Devils_Advocate Posted September 17, 2008 Report Share Posted September 17, 2008 Our English teacher read us (remember, I'm in 10th grade, so this was really weird) "The Giving Tree" a couple of days ago. Shortly after remembering having heard it in 3rd grade and feeling a nauseating sensation, a deeply buried memory from my past became unearthed. I remembered that in 3rd Grade, I played the part of the supremely altruistic tree in the school's production of a play version of "the Giving Tree". I was just wondering if anyone else had bad elementary school memories involving this story, because I can't imagine many of us were read "The Adventures of Ragnar Daneskjold" as bedtime stories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01503 Posted September 17, 2008 Report Share Posted September 17, 2008 (edited) I was read "The Giving Tree" as a child by my mom. The basic idea of the story is that the tree gives everything of itself: its fruit, its branches, its trunks, all of its being to this one person, from his infancy to his last moments. The tree donates every fiber of itself to the whims of this one man who keeps leaving and returning, years and years spaced apart. This kind of philosophy SCREAMS altruism. This kind of person is BEGGING for an abusive relationship. I have no clue WHY my mom would have read this to me. To sum it up: the tree is treated like shit by the man, and takes it with a smile. Which is allegedly "moral". Edited September 17, 2008 by NickS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Posted September 17, 2008 Report Share Posted September 17, 2008 (edited) The Objectivist Tree (Always makes me laugh): http://bp1.blogger.com/_qgOv8ZUJDC0/RoKc6H...1600-h/tree.jpg edit: fixed link. Edited September 17, 2008 by West Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenure Posted September 17, 2008 Report Share Posted September 17, 2008 In the academic criticism of the book, we also see great examples of the effects of altruism. Basically, there's two views: either the boy is a vicious, abusive partner in this relationship, thus being 'Selfish'; or, he is a wonderful example of how most men do (and it is meant to be read as: should) live, and that if we didn't, 'selfish' parents would abandon their children and the world would fall apart. So, either it's a great story of the beauty of selflessness, or it's a horrible example of selfishness - so they say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IchorFigure Posted September 17, 2008 Report Share Posted September 17, 2008 The book seems fairly spot on to me. Man uses nature to suit his life I say bring on "The Giving (and Tasty) Chicken", "The Giving Laboratory Rat", and "The Giving Alaskan Caribou Habitat". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinDW78 Posted September 17, 2008 Report Share Posted September 17, 2008 Man uses nature to suit his life That's how I would take it. The moral of the story is - it's the role of nature to be raped for the use and benefit of man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted September 17, 2008 Report Share Posted September 17, 2008 The Objectivist Tree (Always makes me laugh): http://bp1.blogger.com/_qgOv8ZUJDC0/RoKc6H...1600-h/tree.jpg edit: fixed link. AHAHA That is classic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted September 17, 2008 Report Share Posted September 17, 2008 I liked the book as a kid and have a fond memory of it. If I recall correctly, I thought it was interesting how the tree was utilized by the man over the course of so many years. It wasn't wasted, yet it was exploited by a single man over the course of a lifetime to make the man's life better. Oh, and trees aren't volitional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SherryTX Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Actually, one could view it as a parent child relationship - the tree keeps giving because the tree values the brat so much. That's my angle with it and I am sticking to it. =) When my kids and I read it, we discuss it in that regard, but also ask them what they think about it. This is one of those books that I think people love or hate, and most of those I know that have studied Objectivism see it on the bad end of the spectrum. I don't believe that has to necessarily be the case at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Andrew Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 The Objectivist Tree (Always makes me laugh): http://bp1.blogger.com/_qgOv8ZUJDC0/RoKc6H...1600-h/tree.jpg HAHAHAHA! That's one of the funniest parodies I've ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedic Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Wow, this is a total eye opener for me. I always thought the book was a moral story explaining why one shouldn't give everything of oneself, or else you'll end up like that tree. Huh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Who Nigs Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 I disagree with the original poster, and moreover I have fond memories of this book. The fundamental thing professed in this book is not, as the academics would interpret, one which professes altruism, but one which professes man's allegiance to nature, ie. the fact that man uses nature to shape his ideal world. This book is somewhat ambiguous in intellectual circles, and what I mean by that is that the true meaning of the book is a very controversial topic debated amongst intellectuals. Altruism is absolutely not the predominant ideal in this book, and moreover I think that you are mistaken with regards to your reasoning. But, however, I do think that there is something to be said about our socialized school system, that being that it lends itself towards the misportrayal of great classics. For example, in my high school English class, classics such as Moby Dick and others (which I cannot remember the name of at the moment), are split up into tidbits, i.e. we never got to actually read the book, but we rather read a short summary of it. I think that you have to consider the entirety of the context of the situation with regards to this, being that if your reasoning is not sharp enough, you might make the mistake of jumping to conclusions (based upon the false premonitions of your school teachers). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 You want an altuisic book? Try Rainbow Fish. Here is a summary of the plot: "The story follows the beautiful Rainbow Fish, who is covered in colorful shiny scales. Proud and vain, he thinks he is better than all the other fish and will not play with them. When one small fish asks the Rainbow Fish for one of his scales, he rejects him. The other fish then refuse to talk to the Rainbow Fish at all, so the Rainbow Fish visits the wise female octopus for advice. The octopus advises him to give away his scales to the other fish. When he encounters the small fish a second time, the Rainbow Fish gives him one of his precious scales, and is very soon surrounded by other fish requesting scales. Eventually, the Rainbow Fish has only one shiny scale left, but he is no longer vain. He spends his days playing happily with the other fish." So, the Rainbow Fish has to sink to the level of mediocrity in order to be happy. This is taught in some schools. Nothing but socialist indoctronation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01503 Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 You want an altuisic book? Try Rainbow Fish. Here is a summary of the plot: "The story follows the beautiful Rainbow Fish, who is covered in colorful shiny scales. Proud and vain, he thinks he is better than all the other fish and will not play with them. When one small fish asks the Rainbow Fish for one of his scales, he rejects him. The other fish then refuse to talk to the Rainbow Fish at all, so the Rainbow Fish visits the wise female octopus for advice. The octopus advises him to give away his scales to the other fish. When he encounters the small fish a second time, the Rainbow Fish gives him one of his precious scales, and is very soon surrounded by other fish requesting scales. Eventually, the Rainbow Fish has only one shiny scale left, but he is no longer vain. He spends his days playing happily with the other fish." So, the Rainbow Fish has to sink to the level of mediocrity in order to be happy. This is taught in some schools. Nothing but socialist indoctronation. I have that book around here somewhere... fun stuff... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedic Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 (edited) Yeah, but fish grow their scales back. So he'll be happy and have all his scales back. I don't have a problem with that. Edited February 13, 2009 by Zedic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 The story is not about fish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedic Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Yes, it's an allegorical story, but it's also undeniable that fish grow their scales back. Also, on further reflection, if you're an optimist it's conceivable to interpret the story as being one about value; if you can spare to part with something others envy, and if it's your value, you can give it to others for the exchange of being happy in sharing the joy said object brings to each individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 The story is suggesting that you MUST sacrifice the things you value to make everyone happy. That is altruism and it's awful. If you disagree with that, you should take your argument to the debate area of the forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Zedic, the Rainbow Fish sacrifices his individuality to be part of the collective. The story is wrong on all levels, not to mention being thinly disguised Marxist/Socialist propoganda being force-fed to our children, before they have the discrimination to tell the difference between a harmless story and indoctrination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Who Nigs Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 The story is suggesting that you MUST sacrifice the things you value to make everyone happy. That is altruism and it's awful. If you disagree with that, you should take your argument to the debate area of the forum. I apologize, next time I will respond without offering an opinion. I say you, sir, you should take your debate to the debate area of the forum. Owned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 (edited) I apologize, next time I will respond without offering an opinion. I say you, sir, you should take your debate to the debate area of the forum. Owned. 1.) I'm a girl 2.) I was responding to the posts directly above mine (Zedic) 3.) I have no idea what you're talking about Edited February 13, 2009 by K-Mac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Kelly, I don't think he does either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 Yeah, but fish grow their scales back. So he'll be happy and have all his scales back. I don't have a problem with that. Yes, but not in fables. If you introduce reality into a fable you render it useless. Lions don't talk, to Androchles or to anyone. Turtles don't race hares (or rabbits) and ants and grasshoppers don't think or speak (for that matter fish don't play and are not vain). So in this particualr story this particualr fish doesn't grow back his scales. As for trees, they don't give anything. Man plants trees in roder to chop them for wood and bark (bark can be very useful depending on species) or to grow food, or to grwo something else (like rubber or maple syrup). left to themselves they do what every other mindless living thing does: they live and reproduce. How they go about it varies. But that , too, ruins the parable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuringAI Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 I liked the book as a kid and have a fond memory of it. If I recall correctly, I thought it was interesting how the tree was utilized by the man over the course of so many years. It wasn't wasted, yet it was exploited by a single man over the course of a lifetime to make the man's life better. Oh, and trees aren't volitional. I think it would've made more sense if the boy/man had been the one to give the tree nutrients. That would make more sense. A tree can't just magically produce all of the things man needs. It must be treated according to man's knowledge about its nature. So the boy/man gives something to the tree and in return reaps the benefits. Then it could be The Capitalist Tree. XD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Who Nigs Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 1.) I'm a girl 2.) I was responding to the posts directly above mine (Zedic) 3.) I have no idea what you're talking about I apologize, and this time sincerely. -Marcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.