|
|
Post by marianne48 on May 4, 2017 0:27:05 GMT
The Giving Tree, by Shel Silverstein. It begins happily, then ends depressingly. Why this downer remains a staple of children's libraries is a mystery to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 4, 2017 11:28:40 GMT
The Giving Tree, by Shel Silverstein. It begins happily, then ends depressingly. Why this downer remains a staple of children's libraries is a mystery to me. That's an excellent book. Anyone who wants to shelter children from anything sad and 'depressing' does not love those children. 'Oh, I'll protect you forever from everything sad', said every devouring mother everywhere as they created little beings with personality disorders. Another one of my favorite children's books is 'The Big Ugly Monster and the Little Stone Rabbit'. You wouldn't like it. You'd want to shelter the poor fragile child from the part where the monster dies. When you have kids, have fun raising 30 year old infants. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 4, 2017 14:01:49 GMT
Believe it or not, I'm going to try to square this circle and agree with both OldSamVimes and marianne48. One of the great errors of modern pedagogy is, indeed, sheltering children from everything sad or scary. It says a lot about our culture that parents forbid children from reading Grimm's (original) Fairy Tales because they're "too scary." As Sam pointed out, that will indeed negatively harm children later, as they're unprepared to deal with the real world. Like an immunization, the earlier that they recognize some sad-but-true facts about the world, the more that they learn about life's problems, dilemmas, and moral penumbrae. With that said, I agree with Marianne that we cannot make our stories for children too sad, or we'll end up with children who are little adults, not children. Children should not think about grown-up issues but rather live out their childhood fully (one of my many problems with the unbelievable elimination of recess from many elementary schools). Whether or not children should read books like The Giving Tree, of which I am a fan, should be determined by parents, with children's librarians probably playing a role as well. In general, I think that reading and understanding the meaning of the book is important--but that of course there are exceptions which must play a role as well. Children should understand things about the world without giving up their childhood. How's that for squaring the circle? (There's a grand book on this subject, by the way, by Providence College's Prof. Anthony Esolen, called Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child.) |
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on May 4, 2017 23:19:17 GMT
Whoa, Nellie (whatever that means)! Who mentioned anything about sheltering kids from anything bad? I have no problem with exposing children to the sadder aspects of life. In fact, I agree that a lot of children's literature and movies have become far too sanitized. If I'd had kids, I would've eagerly steered them towards my childhood favorites--everything from collections of
Peanuts comics (featuring the angst-ridden Charlie Brown and his neurotic friends); Felix Salten's Bambi (much more
bloody and somber than the cutesy Disney movie version); Black Beauty, Old Yeller, Charlotte's Web, Where the Red Fern Grows, and melancholy films such as The Red Balloon and JT. By the time they were about 12, I'd make sure they
also experienced my favorite novel, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (a young girl survives grinding poverty, sexual assault, an alcoholic father and an aloof mother, and manages to thrive) and also MAD magazine, in order to foster a healthy cynicism and make them realize that much of the world just wants to screw 'em over.
I think there are a lot of good books for young kids that focus on the sad, even tragic aspects of life. For instance, Love You Forever (aging and death); The Tenth Good Thing About Barney (death of a pet); Fireboat (the destruction
of the World Trade Center in 2001); Smoky Night (the LA riots); and The Purple Balloon (terminally ill children). All of these books attempt to deal with acceptance of loss and tragedy.
What I object to in The Giving Tree is the depressing relationship between the "boy" and the (female) tree.
The little boy plays in the tree all day. The tree is happy.
The older boy begins to spend time away from the tree, then disappears altogether.
The unhappy young man returns and demands money. The tree, anxious for any attention, gives him her apples to sell. He takes them and then disappears for several years.
The older man reappears, still peevish, and demands wood for a house. The tree is so happy that she sacrifices her branches. The boy takes them and doesn't come back for several more years.
The man, now elderly and even more miserable than ever, returns and now whines that he wants to take a trip. The tree, so pathetically happy that her old "boy" has returned, gives up her entire trunk so that he can make a boat. He once again takes what he wants and goes away for a long time.
The old "boy," now a bitter old geezer, finally returns, and complains to the tree (now nothing but a stump) that he's tired and needs to rest. The tree lets him use her stump as a place to park his withered old keister, and now "they were both happy."
BLEECCCCCHHHH!!!!
What is the moral of the story? If parents indulge their unhappy, bratty children by giving in to their every demand, even at
great sacrifice, their kids won't be happy. Instead, they'll grow up to ignore them, only showing up whenever they need something. (Essentially, turning their kids into "30-year-old infants.") The best reaction, in fact, that I've ever received from a young child after I've read this book to them (not by choice) was one from a little boy who cheerfully asked at the end of the story, "What happens next? Do they use the rest of the tree for a coffin for the guy?" He wasn't saddened or depressed by the story; he just thought it didn't have much of an ending.
|
|
mmexis
Sophomore
@mmexis
Posts: 860
Likes: 732
 
|
Post by mmexis on May 5, 2017 1:48:41 GMT
In the sadness department, I'm surprised you missed Beautiful Joe. As a teacher-librarian, I have to say that children's literature has come a long way. Unfortunately, that means that most of them don't read fairy tales any more. Or mythology for that matter. The other unfortunate thing is that everything must now be part of a series (I'm looking at you Wimpy Kid). Giving them one of the classics that I read (and probably the rest of you here, too) is too difficult language for most of them. A girl who recently took out Anne of Green Gables (because a new version of it is running here on TV in Canada) returned it saying the language was too difficult.  And then I have the kids who proudly say to me that they never read - I guess they don't text! I'm also glad that they've left the "sanitization" aside. I remember a book where the 3 little pigs and the wolf all lived happily ever after because the wolf went vegetarian and realized that "pigs are friends, not food". Give me Jon Sciezka any day. Or Dav Pilkey. Even Lemony Snicket and his snark. Or even the original Shrek - a small book full of misery. SalzmanK: I don't think parents expressly forbid their children from reading Grimm's original fairytales. Or at least I hope not. I think that they haven't read them (or had them read TO them) themselves. As the family now usually includes two working parents, exploration of literature has fallen by the wayside. Schools are under pressure to answer to all stakeholders and prepare students for standardized tests. There is a push for "trigger warnings" before any potentially uncomfortable book is discussed. It started at universities and colleges and is steadily moving down. Thankfully, this has not come up here in Canada (well, maybe in the West where they are kinda different  ) marianne48 - I just loved the kid's comment!! Thanks for the laugh |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 5, 2017 2:07:58 GMT
In the sadness department, I'm surprised you missed Beautiful Joe. As a teacher-librarian, I have to say that children's literature has come a long way. Unfortunately, that means that most of them don't read fairy tales any more. Or mythology for that matter. The other unfortunate thing is that everything must now be part of a series (I'm looking at you Wimpy Kid). Giving them one of the classics that I read (and probably the rest of you here, too) is too difficult language for most of them. A girl who recently took out Anne of Green Gables (because a new version of it is running here on TV in Canada) returned it saying the language was too difficult. And then I have the kids who proudly say to me that they never read - I guess they don't text!
I'm also glad that they've left the "sanitization" aside. I remember a book where the 3 little pigs and the wolf all lived happily ever after because the wolf went vegetarian and realized that "pigs are friends, not food". Give me Jon Sciezka any day. Or Dav Pilkey. Even Lemony Snicket and his snark. Or even the original Shrek - a small book full of misery.
SalzmanK: I don't think parents expressly forbid their children from reading Grimm's original fairytales. Or at least I hope not. I think that they haven't read them (or had them read TO them) themselves. As the family now usually includes two working parents, exploration of literature has fallen by the wayside. Schools are under pressure to answer to all stakeholders and prepare students for standardized tests. There is a push for "trigger warnings" before any potentially uncomfortable book is discussed. It started at universities and colleges and is steadily moving down. Thankfully, this has not come up here in Canada (well, maybe in the West where they are kinda different ) marianne48 - I just loved the kid's comment!! Thanks for the laugh I agree with all of this, Mmexis. As for parents who expressly forbid their children from reading Grimm's fairy tales, many of your points are accurate, but I know individuals who have done just that, unfortunately. Without going too much into the politics of the situation, these parents believed that traditional fairy tales "enforce gender stereotypes" and other political points. My own politics are very different from that, so that mindset is not mine, but I do know it to be the case. "Trigger warnings," I agree, are equally troubling, as is the push for standardized testing at the expense of educating the whole person. Reminds me of that delightful Mark Twain quotation (well, apparently he didn't actually say it, but it is usually accredited to him): "I never let my schooling interfere with my education." I wish that exploration of literature had not fallen to the wayside and that "Wimpy Kid" were replaced with fairy tales and mythology, which I was lucky enough to have read when I was young. The only answer I have to this dilemma right now, knowing have no expertise on the subject, is that, as with many things, this love of literature begins as home--but, of course, in the modern world, even that is difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 5, 2017 6:45:31 GMT
What is the moral of the story? Give without expecting anything in return. Imagine what kind of world it would be if more people could do that. Kind of sad that for some people that message is not evident at all. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 5, 2017 6:51:32 GMT
SalzmanK: I don't think parents expressly forbid their children from reading Grimm's original fairytales. I have a complete edition of Grimm's fairytales, the one with the owl on the inside cover and the twisted tree trunks on the front cover. My kids love it when I read to them out of that book. My kids also enjoyed the original Carlo Collodi 'Pinocchio', as I did when my mother read it to me. For those who have not read the original, Pinocchio learns all his lessons the hard way and there is a lot of darkness in the tale. |
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on May 5, 2017 20:12:03 GMT
SalzmanK: I don't think parents expressly forbid their children from reading Grimm's original fairytales. I have a complete edition of Grimm's fairytales, the one with the owl on the inside cover and the twisted tree trunks on the front cover. My kids love it when I read to them out of that book. My kids also enjoyed the original Carlo Collodi 'Pinocchio', as I did when my mother read it to me. For those who have not read the original, Pinocchio learns all his lessons the hard way and there is a lot of darkness in the tale. I never read Pinocchio as a kid, or saw the movie, I read the book for the first time a few years ago, dark yes but that's why it's good. As to Grimm...I don't remember if it was on IMDb or Youtube, I mentioned Grimm's Grimmest, has it all, cannibalism, dismemberment, sex, incest, etc., and somebody wanted to bite my head off because I said I think it would be good for kids to read these stories instead of just the sanitized Disney versions...I grew up with the clean and safe versions, lot of fun, but as kids get older they ARE capable of enduring more, I mean look at the Arabian Nights, I read that in the 4th grade, complete with illustrations of Ali Baba's brother dismembered and his body parts hanging from the ceiling in the cave. Worst children's book? Good question, I can think of a few I wouldn't want my kids reading, but not bad enough to say worst. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 22:29:29 GMT
The Giving Tree, by Shel Silverstein. It begins happily, then ends depressingly. Why this downer remains a staple of children's libraries is a mystery to me. Knew what it would be before opening the thread. Awful book. Really, really terrible. |
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on May 5, 2017 23:39:02 GMT
What is the moral of the story? Give without expecting anything in return. Giving without expecting anything in return in order to make someone happy is a wonderful thing. But the guy in the story remains discontented to the very end. That's what sours the sentiment for me. |
|
mmexis
Sophomore
@mmexis
Posts: 860
Likes: 732
|
Post by mmexis on May 6, 2017 1:32:23 GMT
Nalkarj: "Enforce gender stereotypes". [scoffs and snorts loudly] As much as there are stereotypes, there are lots of self-sufficient and resourceful children in these stories. Cinderella is Perrault, not Grimm. Rapunzel is traded by her parents for some greens and then brought up by a bitter woman (ooh, unexpected funny as rapunzel is bitter) locked away from the world: the first instance of hover parenting. However, she is also able to amuse herself. Snow white is betrayed by another woman and rescued by a man. Oh yes, she does the housewife thing. Maybe the gender stereotyping is that women tend to back stab each other? That men are ruled by their lower head more than their upper one? That children and women are pawns to be traded? And, of course, none of this happens in the real world - not at all. There's something to be said for Wimpy kid, despite my dissing it earlier. I am a firm believer that all children are readers - you just have to get the right book into their hands to hook them. When I was teaching English, I rarely taught a "class" novel. Hated them all and hated that they were often the same ones that I had done in school. Nope, time to move on. Young adult literature gets a bad rap but there is some wonderful stuff being written. A book as disturbing as Unwind by Neil Shusterman has a lot in it to be discussed: multiple narrators (a difficult thing for many), the idea that parents have unquestionable authority, the pros and cons of governmental policy, euthanasia. Not bad for YA. But again, this could easily be the beginning of a long rant. novastar6: love the part in Pinocchio where he becomes the jackass that he is. What a lesson. Along with the one about eating what you are given. The chickpeas turned out to be tasty after all!!
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 6, 2017 2:43:57 GMT
Give without expecting anything in return. Giving without expecting anything in return in order to make someone happy is a wonderful thing. But the guy in the story remains discontented to the very end. That's what sours the sentiment for me. The act of giving is not diminished if the recipient fails to give a desired emotional response. If I hold a door open for an old lady, and she scowls and doesn't acknowledge me at all as she walks through the door, that doesn't make me think that I should not have held the door. My good feeling at doing a good deed is the same no matter what her reaction is. The idea is that you're doing something good with absolutely no strings attached.
The tree was not looking at the outcome to justify giving, the giving needs no justification. |
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on May 6, 2017 12:22:06 GMT
Holding open a door for someone is, or at least should be, expected behavior and good manners, not a great personal sacrifice (no
matter what those boors who immediately screech "YOU'RE WELCOMMMMMME!!" back at anyone who doesn't offer profuse thanks quickly enough think). You shouldn't have to congratulate yourself at performing such a "good deed"; you should only feel lousy with yourself if you neglect to perform such a basic gesture of etiquette. The unsatisfying reaction of a complete stranger whom you'll probably never see again is not likely to have a long-range affect on your life.
But in the book, the tree believes that the boy is her friend and loves her, and gives all of herself away in the expectation that he won't ignore her. When she helps him out, only to have him disappear, '...the tree was happy. But not really."
This isn't an encounter with a stranger, this is supposed to be a lifelong relationship. A friendship, a parent-child relationship, or a marriage in which one person gives and gives and the other takes and takes without an acknowledgment of any kind is troubling. Unfortunately, a lot of people find themselves in sorry relationships like this for their whole lives. That's
not inspiring; it's depressing.
I should mention that the teacher who assigned this book to be read to her students did it as part of a "Nature" unit for her class. So it was intended to show how Nature gives and gives, and people destroy it. In the end, mankind is left with a ruined
natural environment, which makes us unhappy. Also sad, but maybe at least it serves as a warning about destroying the environment.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 6, 2017 20:06:38 GMT
I was just saying that one message in the book seems to be to give without expecting anything in return.
Even in your comment "Giving without expecting anything in return in order to make someone happy is a wonderful thing.", if your doing it in order to make someone happy you're expecting something in return. I found that to be an ironic and contradictory statement.
And perhaps there is another message in the book, that no matter how much you give you'll never be able to give away what makes you you.
And another message, no matter how much you help some people they will still find something to me miserable about.
Important things to know.
|
|
) 