you can work out your issues together instead of just acting like nothing’s wrong.
It's such a cool book because I interpreted the story so differently: I never projected any resentment or sadness onto the tree's actions, nor any ill intent from the boy, so I read it as a meditation on finding happiness by the act of giving to a loved one. There's definitely something to be said about how one-sided it is, but I guess I also viewed the boy & tree as a family relationship, so the imbalance in their dynamic wasn't as harmful as it would be for friends/romantic partners (which I guess also speaks to my own values, lol)
It depends on if you take the author's word for it. If you do that, the tree is genuinely happy, happy to give of itself... but when its a stump and just kind of left in the dust, it knows next time the boy comes she wont be able to give anything... so kind of happy, to help him once more, but not really knowing she wont be able to next time. Which leads to the end of the book where it turns out she can, one last time, give him something...
Parenthood. These days if you tell your child you’re unhappy with what they did, they will just stop speaking to you, cut you out of their lives. Who wants to take that risk?
I thoroughly enjoyed this essay. When I first read this book, when I was teaching Nursery School, I thought that this story had a sad ending, but spoke about self-sacrifice, and how loving unconditionally is a message we can all learn from. After all, even though the tree was a stump at the end, she still could give love to the boy who was now an old man, by giving him a place to sit and rest -- kknd of final salute about the celebration of life. Also, a reminder~ this book was writtten in the 60's -- when conservation of wildlife was not a popular theme, but Silverstein was wise enough to bring it to our collective consciousness.
My interpretation of the reason why the tree was "happy, but not really" is because she thought the boy was gone. It was the only line that clearly stated that the boy successfully sailed away, which could show that from her perspective he was really gone. In the end, she was happy again because the boy did eventually return. What made her happy was that the boy was there. Edit: Also I think part of the point was that the boy was never happy from things from the tree, but he was happy with the tree itself. He misunderstood what gave him happiness for so many years, which led him to take more and more material things until in the end he was happy just resting on a stump. TLDR: The tree is not happy because she gives. The boy is not happy because he takes. They misunderstand the fact that they are happy because the other is there.
Wow I just posted a very similar comment before scrolling down and seeing this. I'm surprised that no one in the video had this interpretation. In my childhood I always thought that was the intent of the story.
One weakness of this video was that you only asked adults, people who thought kids were too dumb to get this story. Shel Silverstein, for all his flaws, at least didn't speak down to kids as dummies, but rather as human beings.
My father would always read me stuff from authors like Shel Silverstein and Roald Dahl. They would read me literature that would allow me to think and I look back with gratitude.
That's why I am grateful my parents had me watching shows like Thomas The Tank Engine (Seasons 1-5) which did not treat kids like idiots and treated them with a level of intelligence. As the late Rev. Wilbert Awdry (writer of 'The Railway Series', which inspired the Thomas show) said "You're not merely writing for children, you are writing for the unfortunate people who've got to read the stories over, and over, and over again." I WISH more book writers, film makers, corporations, parents, etc. would take Mr Awdry's words to heart.
Exactly. The whole time I was just reminding myself that I understood a lot of complex things when I was kid. And one of those things is knowing that having too much won’t make you happy (I was young when I made the revelation)
The ability to write seemingly simple yet complex stories like this is a highly under-appreciated art. I sometimes remember when Maurice Sendak stated, "I don't write for children. I write, and then somebody says, 'That's for children.'"
I think what people misunderstand about this story is the flow of time. It doesn't happen in 5 days. It happens over the span of roughly 80 years. I don't think the boy was being selfish or demanding. Instead, I believe the opposite. He only takes when he truly needs it. He comes in asking for apples to sell them at a market, not to eat them and throw the cores into landfills. For all we know, there very well could be kids and adults who buried seeds from the apple. He asks the tree for a house not to build a McMansion, but to support his wife and kids. This might be a stretch, but I believe he wants the boat as his wife and children had died, and the place were he lived had only brought back painful memories of a happier time. And, when the child, now an old man, comes to the tree for the final time, he does not ask of anything of her. He only sits because the tree tells him he can. I believe the tree only wants what is best for the boy, and doesn't realize how self-destructive she is until it's too late. To cap this off, I believe I know why the tree was happy, but not really. The tree loved seeing the boy, and him using her as a boat only means he'll get farther away.
I think, on top of her being sad because he's going away potentially forever, I think she may have realized she had nothing left to give to him after that. She had to come to terms with no longer being able to help him like she could before
There was also the possibility that the boy would go so far away that he would never come back. I always assumed up until that point he stayed in the relative area of the tree.
I think that the story seems like it goes by in 5 days because it is being presented on the timescale of the tree. A tree's lifespan puts a tall shadow to that of any animal, especially humans. So maybe, to the tree, this boy really did grow up in what seemed to her like 5 days. Maybe the tree operated on a timescale so vast that the decades between each interaction with the boy later and later in his life felt so small that she didn't mind the gaps, but when he sailed away, the idea of him not coming back at all still had the same effect on the tree as to us.
I think there might be a sort of genius in the story in that you aren't given the insight into the boy's mind, how much he recognizes the tree's sacrifice or does not. It's why there's such a wide variety of interpretations and conclusions one can draw from it -- an infinitely lesser story would be the Topher Payne one that moralizes *_to you_* about what you're supposed to be thinking. "Look at you, only ever taking and giving nothing in return!" For all the reader knows, the boy *_is_* planting more trees; the boy did or did not have a family; the family (reminiscent of Harry Chapin's legendary _Cat's in the Cradle_ song) may have taken much from the boy and abandoned him in his old age, or quite the opposite; maybe he's happy that he has his grandkids with their own trees, but this boy, he's returning to the tree because in all his life, when he thinks back on it, it was his best friend... perhaps when he went to sleep every night of his life, it was that tree he was thinking of... or perhaps he was completely selfish, never once even thinking of the sacrifices that have been made for him. It's interesting to me that that seems to be the conclusion all the commie redditors come to, that the boy simply never recognizes the sacrifice. They fervently believe, almost as a matter of faith, in the worst... Extremely ironic, I must say. Sounds like projection of the awareness of their own shortcomings.... but I think the real truth is: who are we to say? who are we to interpret other peoples' relationships with one another? How many unknown unknowns are there -- how many gaps in the story do we fill in with our imaginations, positive or negative, and how many of those assumptions are really just saying so much more about ourselves?
"This story is bad because it has a depressing ending" Insanely baffling how some people actually think this way I can only assume this stems from the fact it's a children's book and we all know we should never think critically when it comes to children's entertainment
honestly, I hate the idea of people thinking children cannot understand this. as a child, I remember reading it and the massage was clear to me. neither of them were role models, and I knew for sure the book wasn't glorifying it as well. children are not stupid, and, if given the chance too, can understand much complex emotions. I just wish adults don't forget that.
@@Smile200-z4y I remember being a kid and suspecting that lots of adults aren't that smart, that they're hide behind the assumption they're smart by virtue of their age. But it took many years of maturing and life experience before I realized I was 100% right.
Yeah adults see children the way people see animals. They’re not as dumb as we make them out to be, it’s very obvious in modern media how dumb adults think children are. The way they hammer in the moral of the story and spell it out for them
"...but not really" as a mom, I can say that line really hits. I have three sons and I loved when they were little enough to play and I was the coolest human they knew. They got older and it was me asking to maybe play a tabletop game if they could manage, but I have always been happy to give my time or anything I could. I would even say if I could give my limbs to know they had good homes, I would. The day I had them, though i love myself, they come first. "...but not really" ... so back to the start here. That ask was different. The mother/tree was still happy to be able to provide, but on that occasion the boy was asking for the means to leave. The last time she was able to be happy again as he returned. I think one thing I have not heard anyone mention yet is the boys actual love for the tree. It is in the perspective of a much older generation that and I will not disagree with those who say his actions did not show gratitude, but I understand how she would be happy and why. It's not *just* that he came back. The older he got the more dissatisfied he got. That is real af, but when he needed comfort and he always came to the tree, sure he would find it. Are we to believe that he could not find a chair? I would say he did not just want to sit just anywhere. He had his boat and was out... he came back to be with her.
That last line hit me pretty hard. I've definetly been the boy before, taking the unconditional love my mom has for me for granted, but the older I get the more aware I am of the sacrifices she had to make for me. I also took my chance to sail away on that boat, but eventually came back. But not to keep taking, but to finally start giving back. I hope your relationship with your sons is still going strong.
That is beautiful. Thank you. Yes, it gets stronger again as they age. I feel like it's just the natural flow of things. We need to give our children space to make their own way, but if done right, most people return to their roots before the end.
Also if the hadn't "given" him so much of what he thought he needed (and she did have exactly "it" every time), he couldn't now that he is old sit on her , be together and make her happy 😉
I love this comment. Ever since I was like 4 when my mom would read the book to me before bed I understood that the tree wasn't really a tree and it was a metaphor for his mom. Frankly, I didn't know people were this upset about it to go so far as to rewrite the story, but I think it's baffling that someone might get a different moral than motherhood from the story, but I guess it's just one of those things where everyone can see something different in a piece of art. Anyways, when I got a little older and reflected on memories of the book I kinda came to the conclusion that when he takes the trunk, she's not a tree any more (signifies her passing, and the trunk was what sheer had left to give in her will) and when he returns as a very old man and the tree is happy, he passed away too and now they're together again.
One even said “The Giving Tree” is actually about growing up and nostalgia. First, it’s as simple as climbing the tree and playing. Then, the tree is utilized for more labor-oriented purposes, and the tree missing the boy playing is a stand-in for missing those innocent days when one is a child, yet still growing up. Soon, there’s no more tree, just the stump, and the boy, now an old man goes to the stump, meaning, though his childhood days are gone, he still has the memory of them and the nostalgia. The interpretation says it’s about nostalgia and the loss of childhood into adulthood. That’s why even adults cry when reading it.
@FayeLawnKrack3d yes, I fully agree. My interpretation is that the tree is meant to be a representation of the boy's memories of his mother, not the mother herself. He revisits his memories of his mother and the lessons she gave him as he ages. His life seems to be imperfect, as he coldly dismantles and repurposes his memories of her for his own needs, sacrificing the innocence and warmth that once filled his mind for utility. At the end of the book, when the boy is an old man, the tree has been reduced to a stump, and the boy's real mother is likely long dead, he returns once again to his memory of her just to reminisce. It's a story meant to convey to children that one day, they will grow old and their parents will be nothing but a happy memory. It's sad, but that's how this unavoidable aspect of life is.
I feel this is close to my reading, which is that, trees don't talk, and the boy is seeing his memories and imagination in the tree's dialogue. So as he keeps returning to the tree he remembers what he once needed and how he could use the tree for happiness, but what happiness means to him as he grows. I don't see it as "taking" from a person, but using a resource while also feeling that guilt as you use something until it's gone and can be used for nothing more than the memories and nostalgia of what it once was.
This is why I loved this book so much, because there are multiple interpretations to be taken from it, the face value story as it pertains to social relationships and learning how to interact with the world when you're a kid, and then there's a whole storyline out of it as one ages. It hits way different at 26 than it did for me at 7, that's for sure. 😊
I remember when I was little that is the kind of emotion that was invoked in me. I felt a certain sorrow and pain for the tree and story while feeling that same sense of nostalgia, the bitter sweet longing of some sort of comfot
I made my interpretation: The kid plays with the tree and he's happy. He could have played with any tree in the forest, but he decides to be with that specific tree. Note also that the tree says that she's on a forest, but she feels alone when the boy leaves. It's a special relationship for both of them, and during that period, they both feel fullfilled. Then, the boy grows. He isn't as naive and innocent and knows that he can't be a kid forever. So he decides that the best way to assure his happiness is by making money. But he doesn't know how, so he asks help to the tree. The tree obviously can't give him money, and the kid knows that as he doesn't specify the tree to do anything to earn the money. The tree gives him the apples, and he sells them or whatever. The tree is happy, it's clear that she doesn't care about the apples, she can grow more and even invited the boy to eat them as he swinged on her branches. However, the tree was sad, not because of the apples, but because the boy just left. As a tree, she doesn't need much, so there's not much the kid can give her, except for his company. Then, the boy must have felt that having money wasn't going to give him all the happiness he thought. He then thinks that maybe a family will do. He goes to the tree. I assume she can't grow apples anymore for whatever reason. The boy asks for a house because he wants a wive and kids, not because he has wive and kids. He takes the branches. I want to take a moment to note that the boy always asks. The tree could say no, so it's not an abusive relationship in my opinion. The plan to start a family must have failed, because the boy just wants to leave. He's old and sad. He didn't live the life he wanted too or made many mistakes along the way. So he just wants to go on a boat and never go far away. The tree offers her trunk. I have two theories about why the tree wasn't happy as this point. Maybe she understood that she gave too much, the apples could grow again or weren't important, the branches could also grow again, but the trunk of a tree rarely grows again. Without trunk, there are no branches and apples, and nothing to give. Or else, the tree knew that the boy was old and wanted to leave, and maybe she couldn never see him again. But the boy does return. Whatever he wanted out of that trip, he never got it, and probably understood that money, family, or the place where you live isn't going to give you happiness on it's own. So he returns where he was happy: with the tree. The tree doesn't have anything to give. And the boy doesn't want to recieve anything. He can't, even. So he just sits. The tree's happiness resides on the company of the kid. He's arguebly anything that matters to her. And the kid wasn't sure where he's happiness was. Even when she has nothing, she apologizes, and tries and gives him the last thing she has. The boy tried to find happiness in many ways, but failed in all of them. It's not clear why he returns. Why he wants to rest with the tree. The could have just sit anywhere. I think he deliberately went with the tree because he understood, after so much time, that the tree loved being with him. So he tries to make the tree happy. I know it might not be the best interpretation, and I may have forgotten about anything important, but that's what I was able to understand.
People misinterpret the line "...but not really". It has to be taken in the context of the conversation. There's an old man stating he is sad and wishing to leave. If The Boy had a home and a family, then why was he demoralized and wishing to escape? Did storm or war take his family and home? Was there a bad divorce, and the limb-built house and children got awarded to the ex? The Tree was reacting to The Boy finding such great dissatisfaction with life that he would choose to go alone, abandoned by or abandoning everything, including the lands he'd lived in for all his long years. The Tree could see that The Boy was hurt. The Tree could see that The Boy was hurt.
This is kind of what I got from this part as well. I think it is most meaningful from the perspective of the boy's life. It's obvious to say that he should've given more back to the tree, but you have to consider how reasonable each circumstance is to do so. Before being an adult, it isn't likely he would be able to offer much besides his company and appreciation. Elaborating on the appreciation; even though the book doesn't show it, I do think he is very thankful for each time the tree helps and by the time he is an adult, he would probably like to give a little back if he could (or even spend more time if he could), but everything else that he is dealing with (and implied failures) ends up making those things far less feasible. The Tree however is understanding of this, to a fault. This is why she is still happy most of the time, because she knows that she is helping a lot at each point and is satisfied with the company and appreciation. The turning point of when she isn't happy is I think from the combination of her learning that the boy's plan with the house and family did not work out despite everything she has given up to that point, and that she had to give the most she ever has so he could get away from it, but that also meant from her. It's possible she felt that she has failed him in some way even if she did the most she could. In this circumstance, I don't think he could've made her feel better even if he wanted to as long as he still wanted to leave because of the implications of everything leading up to it. By the end, she is happy he came back despite everything and finally having peace with him as something always got in the way of that. This is why I think he was always appreciative, he definitely would not have came back otherwise. I don't think any of this would've changed if the author wrote the boy to be more explicitly appreciative to her when his life would not be any different and the tree was happy regardless except when he left. It's also easy to say that the tree should've not given him that much, but seeing the circumstances of his life, she would likely find it difficult to not help him due to the risk of it getting worse or souring the relationship with the boy in which she has already invested so much of herself into.
I work with children. After snack time, I always have story time. I recently read them (Them being a group of 4-5 y/o's) The Giving Tree. After finishing a story, I ask my kids questions about what I just read them (What was the lesson, How did this character feel, How did you feel about this, etc). But, after finishing this story, I felt stumped (haha). I looked towards my coworkers after asking what they thought the lesson of the story was. My coworkers (Who were also on the verge of tears after listening to the story for the first time since childhood) were equally unable to immediatly say what the moral of the story was. Most books I read are very strightforward: Stealing is bad, be nice to nature, don't litter, etc. And while all of this is perfectly fine and dandy, The Giving Tree presents a topic about relationships with other people that is not often talked about openly in childrens media. And I really appreciate how ambigious the ending and moral of the story was. Through this, my kids had to think harder and I had to ask more complex questions. The ending is presented as happy. The Tree is described as being happy. Yet, after closing the book, one of my kids openly commented, "Wow. That story was really sad." Through that, I ask them why they thought it was sad. While chilrean obviously aren't the smartest creatures in the world, many people underestimate their emotional intelligence and understanding of the world around them. Becuase the moral is not clearly stated, it's going to have them thinking and remebering the book long after they last read it. The next day at snack time, I overheard a conversation between two of my kids where one wanted some of his fruitsnacks. The other kid responded, "You can have some and I can have some. So we'll both be happy but not sad. Like the tree and the boy." Also- When I turned the page and it showed the tree being a stump, some of my kids gasped alound. They were so engaged in it.
Kids are super smart they just don't yet have the tools they need to communicate complex ideas nor the literacy to spot patterns and take shortcuts like us adults. Put our brains into the perspective of what a child knows and suddenly it's clear their ability for insight is incredible.
It really annoyed me to hear the one member of the book club claim that kids can't understand stories like this. Children are far more clever than we give them credit for, they like to be challenged and think critically. The way we teach them to understand complex relationships and emotions is by letting them engage with stories like the Giving Tree. We're doing them a great disservice if we only let them read nice simple stories where everything is unambiguously good just because we assume that's all they can handle
@@nickchambers3935 me too. we don’t give credit to children’s intelligence. i find it more helpful to them to let them engage in learning instead of just saying “this is what you need to memorize”. help them form their critical thinking! that is true learning
@@diegodankquixote-wry3242 An office worker sits and makes money every day for his entire life, and nobody says shit... But oh noooo you're precious little UA-camr tries to make money for 2 minutes out of a FREE 40 minute video... And he's a villain...
This is one of the best videos I’ve seen on UA-cam. Contextualizing what came before and after Silverstein wrote the story gives humanity to what seemingly is a story and an author that lacks it, and you not only explained but also showed how controversial this book is. Not only that, but the video is well-scripted and made passionately. The Giving Tree is one of my favorite books for its tone, minimalist writing and unique visuals while also showing an excessive giver and enabler while showing the contrary. Thank you for making such a nice omen to it.
I think the point of "imagine a parent reading this story to their child" deserves more spotlight. Children's books aren't just something you give to the child to read for itself so you can have some quiet time. Having a parent read the story to the child could lead to a conversation between them, about what exactly happened, why it happened, what it meant. The parent's tone as they read could also indicate to the child what's going on better than if the child read it themselves, with no life experience to filter it. Parenting isn't about finding books and toys to raise your kid for you.
The world is so disgustingly literal now. Faux intellectuals will say hard facts are the only things that matter, and can't peer into anything beyond the surface level. The reality is many, MANY aspects of the human experience resonate beyond the literal. Hell, even beyond the rational. Reading to your child is such a meaningful and pivotal experience for many reasons. It's not just conveying some entertainment to them; it's emotional, mental, and social development that's utterly crucial. In short, there is a mountain of difference between reading your child a book and the child reading the book himself.
Reading to your child is how the child learns to express complex, difficult emotions and thoughts. That's why these kinds of challenging books are indeed good for children
This I think is the most correct interpretation. It’s a story about how a parent (the tree) will happily give all that they have for their child (the boy), and are happy to see their gifts put to use. That’s how I always saw this book, and it’s one of my favorites. The parent is always there for the child, steadfast and unmoving. A pillar that, throughout your life, you can always return to. As so many pointed out, the tree was not sad to give her trunk to the boy. She was sad because it meant he was going away, in the same way a parent will cheer on their child when they grow up and move out, but deep down they are sad they’ve moved away
I think The Giving Tree stands out in a really important way because when children's literature (especially for younger children) tries to teach a moral lesson, it often does it in a very explicit, formulaic way. The blueprint often goes: - A child audience surrogate is given some kind of behavioral guidelines by a virtuous parental figure - The child PoV character then either A) follows the instructions but comes into conflict with some outside pressure to disobey, or B) chooses to misbehave on their own - The misbehaving character(s) then suffer somehow as a result of their bad behavior - The PoV character then either is vindicated in their choice to take the virtuous path or, having chosen otherwise, takes a repentant turn back to the "correct" behavior Different stories may play around with this formula with things like antagonistic parental figures, but the bones are so often the same. The interesting thing about the Giving Tree is that it doesn't really fit this model. I don't think it would be beyond the capabilities of many children to understand that something is different and "wrong" about this story. I think some of the people wrestling with the content of this book are having difficulty because they're trying to fit it into the conventional morality-play model where a certain behavior shown in the narrative must be unambiguously "right", when deliberate ambiguity is something that Shel Silverstein loves to invoke. At a glance, it looks like the standard "misbehaving child" narrative structure, but the characters don't fit the roles that they look like they should. The boy's demands are only implicitly "bad" because the tree comes to ruin as a result, but the consequences of that behavior don't come back to negatively impact him - the tree never lays out guidelines that the boy breaches, and all of the harm that comes to her is the result of her willing sacrifice. Neither character admits to any fault and makes a change as a result - the conflict is ultimately resolved without really challenging either character's choices, with the boy and the tree being reunited as their relationship meets at the same point: the tree no longer has anything left to sacrifice, but what the boy's request no longer demands sacrifice. It's not a deconstruction of standard children's morality plays IMO, it's just doing its own thing. The characters interact, and the audience is left to decide what to think about those interactions. The Giving Tree delivering that kind of a narrative in a way that young children have a shot at understanding is amazing - especially as they are starting to develop their theory of mind and become more aware of competing interests and different desires between themselves and others.
I remember getting this book read to me and my class. We were all very young, but we all understood very well what the book was trying to say. The conversation the class had was the best classwork-conversation we had had, or were ever going to have. A lot of us cried, and we practically begged the teacher to let us write thank you notes to family. She let us bring paper out to snack time, and nearly the entire class wrote a note. Some of us drew pictures. A group of triplets worked on a dance number to present to their single mom. I think that the book was and still is very important to be read to children, because even the bratty-est of us went home that evening and reminded our parents that we love them, and are forever grateful.
I think it's interesting the subtext that this was perhaps a thesis on why Shel didn't want to be a parent, that it involves unconditional love and giving of yourself. That doing so poorly feels like a waste of both your lives. And then he becomes a dad and takes that line out
Parenthood is terrifying if viewed objectively from the outside. Only by experiencing it can you understand it's one of the most fulfilling things you can do. With hard work and great sacrifice comes boundless satisfaction... something the redditors seething about this book can't fathom between hits of their vape pen and goon sessions.
@@TryinaD not everyone is cut out to be a parent, but the unfortunate part of it is you can't know it's for you until you've experienced it. Also I feel like people more than ever nowadays are terrified of responsibility/discomfort to the point they would never even entertain the possibility of parenthood, even if it would bring them immense fulfilment.
@@TaRAAASHBAGSIt's a nuanced subject for sure, but as someone who's technically older Gen Z (I turn 25 in a few weeks from now as of typing this), I think a lot of people are scared away from wanting to have kids these days because of climate anxiety. I've heard lots of people in their 20s & 30s say they would probably have considered having kids by now if they didn't feel they were essentially dooming their hypothetical children to live in a terrible world. When I say "climate anxiety", I don't even necessarily just mean literal climate change in the sense of global warming for instance; it's also things like the need for gun control here in the U.S. (which is why the idea of public schooling seems less & less likable for parents here these days), or perhaps the anti-LGBT bills that have been passed around the country this past decade. Unfortunately some people are so wrapped up in all the negative news out there that they can't really see the positive, and it clouds their judgement. But the messed up part about it is that, ultimately, they do still have a point. Because in many places, like in many parts of Canada as well for example, being able to afford buying a house is simply borderline impossible for probably 96% of the population my age. There's also lots of people who would have loved to have kids by now, but they feel they haven't had as much opportunity to meet people to find love with, &/or that, regardless of how much they work at their jobs, they still wouldn't be able to afford to properly care for their hypothetical child's needs. And in that sentiment, as sad as it is, the best thing you can do is to simply hold off on having kids if you know you can't support them yet. So really, to some extent or another, it is kind of a societal failing. Though I think these days the 24 hour news cycle makes the world seem so much worse than it truly is as a whole, so that definitely plays a factor into peoples' worries. Not to assume that people who simply just don't want kids for the sake of not wanting that kind of responsibility don't still exist of course, though still. imo, i don't think there's anything wrong with feeling that way, either, as there's plenty of people out there - both married & single - who lead just as fulfilling lives without having/adopting kids.
When read this while in the 2nd grade, I was envisioning the boy going through these stages of his life, and finding varying degrees of fulfillment with what the tree was willing to provide., and didn’t come back until he felt like he was in a rut, because he knew that tree would have solutions. The tree was generous, and gave of herself out of love where she knew she could in a way that would serve his desires with diminishing returns. And in the end, when both characters are near their ends, the tree regrets that she had nothing more to give, but all that was left was just what the boy needed, and feeling the joy of accomplishing that.
You know, I used to have pets. And I went well out of my way to take care of them. I stayed up late to make sure they got food, I woke up at the slightest sound when I knew one of them was sick and might need help during the night, I spent money and time keeping them clean and fed and I was constantly giving them as much of my attention as I could. And you know what? They never thanked me or tangibly repaid me for any of this. You know what? I didn't care. Taking care of them felt good. I loved them, and that love drove me to act, in the same way that artistic desires drive one to paint or draw. Seeing them alive and healthy made me happy. That was what I got out of it. Taking care of them made me feel good. They didn't need to provide me with any tangible benefit, and I"d say there's something soulless and messed-up to the idea that they should have.
Thank you. I agree completely. To demand compensation for acts freely given of love would negate the intended spirit. And for someone outside the situation to tell another party how to love is not right.
for that last line especially...right now western civilization if having an materialism problem. not in the sense of being focused on money or anything, moreso that tangible, physical pleasures are valued over more subtle and complex things like love, companisionship and raising children. part of the problem is just the decline in religion and belief systems, but its also just because of modern dating/divorce laws being unbalanced in so many ways, a lot of people live in broken households, so they don't get a good view of love, family, and long term relationships. they try to fill that hole with the physical and it gets them nowhere most of the time.
I do agree, but I also think there's a difference between caring for somebody in a way that fulfills you and pouring so much of yourself into caring that you lose yourself in the process.
Excellent point! As with many _"stories",_ there ARE _always_ multiple perspectives- and, more often than not, the way someone sees someone's story _says a lot about them, as an observer._ In this video, the title is literally focused on the tree's _"giving";_ so it seems to me that anyone presuming the tree "didn't want to give" or was "being taken advantage of"- _missed the focus of the title._
When a book divides on sociopolitical lines, I will take pause whether I want a child to dive into what could be propaganda. But in this case, I think it's just a matter of people who enjoy intellectual exercise versus people who want stories to resonate with complete meaning just as they are. And that's just a personality thing. So yeah, this is great as an art piece.
I like the giving tree as an allegory for parental love. It begs the question “does your child need to earn your love?” It even showed what parental love looks like. When the tree was happy… but not really, it’s like when your child hurts you after you help them. You love your kid and want to see them succeed, but they might end up hurting/neglecting you in the process. When discussing with a child, I’d tell them mom/dad are like the tree and the boy is like everyone sometimes. Sometimes we don’t realize when we just take and take
Or what if it is a genius of a book with a genius author teaching kids to not be taken advantage of like the tree by making use of their emotions it teaches them but not with heavy handed symbolism or a cathartic ending but rather anger at a story which will stay in the minds of the young audience forever as they act out how they would as either the boy or the tree in during hot showers and before bed making sure they remember to respect and value themselves first to say no even to those they are close to or to act more kind and understanding to others mostly their parents.
The beauty of it is that it’s just showing and not interpreting, you can project yourself onto the tree or the child and learn different lessons, as a child, as a little boy, I obviously projected myself on the boy, and it made me self reflect on all that my parents do for me and on my personal gratitude for that On the other hand from the tree’s perspective I don’t necessarily think that giving everything you have willingly until you have nothing left is an evil, it may be painful, it may be tragic, or frustrating but I still think that is love, not necessarily the kind of love that everyone should strive for, but a deep altruistic love that shouldn’t be looked down upon or pitied, imo
OP. Nail on head. Feel the same. All in all, the book is a work of fiction. All fiction is designed to explore the human component. This book inspires others to explore their own humanity.
Man… You really, REALLY are good at this. Been following for quite some time now and it’s just amazing how you so often manage to make something that rocks my world a little bit. Thank you! Know that you are a skilled craftsman and many will remember your craft for a long time.
I'm a mom. I love this book, because it shows what happens to givers. My oldest took it as a parable to not give too much. Give, but know your limits. I took it as you have to pay attention to not take too much, even when it's offered. I don't see the boy as selfish. I see him as thoughtless. I don't see the tree as a masochist. She merely is thinking in the moment. It's also not too complicated for children. Many adults underestimate the depths children are capable of. This book has led to very good discussions about boundaries. In that, it's one of the best modern children's story books around.
I love this book, and as somebody who is just getting to the age where I’m moving out of my childhood home, it makes me appreciate my mother so much, she really was giving everything and I hope that I can give something back to her
As Solar Sands mentioned, the boy asks the tree for help to acquire some material thing (money, house, boat, a place to sit) and the tree gives of itself in order to help the boy, regardless of the personal cost. The masochistic tree theory is objectively wrong: the tree isn't helping the boy because it likes being stripped of everything, it's doing it out of love for the boy. The selfish boy theory also doesn't work because the boy doesn't take from the tree without asking/consent, he's just trying to reach a certain end but doesn't know how to reach it. Seeing the boy as thoughtless is imo the correct interpretation because there's no malice/deceit behind his asks, just like children who may ask their parents for things but don't realize the cost of what they're asking and how much they've already taken. The tree is like a parent who gives everything to their children in order to give them a good life, knowing that they'll eventually leave them (hence the 'but not really' line) but can find solace in the fact that, despite their children growing up and becoming adults, some things just don't change; they'll always find fulfilment in their ability, albeit diminished by age and circumstances, to provide for them. Despite appearances, at heart, there's no difference between the old man sitting on the stump and the little boy playing with the blossoming tree. Great story to portray the beauty/tragedy of parenthood and how cringy these so-called 'NPD channels' actually are.
As far as the "but not really" line goes, I always read it as the tree is sad because the boy is leaving. He's sailing away. The boy leaves every other time yes, but just off screen. He just goes nearby and builds a house or goes to the market. This time he is specifically *leaving*, implying that he is leaving for a much longer time, or to a much farther place. And so the tree is sad. Because the tree loves the boy. I don't see this as an abusive relationship at all. It's a beautiful act of selfless love.
I like your way of seeing it but I think it’s more of the tree realizing it gave itself to someone who won’t give anything back. It lost itself for someone else.
Strong agree: I think Solar's dad put it nicely by saying that it feels good to give yourself to the people you love. Maybe a lot of people view the tree's sacrifices as grudging, or something that was secretly regretted, but I don't necessarily agree with that. Do other people really buy gifts and make effort for friends & family only because they expect the same in return? My brother has only ever given me half-assed birthday gifts for our entire adult lives, but I still try to get thoughtful stuff for his birthday, because it makes me happy to do nice things for someone I care about. And sure, you can definitely take away the moral that giving too much all at once can limit your potential to give in the long run, but that's an entirely separate thing IMO.
It's the trees nature to be the anchor and give. That's what trees do. It's in our nature to take and consume. We are two sides of a coin that need each other throughout all of life's stages. The tree needs to give, but it didn't start out that way. The boy took the leaves. The tree gave the leaves. That implies a type of maintenance in the relationship. That isn't the same type of taking... The tree gave fruit so the boy could take the seeds away. The boy took and ate. They were both happy. The teen took fruit to sell as the realization of age dawns on him. But the tree is still the anchor, still giving. Take what you can and do with it what you must. The tree represents childhood and innocence. The ever-present playful spirit, that life inevitably will dismantle with age. As responsibility replaces fond memories. But it always ends with a glimpse backward.
I viewed the "but not really" line as the tree regretting that it now has nothing left to give the boy. She loved him, and she loved to give to him, but has been reduced to a stump, and now believes that she can't do anything more for him.
I think it's a fantastic book because it can elicit such DIFFERENT and strong feelings from people. For some, it is the story of a selfish boy who takes and takes and takes. Or the story of how humans take and take and destroy everything they touch. To others it is a sobering reminder of how much people in our lives are willing to give for us, and what happens when that goes too far. And others still see the sacrifice of the tree and the 'needs' of the boy and they say, yes that is what I would do for someone I loved. It's brilliant and I love the book precisely for that
@@IdiotSandwich-yp2ke people getting extremely angry or upset at a children's book is creepy, I'm not saying that reacting emotionally to it is odd not even reacting with anger is odd but the degree In which people react to it is they are obviously taking it extremely personal, projecting themselves into it even
My mom's had a problem with this book my whole life because she felt it created guilt in children for the things their parents give them. Her parenting philosophy was that children didn't ask to be born and as the people that are choosing to raise them it is a parents job to take care of them with no expectation of something in return even gratitude. She always told me me that she would be happy to give everything up for us and that it's the least she could do for her children. This isn't to say she didn't teach us to be grateful and not selfish she just felt that parents are the one relationship where that shouldn't be necessary. From her pov the boy being selfish in his relationship with the tree doesn't matter because if we consider the tree his mother it is her job to give up whatever she needs to to give him what he needs and acting otherwise created unnecessary guilt in children.
Dr Ramani weirds me out. She frequently has interviewers refer to her as the world's leading expert in Narcissism despite none of her papers being on the subject of NPD , she claims to have ZERO narcissistic traits (which is like saying your the most humble person in the universe), she seems to throw herself in to every large public conversation possible and she'll frequently say things with absolute conviction that she seemingly pullup out of her ass.
I think it goes to show that not everyone with an academic title truly deserves the position they're in. I'd put someone like Jordan Peterson in the same camp. They're grifters......
as someone with a handful of very stigmatised disorders, she leaves an awful taste in my mouth whenever i see her. along with everyone else claiming to give advice about "narcissists" and often using the term colloquially and not specifically for people with npd people are inherently at least a little "narcissistic" (i put that in quotes because really its often just putting themselves and their safety first, etc, being a little self-centred) and thats *necessary for survival* so its hella sus that she (dr ramani) claims to have zero "narcissistic traits". like she might mean zero at the severity of someone with NPD but bleh. for a mental health professional to say that and at the same time claim to be a leading expert...... bad vibes ok thats my rant over, i just like showing off my "i have several historically demonised mental disorders and am passionate about destigmatisation of them and also all others" access card
A person who claims to be an expert on narcissists displaying major narcissistic traits? Those people are EVERYWHERE on social media, but I never expected them to be taken seriously.
@@8bitdiedie that’s what happens when you’re a Dr. people take your advice on everything and hold it to a high regard, without taking into account who you are, “they’re a Dr., they have to be right” I’m not saying you should doubt all doctors, but you need to take everything anyone says with a grain of salt.
She's a con artist who found a way to use her credentials in order to exploit vulnerable people (victims of narcissists) by telling them what they want to hear. Her trying to claim this story is about narcissism despite the boy showing no malice whatsoever throughout the entire story just gives her whole grift away.
The ending of the boy sitting on the stump always stuck with me. To me it was a beautiful ending. The boy finally realizes that all he needed to be happy was right there all along.
@@itsgonnabeanaurfrommeBut the tree was able to give all her apples, branches, and wood. He comes back for the stump. You could say that now, the old man realizes that tree was good regardless if it was tall and healthy or small and Harden.
@@itsgonnabeanaurfromme I always found it as this: The Boy wanted what we all want as we grow up- Money, a house, a family, etc. The Tree wanted to make her friend happy. She willingly gave up everything to do so, because all she wanted was to help. The Boy eventually comes back as an old man, and the Tree is a stump. She wasn't happy because she felt like she couldn't do anything else to help, but he says that he can still sit on the stump. And so the Tree is still able to help her friend.
@@itsgonnabeanaurfrommeAnd because of those things, the boy was able to come back to spend those last days with the tree. And the tree was happy because of it
When you retold the story I instantly understood why the tree wasn't really happy that one time. It's because the boy was leaving, so the tree knew she couldn't have his company anymore. That's all she ever wanted. And then, when the boy returned as an old man and rested on the tree as a stump, the tree was truly happy again because she once again had the boy's company. For me, this is a happy ending that makes me feel nice, contrary to popular opinion I suppose.
I saw it similarly! He sailed far away and presumably very far back, yet mentions he'd be too tired to play with the tree even if she could offer that. He mentions that he is very tired and I guess my interpretation is that he too, was all used up. At least to me, its clear he came for the tree and the tree alone. And thats all the tree ever wanted from the boy.
I felt that way too, it seemed pretty clear that all the tree wanted was the boy's company. The boy always seems to look for material things, and he only seems content when he wants the tree's company (At the beginning and end of the story). I always thought that the ending was a happy ending, where all they needed to do was sit together. The tree got what she always wanted, and the boy slowed down and found what he always had. I always found the ending kind of sweet, I was actually surprised that some people don't like this book.
Yes, and think about it. The boy returns one last time as an old man for a place to sit. Surely, if the boy really just wanted a place to sit, he could sit on any park bench or anywhere for a while and relax. But no, he went back to the tree. I think the boy realized how he had taken advantage of the tree, taken it for granted. His way of giving back to the tree was giving the tree what it wanted all along, his company.
Dear solar sands. I really love your interpretations and philosophy. I really see you put much effort in your videos, not only by cutting and switching cameras from real to animated but choosing the right music also. Your biggest effort in my sight is your thoughtful manner, combining and evolving different thoughts and describing different point of views, the love for detail and often highlighting parts which doesnt seem important on fist sight. Your channel is one of my favourite on yt right now. Love from germany, keep it up
I hated this book when I was little, not because I thought the message was bad or anything, I was too dumb to think about any of that, I hated it because when I was in elementary school, the principal read out the whole thing at every single assembly, and we had one like every two weeks, so I was just so sick of it lol
A poem of his made me sad when I first read it in high school: *Forgotten Language* Once I spoke the language of the flowers, Once I understood each word the caterpillar said, Once I smiled in secret at the gossip of the starlings, And shared a conversation with the housefly in my bed. Once I heard and answered all the questions of the crickets, And joined the crying of each falling dying flake of snow, Once I spoke the language of the flowers…. How did it go? How did it go?
This reminds me of when a friend asked me if my endless researching and pursuit of knowledge ruins the simple beauty of flowers. I told her it's the opposite. The knowledge of how the pigments came about. How flowers are painted like targets in the UV spectrum... It's even more beautiful because of it, at least to me. 😊
I remember for a class project in AP English they wanted us to make a children’s book. I was assigned the topic of time, so I decided to write a story about a mayfly talking to the various creatures of the pond before it took flight. Teacher said it was too sad to be a kids book and shot down the idea, instead making me write a book about a clock doing… whatever. I hate people who think kids are to be sheltered from thinking about things like mortality, time, and jealousy.
I'd even argue that what makes a good children's book is one that is about all those complex emotions, but simply catered to a child's comprehension levels. It's never too early to think deeply about feelings and emotions, but it may be too early for a child to fully understand what you're saying.
@@ozarktic the point is to make them unsure how they feel about something. That feeling of discomfort is what makes people learn about their values and beliefs.
how the fuck is she gonna assign the concept of "time" and not imagine it being sad? The concept of time itself is inherently sad and a well of profundity, especially for a child who is just discovering it.
The idea of a mayfly talking to creatures around it before it flies off is way less sad to me than the idea of a clock running out of winding. There’s a dozen sad stories you can write about clocks.
Kids are WAY more morbid than adults generally give them credit for. They don't want everything sanitized & sweet. I worked at a summer camp & our most popular campfire song was the one about being eaten by a boa constrictor and dying lol
0:34 paused abt 6 seconds before hand and went to listen to a reading of it. Its a bit odd but i do love Shel Silverstein. Id never listened to it before.
People criticize the boy for not giving back, but what would he give? People like to self insert themselves as the tree and think of the things they would want as the tree, but in the story the tree just wanted the boy's company. The tree is happy because she finally got what she wanted.
Taking it literally it is some tree. You are not expected to give stuff to it. It is treated just like humanity treats trees. Maybe in interpersonal relationships it would not look so outrageous or out of the ordinary.
A few years ago I had a job working as a caregiver for a kid with special needs. He was around 17 years old. He was non verbal and needed a lot of care and assistance. One day we were going to read a picture book. He picked out the giving tree and had me read it to him twice. I cried so hard. Because I finally got it. I realized how much this boys parents love him. They love him in a way that he cannot fully return to them. Because of his limitations he is not able to. Yet his parents choose to love him and sacrifice for him anyways. The book really touched me and I finally understood it. It’s not about transactional love or codependency. It’s about the kind of love you have for a person unconditionally. Apart from any expectations of getting anything back. Often it’s the kind of love only a parent could have for their child.
This. A thousand times this. I am 20 years old, I have a Language Delay, depression, ASD and ADHD. I cannot function very well without medication, though I have learned to do so as much as I can. I am significantly disadvantaged in educational settings because of this. Even though I am going to community college for a career I'd fit very well into, even though I have gotten accolades for work that I have done, and even though I have a whole family and a friend group cheering me on, I still feel like I have (and I *know* I have) wasted my mothers time, money, and emotions. I'm scared to change my major because my mom has already put so much money into me, and all of it would be wasted if I were to change majors. I feel I have not done anything remotely significant to deserve this. I know she is doing it out of love, but now being out of high school and being in the real world, I just want to live. I'm confident in my ability to live by myself, I have a steady job and multiple job opportunities because I know how to network. I know what I need in a job. But even with all that, I feel like the kid. I feel like I'm constantly taking and taking and taking and not really giving anything in return other than my presence, I need to recontribute the wealth that my mom gave me twofold, or at least I feel I have to. But on the track I'm going, on the track that the world is going, I could not give my mom the time of day 5 or 10 years down the line without feeling shame for all the charity she gave me and my absence of anything to give in return. I don't want to hand down my disorders and awful brain to any kids of my own, I don't want anyone to have to tolerate me, I don't want people to have to deal with all that is me, because all that is me is disgusting on my worst days. Thank you for understanding how a parents love is sometimes in vain. I feel that I can't recompense my parents for all of these things that they gave me, not now and not far into the future, in part because of my disorders. I can live by myself, and I really don't want charity that I will not utilize correctly, do not know how to utilize correctly. It sucks to be in that place, feeling so selfish for things that are out of your control.
@@sketjtheinkle8268you have to change majors to get the job you want or keep your current job? i empathize with your position and emotions so much except the networking part. if i felt confident about that at least my parents would know where their investment is going towards. the job market is terribly unsteady these days. and with no one in my immediate vicinity to console me about it is the toughest part.
@@sketjtheinkle8268I cried after reading your and timjackson’s comment, not really in a happy way, but in a good way. I don’t really know what else to say, but thanks for writing.
I think that, ironically, if we actually listen to the tree, she literally tells us why she isn't happy. She is "happy" because she helped the boy. She is not really happy, because she thinks she has nothing left to give...
Yes, I imagine it is this way too. This goodbye has more of a finality to it there is nothing left for the tree to give and the boy is moving away for good. This is comparable for when a parent helps their child move out of the house and says goodbye for the last time they know there is nothing left for them to impart on their kid anymore they aren't necessary to their survival anymore and they going away for what may be the last time. So while they are still outwardly happy for their kid deep down they are sad much like the tree.
@@jamesgaines7048 I always thought of it as this too. The tree loves the boy, and wants to make him happy in any way she can. And, at the end, when she knew that all could make him happy, was the tree herself, she is finally at peace along with the boy.
The Giving Tree saved my mind when I was a kid. I was raised in an incredibly abusive household where at way too young, I was forced into labor to “support my family”. I found the book in my first grade class, I remember crying, the teacher let me keep it. I would read it over and over
I feel like it was less of a joke and more of a reference, I think everyone had that moment in school where everyone commented on the frightening picture on the back of the book.
Presumably he’s got a family offscreen wondering why their father periodically goes off to talk to the magic trees that he’s known about since he was a child
It seems that all the meetups in the latter half of the book take place decades apart from each other. I would assume that the Boy went back in secret, when his family was busy with other things, or on vacation.
Thank you for making this, it really deeply touched my heart and mind not only in the aspects of a childhood story I have always enjoyed honestly, but now as an adult who struggles constantly with self-love and "people pleasing" for atonement unneeded (as per what my support systems have been trying to instill in me) it made meaningful connection to what that means to me. Especially within the context of this story. Thank you.
My Dad saw a homeless man on a cold day with no shirt. The man simply asked if he had coffee, my Dad gave the man his shirt for the cold, then drove away to get a coffee, the man ends up walking away down the road, and my Dad with an old rag T-shirt on gets a coffee through a drive-in for him and returns to him gone. Driving, he sees him, and pulls over and hands a coffee out the window. The man says "this is the nicest town I've ever been to, just 1 mile down the road someone gave me the shirt off his back!"
Why does Charlotte spend her short lifetime writing in her web to save Wilbur's life? What has Wilbur ever given back to her in return? Well, as she says, friendship. That, to her, was precious enough that she thought it was a fair trade, all the sacrifice and work she gave for him. If your life was only ever going to be catching flies, or standing in a forest, what else better could you do with it than to give someone else a better life?
@@justforplaylists Sure. She's not completely self-sacrificing. And she shouldn't be. I was more making a point about, I think a lot of people aren't able to consider that, maybe the tree in the story is making a choice she feels is worth the consequences to herself.
@@ComradeCatpurrnicus I sort of interpreted Charlotte's Web a bit differently, that she was helping Wilbur out of friendship, but not completely putting his desires above hers like the giving tree does. In my opinion the role of the eggs isn't to show Charlotte being 100% self sacrificing split between her eggs and Wilbur, it's for Wilbur to understand that Charlotte has concerns other than him.
She said "but not really", because she believed that this was the last time she would ever see him. Because she cared about him, she was more than willing to provide a better future, but that can't crush the bitterness of losing someone you love. Then she was happy again when he returned. She is happy again when he returns, despite the fact that him returning, alone, again, is evidence of a largely failed life, because this implication is as lost on her as the one sided nature of their relationship up to that point. Because she's just a tree.
Yeah. I think it makes sense. The tree was happy, to give the boy something... but not really. She realized that was the last she could give, so there's no way he would return. It turned out she had one last thing she could give, and its what she gave in the first place, her presence.
1000%, I think a lot of people are perhaps over interpreting some parts of the story. Of course there is subtext about parenting, but I definitely don't think that's what the entire story is about.
I loved this book honestly. I never realized how much it was about. I just thought it was a lesson on not to push people too much, and to realize when someone is pushing over.
I grew up with this book, and I always saw the ending as the boy realizing that he never needed anything this whole time. He was happy when he was little because he was with the tree, not because it was giving him stuff. In the end, the tree has nothing left to give, but he decides to stay with her anyway. That's when he became happy again.
That's also why the tree is always happy, even after losing everything. Because she knows that her fulfillment is in the companionship of the boy, therefore losing things she doesn't need or have desire for to help the boy be happy is not a destructive act but one that brings her genuine enjoyment. People are viewing her sacrifices through the lense of the boy, as though these branches and apples are ultimately more valuable to the tree than those moments of companionship, but the tree is happiest when giving to the boy and feels no sadness at giving away it's fruits, she understands what makes her happy and the boy doesn't. So the boy is always sad and the tree is mostly happy.
🥲 thank you for this. I always focused on the boy's selfishness or maybe lack of awareness. it was always such a sad and aggravating story to me; now it's a happy story for me. ❤️🩹
Him dedicating the book to Nicky seems to be a huge apology. Him saying she treated him much better than he ever deserved or realised and he regrets not doing better at the time but also seeing how graceful and accepting and forgiving she was in the end when they had both 'grown'. At which point it was futile to try rectify any damage and still she treated him kindly and with respect. The boy is innocent and we don't hate him (at least not as a child) but we do hate his actions and regret his lack of giving back. It seems like a lesson not just to take responsibly but also to give responsibly, they always say "put on your own oxygen mask before attending to someone else" because if you as the stronger and dependable and responsible one is dead then everyone else is screwed. You have a duty to care for yourself in order to be able to care for others.
@@SolarSandsI think the most we can do is infer how his relationship with Nicky was through the book, would explain why the tree is explicitly female
The only information I found online was one a webpage by Sarah Weinman who apparently did research for a biography she never wrote, so her sourcing is not really well cited like it would be had she actually written it. The only information she really adds is that Nicky was an on-again off-again girlfriend when he was young.
I was born in the mid 70’s, and I grew up reading Shel Silverstein’s books. I was an avid reader, and I couldn’t get enough of his works. I had almost all of his children’s books, and I loved every single one. I would get lost in his illustrations for hours. I can very much relate to the tree in The Giving Tree, as I dedicated most of my life to helping others. As a social worker, I gave and gave until I had nothing left for myself. I see the book as a cautionary tale.
This is probably one of my favorite books of all time. Top 3, seriously. It is such a powerful work of art. I’m 30 now and have been reading it since I was a child. I have the same copy I’ve always had. For the past 7 years I’ve been in an abusive relationship cycle. I am working on getting the help I need , but lately I’ve been re reading it on a particular bad day of “giving”, and it *really* helps. I just moved and really need to dig it out. I can’t stand hearing people say they hate it, cause it seems like they don’t understand the point. I value art that makes me uncomfortable or sad or mad. I value art that makes me feel anything, that holds a valuable message, lesson or thought provoking, emotion-stirring story. Love it. Great video thank you.
The reason why the tree isn't really happy after the boy sails away is pretty obvious to me, she loves the boy unconditionally and is sad that he's going away. She's happy in the end because he's back with her
This story reminds me of my grandma. She gives a lot and all she wants in return is the company. I take the ending as the boy, now being an old man, understanding just how important having the company is. The tree has nothing left to give, but company, and that’s all either wants from the other anyway.
Exactly it’s literally about parents giving everything and then the kid leaves(pun intended) I think the giving is much more of a depiction of experience and help and molding the kid into what they want. That can be skewed to be happy or sad too and imo it makes sense. Especially since I feel moms are more of a parent in books tv etc.
YES. This is exactly how I see this story. About the realities of being a parent and the stark reality of being forced to give all you have but also so greatly loving the company that is giving in return.
@@dNorsh I definitely get what your saying. But I almost think that it may not be a matter of failure but rather a lack of action. The child is not recognizing that he should give back to the tree or thank the tree. And the tree is not setting boundaries with the child and not enforcing the idea that the child should be thankful for what he is receiving. And honestly I think that the relation of the book to parenting can purely be put to perspective. As we all have different experiences when it comes to influence and the parenting that we may have done or experienced.
@@neelybolick7107 so I should just explain fully real quick. I think the tree giving is more or less advice and experience. I believe he failed and they both know there’s no more he can do. So they just sit there. Mom consoling the kid due to his failures along the way because there’s nothing left he can really do.
As someone that read this as a child, my takeaway then was more simplistic. The man cut down the tree and killed it, which was sad, even if the tree said it was happy.
I’ve never heard this story but I assumed it meant from the perspective of a parent that either the parent used all their resources to help their child move away from them, happy to help them live a good life but also sad it means they’ll live their separate lives or that they has given all that they can give and now their child no longer needs them.
As a kid we find out pretty early on that people will lie for the sake of keeping up an appearance or somebody else's feelings. We figure out that our parents do it all the time to us.
Could the removal of the line "but not really" in the animated adaptation be interpreted as meta-commentary from shels part on the masses being intolerant to a difficult story?
I found myself getting unexpectedly emotional at this video. I was read, and later read myself, this book as a child. I thought the story was sad, but very tender and sweet, and I liked it for it. I felt comforted by the tree. I thought it was nice he could always go back. My mother passed before I could remember, so even then I knew it wasn't a given. My father, a harsh, cynical, and profoundly sad man who nevertheless sacrificed greatly for his kids, died about twenty years later, four years ago from the writing of this comment. It influences my interpretation strongly. I think it's a beautiful and bittersweet story of parenthood, and the way things inevitably decay. In this reading, the boy never did anything really wrong; he asked for help and was concerned with building his life at the expense of time with the tree, but that's the role of a child entails. The tree repeatedly sacrificed the limited parts of herself for the sake of the child, but it was the tree's choice to do so, and that's the role of a parent; time and energy are not infinite, and you change in the course of parenthood, fundamentally and permanently. I think it's beautiful the book starts and ends with them simply spending time together. It was the first joy of the boy, but it was always the joy of the tree; and the boy gets to return with all his life experiences and truly appreciate what the tree has done for him, and reciprocate that joy in the twilight of her life. That's a gift not all parents or children are afforded. And finally, I want to add that the book is entirely from the tree's perspective. That comforted me as a child and guts me as an adult. He comes to visit her, she's happy, and then her story ends.
Yeah in my opinion people are looking way too deep into it and with an uneeded cynical point of view. I understand different interpretations exist, but I hate when an interpretation completely twists the author's original intent or the message behind the story. It's not about abusive relationships. It's about the sacrifices of parenthood.
Id have to say that I definitely follow a similar interpretation, the boy is only asking for help, the tree is the one that freely gives the help because of unconditional love. My interpretation is that its about the nessasary tragedy of parenthood, that you give everything you have without thanks to someone who will eventually leave you in the hopes that they eventually return once they are older and wiser with understanding of what was given. The tree is happy at the end because finally, the boy has returned and she can get fulfillment out of what he has achieved and out of his company. Its one if my favorite storys because of how bittersweet it is
As someone who was the primary caretaker of a dying family member at a pretty pivotal point in my life The Giving Tree has always kind of touched me in a way that leaves me perplexed when people find the book "toxic" while it never got to the point that it worked me down to a stump, the care for that family member took a lot out of me, and while at many times it was tragic and exhausting, i was mainly just happy i could spend another day with them. When you care about someone just them being happy made you happy, i think thats whats beutiful in the mentions of happiness between both figures. Nothing the boy took ever really made the boy as happy as the tree was to give it. It was only in the final and somewhat cruel moments of the book that an air of contentment and happiness was finally achieved. The Giving Tree asks what really makes us "happy" is it what we want, or is it what love we give?
IDK i've been on the other side of being that coin, with a caretaker as a kid that straight up resented the fact i existed because i took up time and money and honestly i don't know anymore. on one had i understand a parent should want to spend that time to take care of a kid but i have this deep distaste of being a burden or just having needs of my own that i don't know how to feel about it. if i was messed up in bed like that i'm not sure i would want to be kept alive.
That is so deep. I've never had to do that, but I do take care of a disabled family member of mine and I have been my whole life basically, so I understand what you mean.
My mum is in the exact same position as yourself right now, being the only person in our family with the position, experience and will to look after her severely handicapped sister, AND attend to her father, a dementia patient in a care home. It's difficult and frustrating, and my brother wants her to stop and essentially take steps to let both of them pass on, but she refuses because giving makes her happy. Life is complex and rich, and from tragedy springs a rare sort of joy.
I think your dad and your grandma have hit on something important there. The way they love others is by giving to them. They often really enjoy giving, by adding to the lives of those they love. I think the tree loves the boy so very much that she is willing to give anything to help the boy in his next stage of life. When she gives her trunk to the boy, and is “happy… but not really,” she is feeling the bittersweet feeling a parent feels when they help their child move away. She gives the last of what she can. There is not much more she can do to help the boy, and he won’t be around much more. At the end of the story, the tree is truly happy because the little boy comes back to her, and she is still able to give him a little more. He will always be her little boy, and she will always do as much as she can because she loves him.
This 100%. I always considered the tree as the parent; it's what we do so our kids can survive. I'd die for my son - is THAT wrong? Side note: I gave this book to my son as a graduation present. I included a heartfelt inscription. I read this book to him hundreds of times when he was a child. This book is a treasure.
As an autistic person this book taught me as a kid that you should never give to others because they will just take. And you should never take from others because they will always be missing what was given up. If you don't know, what makes autism a disability is that the brain is wired differently. So regardless of the message intended. This book messed me up as a kid. I was also abused by my guardian which helped to enforce this interpretation of the book.
Same here that’s where I first heard it. I used to read it to my daughter but from age 3 to now which is 7 she refuses to let read it cause it’s to sad haha
Thank you @shgurr , I was looking for someone to mention it. The book is great for discussing healthy relationships, but I feel like it is always discussed at school or with parents as just a story about how it is good to be selfless and there is always more you can give. Which is not a great message to give children who already don't know how to tell when they have nothing left to give.
This is my interpretation and maybe im wrong, but if you feel this way perhaps relating to the giving tree is misleading, not in the sense that you weren't giving (i absolutely don't want to make you feel like u didn't get abused for your kindness, i believe you fully) but in the sense that those relationships were not like the one the tree has with the boy. Despite the "but not really" line, the overall message in the book is that the tree remains happy. Even at the end, it is happy to give a seat to the now old boy. I don't have kids, but I have a cat. And I don't mind being the giving tree to my cat. I am really just happy he is here. If he leaves, i will be sad for a bit, but i will not feel abused by him, i will not be mad that he only ever "took" from me. I think for me, that's the kind of relationship protrayed by this story. Sure, it's not a relationship between 2 humans, but the story isn't either.
Many many years ago in grade 3, I wrote a sequel to the giving tree in which the tree gets revenge by giving the sitting man butt cancer, the man tries fighting the rabid tumours but it is fruitless and he passes away sitting on the stump. His body became fertilizer allowing the tree to sprout and regrow from the stump and it ended with his grandkids playing around the tree. I got in trouble for it not sure why. great video btw
As a child I never thought this book was offensive. Even at a young age I saw this as a story about motherhood or parenthood. That as children we take and take from our parents. But our mothers and fathers are okay with giving without a thanks in return because of their unconditional love for their children. Basically a parent will do anything for their child. Most kids can’t see that this is at times a one sided relationship and they should do more in return. The book specifically states “and the tree was happy” which makes this pretty clear. As an adult of course we can now see that the boy was being selfish. But I think that works to real life as children (even when grown up) sometimes don’t realize how much they are taking from their parents. In fact most kids don’t realize this until they have kids of their own and then can directly empathize what their parents went through. And yet they too now have unconditional love for their children. Anyways I think modern politics has poisoned the well on this book and have made wild assumptions.
The Giving Tree made me sob uncontrollably as a kid, and this video kind of made me realize why. The tree was so clearly my parents. The unconditional love, the boy coming back when he needs things, the tree always wanting to play with him. She’s a mother. And the thought of myself growing up and leaving “the tree” all alone made me so sad. It made me sad that the boy wouldn’t play with her, because it tapped into those fears in me, of leaving behind childhood. “And the tree was happy. But not really.” In context of the boy sailing away probably refers to moving far away, where his mom can’t follow, can’t see him or his wife and kids. And today, I see that in my aunts. One of my cousins lives across the world, and my aunt tries to be happy for him, but is still so sad because her son and her daughter-in-law and her granddaughter are an 18 hour flight away.
My interpretation: The tree was the boy's life. As a child, he climbed the tree for fun. In entering adulthood, he climbed the tree to perform labor. Then he cut down all the branches that used to provide him with fun and joy to provide a home for his family. When he was older and had no family to take care of, he still felt he couldn't rest. He felt the pressure to do something, anything, so he used a huge chunk of his life to make a boat and go sailing. At long last, he finally spends the last little bit of his life just enjoying his life. The tree was happy at every stage (except for the bit with the boat) because, even though the boy was carving bits of it away, he was still having a satisfying and rewarding life doing what he wanted to do with it.
Isn't the point of the video talking about people who try to change the meaning of the story to suit their sensibilities? The author already said what it's about.
This is a much more positive look on the story :) I always love how a piece of art can be interpreted differently by other people. Makes reading comments more enjoyable!
@itsgonnabeanaurfromme No, the video is about how anyone can have different interpretations of the same piece of art, especially when it’s ambiguous. Different interpretations are beautiful and there’s no reason to put them down like that That aside, I like this! Adds another layer to it about how you can’t just give bits of your life to the things to “should” and also have to take time to enjoy iy
I feel like the tree is metaphorically the parent. It would explain the addition of "but not really" as parents are typically saddened a little when their children leave the nest per se, and it could also be interpreted as the parents death, hence their not really being happy, as they are dead. The boy takes and takes and takes because it is what is expected of children and it is expected their parent gives them what they can within reason, and up until the boat part I think it was entirely reasonable. Even taking the branches. And Solar is right, the boy only asks for things, the tree figures out the how. That is also very parental, and given the trees gender we can even say explicitly maternal. And the reason the tree is happy at the end, is that despite being a stump (potentially/probably dead), her "son" came back to spend his final moments with her. Despite his leaving and distance for some time, near the end, he came back to spend the final time with her. I think that's most probably the "correct" interpretation. Despite the folly it is to claim I have the correct interpretation, I will much more certainly claim that interpretations about narcissm, abuse, and misogyny are wholly incorrect. I think it's not narcissism but immaturity that makes the boy not realise the cost he is having on the tree. Claims that the story is about unhealthy relationships, are much more realistic, though I personally disagree I do not believe that interpretation is *wholly* incorrect, just largely.
I disagree with the idea that this story's too complex for children. I remember as a kid loving Shel Silversteins stories. I was a pretty lonely kid being an only child and not having friends. All of his stories with their the blank pages felt like comforting in their loneliness and I felt empathy for feelings I was too young to give words to yet. His stories were always really beautiful in that way.
Lonely people sometimes need lonely art, it's weirdly comforting in a way, because you get that feeling of empathy and mutual understanding that, as a lonely person, is so difficult to get from your peers. Evangelion is my favorite piece of fiction of all time, it's my comfort show, even though it's the type of story that the average person just despises.
@@qwertydavid8070 Tbh I find it hard to gain comfort from Evangelion. It puts lonely people under a microscope and highly criticizes them. That's a good thing honestly, but I definitely wouldn't watch it and feel comforted lol. I felt called out.
In my opinion I like to believe that the “but not really” line suggests that the tree was happy she was able to give him her trunk, but now that she has given him everything she has no more to give. She is sad or disappointed that she cannot help him more than she already has (which was A LOT considering she gave him literally EVERYTHING). I feel like the story is about unconditional love and the lengths a person would go to in order to make a loved one happy. I don’t think the boy is a narcissist per se but I think he is selfish and unaware of why the tree was giving him all of the stuff that she did. He took everything he could from her in order to build his own life, his own “tree.” But it was only when he was old and gray himself, a shriveled stump with nothing left to give (likely because he gave it all to his family), that he understood the only thing a person really needs is the company and comfort of someone you unconditionally love. EDIT: To add on to this, it makes sense that the kid was happy when he was a kid and took like nothing from the tree because the company the tree gave him was enough at that point in his life. The kid grew up and required more in order to be “happy.” But he lived and experienced the tree’s perspective, he eventually realized all the tree wanted was his company. So him just sitting with her was kind of his way of giving back to the tree, in the end the giving was reciprocated by each of their presences.
I'm a pretty young guy. My parents always struggled with substance abuse. Idk where my mom is now. Not really at least, and I'd be hard pressed to say I want to know. My dad died of alcoholism. They raised me, kinda, but my grandparents always provided for me, and gave me stuff I think to kind of make up for my circumstance. My wife and I now take care of my grandparents since there was no one else able to do it. I understand what it is like to sit on the stump. It is not that you do not love the tree. It is not that the tree does not love you. I think it is that neither of you know what to do. So you do what you can. From experience I can tell you, what you do is usually wrong. That's okay.
This comment made me cry… I could have so easily been in your situation. My mom got clean not long before she got pregnant with me, but my dad died while drunk when I was 8. If my mom hadn’t become clean, I would just be living with my grandpa, not knowing where she was; the person who means everything to me. Who has raised me and who I’ve spent so much time with
Loved this analysis. Personally, I believe it's a story about a person who gives too much, and another person who takes too much. Neither had malicious intent, but neither approached it in a healthy manner. Instead, people should take less, and give back. Accept some help (but not too much), and give sustainably.
When I was a child, the main thing in the book that stuck out was that the boy never had time to play with the tree and always needed to do some work. I took the story as saying as the boy worked throughout his life without any time for play, it whittled him down and it made him take from the tree without playing with her like she wanted. He only realizes at the end of the book when he sits down on the stump that not only is he too weak to play, but now he no longer has any leaves to pick, branches to swing on, or trunks to climb. While now i've grown up and my focus on the book is more on the relationship, I still keep that in mind while I read. I really think Shel Silverstien does not deserve this book to be considered bad as he managed to create a book that anyone of any age can read and still get someting out of, a very hard and impressive feat.
When I was a young kid I had this one tree that I really loved. It was very large, with 2 trunks of the same size. Pretty sure it was some kind of oak. Then, a big tornado hit our house and did heavy damage to the tree. My parents knew how much I liked this tree so they invested time and money into saving it. For a time it seemed to improve after they cut off some of the injured branches. However, about a year and a half later it was pretty clear that the tree was dying and there was nothing we could do. My parents gave me this book the day we chopped the tree down. Easy to say "it was just a tree" now but at the time I was like 8 years old and the tree was like a friend to me since I spent so much time outside (I know, crazy to think of such things nowadays). The book holds a special, albeit bittersweet, place in my heart.
Some say that people should _"never judge the book by its cover",_ but Shel Silverstein's photo at the back makes everyone concerned about the cover than the book itself. No wonder why Greg Heffley is scarred for life.
Great video! The Giving Tree was one of my absolute favorite books as a child and I would cry everytime I read it.I was touched by the tree's sacrificial love, but I think there was also something in the way that the child and the tree are both happy in the beginning when it's just about each other, but when the relationship starts to be about other things that's when the tree starts to get used up and the man is left needing more and more. They both seem unhappy, until finally once again the thing that both of them are giving is their presence.
I love that the hand drawn, animated video from the 70s of one of the most famous poets of our time reading one of his most famous works is preserved thanks to a UA-cam channel called "fartman". What a time to be alive.
32:20 explains so much about todays society. “The emotions on this book too complicated for a child’s mind”. It is beneficial for children to explore their emotions and independently interpret stories, as this process is integral to their personal growth and development.
@@wellacoyoteishere185dude why am I the only kid who didn’t understand the damn book. Maybe it’s quite literally the autism and I just took a fictional book as a fictional book but I’m not really sure.
for me, the tree thought that giving parts of herself to the boy made her happy, and she only realized it didn’t when he left her with nothing, hence the “not really”. and the boy kept coming back to take something that might make him happy, but its only when he visits her a final time that he realizes that it was her company all along. in the end, the tree isn’t giving, and the boy isn’t taking, they’re just sharing time, that’s what makes them happy.
People take it as praise of that self destructive selflessness, and that's what leaves a bad taste in some people's mouths. Some people feel they have been instilled with that against their will, and resent it
The author took care to describe the boy sitting on her as something which required significant strain on the tree’s part, and the boy never expresses any desire for her company… they just want a nice place to sit. To me the boy sitting on the tree is a final show of apathy towards all the love the tree has shown them.
@@Numbabu oh i totally get that. the tree was being taken advantage of and the boy was at the least an enabler, at the most an abuser (depending on how you read it). especially since the boy always stays as “the boy”, kinda taking away his responsibility. I see it as a hyperbolic metaphor for children tho, could’ve been executed better but its still a moving story
My view is a bit less sad. I see how the adult is still called boy. I always saw that as how the tree(parent) always saw her "son" as a boy. As all parents will, you'll watch your kids become adults and move on. But to the parents? You're still their precious child who they love unconditionally.
The Giving Tree was my ALL TIME FAVORITE book as a child. I wanted my mom to read it for me all the time, and I’d sit in my room and read it on my own. Sadly, I grew up to be the tree. Reading this book now as a 25 year old, it’s sad in a beautiful way. This book shows reality as it is, but in a way that’s palatable to children. It’s not meant to have a happy ending, or an “in your face” lesson, such as the tree smartening up. The lesson is the ending itself. The result of someone who gives too much, and someone else who never gives back. Neither of them are truly happy, but somehow the tree has convinced herself that she is, because she’s finally reunited with this boy who gave her happiness once many years ago.
As a kid I always thought it was a story about companionship being more important that material possessions. Any time the tree and the boy are together they seem happy, and initially it may seem because it's from the exchange they make, but the one time the tree is stated to not be happy, is when the boy sails away. The happiness is gone, once she knows she won't be able to see him again. And the resolution, is him coming back, saying he doesn't need much, and simply wanting a place to sit, or in other words, her company. It's also the only time where it seems like the boy already knew what the tree's "solution" to his problem would be. Why else would an old man go out to the forest, to seek out a stump? He simply wanted to be with her in that moment. In that way I actually found the ending rather sweet.
see the problem with that interpretation is that there were no hints that the boy was coming back to the tree regularly or just visiting without asking for anything. we ONLY see the boy showing up because he needs apples or branches or a raft. i thought the moral of the story was "you are never worthless", because the tree thought being a stump was useless and the old man still needed a stump to sit on edit: nvm i'm stupid, i forgot the beginning of the book had the boy playing with the tree and then the book pointed out that the boy grew up and couldn't play with the tree as often
The giving tree was told once in my highschool by my teacher who is teaching morality. Our culture was different compared to western were we should respect our elders. Teacher told us "parents giving us without asking any return, we should remember how much parents had sacrificed for us" In my point of view, the boy at the end was united with the tree who already a stump, he accomplish everything, such as earning money, be dependent, having wife and children, and now the boy was retired, his children grow up and started their own, wife was gone, the boy has nothing left but return back to the tree. Is depress but bitter sweet. You could depicted any meaning between boy and the tree, the tree was the boy's safe place when boy was struggling, or a loving parent figure who love the boy no matters what.
The tree being grown in the beginning, when the boy was just a boy, makes absolute sense when we view the tree as a stand in for a parent. Same with the threes early death, as our parents are likely to die before we do. (Although the causes of their death are probably not caused by us, unlike the tree's death being caused by the grown boy)
Sign up for a 14-day free trial and enjoy all the amazing features MyHeritage has to offer bit.ly/SolarSands
Corrections:
5:45 - I say "humans and hunters" and I meant "lions and hunters"
16:10 Yes it is probably moreso that the tree is "happy but not really" because the boy says explicitly that he is sailing far away presumably forever, probably less so to do with "recognizing a pattern" lol. I should have explicilty said this.
37:11 - 1973 is 9 years after 1964 not 7
Contorversial
@@MasterBotttle amazing comment
Please do a video about 'little prince'
Where’s the emplemonXsolarsands colab??😂😂
I'd be interested to know what your grandmother makes of your interpretation of her thought. Not a criticism. I'd just genuinely like to know.
People really seem to confuse "I don't like what's happening in this story" with "this is a bad story"
right? that's sometimes what i feel too when people give their opinions on works of art in general.
Finally someone said it. I absolutely despise the rewrite of this book, it embodies everything wrong with the way people read stories.
Welcome to the cowardly, mentally deficient, morally self-aggrandized modern mind.
@@alexanderbateman5581 it honestly feels like fanfiction.
Nothing bad has ever happened ever. I know this because bad things that happened in the past make people uncomfortable, so we're not allowed to talk about it.
As a child, when i read the book, i felt a secondhand guilt on behalf of the boy. I always felt like that emotion was the goal of the story. Getting children to reflect on their relationships to other people.
This is the best analysis and interpretation Ive seen. Childrensbooks are supposed to teach kids life lessons in a way they enjoy and understand. This can be done by telling the kid the moral at the end, or by evoking the moral in the kid through smart storytelling (which this book does).
Like his mom and dad said, the boy feels very one dimensional except at the end, whereas the tree is the one we love and root for and feel more real. The story makes us sympathize with the tree and how kind she is, and makes us want her to be happy because she gives so much. The boy takes takes takes, and the tree is happy for him anyway. Except when the book says "but not really". This line is brilliant because it shows us that even though the tree is still happy for the boy, she is still suffering and sad by how much she has to sacrifice
the book makes kids want to avoid being the boy, to avoid taking so much without showing gratitude. It trashes kids that even if the person who is giving is smiling while doing it, that doesnt mean we should keep taking without giving anything in return.
In the end, the tree becomes happy again when the boy finally gives her what she wants, by spending time with her even if he only did it because he needed somewhere to sit. It both reinforces how humble and kind the tree is, while also pushing the reader to show gratitude even in any way they can even if it feels insignificant. I mean how can the boy possibly repay her for everything she did for him? He cant, but be just sat with her and that made her happy.
We have all been that boy at his worst, so that guilt is a good sign we are able to acknowledge others.
The kid is a sociopath.
Came here with this thought
which... is good to a certain degree. i had a father who would remind us how expensive and exhausting having kids was on more than one occasion, and it basically made me feel guilty for fucking existing, which isn't fair to an 11 year old. its one thing to teach kids not to be greedy, its another to make them feel guilty that they have, ya know, needs and wants, like everyone does???
@@sovietunion7643 Ultimately I dont think guilt is the right word for it, rather the story encourages kids to *appreciate* the sacrifices their parents make for them. Theres a difference between being shown through a story that you should be thankful for those sacrifices, vs being constantly made to feel like a burden by the people who *should* be happy to make sacrifices for you.
It pisses me off when people interpret a work of art negatively and then go, "this means the creator is a bad person" or "the creator is a bad person, i guess that explains this terrible work of art."
What a terrible, reductive way of reading creativity.
That "psychiatrist" seems like yet another over-educated airhead who's all academia and zero knowledge. "Um yeah if I allot diagnoses 57-B to this pattern of behavior, people will be so impressed by my ability to regurgitate psychiatry textbooks."
Having a doctorate seldom makes for a wise intellectual who can apply knowledge abstractly, just someone who proved they can take tests well.
well said. i guess something similar is 'i dont like the message, so i dont like the art', which i think is equally bizarre.
Yeah, this gets on my nerves too. Amazing, inspiring people can make incredibly disturbing or unsettling art, and be no less wonderful because of it. Same is true in reverse. Some great artists have turned out to be terrible people, but that doesn't mean their work, once so revered and moving, was suddenly made worthless and "always trash". It is an uncomfortable truth, but a necessary one to understand, I think
exactly this, i see too many people hating on pieces of art that are so beautifully written or painted, just because the artist behind it was a bad person
This attitude is seriously detrimental to art, because now whenever someone doesn't like a work of art be it a song, or film the first thing they do is an attack upon the creator.
The super harsh critics of this book saying that at the end “there’s nothing left” are too focused on the outcome. “the tree gives and gives and gives for what?” so that the boy could grow up loved, so that he could know he was always loved, and so that he could live his whole life having a home to come back to for comfort and support, that’s what it was all for. And although it’s not under better circumstances, the boy does come back at the end of his life to spend time in this place of comfort and love, his home, with the tree.
I mean, he does. But at the end, he's still not happy.
He has a place to settle for.
But is that really true comfort?
Besides, at that point, knowing you took everything away from the person who cares the most about you, and knowing it's too late to go back...
Would YOU feel comforted?
I know i wouldn't.
Heck, i'd be filled with dread.
I don't think the experience shown in the book was meant to be a good thing.
I think it is entirely up to interpretation.
A truly selfless sacrifice is not something to be only saddened by. It can be a beautiful thing.
I always associated the tree with a motherly figure. As a mother, I'd give all of myself to my children. And I would not want them to be sad for this.
He is sad she is gone, not because he feels a burden.
@thatoneundertalefanatic
@@carcarbinx98 and that's why i don't want to be a dad.
I don't want to stop valuing myself as a human being and to just dedicate myself in my entirety to someone else
@@thatoneundertalefanatic There's a healthy balance that is hard to find, but ultimately, you are indeed doing so. My life could be entirely different. It's surreal to think about.
Honey, she’s destroyed in the process. He literally cuts her down.
Referring to the video by Doctor Ramani, I don't really get the idea that writing a story about an abusive relationship necessarily means that you're fucked in the head or something
Yeah, that definitely got a very 😬 reaction out of me
Agree. Thought she'd had a more thought out response than that
each horror writer ever:
Yeah. That was way too reductiveand made a lot of assumptions.
Goes to show that even psychologists, those trained and educated on how the mind works and how to help, have biases. Her response reminds me of the "if you are a hammer, all you see are nails" dilemma.
i really don't like it when people say books like this are too complex for children. i read this book when i was a very young child, and i knew what it was trying to tell me very easily. children are not stupid, they can understand very complex, deep, and emotional things.
i remember very distinctly how reading this book humanized my mother to me. when you're very young, you might often think of your parents as wells that you can draw from infinitely, in one way or another - be it emotionally, or materially depending on your situation, whether you're poor, etc.
but it was so obvious to me that the tree was like a mother who gave too much of herself, and it made me think about my own mother in a very different way. i came to appreciate her more, and it made me want to be more giving myself.
i think it's actually very important for children to experience these types of stories, in order to broaden their experiences in a safe way, and allow them to think critically about their feelings and about the other people around them. it was stories like this that always left lasting impressions on me that i carried through many years of my life.
I actually never thought of the story that way….I’m going to talk to my mom now.
It was too painful for me. I understood what it meant, but it made me cry for months. It wasn't really a safe way for me to learn it because it turns out I have mental health issues and am very prone to suicidal ideation. I couldn't cope as a child. I was too young. Please consider that some children are MUCH more sensitive than others. I felt so much guilt. And, I truly considered the idea that maybe the book was supposed to represent love. There are so many possible misinterpretations which can easily be more likely based on home circumstances.
If I did think of the tree as my mother, it would not have been good. I already had too much guilt and struggled with verbal abuse that could've easily escalated into physical territory.
Also, some children mature faster than others. I'm aware that I was much faster in some aspects and simply f***** in others.
It's just ... not something a child needs. There are much better ways to learn. If you focus on teaching a child to be selflessness until individuals prove boundaries are needed, they will easily come to these conclusions on their own. As they age, they deepen their understanding of why naturally.
I completely agree. I hate when people claim that something is too complex for them to understand and in my opinion really shows how little they actually socialize with kids in the first place. Kids understand this stuff, they can make their own interpretations, and it's important for their growth for them to do so. I think a lot of people think children are stupid simply because they tend to be unwise.
I wish I had read this book more carefully as a child. Or maybe I was the stupid child that these adults assume all kids are like, because I never understood the metaphor. I dehumanized my mother her whole life, expecting her to always give without receiving because that was her job. I regret it every day, and long for a stump to return to.
Yeah, I remember thinking that I don't want my mom to be a stump so I should probably give back.
As a parent, the idea that a child cannot understand such things is ridiculous. Children are capable of processing complex emotions. If anything, a child *should* have the opportunity to grapple with such complex emotional ideas.
As a parent, there is nothing more "parental" than sacrifice. Your time, your patience, your money, your health, your dreams... You must, *must* sacrifice to raise children. Too many people look at the book as a relationship between equals, but the tree was never an equal, it was parental. My mother told me, "You'll grow old but you'll always be my baby." And to the tree, to her, he will always be her "boy".
All relationships involves give and take. Every child will, on some level, engage with other children by either being more giving or taking; the idea that this will be foreign, or too complex, for a child is absurd. The story feels so powerful (in my opinion) because it takes to an extreme a fundamental aspect of all social interactions.
Yes, thank you. I absolutely abhor the idea so many people seem to have that children are incapable of understanding deep and complex subjects. And that everything for children must be perfect happy, colourful and straightforward.
It's an insult to children, most of whole have to deal with real world difficulties. Divorce, death of a family member, abuse, poverty etc. are real things that real children go through. If everything we feed them is purely happy and go lucky, what good is that going to do for them? It won't help them prepare for or deal with anything in the real world.
In short, kids aren't idiots, and they deserve better than mindless junk in their books, movies and tv shows.
Your point about sacrifice is also 100% spot on. Although kids shouldn't be ungrateful and learn to give back as they grow older, the very nature of being a parent IS to sacrifice. That's the beauty of parenthood. That parents would literally give their lives for their children without even a shred of hesitation.
I seem to recall a study that found that children who are confronted with difficult topics while children (of course in a way that doesn't actually hurt them) grow up to be better adjusted adults.
I very much agree the book was parental and not equal. That being said, give and take dynamics can appear anywhere, including friendships so I don't think this book is inappropriate for most kids that can grasp metaphors. Maybe it could have them reflect on any relationships they are giving or taking too much from. Still, maybe it would be nice if there were a call to action at the end, such as the tree and boy acknowledging ways they could have improved things just for that learning aspect of children's books
In regards to parental sacrifice, yes of course there are things that parents give up so they can raise their kids as best they can. One message I took away from this book, however, is that some sacrifices become unnecessary and a once selfless act can become a selfish behaviour. The tree continues to sacrifice herself to nothing as the boy grows older after the book states the tree is sad following the boy's absence. The tree tells the boy that accepting those sacrifices will make him happy, not as advice but as a statement.
I don't think either character is malicious or intentionally selfish, I see it as a warning of what might happen when someone struggles to accept relationship dynamics change but in the end, the boy came back even when the tree had nothing left to offer
I disagree with the idea that this book is too complicated for children to understand as it was my favorite book as a kid. When I first read the book I understood that it was about a parents unconditional love for their child and I thought the ending was bittersweet; it was the first time I read a children's book that didn't have the "and everyone lived happily ever after" ending which I found refreshing and I ended up thinking about it for a while after I read it
How old were you? Because all I saw was that the child grew up and betrayed the tree
@@Gabriel_J33 i was read this from 3-7 or 8. I thought the same as noelle, but probably around 7.
Same! And I’ll read it to my kids someday
@theresanoelle I actually did see the same thing I js didn't attribute it to a parent
Both characters are unavoidable aspects of the human experience. You’ve been “the boy”, you’ll be the tree.
Well said.
True that. "The Giving Tree" makes us aware of that fact. Awareness is the key.
@@lenchasanchez5158 what happens when you go over both phases? I am currently, only busy with helping people set their lives straight if I met them before, finishing being a good person, I've decided that I've helped enough and have suffered way too many permanent physical scarrings to endure on.
Have you actually been past both?
I've seen many people that don't do a lot of giving even when they're old
@@secretname2670 no one's past anything
The man from the bookclub points out that the human character, even as an old man, is still referred to as a "boy." This reinforces the motif of the tree as a maternal figure! Because no matter how old he gets, she will always view him as a boy. And she will always love him
why is everyone here so dedicated to strictly gendering a tree? i never saw it as a mother or a woman growing up. could it not be a commentary on the relative shortness of human life compared to that of, say, a tree? i also thought that’s what was implied by the massive passage of time between the interactions with the boy and the tree
@@fairyeaterwell, everyone has their own interpretations! motherhood is indeed a very common theme in a lot of children's books, and though perhaps the more egalitarian view would associate the tree as a parent, it is generally the norm (not necessarily what is good or bad - just what is commonplace) to associate unconditional generosity with motherhood. but I think your interpretation is just as interesting and valuable. there is certainly a theme of time in the book, and how time does not change unconditional love. all's this to say - multiple interpretations can exist! it's far more interesting to discuss and share them all than insist one is more correct over the others :)
@@fairyeater Because the tree can also act as a representation of Mother Nature, something that humans have gendered as female for as long as we've been able to write, and likely long before that even.
Personally, I believe the tree is meant to act as a parental figure to the boy (as do a lot of people), and most will liken it's sacrificial nature and unconditional love for the boy to a mother.
@@fairyeater I mean the tree sounds like a mother in the animated version and the story being about motherhood makes sense. I see why people do that
@@fairyeater A lot of languages have 'tree' as a gendered noun in the feminine declension, such as Latin. Objects being gendered is a part of most human societies - I do not know why, or if anyone really does, as every language teacher I have been with have not been able to explain as to why this is - anyways, as such, many people will see objects as either 'feminine,' or 'masculine,' or even 'neuter' (which is literally translated as "neither" from Latin). I see the gender movement of today's society as almost a revival for the concept of gender in the English language and other "developed" languages [I use quotation marks here as I personally believe the most developed language to exist would be the Sanskrit language (the ancestor to modern languages in the Indian subcontinent), at least in written form].
The "The Tree was happy... but not really" line being on _that_ particular interaction has a simple explanation that I didn't see anyone bring up -- The Tree is not happy, because the boy is leaving. The Tree helps The Boy leave because it still wants to help, but wishes The Boy wouldn't leave.
That’s a great interpretation
Another point to add to this is that by the time the boy wants to leave he is an older man and this may well be the final time they meet.
Another interpretation I thought of was that Shel Silverstein put it at that specific part to reframe and recontextualize the lines before it while your reading. That single line acts as the seed of doubt that causes you to wonder more truly if the tree really is happy giving everything she has to the child.
thats what i was thinking too
I think it comes at that specific interaction because, compared to any prior time, the tree truly believes that what it had to give was taken from it, permanently. What could it offer as a stump? Surely the boy won't be back, there's nothing left to come back to.
And yet miraculously, the stump ends up being exactly what the boy needs, and he does come back, and she is happy without caveat.
I’m actually shocked that The Giving Tree is interpreted as “wrong” when even as a kid I was able to recognize the actual messages behind the book
Wtf out of the few screenshots on my computer your pfp is one of them 😭
@@TheRealSoftR he’s my inspiration
People have different beliefs people disagree with the message
Yeah. Like. I saw it as a kind, cozy, and forlorn little tree, giving all of it's love to another, and the boy finding his way back with time.
A sad, sad thing. But touching. And warm.
It helps thst i really liekd shel silverstein's works before it, and hsed to read a lot of childrens poetry stories and prose.
@@danielmallory4687I'm pretty sure the message is, "don't take the kindness of others for granted," what is there to disagree with?
I think Solar Sands’ mother caught on to an extent. The book is about unconditional love. Unconditional love doesn’t always appear fair from the outside, It’s not transactional. It can wear one down, and even lead to sadness, but it won’t fade even in the midst of that. That’s why it’s unconditional, and beautifully tragic.
It makes sense with the initial part where the tree gets along with the boy so to the point to start loving his company. But all we know that love hurts, sometimes...
I don’t think the moral is 'unconditional love is tragically beautiful' but rather that said love should be expressed in a way that helps you and the person you care for long term, lest it become something painful. You can feel unconditional love without acting on that feeling in ways that hurt yourself, and the book's sad ending is meant to plead thar readers find those healthy ways.
(I don't mean to be rude or contrary, just to add to the discussion)
It is kind of why you see the worst serial killers still get visits from family sometimes. Yes, your son may be a murderer, but he is still your son, and for some people that fact alone means some level of love is unconditionally given.
the idea that this tragedy is the natural outcome of something ppl wanna label as "unconditional love" perpetuates harmful stereotypes about relationships, and you know, just SO WEIRD that the one who feels compelled to give & give till it destroys them is a *lady* & the one who loves, oblivious to how destructive they are, is just a *boy* playing around & living his life
i think our boy's a little salty at the tree, tbh. i mean he misses her & blames himself, but he can see in hindsight that she had a lot of control over how much he hurt her. it's not okay to use a person who loves you as the instrument of your demise
I kind of see her perspective. The boy isn’t selfish. And the tree wants what’s best for the boy.
The tree finds happiness in providing for the boy. And honestly sometimes there’s nothing you can do as a parent to make your kids happy and live a fulfilling life.
I mean the story about the grandma giving food and herbs kind of reinforces that.
It’s pretty easy for us without children to judge the actions of our and other parents.
But I have a feeling that once we do have children. Well probably side with the trees actions as justifiable.
My siblings and I used to prank each other by hiding this book under our pillows. The self portrait always scared us xD
Brett Gelman?
I'M SO GLAD I WASN'T THE ONLY ONE!😂😭
Greg Heffley moment (yes that happened in one of the books)
lmfao
Kinda weird seeing you here, not two people I'd expect to see in the same place
I love how everyone just agrees that Shel Silverstein's face on the back scared them as a kid
It didn't scare me as a child. It reminded me of that one cool uncle who would actually talk to you as a person, not a child.
“If you get out of bed again tonight, you’ll probably run into Shel Silverstein in the hallway”
5:08
his poem “dreadful” wouldn’t make it any better.
@@DizzyingKaleidoscope Diary of a Wimpy Kid?
A piece of art making you uncomfortable, upset, or even angry doesn’t make it bad.
Provoking thought and reflection in the consumer is kind of the entire point of art.
art that makes me feel these emotions are often some of the best, most hard hitting pieces of art. they're some of the most beautiful and wonderful pieces of art, despite not giving off many positive feelings.
Another point that seems nobody is seeing is that the tree never gives what the boy is asking for directly. He is not just pretending; he always asks after expressing what he desires. He asks for money, and the tree gives him apples which he has to sell to gain the money. He asks for a home, and the tree gives him her branches, but he has to build it and create the family he desires. He asks for a boat, and the tree gives him her trunk, but he has to build the boat and restart his life. We don't know what happens before this request, whether he lost his family or was never able to obtain it, but we know he wants to leave.
And at the end, as I mentioned in my other message, he could rest anywhere he wanted, but he decided to go back to the tree and ask her.
this is an extremely interesting and complex point of view about this book from the "opposite" opinion that I've never encountered. youve given me a lot to think about, thank you 😊
I also think when he wishes to leave. It isn’t always a bad thing he wanted to.
Maybe he realized he growing old, and wished to travel. If he wished to leave and stay gone.
He would not have returned, either he changed his mind to wished to return.
And at some level the boy cares for the tree, he may not express it. But he returns even after many years, never forgetting the tree. Even when the tree is but a short stump, he still returns. Just to sit next to the tree.
Is he a good person? We don’t know. And that makes him more human. You can see yourself as both sides and I like that about it. We are both sides at various points in our lives. For good and bad, we give and we take.
Exactly. The academic that said the boy was harmed due to the giving because it made him not able to fend for himself is so stupid.
He literally still has to work and put effort in.
It’s crazy how if we see a man cutting down an tree without asking the tree and building a house, he is self reliant, but if he asks the tree and the tree says “take my wood to build a house,” then suddenly a supposed intelligent academic concludes that the boy is not able to fend for himself
It is so absurd as to be laughably pathetic
Almost every take in this video just made me realize most humans are dumb.
The boy is ‘soulless’ for not being directly given what he asks for but still had to work for it. How is that soulless?
Saying the boy is malicious, or wrong for just ‘taking.’ He isn’t just taking ffs; he literally built a house and presumably had a family he supplied for.
Saying he just wasted the apples. Wtf. He brought them to market so people could savor their apply goodness.
The mom’s, the dad’s take, the book club’s take, the doctor’s take… were all worthless and massively ignorant.
Ironically, this makes them the selfish ones that cannot see beyond their own biased perspective.
They just inject their emotions into it and ignore everything. Not once did anyone step back and actually analyze it and even ask if their emotional response was even warranted or appropriate.
This is true selfishness, when people just operate off their emotions and do whatever and say whatever to satiate them
@@pyropulseIXXI
I can see both sides, but I don't see many interpretations of the story as "idiotic" since the story is vague enough for most to project their life experience onto the story. I do think it's wrong to claim any one way is right especially if someone has to use their degree for why they formed their personal interpretation.
That said, the story is metaphorical, which is pretty clear given that there's a sentient tree communicating with this "boy" for his entire lifespan.
I personally don't think the gender matters heavily in this story, many poems and stories assign genders to things that are not gendered or human to create a relatable metaphor. The core plot is about a give and take relationship dynamic that goes too far. This can happen between any genders.
The requests by the boy, and the things he takes and does can't be applied to a literal sense. They're all metaphors, and if you read again you might notice they could be around the basic needs; money = food and water, house = shelter, wife and kids = community.
I think the interpretation of the book being one where the boy is heavily reliant on the tree works best when looked at from a caretaker/child dynamic. The boy using the branches to build a house wouldn't not be taking literally in this context, and what he actually does is not important as the main point is the tree (aka the caretaker) sacrifices things they actually needed. It could be a mother giving her son a weeks worth of food she needed for herself, or a father covering his daughters rent when he is behind and at risk of homelessness himself. That's the thing about art, people are able to apply things they have gone through to these metaphors.
Both sides are either unaware of how damaging the dynamic is, or unwilling to accept fault and responsibility so it never gets addressed.
The tree is happy "but not really" because the boy is leaving. She's happy because she was able to help him again but sad because he won't be around anymore.
This is right
Right she is not happy because she knows she doesn't have anything else to give.
I believe that the interpretation isn't simple enough for a normal child to fully understand. Adults don't seem to be that capable of understanding either.
Art is at it's best when left up to interpretation, sure. Me, like many others, read this book as a child. My initial interpretation as a kid was that the tree just simply enjoyed giving, and that boy respectfully utilized this tree throughout his long life. The ending was melancholy as I had recognized that for the boy, it was the end of his life, yet I never feared for the tree's. I saw her as a LITERAL tree (despite it's magical appearance), one that resides in a forest where there are many others like it, yet the boy chose her in specific.
What do we expect the boy to do? It's likely that he has his own family. He wasn't raised by this magical tree. He lived an entire life filled with trials and tribulations just as a normal human would. He even brought back some of his first loves to this special tree of his.
Many people experience this phenomena. Growing up, we would have our preferred places to meet up. A rock, a tree, an old building, some sort of landmark. As our lives progress and we become swamped with more and more responsibility, it can be difficult to find the time or the will to return to these places. Often we forget about the significance of these landmarks, until seemingly at random our minds dig up core memories, and beckon us to return.
The tree in the story had been around far longer than the boy. It was fully grown when he was just a small child, and had not shown signs of deteriorating, even throughout the long life of the boy. The boy had given meaning to this tree, and she potentially felt indebted towards this display of trust and/or interest as nobody else had given her this throughout her entire life prior to meeting him. What @RelativelyBest said is true. She's unhappy because her life's purpose has left. Maybe she's unhappy knowing that the boy is sad and wants to escape, and can no longer help him in her current state. She will likely never be able to grow fast enough to provide anything else meaningful for him in his fading life (we find this to be untrue later on, as even just her stump was enough for the boy as an elder).
She made it her life's purpose to provide out of pure altruism. One can even interpret that she was completely fine with making these sacrifices, as she can just grow back, or simply willing to die. That's how I saw it when I was young.
The boy was never violent, unappreciative, or demanding. He knew that he could trust this tree in his worst moments, as every time he came back to her he was seeking something in times of dire need. As I've talked about earlier in my reply, many people do this. Returning to childhood places to find something within themselves, reconnecting with a forgotten past. Sometimes these landmarks can be lost to time. I'm only 22, and my little old town has lost nearly all that made it what it once was. The antique shop has been gone for years. The grocery, the hardware store. All of the local businesses were demolished post-covid. The small amount of money these stores made prior to covid came from elderly individuals.
In the end of the story, you can see a sense of calm, even a little smile in the now-elderly boy's face. His posture is relaxed and subtly contemplative, like he's reminiscing. I take this as a sign of internal reconciliation in the face of death. Maybe he never had time to reconcile with himself throughout his busy life. Now he finally has time to rest and appreciate the gifts that he was given by the tree. I was never sad for the tree, I was sad for the boy as had I assumed his life to be difficult, his childlike innocence progressively fading as time went on. But at least he dies happy. The tree can grow back, it can live for hundreds of years, humans cannot. I think the tree knows this.
For some reason, I have a weird Mandela effect memory about this book ending with the elderly man dying and being buried next to the tree, as the stump begins to sprout a new trunk. Either that, or a sapling grew next the the grave on the opposite side. I can't really remember. This "memory" came to me after watching the end of this video as for some reason it gave me Deja-vu. Maybe I drew a sapling or a grave in this book when I was young? I'm not sure. Honestly, an ending like this could do wonders to cull any negative feelings people might've had for the boy while retaining it's melancholic ending. Could also add some commentary on how nature resumes without us, though in some magical way it'll miss us once we're gone.
@@casserCOMbeautiful comment! Thank you for sharing your interpretation.
This makes me think of parents working to get their child into college, and they’re happy to see them get in and succeed, but that also means their child is growing up and leaving.
I quickly got the impression that the tree was giving in hopes the boy would stay, that she was thinking “after I give him this, he’ll be happy and satisfied, and he’ll stay with me again.”
She loved him too much to tell him she was upset at him, so she just kept giving more of herself in hopes that this time would be the last.
I think that really speaks to the fact that healthy relationships require you to admit when you’re unhappy, that if somebody really loves you, you can work out your issues together instead of just acting like nothing’s wrong.
It's such a cool book because I interpreted the story so differently: I never projected any resentment or sadness onto the tree's actions, nor any ill intent from the boy, so I read it as a meditation on finding happiness by the act of giving to a loved one. There's definitely something to be said about how one-sided it is, but I guess I also viewed the boy & tree as a family relationship, so the imbalance in their dynamic wasn't as harmful as it would be for friends/romantic partners (which I guess also speaks to my own values, lol)
The fact there are multiple valid interpretations of the same story is the mark of a great allegory.
It depends on if you take the author's word for it.
If you do that, the tree is genuinely happy, happy to give of itself... but when its a stump and just kind of left in the dust, it knows next time the boy comes she wont be able to give anything... so kind of happy, to help him once more, but not really knowing she wont be able to next time.
Which leads to the end of the book where it turns out she can, one last time, give him something...
Parenthood. These days if you tell your child you’re unhappy with what they did, they will just stop speaking to you, cut you out of their lives. Who wants to take that risk?
The tree was "giving" even when the boy was visiting daily, so no.
There is nothing in the text to suggest that the tree "gives" for selfish reasons.
I thoroughly enjoyed this essay. When I first read this book, when I was teaching Nursery School, I thought that this story had a sad ending, but spoke about self-sacrifice, and how loving unconditionally is a message we can all learn from. After all, even though the tree was a stump at the end, she still could give love to the boy who was now an old man, by giving him a place to sit and rest -- kknd of final salute about the celebration of life. Also, a reminder~ this book was writtten in the 60's -- when conservation of wildlife was not a popular theme, but Silverstein was wise enough to bring it to our collective consciousness.
My interpretation of the reason why the tree was "happy, but not really" is because she thought the boy was gone. It was the only line that clearly stated that the boy successfully sailed away, which could show that from her perspective he was really gone.
In the end, she was happy again because the boy did eventually return. What made her happy was that the boy was there.
Edit: Also I think part of the point was that the boy was never happy from things from the tree, but he was happy with the tree itself. He misunderstood what gave him happiness for so many years, which led him to take more and more material things until in the end he was happy just resting on a stump.
TLDR: The tree is not happy because she gives. The boy is not happy because he takes. They misunderstand the fact that they are happy because the other is there.
I very much agree with this. It's been my interpretation for as long as I can remember.
I feel like the whole point of the book is that the tree always has something to give, so I don't think your conclusion is all there is to it
Wow I just posted a very similar comment before scrolling down and seeing this. I'm surprised that no one in the video had this interpretation. In my childhood I always thought that was the intent of the story.
Thanks for the TLDR or I would have been reading that over and over til the video ended
XD
I was just about to post this same interpretation
One weakness of this video was that you only asked adults, people who thought kids were too dumb to get this story. Shel Silverstein, for all his flaws, at least didn't speak down to kids as dummies, but rather as human beings.
miles edgeworth
My father would always read me stuff from authors like Shel Silverstein and Roald Dahl. They would read me literature that would allow me to think and I look back with gratitude.
That's why I am grateful my parents had me watching shows like Thomas The Tank Engine (Seasons 1-5) which did not treat kids like idiots and treated them with a level of intelligence.
As the late Rev. Wilbert Awdry (writer of 'The Railway Series', which inspired the Thomas show) said "You're not merely writing for children, you are writing for the unfortunate people who've got to read the stories over, and over, and over again."
I WISH more book writers, film makers, corporations, parents, etc. would take Mr Awdry's words to heart.
Exactly. The whole time I was just reminding myself that I understood a lot of complex things when I was kid. And one of those things is knowing that having too much won’t make you happy (I was young when I made the revelation)
The ability to write seemingly simple yet complex stories like this is a highly under-appreciated art. I sometimes remember when Maurice Sendak stated, "I don't write for children. I write, and then somebody says, 'That's for children.'"
I think what people misunderstand about this story is the flow of time. It doesn't happen in 5 days. It happens over the span of roughly 80 years. I don't think the boy was being selfish or demanding. Instead, I believe the opposite. He only takes when he truly needs it. He comes in asking for apples to sell them at a market, not to eat them and throw the cores into landfills. For all we know, there very well could be kids and adults who buried seeds from the apple. He asks the tree for a house not to build a McMansion, but to support his wife and kids. This might be a stretch, but I believe he wants the boat as his wife and children had died, and the place were he lived had only brought back painful memories of a happier time. And, when the child, now an old man, comes to the tree for the final time, he does not ask of anything of her. He only sits because the tree tells him he can. I believe the tree only wants what is best for the boy, and doesn't realize how self-destructive she is until it's too late. To cap this off, I believe I know why the tree was happy, but not really. The tree loved seeing the boy, and him using her as a boat only means he'll get farther away.
I think, on top of her being sad because he's going away potentially forever, I think she may have realized she had nothing left to give to him after that. She had to come to terms with no longer being able to help him like she could before
There was also the possibility that the boy would go so far away that he would never come back.
I always assumed up until that point he stayed in the relative area of the tree.
I think that the story seems like it goes by in 5 days because it is being presented on the timescale of the tree. A tree's lifespan puts a tall shadow to that of any animal, especially humans. So maybe, to the tree, this boy really did grow up in what seemed to her like 5 days. Maybe the tree operated on a timescale so vast that the decades between each interaction with the boy later and later in his life felt so small that she didn't mind the gaps, but when he sailed away, the idea of him not coming back at all still had the same effect on the tree as to us.
I think there might be a sort of genius in the story in that you aren't given the insight into the boy's mind, how much he recognizes the tree's sacrifice or does not. It's why there's such a wide variety of interpretations and conclusions one can draw from it -- an infinitely lesser story would be the Topher Payne one that moralizes *_to you_* about what you're supposed to be thinking. "Look at you, only ever taking and giving nothing in return!" For all the reader knows, the boy *_is_* planting more trees; the boy did or did not have a family; the family (reminiscent of Harry Chapin's legendary _Cat's in the Cradle_ song) may have taken much from the boy and abandoned him in his old age, or quite the opposite; maybe he's happy that he has his grandkids with their own trees, but this boy, he's returning to the tree because in all his life, when he thinks back on it, it was his best friend...
perhaps when he went to sleep every night of his life, it was that tree he was thinking of...
or perhaps he was completely selfish, never once even thinking of the sacrifices that have been made for him.
It's interesting to me that that seems to be the conclusion all the commie redditors come to, that the boy simply never recognizes the sacrifice. They fervently believe, almost as a matter of faith, in the worst... Extremely ironic, I must say. Sounds like projection of the awareness of their own shortcomings....
but I think the real truth is: who are we to say? who are we to interpret other peoples' relationships with one another? How many unknown unknowns are there -- how many gaps in the story do we fill in with our imaginations, positive or negative, and how many of those assumptions are really just saying so much more about ourselves?
@@TransRoofKorean Great analysis, but you do realize the irony of a statement like "the conclusion all the commie redditors come to," right?
"This story is bad because it has a depressing ending"
Insanely baffling how some people actually think this way
I can only assume this stems from the fact it's a children's book and we all know we should never think critically when it comes to children's entertainment
honestly, I hate the idea of people thinking children cannot understand this. as a child, I remember reading it and the massage was clear to me. neither of them were role models, and I knew for sure the book wasn't glorifying it as well.
children are not stupid, and, if given the chance too, can understand much complex emotions. I just wish adults don't forget that.
I think adults are the real idiots sometimes.
Exactly. People who underestimate their children will stunt their growth, tbh
@@Smile200-z4y I remember being a kid and suspecting that lots of adults aren't that smart, that they're hide behind the assumption they're smart by virtue of their age. But it took many years of maturing and life experience before I realized I was 100% right.
@@jeffersonclippership2588haha yep
Yeah adults see children the way people see animals. They’re not as dumb as we make them out to be, it’s very obvious in modern media how dumb adults think children are. The way they hammer in the moral of the story and spell it out for them
"...but not really" as a mom, I can say that line really hits. I have three sons and I loved when they were little enough to play and I was the coolest human they knew. They got older and it was me asking to maybe play a tabletop game if they could manage, but I have always been happy to give my time or anything I could. I would even say if I could give my limbs to know they had good homes, I would. The day I had them, though i love myself, they come first. "...but not really" ... so back to the start here. That ask was different. The mother/tree was still happy to be able to provide, but on that occasion the boy was asking for the means to leave. The last time she was able to be happy again as he returned.
I think one thing I have not heard anyone mention yet is the boys actual love for the tree. It is in the perspective of a much older generation that and I will not disagree with those who say his actions did not show gratitude, but I understand how she would be happy and why. It's not *just* that he came back. The older he got the more dissatisfied he got. That is real af, but when he needed comfort and he always came to the tree, sure he would find it. Are we to believe that he could not find a chair? I would say he did not just want to sit just anywhere. He had his boat and was out... he came back to be with her.
That last line hit me pretty hard. I've definetly been the boy before, taking the unconditional love my mom has for me for granted, but the older I get the more aware I am of the sacrifices she had to make for me. I also took my chance to sail away on that boat, but eventually came back. But not to keep taking, but to finally start giving back. I hope your relationship with your sons is still going strong.
That is beautiful. Thank you. Yes, it gets stronger again as they age. I feel like it's just the natural flow of things. We need to give our children space to make their own way, but if done right, most people return to their roots before the end.
Well said
Also if the hadn't "given" him so much of what he thought he needed (and she did have exactly "it" every time), he couldn't now that he is old sit on her , be together and make her happy 😉
I love this comment. Ever since I was like 4 when my mom would read the book to me before bed I understood that the tree wasn't really a tree and it was a metaphor for his mom. Frankly, I didn't know people were this upset about it to go so far as to rewrite the story, but I think it's baffling that someone might get a different moral than motherhood from the story, but I guess it's just one of those things where everyone can see something different in a piece of art.
Anyways, when I got a little older and reflected on memories of the book I kinda came to the conclusion that when he takes the trunk, she's not a tree any more (signifies her passing, and the trunk was what sheer had left to give in her will) and when he returns as a very old man and the tree is happy, he passed away too and now they're together again.
One even said “The Giving Tree” is actually about growing up and nostalgia. First, it’s as simple as climbing the tree and playing. Then, the tree is utilized for more labor-oriented purposes, and the tree missing the boy playing is a stand-in for missing those innocent days when one is a child, yet still growing up. Soon, there’s no more tree, just the stump, and the boy, now an old man goes to the stump, meaning, though his childhood days are gone, he still has the memory of them and the nostalgia.
The interpretation says it’s about nostalgia and the loss of childhood into adulthood. That’s why even adults cry when reading it.
@FayeLawnKrack3d yes, I fully agree. My interpretation is that the tree is meant to be a representation of the boy's memories of his mother, not the mother herself. He revisits his memories of his mother and the lessons she gave him as he ages. His life seems to be imperfect, as he coldly dismantles and repurposes his memories of her for his own needs, sacrificing the innocence and warmth that once filled his mind for utility. At the end of the book, when the boy is an old man, the tree has been reduced to a stump, and the boy's real mother is likely long dead, he returns once again to his memory of her just to reminisce. It's a story meant to convey to children that one day, they will grow old and their parents will be nothing but a happy memory. It's sad, but that's how this unavoidable aspect of life is.
I feel this is close to my reading, which is that, trees don't talk, and the boy is seeing his memories and imagination in the tree's dialogue. So as he keeps returning to the tree he remembers what he once needed and how he could use the tree for happiness, but what happiness means to him as he grows. I don't see it as "taking" from a person, but using a resource while also feeling that guilt as you use something until it's gone and can be used for nothing more than the memories and nostalgia of what it once was.
This is why I loved this book so much, because there are multiple interpretations to be taken from it, the face value story as it pertains to social relationships and learning how to interact with the world when you're a kid, and then there's a whole storyline out of it as one ages. It hits way different at 26 than it did for me at 7, that's for sure. 😊
I love this
I remember when I was little that is the kind of emotion that was invoked in me. I felt a certain sorrow and pain for the tree and story while feeling that same sense of nostalgia, the bitter sweet longing of some sort of comfot
I made my interpretation:
The kid plays with the tree and he's happy. He could have played with any tree in the forest, but he decides to be with that specific tree. Note also that the tree says that she's on a forest, but she feels alone when the boy leaves. It's a special relationship for both of them, and during that period, they both feel fullfilled.
Then, the boy grows. He isn't as naive and innocent and knows that he can't be a kid forever. So he decides that the best way to assure his happiness is by making money. But he doesn't know how, so he asks help to the tree. The tree obviously can't give him money, and the kid knows that as he doesn't specify the tree to do anything to earn the money. The tree gives him the apples, and he sells them or whatever. The tree is happy, it's clear that she doesn't care about the apples, she can grow more and even invited the boy to eat them as he swinged on her branches. However, the tree was sad, not because of the apples, but because the boy just left. As a tree, she doesn't need much, so there's not much the kid can give her, except for his company.
Then, the boy must have felt that having money wasn't going to give him all the happiness he thought. He then thinks that maybe a family will do. He goes to the tree. I assume she can't grow apples anymore for whatever reason. The boy asks for a house because he wants a wive and kids, not because he has wive and kids. He takes the branches. I want to take a moment to note that the boy always asks. The tree could say no, so it's not an abusive relationship in my opinion.
The plan to start a family must have failed, because the boy just wants to leave. He's old and sad. He didn't live the life he wanted too or made many mistakes along the way. So he just wants to go on a boat and never go far away. The tree offers her trunk. I have two theories about why the tree wasn't happy as this point. Maybe she understood that she gave too much, the apples could grow again or weren't important, the branches could also grow again, but the trunk of a tree rarely grows again. Without trunk, there are no branches and apples, and nothing to give. Or else, the tree knew that the boy was old and wanted to leave, and maybe she couldn never see him again.
But the boy does return.
Whatever he wanted out of that trip, he never got it, and probably understood that money, family, or the place where you live isn't going to give you happiness on it's own. So he returns where he was happy: with the tree. The tree doesn't have anything to give. And the boy doesn't want to recieve anything. He can't, even.
So he just sits.
The tree's happiness resides on the company of the kid. He's arguebly anything that matters to her. And the kid wasn't sure where he's happiness was. Even when she has nothing, she apologizes, and tries and gives him the last thing she has. The boy tried to find happiness in many ways, but failed in all of them. It's not clear why he returns. Why he wants to rest with the tree. The could have just sit anywhere. I think he deliberately went with the tree because he understood, after so much time, that the tree loved being with him. So he tries to make the tree happy.
I know it might not be the best interpretation, and I may have forgotten about anything important, but that's what I was able to understand.
I like your interpretation
@@dustrose8101 I'm impressed that you were able to understand it with all the unholy grammatical and spelling mistakes I made.
@Rukiman_no16 trust me I've read things with far worse spelling and grammar
People misinterpret the line "...but not really". It has to be taken in the context of the conversation. There's an old man stating he is sad and wishing to leave. If The Boy had a home and a family, then why was he demoralized and wishing to escape? Did storm or war take his family and home? Was there a bad divorce, and the limb-built house and children got awarded to the ex?
The Tree was reacting to The Boy finding such great dissatisfaction with life that he would choose to go alone, abandoned by or abandoning everything, including the lands he'd lived in for all his long years. The Tree could see that The Boy was hurt.
The Tree could see that The Boy was hurt.
Holy shit... *HE'S RIGHT!*
This is kind of what I got from this part as well. I think it is most meaningful from the perspective of the boy's life. It's obvious to say that he should've given more back to the tree, but you have to consider how reasonable each circumstance is to do so.
Before being an adult, it isn't likely he would be able to offer much besides his company and appreciation. Elaborating on the appreciation; even though the book doesn't show it, I do think he is very thankful for each time the tree helps and by the time he is an adult, he would probably like to give a little back if he could (or even spend more time if he could), but everything else that he is dealing with (and implied failures) ends up making those things far less feasible.
The Tree however is understanding of this, to a fault. This is why she is still happy most of the time, because she knows that she is helping a lot at each point and is satisfied with the company and appreciation. The turning point of when she isn't happy is I think from the combination of her learning that the boy's plan with the house and family did not work out despite everything she has given up to that point, and that she had to give the most she ever has so he could get away from it, but that also meant from her. It's possible she felt that she has failed him in some way even if she did the most she could.
In this circumstance, I don't think he could've made her feel better even if he wanted to as long as he still wanted to leave because of the implications of everything leading up to it. By the end, she is happy he came back despite everything and finally having peace with him as something always got in the way of that. This is why I think he was always appreciative, he definitely would not have came back otherwise. I don't think any of this would've changed if the author wrote the boy to be more explicitly appreciative to her when his life would not be any different and the tree was happy regardless except when he left.
It's also easy to say that the tree should've not given him that much, but seeing the circumstances of his life, she would likely find it difficult to not help him due to the risk of it getting worse or souring the relationship with the boy in which she has already invested so much of herself into.
W interpretation
And she’s happy in the end because the boy is staying on the stump
Wow this is a REALLY good take
I work with children. After snack time, I always have story time. I recently read them (Them being a group of 4-5 y/o's) The Giving Tree. After finishing a story, I ask my kids questions about what I just read them (What was the lesson, How did this character feel, How did you feel about this, etc). But, after finishing this story, I felt stumped (haha). I looked towards my coworkers after asking what they thought the lesson of the story was. My coworkers (Who were also on the verge of tears after listening to the story for the first time since childhood) were equally unable to immediatly say what the moral of the story was. Most books I read are very strightforward: Stealing is bad, be nice to nature, don't litter, etc. And while all of this is perfectly fine and dandy, The Giving Tree presents a topic about relationships with other people that is not often talked about openly in childrens media. And I really appreciate how ambigious the ending and moral of the story was. Through this, my kids had to think harder and I had to ask more complex questions.
The ending is presented as happy. The Tree is described as being happy. Yet, after closing the book, one of my kids openly commented, "Wow. That story was really sad." Through that, I ask them why they thought it was sad. While chilrean obviously aren't the smartest creatures in the world, many people underestimate their emotional intelligence and understanding of the world around them. Becuase the moral is not clearly stated, it's going to have them thinking and remebering the book long after they last read it.
The next day at snack time, I overheard a conversation between two of my kids where one wanted some of his fruitsnacks. The other kid responded, "You can have some and I can have some. So we'll both be happy but not sad. Like the tree and the boy."
Also- When I turned the page and it showed the tree being a stump, some of my kids gasped alound. They were so engaged in it.
thats extremely powerful
Kids are super smart they just don't yet have the tools they need to communicate complex ideas nor the literacy to spot patterns and take shortcuts like us adults. Put our brains into the perspective of what a child knows and suddenly it's clear their ability for insight is incredible.
A general comment: Thank you for being a teacher. A difficult but critical job...
It really annoyed me to hear the one member of the book club claim that kids can't understand stories like this. Children are far more clever than we give them credit for, they like to be challenged and think critically. The way we teach them to understand complex relationships and emotions is by letting them engage with stories like the Giving Tree. We're doing them a great disservice if we only let them read nice simple stories where everything is unambiguously good just because we assume that's all they can handle
@@nickchambers3935 me too. we don’t give credit to children’s intelligence. i find it more helpful to them to let them engage in learning instead of just saying “this is what you need to memorize”. help them form their critical thinking! that is true learning
I love how he mouthed "im sorry" just before the ad placement lol
the rotoscoped solar was horrifying and caught me off gusrd
I was wondering what he said.
If he was sorry, he won't have sold out, lmao.
@@diegodankquixote-wry3242 An office worker sits and makes money every day for his entire life, and nobody says shit...
But oh noooo you're precious little UA-camr tries to make money for 2 minutes out of a FREE 40 minute video... And he's a villain...
@@diegodankquixote-wry3242Just having sponsors isn't selling out
This is one of the best videos I’ve seen on UA-cam. Contextualizing what came before and after Silverstein wrote the story gives humanity to what seemingly is a story and an author that lacks it, and you not only explained but also showed how controversial this book is. Not only that, but the video is well-scripted and made passionately. The Giving Tree is one of my favorite books for its tone, minimalist writing and unique visuals while also showing an excessive giver and enabler while showing the contrary. Thank you for making such a nice omen to it.
I think the point of "imagine a parent reading this story to their child" deserves more spotlight. Children's books aren't just something you give to the child to read for itself so you can have some quiet time. Having a parent read the story to the child could lead to a conversation between them, about what exactly happened, why it happened, what it meant. The parent's tone as they read could also indicate to the child what's going on better than if the child read it themselves, with no life experience to filter it. Parenting isn't about finding books and toys to raise your kid for you.
+
The world is so disgustingly literal now. Faux intellectuals will say hard facts are the only things that matter, and can't peer into anything beyond the surface level. The reality is many, MANY aspects of the human experience resonate beyond the literal. Hell, even beyond the rational.
Reading to your child is such a meaningful and pivotal experience for many reasons. It's not just conveying some entertainment to them; it's emotional, mental, and social development that's utterly crucial.
In short, there is a mountain of difference between reading your child a book and the child reading the book himself.
Reading to your child is how the child learns to express complex, difficult emotions and thoughts. That's why these kinds of challenging books are indeed good for children
This I think is the most correct interpretation. It’s a story about how a parent (the tree) will happily give all that they have for their child (the boy), and are happy to see their gifts put to use. That’s how I always saw this book, and it’s one of my favorites. The parent is always there for the child, steadfast and unmoving. A pillar that, throughout your life, you can always return to. As so many pointed out, the tree was not sad to give her trunk to the boy. She was sad because it meant he was going away, in the same way a parent will cheer on their child when they grow up and move out, but deep down they are sad they’ve moved away
I think The Giving Tree stands out in a really important way because when children's literature (especially for younger children) tries to teach a moral lesson, it often does it in a very explicit, formulaic way. The blueprint often goes:
- A child audience surrogate is given some kind of behavioral guidelines by a virtuous parental figure
- The child PoV character then either A) follows the instructions but comes into conflict with some outside pressure to disobey, or B) chooses to misbehave on their own
- The misbehaving character(s) then suffer somehow as a result of their bad behavior
- The PoV character then either is vindicated in their choice to take the virtuous path or, having chosen otherwise, takes a repentant turn back to the "correct" behavior
Different stories may play around with this formula with things like antagonistic parental figures, but the bones are so often the same.
The interesting thing about the Giving Tree is that it doesn't really fit this model. I don't think it would be beyond the capabilities of many children to understand that something is different and "wrong" about this story.
I think some of the people wrestling with the content of this book are having difficulty because they're trying to fit it into the conventional morality-play model where a certain behavior shown in the narrative must be unambiguously "right", when deliberate ambiguity is something that Shel Silverstein loves to invoke.
At a glance, it looks like the standard "misbehaving child" narrative structure, but the characters don't fit the roles that they look like they should. The boy's demands are only implicitly "bad" because the tree comes to ruin as a result, but the consequences of that behavior don't come back to negatively impact him - the tree never lays out guidelines that the boy breaches, and all of the harm that comes to her is the result of her willing sacrifice. Neither character admits to any fault and makes a change as a result - the conflict is ultimately resolved without really challenging either character's choices, with the boy and the tree being reunited as their relationship meets at the same point: the tree no longer has anything left to sacrifice, but what the boy's request no longer demands sacrifice.
It's not a deconstruction of standard children's morality plays IMO, it's just doing its own thing. The characters interact, and the audience is left to decide what to think about those interactions. The Giving Tree delivering that kind of a narrative in a way that young children have a shot at understanding is amazing - especially as they are starting to develop their theory of mind and become more aware of competing interests and different desires between themselves and others.
I remember getting this book read to me and my class. We were all very young, but we all understood very well what the book was trying to say. The conversation the class had was the best classwork-conversation we had had, or were ever going to have. A lot of us cried, and we practically begged the teacher to let us write thank you notes to family. She let us bring paper out to snack time, and nearly the entire class wrote a note. Some of us drew pictures. A group of triplets worked on a dance number to present to their single mom. I think that the book was and still is very important to be read to children, because even the bratty-est of us went home that evening and reminded our parents that we love them, and are forever grateful.
This is a great idea! I might do this for my second grade class
I did not understand it at all as a kid, I thought it was teaching your to not get taken advantage of lmao
Got me tearing up this is so sweet.
@@racool911it still can be that, why not?
that is beautiful
I think it's interesting the subtext that this was perhaps a thesis on why Shel didn't want to be a parent, that it involves unconditional love and giving of yourself. That doing so poorly feels like a waste of both your lives. And then he becomes a dad and takes that line out
Yess that hit me so hardd
Parenthood is terrifying if viewed objectively from the outside.
Only by experiencing it can you understand it's one of the most fulfilling things you can do.
With hard work and great sacrifice comes boundless satisfaction... something the redditors seething about this book can't fathom between hits of their vape pen and goon sessions.
@@TaRAAASHBAGSit’s possible that people still dislike the idea of parenthood regardless
@@TryinaD not everyone is cut out to be a parent, but the unfortunate part of it is you can't know it's for you until you've experienced it.
Also I feel like people more than ever nowadays are terrified of responsibility/discomfort to the point they would never even entertain the possibility of parenthood, even if it would bring them immense fulfilment.
@@TaRAAASHBAGSIt's a nuanced subject for sure, but as someone who's technically older Gen Z (I turn 25 in a few weeks from now as of typing this), I think a lot of people are scared away from wanting to have kids these days because of climate anxiety. I've heard lots of people in their 20s & 30s say they would probably have considered having kids by now if they didn't feel they were essentially dooming their hypothetical children to live in a terrible world. When I say "climate anxiety", I don't even necessarily just mean literal climate change in the sense of global warming for instance; it's also things like the need for gun control here in the U.S. (which is why the idea of public schooling seems less & less likable for parents here these days), or perhaps the anti-LGBT bills that have been passed around the country this past decade.
Unfortunately some people are so wrapped up in all the negative news out there that they can't really see the positive, and it clouds their judgement. But the messed up part about it is that, ultimately, they do still have a point. Because in many places, like in many parts of Canada as well for example, being able to afford buying a house is simply borderline impossible for probably 96% of the population my age.
There's also lots of people who would have loved to have kids by now, but they feel they haven't had as much opportunity to meet people to find love with, &/or that, regardless of how much they work at their jobs, they still wouldn't be able to afford to properly care for their hypothetical child's needs. And in that sentiment, as sad as it is, the best thing you can do is to simply hold off on having kids if you know you can't support them yet.
So really, to some extent or another, it is kind of a societal failing. Though I think these days the 24 hour news cycle makes the world seem so much worse than it truly is as a whole, so that definitely plays a factor into peoples' worries.
Not to assume that people who simply just don't want kids for the sake of not wanting that kind of responsibility don't still exist of course, though still. imo, i don't think there's anything wrong with feeling that way, either, as there's plenty of people out there - both married & single - who lead just as fulfilling lives without having/adopting kids.
When read this while in the 2nd grade, I was envisioning the boy going through these stages of his life, and finding varying degrees of fulfillment with what the tree was willing to provide., and didn’t come back until he felt like he was in a rut, because he knew that tree would have solutions. The tree was generous, and gave of herself out of love where she knew she could in a way that would serve his desires with diminishing returns. And in the end, when both characters are near their ends, the tree regrets that she had nothing more to give, but all that was left was just what the boy needed, and feeling the joy of accomplishing that.
You know, I used to have pets. And I went well out of my way to take care of them. I stayed up late to make sure they got food, I woke up at the slightest sound when I knew one of them was sick and might need help during the night, I spent money and time keeping them clean and fed and I was constantly giving them as much of my attention as I could. And you know what? They never thanked me or tangibly repaid me for any of this. You know what? I didn't care. Taking care of them felt good. I loved them, and that love drove me to act, in the same way that artistic desires drive one to paint or draw. Seeing them alive and healthy made me happy. That was what I got out of it. Taking care of them made me feel good. They didn't need to provide me with any tangible benefit, and I"d say there's something soulless and messed-up to the idea that they should have.
Thank you. I agree completely. To demand compensation for acts freely given of love would negate the intended spirit. And for someone outside the situation to tell another party how to love is not right.
for that last line especially...right now western civilization if having an materialism problem. not in the sense of being focused on money or anything, moreso that tangible, physical pleasures are valued over more subtle and complex things like love, companisionship and raising children. part of the problem is just the decline in religion and belief systems, but its also just because of modern dating/divorce laws being unbalanced in so many ways, a lot of people live in broken households, so they don't get a good view of love, family, and long term relationships. they try to fill that hole with the physical and it gets them nowhere most of the time.
I do agree, but I also think there's a difference between caring for somebody in a way that fulfills you and pouring so much of yourself into caring that you lose yourself in the process.
Excellent point! As with many _"stories",_ there ARE _always_ multiple perspectives- and, more often than not, the way someone sees someone's story _says a lot about them, as an observer._ In this video, the title is literally focused on the tree's _"giving";_ so it seems to me that anyone presuming the tree "didn't want to give" or was "being taken advantage of"- _missed the focus of the title._
I couldn't agree with you more.
I feel like media where half the people love it and half the people hate it means it's pretty good as an art piece
That’s a pretty good rule actually
Not necessarily a "good" art piece, but almost always an *interesting* art piece, which can be a very different thing.
@@josephjarosch8739 The purpose of art is to inspire emotion. That emotion can be anything.
"Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital."-Oscar Wilde
When a book divides on sociopolitical lines, I will take pause whether I want a child to dive into what could be propaganda. But in this case, I think it's just a matter of people who enjoy intellectual exercise versus people who want stories to resonate with complete meaning just as they are. And that's just a personality thing. So yeah, this is great as an art piece.
I like the giving tree as an allegory for parental love. It begs the question “does your child need to earn your love?” It even showed what parental love looks like. When the tree was happy… but not really, it’s like when your child hurts you after you help them. You love your kid and want to see them succeed, but they might end up hurting/neglecting you in the process. When discussing with a child, I’d tell them mom/dad are like the tree and the boy is like everyone sometimes. Sometimes we don’t realize when we just take and take
Or what if it is a genius of a book with a genius author teaching kids to not be taken advantage of like the tree by making use of their emotions it teaches them but not with heavy handed symbolism or a cathartic ending but rather anger at a story which will stay in the minds of the young audience forever as they act out how they would as either the boy or the tree in during hot showers and before bed making sure they remember to respect and value themselves first to say no even to those they are close to or to act more kind and understanding to others mostly their parents.
You beat me to it. I give with a loving heart, but eventually I will become the stump, needing to be helped when I have given all I could.
@@leslas5747 That's a good analysis too.
The beauty of it is that it’s just showing and not interpreting, you can project yourself onto the tree or the child and learn different lessons, as a child, as a little boy, I obviously projected myself on the boy, and it made me self reflect on all that my parents do for me and on my personal gratitude for that
On the other hand from the tree’s perspective I don’t necessarily think that giving everything you have willingly until you have nothing left is an evil, it may be painful, it may be tragic, or frustrating but I still think that is love, not necessarily the kind of love that everyone should strive for, but a deep altruistic love that shouldn’t be looked down upon or pitied, imo
OP.
Nail on head.
Feel the same.
All in all, the book is a work of fiction.
All fiction is designed to explore the human component.
This book inspires others to explore their own humanity.
Man… You really, REALLY are good at this. Been following for quite some time now and it’s just amazing how you so often manage to make something that rocks my world a little bit. Thank you! Know that you are a skilled craftsman and many will remember your craft for a long time.
I'm a mom. I love this book, because it shows what happens to givers. My oldest took it as a parable to not give too much. Give, but know your limits. I took it as you have to pay attention to not take too much, even when it's offered. I don't see the boy as selfish. I see him as thoughtless. I don't see the tree as a masochist. She merely is thinking in the moment. It's also not too complicated for children. Many adults underestimate the depths children are capable of. This book has led to very good discussions about boundaries. In that, it's one of the best modern children's story books around.
Exactly this.
I love this book, and as somebody who is just getting to the age where I’m moving out of my childhood home, it makes me appreciate my mother so much, she really was giving everything and I hope that I can give something back to her
As Solar Sands mentioned, the boy asks the tree for help to acquire some material thing (money, house, boat, a place to sit) and the tree gives of itself in order to help the boy, regardless of the personal cost. The masochistic tree theory is objectively wrong: the tree isn't helping the boy because it likes being stripped of everything, it's doing it out of love for the boy. The selfish boy theory also doesn't work because the boy doesn't take from the tree without asking/consent, he's just trying to reach a certain end but doesn't know how to reach it.
Seeing the boy as thoughtless is imo the correct interpretation because there's no malice/deceit behind his asks, just like children who may ask their parents for things but don't realize the cost of what they're asking and how much they've already taken. The tree is like a parent who gives everything to their children in order to give them a good life, knowing that they'll eventually leave them (hence the 'but not really' line) but can find solace in the fact that, despite their children growing up and becoming adults, some things just don't change; they'll always find fulfilment in their ability, albeit diminished by age and circumstances, to provide for them.
Despite appearances, at heart, there's no difference between the old man sitting on the stump and the little boy playing with the blossoming tree. Great story to portray the beauty/tragedy of parenthood and how cringy these so-called 'NPD channels' actually are.
As far as the "but not really" line goes, I always read it as the tree is sad because the boy is leaving. He's sailing away. The boy leaves every other time yes, but just off screen. He just goes nearby and builds a house or goes to the market. This time he is specifically *leaving*, implying that he is leaving for a much longer time, or to a much farther place. And so the tree is sad. Because the tree loves the boy.
I don't see this as an abusive relationship at all. It's a beautiful act of selfless love.
I like your way of seeing it but I think it’s more of the tree realizing it gave itself to someone who won’t give anything back. It lost itself for someone else.
Strong agree: I think Solar's dad put it nicely by saying that it feels good to give yourself to the people you love. Maybe a lot of people view the tree's sacrifices as grudging, or something that was secretly regretted, but I don't necessarily agree with that. Do other people really buy gifts and make effort for friends & family only because they expect the same in return? My brother has only ever given me half-assed birthday gifts for our entire adult lives, but I still try to get thoughtful stuff for his birthday, because it makes me happy to do nice things for someone I care about.
And sure, you can definitely take away the moral that giving too much all at once can limit your potential to give in the long run, but that's an entirely separate thing IMO.
15:53
It's the trees nature to be the anchor and give. That's what trees do. It's in our nature to take and consume. We are two sides of a coin that need each other throughout all of life's stages. The tree needs to give, but it didn't start out that way. The boy took the leaves. The tree gave the leaves. That implies a type of maintenance in the relationship. That isn't the same type of taking... The tree gave fruit so the boy could take the seeds away. The boy took and ate. They were both happy. The teen took fruit to sell as the realization of age dawns on him. But the tree is still the anchor, still giving. Take what you can and do with it what you must. The tree represents childhood and innocence. The ever-present playful spirit, that life inevitably will dismantle with age. As responsibility replaces fond memories. But it always ends with a glimpse backward.
I viewed the "but not really" line as the tree regretting that it now has nothing left to give the boy. She loved him, and she loved to give to him, but has been reduced to a stump, and now believes that she can't do anything more for him.
I think it's a fantastic book because it can elicit such DIFFERENT and strong feelings from people. For some, it is the story of a selfish boy who takes and takes and takes. Or the story of how humans take and take and destroy everything they touch. To others it is a sobering reminder of how much people in our lives are willing to give for us, and what happens when that goes too far. And others still see the sacrifice of the tree and the 'needs' of the boy and they say, yes that is what I would do for someone I loved. It's brilliant and I love the book precisely for that
Well said!
I never felt anything reading this book and I'm creeped out by how emotional people get over it
Yeah, how dare people have an emotional reaction to work of art!
@@acacacacacacaccaca7666 people reacting to art!?!?! something with the ***sole fucking purpose*** of invoking emotion? how creepy!!!
@@IdiotSandwich-yp2ke people getting extremely angry or upset at a children's book is creepy, I'm not saying that reacting emotionally to it is odd not even reacting with anger is odd but the degree In which people react to it is they are obviously taking it extremely personal, projecting themselves into it even
My mom's had a problem with this book my whole life because she felt it created guilt in children for the things their parents give them. Her parenting philosophy was that children didn't ask to be born and as the people that are choosing to raise them it is a parents job to take care of them with no expectation of something in return even gratitude. She always told me me that she would be happy to give everything up for us and that it's the least she could do for her children. This isn't to say she didn't teach us to be grateful and not selfish she just felt that parents are the one relationship where that shouldn't be necessary. From her pov the boy being selfish in his relationship with the tree doesn't matter because if we consider the tree his mother it is her job to give up whatever she needs to to give him what he needs and acting otherwise created unnecessary guilt in children.
Dr Ramani weirds me out. She frequently has interviewers refer to her as the world's leading expert in Narcissism despite none of her papers being on the subject of NPD , she claims to have ZERO narcissistic traits (which is like saying your the most humble person in the universe), she seems to throw herself in to every large public conversation possible and she'll frequently say things with absolute conviction that she seemingly pullup out of her ass.
I think it goes to show that not everyone with an academic title truly deserves the position they're in. I'd put someone like Jordan Peterson in the same camp. They're grifters......
as someone with a handful of very stigmatised disorders, she leaves an awful taste in my mouth whenever i see her. along with everyone else claiming to give advice about "narcissists" and often using the term colloquially and not specifically for people with npd
people are inherently at least a little "narcissistic" (i put that in quotes because really its often just putting themselves and their safety first, etc, being a little self-centred) and thats *necessary for survival* so its hella sus that she (dr ramani) claims to have zero "narcissistic traits". like she might mean zero at the severity of someone with NPD but bleh. for a mental health professional to say that and at the same time claim to be a leading expert...... bad vibes
ok thats my rant over, i just like showing off my "i have several historically demonised mental disorders and am passionate about destigmatisation of them and also all others" access card
A person who claims to be an expert on narcissists displaying major narcissistic traits? Those people are EVERYWHERE on social media, but I never expected them to be taken seriously.
@@8bitdiedie that’s what happens when you’re a Dr. people take your advice on everything and hold it to a high regard, without taking into account who you are, “they’re a Dr., they have to be right” I’m not saying you should doubt all doctors, but you need to take everything anyone says with a grain of salt.
She's a con artist who found a way to use her credentials in order to exploit vulnerable people (victims of narcissists) by telling them what they want to hear. Her trying to claim this story is about narcissism despite the boy showing no malice whatsoever throughout the entire story just gives her whole grift away.
The ending of the boy sitting on the stump always stuck with me. To me it was a beautiful ending. The boy finally realizes that all he needed to be happy was right there all along.
That doesn't make sense though. He wouldn't be there without the apples, the branches, the wood.
@@itsgonnabeanaurfromme What doesn't make sense about it?
@@itsgonnabeanaurfrommeBut the tree was able to give all her apples, branches, and wood. He comes back for the stump.
You could say that now, the old man realizes that tree was good regardless if it was tall and healthy or small and Harden.
@@itsgonnabeanaurfromme I always found it as this:
The Boy wanted what we all want as we grow up- Money, a house, a family, etc.
The Tree wanted to make her friend happy. She willingly gave up everything to do so, because all she wanted was to help.
The Boy eventually comes back as an old man, and the Tree is a stump. She wasn't happy because she felt like she couldn't do anything else to help, but he says that he can still sit on the stump. And so the Tree is still able to help her friend.
@@itsgonnabeanaurfrommeAnd because of those things, the boy was able to come back to spend those last days with the tree.
And the tree was happy because of it
When you retold the story I instantly understood why the tree wasn't really happy that one time. It's because the boy was leaving, so the tree knew she couldn't have his company anymore. That's all she ever wanted. And then, when the boy returned as an old man and rested on the tree as a stump, the tree was truly happy again because she once again had the boy's company. For me, this is a happy ending that makes me feel nice, contrary to popular opinion I suppose.
I saw it similarly! He sailed far away and presumably very far back, yet mentions he'd be too tired to play with the tree even if she could offer that. He mentions that he is very tired and I guess my interpretation is that he too, was all used up.
At least to me, its clear he came for the tree and the tree alone. And thats all the tree ever wanted from the boy.
I caught that too, though I would see the ending as more bittersweet than happy.
I felt that way too, it seemed pretty clear that all the tree wanted was the boy's company. The boy always seems to look for material things, and he only seems content when he wants the tree's company (At the beginning and end of the story). I always thought that the ending was a happy ending, where all they needed to do was sit together. The tree got what she always wanted, and the boy slowed down and found what he always had. I always found the ending kind of sweet, I was actually surprised that some people don't like this book.
I definitely think this is the intended meaning of this line as it is further supported through the illustrations with hearts as they are separated.
Yes, and think about it. The boy returns one last time as an old man for a place to sit. Surely, if the boy really just wanted a place to sit, he could sit on any park bench or anywhere for a while and relax. But no, he went back to the tree. I think the boy realized how he had taken advantage of the tree, taken it for granted. His way of giving back to the tree was giving the tree what it wanted all along, his company.
Dear solar sands. I really love your interpretations and philosophy. I really see you put much effort in your videos, not only by cutting and switching cameras from real to animated but choosing the right music also. Your biggest effort in my sight is your thoughtful manner, combining and evolving different thoughts and describing different point of views, the love for detail and often highlighting parts which doesnt seem important on fist sight. Your channel is one of my favourite on yt right now. Love from germany, keep it up
I hated this book when I was little, not because I thought the message was bad or anything, I was too dumb to think about any of that, I hated it because when I was in elementary school, the principal read out the whole thing at every single assembly, and we had one like every two weeks, so I was just so sick of it lol
omg what a horrible tradition lol that's way too much
He kept giving and giving the same stupid speech, and everyone was SOOOOO ungrateful.
Once a year→ok
Twice a month→not ok
😂
@@mishaf19I see what ya did there 😂
A poem of his made me sad when I first read it in high school:
*Forgotten Language*
Once I spoke the language of the flowers,
Once I understood each word the caterpillar said,
Once I smiled in secret at the gossip of the starlings,
And shared a conversation with the housefly in my bed.
Once I heard and answered all the questions of the crickets,
And joined the crying of each falling dying flake of snow,
Once I spoke the language of the flowers….
How did it go?
How did it go?
That’s really good
Damn that's profoundly sad makes you think about how we grow away from nature
"...where have all the flowers gone."
This reminds me of when a friend asked me if my endless researching and pursuit of knowledge ruins the simple beauty of flowers. I told her it's the opposite. The knowledge of how the pigments came about. How flowers are painted like targets in the UV spectrum... It's even more beautiful because of it, at least to me. 😊
One of my favorites.
I remember for a class project in AP English they wanted us to make a children’s book. I was assigned the topic of time, so I decided to write a story about a mayfly talking to the various creatures of the pond before it took flight. Teacher said it was too sad to be a kids book and shot down the idea, instead making me write a book about a clock doing… whatever. I hate people who think kids are to be sheltered from thinking about things like mortality, time, and jealousy.
I'd even argue that what makes a good children's book is one that is about all those complex emotions, but simply catered to a child's comprehension levels. It's never too early to think deeply about feelings and emotions, but it may be too early for a child to fully understand what you're saying.
@@ozarktic the point is to make them unsure how they feel about something. That feeling of discomfort is what makes people learn about their values and beliefs.
how the fuck is she gonna assign the concept of "time" and not imagine it being sad? The concept of time itself is inherently sad and a well of profundity, especially for a child who is just discovering it.
The idea of a mayfly talking to creatures around it before it flies off is way less sad to me than the idea of a clock running out of winding. There’s a dozen sad stories you can write about clocks.
Kids are WAY more morbid than adults generally give them credit for. They don't want everything sanitized & sweet. I worked at a summer camp & our most popular campfire song was the one about being eaten by a boa constrictor and dying lol
0:34 paused abt 6 seconds before hand and went to listen to a reading of it. Its a bit odd but i do love Shel Silverstein. Id never listened to it before.
People criticize the boy for not giving back, but what would he give? People like to self insert themselves as the tree and think of the things they would want as the tree, but in the story the tree just wanted the boy's company. The tree is happy because she finally got what she wanted.
Taking it literally it is some tree. You are not expected to give stuff to it. It is treated just like humanity treats trees.
Maybe in interpersonal relationships it would not look so outrageous or out of the ordinary.
Gratitude, perhaps?
@@thatoneundertalefanatic What need you for gratitude if you're happy with presence?
A few years ago I had a job working as a caregiver for a kid with special needs. He was around 17 years old. He was non verbal and needed a lot of care and assistance.
One day we were going to read a picture book. He picked out the giving tree and had me read it to him twice.
I cried so hard. Because I finally got it. I realized how much this boys parents love him. They love him in a way that he cannot fully return to them. Because of his limitations he is not able to. Yet his parents choose to love him and sacrifice for him anyways. The book really touched me and I finally understood it.
It’s not about transactional love or codependency. It’s about the kind of love you have for a person unconditionally. Apart from any expectations of getting anything back. Often it’s the kind of love only a parent could have for their child.
This. A thousand times this. I am 20 years old, I have a Language Delay, depression, ASD and ADHD. I cannot function very well without medication, though I have learned to do so as much as I can. I am significantly disadvantaged in educational settings because of this.
Even though I am going to community college for a career I'd fit very well into, even though I have gotten accolades for work that I have done, and even though I have a whole family and a friend group cheering me on, I still feel like I have (and I *know* I have) wasted my mothers time, money, and emotions. I'm scared to change my major because my mom has already put so much money into me, and all of it would be wasted if I were to change majors.
I feel I have not done anything remotely significant to deserve this. I know she is doing it out of love, but now being out of high school and being in the real world, I just want to live. I'm confident in my ability to live by myself, I have a steady job and multiple job opportunities because I know how to network. I know what I need in a job.
But even with all that, I feel like the kid. I feel like I'm constantly taking and taking and taking and not really giving anything in return other than my presence, I need to recontribute the wealth that my mom gave me twofold, or at least I feel I have to. But on the track I'm going, on the track that the world is going, I could not give my mom the time of day 5 or 10 years down the line without feeling shame for all the charity she gave me and my absence of anything to give in return. I don't want to hand down my disorders and awful brain to any kids of my own, I don't want anyone to have to tolerate me, I don't want people to have to deal with all that is me, because all that is me is disgusting on my worst days.
Thank you for understanding how a parents love is sometimes in vain. I feel that I can't recompense my parents for all of these things that they gave me, not now and not far into the future, in part because of my disorders. I can live by myself, and I really don't want charity that I will not utilize correctly, do not know how to utilize correctly. It sucks to be in that place, feeling so selfish for things that are out of your control.
@@sketjtheinkle8268you have to change majors to get the job you want or keep your current job? i empathize with your position and emotions so much except the networking part. if i felt confident about that at least my parents would know where their investment is going towards. the job market is terribly unsteady these days. and with no one in my immediate vicinity to console me about it is the toughest part.
@@sketjtheinkle8268I cried after reading your and timjackson’s comment, not really in a happy way, but in a good way. I don’t really know what else to say, but thanks for writing.
@@haysdixon6227me too dude
special needs are human needs
I always considered the "but not really" line just the tree being sad the kid is going away for good.
He left other times. The not really part I see it as because she’s a stump
I always thought it was significant that the boy stays at the end instead of going away. That seemed to me to be all the tree wanted.
I think that, ironically, if we actually listen to the tree, she literally tells us why she isn't happy.
She is "happy" because she helped the boy. She is not really happy, because she thinks she has nothing left to give...
Yes, I imagine it is this way too. This goodbye has more of a finality to it there is nothing left for the tree to give and the boy is moving away for good. This is comparable for when a parent helps their child move out of the house and says goodbye for the last time they know there is nothing left for them to impart on their kid anymore they aren't necessary to their survival anymore and they going away for what may be the last time. So while they are still outwardly happy for their kid deep down they are sad much like the tree.
@@jamesgaines7048 I always thought of it as this too. The tree loves the boy, and wants to make him happy in any way she can. And, at the end, when she knew that all could make him happy, was the tree herself, she is finally at peace along with the boy.
The Giving Tree saved my mind when I was a kid. I was raised in an incredibly abusive household where at way too young, I was forced into labor to “support my family”. I found the book in my first grade class, I remember crying, the teacher let me keep it. I would read it over and over
The joke in Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Final Straw where Greg says that the author Shel Silverstein is scary has stuck with me throughout my life.
I still think about that frequently
I always thought it was mc ride
I feel like it was less of a joke and more of a reference, I think everyone had that moment in school where everyone commented on the frightening picture on the back of the book.
@@ThatBugBehindYou
That’s correct, but Frank treats Silverstein as a boogeyman figure, which is where the joke comes in.
“He looks like a pirate or a burglar than someone writing kids books” ~Gregory Heffley
Presumably he’s got a family offscreen wondering why their father periodically goes off to talk to the magic trees that he’s known about since he was a child
It seems that all the meetups in the latter half of the book take place decades apart from each other.
I would assume that the Boy went back in secret, when his family was busy with other things, or on vacation.
Or the family life didnt work out in the first place.
@@iblitz95 or maybe he just left for a bit?, You're allowed to go out after you start a family
@@theeducatedfool those are surely all valid. Redundant, but valid
Christopher Robin and Winnie the Pooh situation
Thank you for making this, it really deeply touched my heart and mind not only in the aspects of a childhood story I have always enjoyed honestly, but now as an adult who struggles constantly with self-love and "people pleasing" for atonement unneeded (as per what my support systems have been trying to instill in me) it made meaningful connection to what that means to me. Especially within the context of this story. Thank you.
My Dad saw a homeless man on a cold day with no shirt. The man simply asked if he had coffee, my Dad gave the man his shirt for the cold, then drove away to get a coffee, the man ends up walking away down the road, and my Dad with an old rag T-shirt on gets a coffee through a drive-in for him and returns to him gone. Driving, he sees him, and pulls over and hands a coffee out the window. The man says "this is the nicest town I've ever been to, just 1 mile down the road someone gave me the shirt off his back!"
aw
i actually tend to think that i like it when humans like humans
Reading comprehension: the punchline is that the homeless guy didn't acknowledge the dad enough to even recognize him.
@blackjackking51 it's a literal joke and these people are like "how heckin wholesome"
@@DeepCFisher wholesome joke then 🤷🏻
Why does Charlotte spend her short lifetime writing in her web to save Wilbur's life? What has Wilbur ever given back to her in return? Well, as she says, friendship. That, to her, was precious enough that she thought it was a fair trade, all the sacrifice and work she gave for him.
If your life was only ever going to be catching flies, or standing in a forest, what else better could you do with it than to give someone else a better life?
IIRC Charlotte still put her eggs ahead of Wilbur though?
@@justforplaylistsWe can value and put more than one thing before ourselves in life. Charlotte put Wilbur and her eggs before herself.
@@justforplaylists Sure. She's not completely self-sacrificing. And she shouldn't be. I was more making a point about, I think a lot of people aren't able to consider that, maybe the tree in the story is making a choice she feels is worth the consequences to herself.
@@ComradeCatpurrnicus I sort of interpreted Charlotte's Web a bit differently, that she was helping Wilbur out of friendship, but not completely putting his desires above hers like the giving tree does. In my opinion the role of the eggs isn't to show Charlotte being 100% self sacrificing split between her eggs and Wilbur, it's for Wilbur to understand that Charlotte has concerns other than him.
@@AlexReynard Fair enough.
She said "but not really", because she believed that this was the last time she would ever see him. Because she cared about him, she was more than willing to provide a better future, but that can't crush the bitterness of losing someone you love. Then she was happy again when he returned. She is happy again when he returns, despite the fact that him returning, alone, again, is evidence of a largely failed life, because this implication is as lost on her as the one sided nature of their relationship up to that point.
Because she's just a tree.
Yeah. I think it makes sense. The tree was happy, to give the boy something... but not really. She realized that was the last she could give, so there's no way he would return.
It turned out she had one last thing she could give, and its what she gave in the first place, her presence.
Exactly! This should be obvious
1000%, I think a lot of people are perhaps over interpreting some parts of the story. Of course there is subtext about parenting, but I definitely don't think that's what the entire story is about.
I loved this book honestly. I never realized how much it was about. I just thought it was a lesson on not to push people too much, and to realize when someone is pushing over.
I grew up with this book, and I always saw the ending as the boy realizing that he never needed anything this whole time. He was happy when he was little because he was with the tree, not because it was giving him stuff. In the end, the tree has nothing left to give, but he decides to stay with her anyway. That's when he became happy again.
Woooah I like this theory
That's also why the tree is always happy, even after losing everything. Because she knows that her fulfillment is in the companionship of the boy, therefore losing things she doesn't need or have desire for to help the boy be happy is not a destructive act but one that brings her genuine enjoyment.
People are viewing her sacrifices through the lense of the boy, as though these branches and apples are ultimately more valuable to the tree than those moments of companionship, but the tree is happiest when giving to the boy and feels no sadness at giving away it's fruits, she understands what makes her happy and the boy doesn't. So the boy is always sad and the tree is mostly happy.
Honestly, that’s what I always interpreted the ending to be
Exactly!
🥲 thank you for this. I always focused on the boy's selfishness or maybe lack of awareness. it was always such a sad and aggravating story to me; now it's a happy story for me.
❤️🩹
Him dedicating the book to Nicky seems to be a huge apology. Him saying she treated him much better than he ever deserved or realised and he regrets not doing better at the time but also seeing how graceful and accepting and forgiving she was in the end when they had both 'grown'. At which point it was futile to try rectify any damage and still she treated him kindly and with respect. The boy is innocent and we don't hate him (at least not as a child) but we do hate his actions and regret his lack of giving back. It seems like a lesson not just to take responsibly but also to give responsibly, they always say "put on your own oxygen mask before attending to someone else" because if you as the stronger and dependable and responsible one is dead then everyone else is screwed. You have a duty to care for yourself in order to be able to care for others.
Was honestly surprised when that was glossed over
Do you have a sources for this and his relationship with Nicky? I did try searching for information on Nicky and nothing really came up.
@@SolarSandsI think the most we can do is infer how his relationship with Nicky was through the book, would explain why the tree is explicitly female
The only information I found online was one a webpage by Sarah Weinman who apparently did research for a biography she never wrote, so her sourcing is not really well cited like it would be had she actually written it. The only information she really adds is that Nicky was an on-again off-again girlfriend when he was young.
@@SolarSands he is either guessing or projecting
I was born in the mid 70’s, and I grew up reading Shel Silverstein’s books. I was an avid reader, and I couldn’t get enough of his works. I had almost all of his children’s books, and I loved every single one. I would get lost in his illustrations for hours. I can very much relate to the tree in The Giving Tree, as I dedicated most of my life to helping others. As a social worker, I gave and gave until I had nothing left for myself. I see the book as a cautionary tale.
born in the mid 90s and grew up reading all of his stuff as well, absolutely timeless
I grew up in the early 2000’s and I had big book of his growing up. I remember the art in some of the stories still, I was *really* young.
Woah
@@Dippedinsilver1974 good analysis
This is probably one of my favorite books of all time. Top 3, seriously. It is such a powerful work of art. I’m 30 now and have been reading it since I was a child. I have the same copy I’ve always had. For the past 7 years I’ve been in an abusive relationship cycle. I am working on getting the help I need , but lately I’ve been re reading it on a particular bad day of “giving”, and it *really* helps. I just moved and really need to dig it out. I can’t stand hearing people say they hate it, cause it seems like they don’t understand the point. I value art that makes me uncomfortable or sad or mad. I value art that makes me feel anything, that holds a valuable message, lesson or thought provoking, emotion-stirring story. Love it. Great video thank you.
The reason why the tree isn't really happy after the boy sails away is pretty obvious to me, she loves the boy unconditionally and is sad that he's going away. She's happy in the end because he's back with her
This story reminds me of my grandma. She gives a lot and all she wants in return is the company. I take the ending as the boy, now being an old man, understanding just how important having the company is. The tree has nothing left to give, but company, and that’s all either wants from the other anyway.
Exactly it’s literally about parents giving everything and then the kid leaves(pun intended) I think the giving is much more of a depiction of experience and help and molding the kid into what they want. That can be skewed to be happy or sad too and imo it makes sense. Especially since I feel moms are more of a parent in books tv etc.
YES. This is exactly how I see this story. About the realities of being a parent and the stark reality of being forced to give all you have but also so greatly loving the company that is giving in return.
@@neelybolick7107 exactly I think it’s more or less about the failures of the kid tho. That’s my interpretation
@@dNorsh I definitely get what your saying. But I almost think that it may not be a matter of failure but rather a lack of action. The child is not recognizing that he should give back to the tree or thank the tree. And the tree is not setting boundaries with the child and not enforcing the idea that the child should be thankful for what he is receiving. And honestly I think that the relation of the book to parenting can purely be put to perspective. As we all have different experiences when it comes to influence and the parenting that we may have done or experienced.
@@neelybolick7107 so I should just explain fully real quick. I think the tree giving is more or less advice and experience. I believe he failed and they both know there’s no more he can do. So they just sit there. Mom consoling the kid due to his failures along the way because there’s nothing left he can really do.
As someone that read this as a child, my takeaway then was more simplistic. The man cut down the tree and killed it, which was sad, even if the tree said it was happy.
I’ve never heard this story but I assumed it meant from the perspective of a parent that either the parent used all their resources to help their child move away from them, happy to help them live a good life but also sad it means they’ll live their separate lives or that they has given all that they can give and now their child no longer needs them.
As a kid we find out pretty early on that people will lie for the sake of keeping up an appearance or somebody else's feelings. We figure out that our parents do it all the time to us.
As a child, I was like “damn, that’s crazy. Ok, next thing”
Could the removal of the line "but not really" in the animated adaptation be interpreted as meta-commentary from shels part on the masses being intolerant to a difficult story?
I found myself getting unexpectedly emotional at this video.
I was read, and later read myself, this book as a child. I thought the story was sad, but very tender and sweet, and I liked it for it. I felt comforted by the tree. I thought it was nice he could always go back. My mother passed before I could remember, so even then I knew it wasn't a given.
My father, a harsh, cynical, and profoundly sad man who nevertheless sacrificed greatly for his kids, died about twenty years later, four years ago from the writing of this comment. It influences my interpretation strongly.
I think it's a beautiful and bittersweet story of parenthood, and the way things inevitably decay. In this reading, the boy never did anything really wrong; he asked for help and was concerned with building his life at the expense of time with the tree, but that's the role of a child entails. The tree repeatedly sacrificed the limited parts of herself for the sake of the child, but it was the tree's choice to do so, and that's the role of a parent; time and energy are not infinite, and you change in the course of parenthood, fundamentally and permanently.
I think it's beautiful the book starts and ends with them simply spending time together. It was the first joy of the boy, but it was always the joy of the tree; and the boy gets to return with all his life experiences and truly appreciate what the tree has done for him, and reciprocate that joy in the twilight of her life. That's a gift not all parents or children are afforded.
And finally, I want to add that the book is entirely from the tree's perspective. That comforted me as a child and guts me as an adult. He comes to visit her, she's happy, and then her story ends.
Very beautiful and moving comment. Thank you so much. ❤
Yeah in my opinion people are looking way too deep into it and with an uneeded cynical point of view. I understand different interpretations exist, but I hate when an interpretation completely twists the author's original intent or the message behind the story. It's not about abusive relationships. It's about the sacrifices of parenthood.
this is such a beautiful comment, thank you ❤
Id have to say that I definitely follow a similar interpretation, the boy is only asking for help, the tree is the one that freely gives the help because of unconditional love. My interpretation is that its about the nessasary tragedy of parenthood, that you give everything you have without thanks to someone who will eventually leave you in the hopes that they eventually return once they are older and wiser with understanding of what was given. The tree is happy at the end because finally, the boy has returned and she can get fulfillment out of what he has achieved and out of his company. Its one if my favorite storys because of how bittersweet it is
@DingDingTheUA-camBuddy "The necessary tragedy of parenthood". Wow. That phrasing makes me think, and makes me feel very emotional. Well said.
As someone who was the primary caretaker of a dying family member at a pretty pivotal point in my life The Giving Tree has always kind of touched me in a way that leaves me perplexed when people find the book "toxic" while it never got to the point that it worked me down to a stump, the care for that family member took a lot out of me, and while at many times it was tragic and exhausting, i was mainly just happy i could spend another day with them. When you care about someone just them being happy made you happy, i think thats whats beutiful in the mentions of happiness between both figures. Nothing the boy took ever really made the boy as happy as the tree was to give it. It was only in the final and somewhat cruel moments of the book that an air of contentment and happiness was finally achieved. The Giving Tree asks what really makes us "happy" is it what we want, or is it what love we give?
IDK i've been on the other side of being that coin, with a caretaker as a kid that straight up resented the fact i existed because i took up time and money and honestly i don't know anymore. on one had i understand a parent should want to spend that time to take care of a kid but i have this deep distaste of being a burden or just having needs of my own that i don't know how to feel about it. if i was messed up in bed like that i'm not sure i would want to be kept alive.
That is so deep. I've never had to do that, but I do take care of a disabled family member of mine and I have been my whole life basically, so I understand what you mean.
My mum is in the exact same position as yourself right now, being the only person in our family with the position, experience and will to look after her severely handicapped sister, AND attend to her father, a dementia patient in a care home. It's difficult and frustrating, and my brother wants her to stop and essentially take steps to let both of them pass on, but she refuses because giving makes her happy. Life is complex and rich, and from tragedy springs a rare sort of joy.
I think your dad and your grandma have hit on something important there. The way they love others is by giving to them. They often really enjoy giving, by adding to the lives of those they love.
I think the tree loves the boy so very much that she is willing to give anything to help the boy in his next stage of life. When she gives her trunk to the boy, and is “happy… but not really,” she is feeling the bittersweet feeling a parent feels when they help their child move away. She gives the last of what she can. There is not much more she can do to help the boy, and he won’t be around much more.
At the end of the story, the tree is truly happy because the little boy comes back to her, and she is still able to give him a little more. He will always be her little boy, and she will always do as much as she can because she loves him.
Thats a really sincerely sweet reading on the story, thank you (genuinely)
This 100%. I always considered the tree as the parent; it's what we do so our kids can survive. I'd die for my son - is THAT wrong?
Side note: I gave this book to my son as a graduation present. I included a heartfelt inscription. I read this book to him hundreds of times when he was a child.
This book is a treasure.
@@chrissyavalonthat is such a sweet gift
As an autistic person this book taught me as a kid that you should never give to others because they will just take. And you should never take from others because they will always be missing what was given up.
If you don't know, what makes autism a disability is that the brain is wired differently. So regardless of the message intended. This book messed me up as a kid. I was also abused by my guardian which helped to enforce this interpretation of the book.
As a child I was read this book by a teacher and never knew it was controversial
It was a heartwarming story to me
I don’t really think it’s supposed to be heartwarming
same didnt know it was controversial at all
I always liked it. But it made me cry.
Same here that’s where I first heard it. I used to read it to my daughter but from age 3 to now which is 7 she refuses to let read it cause it’s to sad haha
It's only controversial to idiots.
This book hits different when you were in the giving tree. People will abuse that kindness and never give back till one day you quit giving anything.
The tree didn't quit giving. It gave all that it could
@@MEklelty
"It's a bird!"
"It's a plane!"
"No, it's the point!"
Thank you @shgurr , I was looking for someone to mention it. The book is great for discussing healthy relationships, but I feel like it is always discussed at school or with parents as just a story about how it is good to be selfless and there is always more you can give. Which is not a great message to give children who already don't know how to tell when they have nothing left to give.
This is my interpretation and maybe im wrong, but if you feel this way perhaps relating to the giving tree is misleading, not in the sense that you weren't giving (i absolutely don't want to make you feel like u didn't get abused for your kindness, i believe you fully) but in the sense that those relationships were not like the one the tree has with the boy. Despite the "but not really" line, the overall message in the book is that the tree remains happy. Even at the end, it is happy to give a seat to the now old boy.
I don't have kids, but I have a cat. And I don't mind being the giving tree to my cat. I am really just happy he is here. If he leaves, i will be sad for a bit, but i will not feel abused by him, i will not be mad that he only ever "took" from me. I think for me, that's the kind of relationship protrayed by this story. Sure, it's not a relationship between 2 humans, but the story isn't either.
Oh good lord, how I relate ;-;
Many many years ago in grade 3, I wrote a sequel to the giving tree in which the tree gets revenge by giving the sitting man butt cancer, the man tries fighting the rabid tumours but it is fruitless and he passes away sitting on the stump. His body became fertilizer allowing the tree to sprout and regrow from the stump and it ended with his grandkids playing around the tree. I got in trouble for it not sure why.
great video btw
wtf
ngl i would read that
i'm a retired teacher, and on behalf of that misguided teacher who said that: i'm sorry that happened
bad
teaching
maybe an off day for him
@@jmsl_910 thank-you for the support 😂
LMAOOOOO
As a child I never thought this book was offensive. Even at a young age I saw this as a story about motherhood or parenthood. That as children we take and take from our parents. But our mothers and fathers are okay with giving without a thanks in return because of their unconditional love for their children.
Basically a parent will do anything for their child. Most kids can’t see that this is at times a one sided relationship and they should do more in return. The book specifically states “and the tree was happy” which makes this pretty clear.
As an adult of course we can now see that the boy was being selfish. But I think that works to real life as children (even when grown up) sometimes don’t realize how much they are taking from their parents.
In fact most kids don’t realize this until they have kids of their own and then can directly empathize what their parents went through. And yet they too now have unconditional love for their children.
Anyways I think modern politics has poisoned the well on this book and have made wild assumptions.
The Giving Tree made me sob uncontrollably as a kid, and this video kind of made me realize why. The tree was so clearly my parents. The unconditional love, the boy coming back when he needs things, the tree always wanting to play with him. She’s a mother. And the thought of myself growing up and leaving “the tree” all alone made me so sad. It made me sad that the boy wouldn’t play with her, because it tapped into those fears in me, of leaving behind childhood. “And the tree was happy. But not really.” In context of the boy sailing away probably refers to moving far away, where his mom can’t follow, can’t see him or his wife and kids. And today, I see that in my aunts. One of my cousins lives across the world, and my aunt tries to be happy for him, but is still so sad because her son and her daughter-in-law and her granddaughter are an 18 hour flight away.
My interpretation: The tree was the boy's life.
As a child, he climbed the tree for fun. In entering adulthood, he climbed the tree to perform labor. Then he cut down all the branches that used to provide him with fun and joy to provide a home for his family. When he was older and had no family to take care of, he still felt he couldn't rest. He felt the pressure to do something, anything, so he used a huge chunk of his life to make a boat and go sailing.
At long last, he finally spends the last little bit of his life just enjoying his life.
The tree was happy at every stage (except for the bit with the boat) because, even though the boy was carving bits of it away, he was still having a satisfying and rewarding life doing what he wanted to do with it.
Isn't the point of the video talking about people who try to change the meaning of the story to suit their sensibilities?
The author already said what it's about.
@@itsgonnabeanaurfromme And this is my interpretation. What's yours?
This is a much more positive look on the story :)
I always love how a piece of art can be interpreted differently by other people.
Makes reading comments more enjoyable!
@itsgonnabeanaurfromme No, the video is about how anyone can have different interpretations of the same piece of art, especially when it’s ambiguous. Different interpretations are beautiful and there’s no reason to put them down like that
That aside, I like this! Adds another layer to it about how you can’t just give bits of your life to the things to “should” and also have to take time to enjoy iy
I feel like the tree is metaphorically the parent.
It would explain the addition of "but not really" as parents are typically saddened a little when their children leave the nest per se, and it could also be interpreted as the parents death, hence their not really being happy, as they are dead.
The boy takes and takes and takes because it is what is expected of children and it is expected their parent gives them what they can within reason, and up until the boat part I think it was entirely reasonable. Even taking the branches. And Solar is right, the boy only asks for things, the tree figures out the how. That is also very parental, and given the trees gender we can even say explicitly maternal. And the reason the tree is happy at the end, is that despite being a stump (potentially/probably dead), her "son" came back to spend his final moments with her. Despite his leaving and distance for some time, near the end, he came back to spend the final time with her.
I think that's most probably the "correct" interpretation.
Despite the folly it is to claim I have the correct interpretation, I will much more certainly claim that interpretations about narcissm, abuse, and misogyny are wholly incorrect. I think it's not narcissism but immaturity that makes the boy not realise the cost he is having on the tree. Claims that the story is about unhealthy relationships, are much more realistic, though I personally disagree I do not believe that interpretation is *wholly* incorrect, just largely.
I disagree with the idea that this story's too complex for children. I remember as a kid loving Shel Silversteins stories. I was a pretty lonely kid being an only child and not having friends. All of his stories with their the blank pages felt like comforting in their loneliness and I felt empathy for feelings I was too young to give words to yet. His stories were always really beautiful in that way.
Lonely people sometimes need lonely art, it's weirdly comforting in a way, because you get that feeling of empathy and mutual understanding that, as a lonely person, is so difficult to get from your peers. Evangelion is my favorite piece of fiction of all time, it's my comfort show, even though it's the type of story that the average person just despises.
I liked this book as a kid, probably for a similar reason. I read the content pessimistically, but that didn't mean I disliked the book.
@@qwertydavid8070 As an average person who despises Evangelion, I'm glad you find comfort in it. Love you, man.
@@jimijenkins2548 nowaying two people on the internet finding common ground instead of arguing just because they like different things??? Incredible.
@@qwertydavid8070 Tbh I find it hard to gain comfort from Evangelion. It puts lonely people under a microscope and highly criticizes them. That's a good thing honestly, but I definitely wouldn't watch it and feel comforted lol. I felt called out.
the giving tree is a good book but the author looks like there going to crawl through your window and turn you into a giving tree
In my opinion I like to believe that the “but not really” line suggests that the tree was happy she was able to give him her trunk, but now that she has given him everything she has no more to give. She is sad or disappointed that she cannot help him more than she already has (which was A LOT considering she gave him literally EVERYTHING). I feel like the story is about unconditional love and the lengths a person would go to in order to make a loved one happy. I don’t think the boy is a narcissist per se but I think he is selfish and unaware of why the tree was giving him all of the stuff that she did. He took everything he could from her in order to build his own life, his own “tree.” But it was only when he was old and gray himself, a shriveled stump with nothing left to give (likely because he gave it all to his family), that he understood the only thing a person really needs is the company and comfort of someone you unconditionally love.
EDIT: To add on to this, it makes sense that the kid was happy when he was a kid and took like nothing from the tree because the company the tree gave him was enough at that point in his life. The kid grew up and required more in order to be “happy.” But he lived and experienced the tree’s perspective, he eventually realized all the tree wanted was his company. So him just sitting with her was kind of his way of giving back to the tree, in the end the giving was reciprocated by each of their presences.
I really love this interpretation, I had similar thoughts but couldn’t articulate it so well.
This is my favourite interpretation of the book! I completely agree with you, you articulated the similar points that I have perfectly.
I'm a pretty young guy. My parents always struggled with substance abuse. Idk where my mom is now. Not really at least, and I'd be hard pressed to say I want to know. My dad died of alcoholism. They raised me, kinda, but my grandparents always provided for me, and gave me stuff I think to kind of make up for my circumstance. My wife and I now take care of my grandparents since there was no one else able to do it. I understand what it is like to sit on the stump. It is not that you do not love the tree. It is not that the tree does not love you. I think it is that neither of you know what to do. So you do what you can. From experience I can tell you, what you do is usually wrong. That's okay.
This comment made me cry… I could have so easily been in your situation. My mom got clean not long before she got pregnant with me, but my dad died while drunk when I was 8. If my mom hadn’t become clean, I would just be living with my grandpa, not knowing where she was; the person who means everything to me. Who has raised me and who I’ve spent so much time with
this is so underrated and speaks more to the actual human experience. it's not black and white and yet we do our best.
Underrated comment.
The "punchline" was that the guy with such incredibly distinctive line art had actually made an ink blot test.
I actually laughed at this XD
This is legitimately one of the wittiest and observant comments I've ever read on UA-cam. bravo.
Loved this analysis. Personally, I believe it's a story about a person who gives too much, and another person who takes too much. Neither had malicious intent, but neither approached it in a healthy manner. Instead, people should take less, and give back. Accept some help (but not too much), and give sustainably.
When I was a child, the main thing in the book that stuck out was that the boy never had time to play with the tree and always needed to do some work. I took the story as saying as the boy worked throughout his life without any time for play, it whittled him down and it made him take from the tree without playing with her like she wanted. He only realizes at the end of the book when he sits down on the stump that not only is he too weak to play, but now he no longer has any leaves to pick, branches to swing on, or trunks to climb. While now i've grown up and my focus on the book is more on the relationship, I still keep that in mind while I read. I really think Shel Silverstien does not deserve this book to be considered bad as he managed to create a book that anyone of any age can read and still get someting out of, a very hard and impressive feat.
this was always my interpretation through reading as well
When I was a young kid I had this one tree that I really loved. It was very large, with 2 trunks of the same size. Pretty sure it was some kind of oak. Then, a big tornado hit our house and did heavy damage to the tree. My parents knew how much I liked this tree so they invested time and money into saving it. For a time it seemed to improve after they cut off some of the injured branches. However, about a year and a half later it was pretty clear that the tree was dying and there was nothing we could do. My parents gave me this book the day we chopped the tree down. Easy to say "it was just a tree" now but at the time I was like 8 years old and the tree was like a friend to me since I spent so much time outside (I know, crazy to think of such things nowadays). The book holds a special, albeit bittersweet, place in my heart.
almost a "the tree loved you, too" in a way
Some say that people should _"never judge the book by its cover",_ but Shel Silverstein's photo at the back makes everyone concerned about the cover than the book itself. No wonder why Greg Heffley is scarred for life.
Does he not look exactly like Brett Gelman? Horrifying.
@@jimmythe-gent
He seriously looks like a serial killer on the back of the book 😂
Like a somehow more terrifying version of kratos
I see u everywhere
@@crakhaed fun fact: serial killers don't look like that
Great video! The Giving Tree was one of my absolute favorite books as a child and I would cry everytime I read it.I was touched by the tree's sacrificial love, but I think there was also something in the way that the child and the tree are both happy in the beginning when it's just about each other, but when the relationship starts to be about other things that's when the tree starts to get used up and the man is left needing more and more. They both seem unhappy, until finally once again the thing that both of them are giving is their presence.
I love that the hand drawn, animated video from the 70s of one of the most famous poets of our time reading one of his most famous works is preserved thanks to a UA-cam channel called "fartman". What a time to be alive.
The channel is actually called "farpman". Which raises the question: what is a farp?
"fartman" was already taken
@@gavinbowers137 my journalistic integrity shattered, alas. Thank you for the correction!
32:20 explains so much about todays society. “The emotions on this book too complicated for a child’s mind”. It is beneficial for children to explore their emotions and independently interpret stories, as this process is integral to their personal growth and development.
was looking for this comment!! kids are much more capable of pondering emotionally complex situations then they get credit for
Also kids going through divorce will absolutely be able to understand they are experiencing watching similar crap at home go down.
@@wellacoyoteishere185dude why am I the only kid who didn’t understand the damn book. Maybe it’s quite literally the autism and I just took a fictional book as a fictional book but I’m not really sure.
for me, the tree thought that giving parts of herself to the boy made her happy, and she only realized it didn’t when he left her with nothing, hence the “not really”. and the boy kept coming back to take something that might make him happy, but its only when he visits her a final time that he realizes that it was her company all along. in the end, the tree isn’t giving, and the boy isn’t taking, they’re just sharing time, that’s what makes them happy.
i rlly loved the visual of the tree regrowing in the end, making the bittersweet ending sweeter because it’s never too late to reconnect
People take it as praise of that self destructive selflessness, and that's what leaves a bad taste in some people's mouths. Some people feel they have been instilled with that against their will, and resent it
The author took care to describe the boy sitting on her as something which required significant strain on the tree’s part, and the boy never expresses any desire for her company… they just want a nice place to sit. To me the boy sitting on the tree is a final show of apathy towards all the love the tree has shown them.
@@Numbabu oh i totally get that. the tree was being taken advantage of and the boy was at the least an enabler, at the most an abuser (depending on how you read it). especially since the boy always stays as “the boy”, kinda taking away his responsibility. I see it as a hyperbolic metaphor for children tho, could’ve been executed better but its still a moving story
@@andrewbaumunk2694 that makes me sadder but its probably what the author was going for 😭 more of a cautionary tale
My view is a bit less sad. I see how the adult is still called boy. I always saw that as how the tree(parent) always saw her "son" as a boy. As all parents will, you'll watch your kids become adults and move on. But to the parents? You're still their precious child who they love unconditionally.
The Giving Tree was my ALL TIME FAVORITE book as a child. I wanted my mom to read it for me all the time, and I’d sit in my room and read it on my own. Sadly, I grew up to be the tree.
Reading this book now as a 25 year old, it’s sad in a beautiful way. This book shows reality as it is, but in a way that’s palatable to children. It’s not meant to have a happy ending, or an “in your face” lesson, such as the tree smartening up. The lesson is the ending itself. The result of someone who gives too much, and someone else who never gives back. Neither of them are truly happy, but somehow the tree has convinced herself that she is, because she’s finally reunited with this boy who gave her happiness once many years ago.
I've seen this same idea of the tree and the boy not being truly happy in the end and I'm interested in why that is
i don't think the boy and the tree are necessarily unhappy at the end
As a kid I always thought it was a story about companionship being more important that material possessions. Any time the tree and the boy are together they seem happy, and initially it may seem because it's from the exchange they make, but the one time the tree is stated to not be happy, is when the boy sails away. The happiness is gone, once she knows she won't be able to see him again. And the resolution, is him coming back, saying he doesn't need much, and simply wanting a place to sit, or in other words, her company. It's also the only time where it seems like the boy already knew what the tree's "solution" to his problem would be. Why else would an old man go out to the forest, to seek out a stump? He simply wanted to be with her in that moment. In that way I actually found the ending rather sweet.
see the problem with that interpretation is that there were no hints that the boy was coming back to the tree regularly or just visiting without asking for anything. we ONLY see the boy showing up because he needs apples or branches or a raft. i thought the moral of the story was "you are never worthless", because the tree thought being a stump was useless and the old man still needed a stump to sit on
edit: nvm i'm stupid, i forgot the beginning of the book had the boy playing with the tree and then the book pointed out that the boy grew up and couldn't play with the tree as often
I think this is how I interpreted the book as a kid
The giving tree was told once in my highschool by my teacher who is teaching morality. Our culture was different compared to western were we should respect our elders. Teacher told us "parents giving us without asking any return, we should remember how much parents had sacrificed for us"
In my point of view, the boy at the end was united with the tree who already a stump, he accomplish everything, such as earning money, be dependent, having wife and children, and now the boy was retired, his children grow up and started their own, wife was gone, the boy has nothing left but return back to the tree. Is depress but bitter sweet.
You could depicted any meaning between boy and the tree, the tree was the boy's safe place when boy was struggling, or a loving parent figure who love the boy no matters what.
The tree being grown in the beginning, when the boy was just a boy, makes absolute sense when we view the tree as a stand in for a parent. Same with the threes early death, as our parents are likely to die before we do. (Although the causes of their death are probably not caused by us, unlike the tree's death being caused by the grown boy)
Sponsor ends at 2:57