If you haven't read it, it is about a friendship between a little boy and a tree. The boy loves the tree and the tree loves the boy. The boy plays in its leaves, swings from its branches, and eats its apples. Throughout the story, the boy grows up and comes back to visit the tree. (When he needs something, it seems.) The tree gives him everything he has: his apples to sell, his branches to build a house, and eventually he gives him his trunk so the boy can build a boat and sail away. At the end of the book, the tree is just a stump and the boy comes back as an old man. All the boy needs is a place to sit. The boy sits on the stump and they are both happy to be together.
I love this story, but I have a bit of an issue with it now that I am older. I think that this story is a true depiction of how a lot of relationships are. Why? Because there are Givers and there are Takers in the world. Apparently I am not the only one who has an issue with this story. I discovered while writing this that there are a lot of people who had issues with it when it came out.
When is it too much to give to another person? We are taught that you are good in completely sacrificing yourself for another, yet doesn't this just breed a bigger group of selfish people and hurt the Givers? Givers are usually the ones to say they're sorry, to forgive, and to show patience and kindness. The Takers take advantage of this, so isn't it unhealthy for the Giver? When is being nice too nice? When should you walk away when dealing with a selfish person? Should you leave when you still have a few branches in tact, or when you are alone in the woods and nothing but a stump? Should you be happy being a stump because you knew you gave your all? Or is this completely stupid? Honestly, the fact that the stump was happy the boy was there to sit on him at the end is very sad. I think in People Terms, this would be considered having no confidence that you deserve someone better....someone who wouldn't have taken your trunk to sail away from you.
I don't know what to teach my kids about this except what Jesus says. He says to love your enemies as well as your friends, otherwise there is no reward. There is no reward in only loving the lovable. But am I wrong to want more for my kids than becoming the types of people who let others take everything while they give selflessly? But then again, I don't want them to be Takers either. Between the boy and the tree, I would much rather be the tree. The boy is a little punk who takes as he pleases and comes back only when it's convenient for him. I don't want my kids to be like that, nor do I want to be like that.
Maybe it's an Ebb and Flo. Maybe we are all the boy and the tree at different points in our lives, or maybe we change roles with certain people. Maybe that's why Givers end up with Takers. Takers and Takers make it about a week, or they end up dead and on the news. My question is this: Why don't Givers and Givers wind up together. (I am not talking just romantically. I am talking about in any relationship.) Or does a Giver naturally begin to take when finding another Giver because it's human nature? Are Givers attracted to Takers because they like to nurture? Are Takers attracted to Givers because they are selfish bastards? Yes, now this is about the only thing I am sure of while I write this. I think that Givers have it written on their foreheads and Takers are the first to spot it, hunt it, and go in for the kill.
I know that when I love someone I would rather give everything I have than to know that I gave them a watered-down version of myself, no matter how many times I get burned. (Maybe this is unfortunate?) I definitely think we need to take care of ourselves in our relationships though and that there should be a balance.
Have a great Friday! Go read the book! It's great, no matter which way you look at it.
Like much of Shel Silverstein's writing, more for adults than kids. I remember the day I read this book. Love the online picture. LOL
ReplyDeleteIsn't that funny??? LOL
ReplyDelete