1) The song "Can't Get No Satisfaction," is a double negative. Mick Jagger is actually saying that he CAN get some satisfaction. I just recently realized that.
2) Shel Silverstein not only was a musician. But he was really heavily into drugs, just like I'd thought.
3) Old Yeller is still sad. That is one of the only movies that made me really cry.
4) This ( ) smiley is one smiley. Its not separated into three different smilies.
5) Roald Dahl's book aren't exactly child appropriate. Boy, I didn't know what he meant when he said, "I'll beat you silly," when I was five.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: he was really heavily into drugs
After reading this post, the question occurs to me. Are you?
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
I have one of my own.
Mac and Cheese is probably the easiest food to cook (like adding ingredients and stiring) and its probably the one messed up the most.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Tante- No, why do you ask?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeesh: I have one of my own.
Mac and Cheese is probably the easiest food to cook (like adding ingredients and stiring) and its probably the one messed up the most.
And yet, it is SO good.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: why do you ask?
You don't seem like yourself tonight. Drunk, maybe?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Nope. Never had a sip of alchohol in my life. What about me seems different?
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Jeesh: I have one of my own.
Mac and Cheese is probably the easiest food to cook (like adding ingredients and stiring) and its probably the one messed up the most.
And yet, it is SO good.
Of course!
This brings If I had a Million Dollars to mind
quote: We wouldn't have to eat Kraft dinners. But we would. Of course becuase they're so good. Yeah, we would only eat more.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: Never had a sip of alchohol in my life. What about me seems different?
The whimsy and the spelling and grammatical errors. I'm unaccustomed to that combination from you.
I've had revelations, too. I'm just not going to reveal them, yet.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote: The whimsy and the spelling and grammatical errors.
I'm having difficulty understanding what you mean by "whimy." Aside from that, I'm just tired. I haven't really slept very well in a while. In fact, I would be sleeping now if I could.
When you're tired, the keys all become a blur. And, even though I don't look at them when I type, I become more prone to making mistakes. Also, I'm taking a break from attempting to be grammatically correct all the time. It's rather bothersome speaking like I do all the time.
But drunk? No. I hate anything drug related (prescription drugs are being discounted). In fact, I've been very angry with one of my friends who has been getting into drugs. But drunk? No. I'm insulted, kind of, that the thought would even come to mind.
I've never thought of myself as the type to get into that sort of thing. No, m'am.
Edit:
When I was typing this post, I thought it was going to be obnoxiously long. But it isn't. Oh, gee whiz.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: When I was typing this post, I thought it was going to be obnoxiously long. But it isn't. Oh, gee whiz.
That's your cue to go sleep.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Oh, I wish I could. I'd wish upon a star, but I'm inside.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Somethings wrong with me today.
quote: I'm wishing on a star, and trying to believe, that even thought its far, he'll find me Christmas Eve. I guess Santa's busy, because he never comes around. That's all I want when Christmas comes to town.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
That poem is a little out of season, don't you think?
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Gah! I keep getting songs in my head. Now I've got (I think its called) 'Turn' by the Beatles.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
That song is a little out of season, don't you think?
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Meh, I sing it anyway.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: 1) The song "Can't Get No Satisfaction," is a double negative. Mick Jagger is actually saying that he CAN get some satisfaction. I just recently realized that.
I shouldn't have to explain this. But I will.
In some colloquial uses, the word "no" is used in place of "any". As in, "I went down to the store, but I couldn't get no soda pop because the delivery man hadn't dropped any off yet." That doesn't meant that the speaker could get some soda pop, but that he couldn't get any soda pop. Same principle works here. Neither is proper usage, but it isn't strictly a double negative, either.
But, in the same vein, I recently realized that Mick Jagger can't fake a southern accent to save his life. Don't believe me? Just listen to the version of "Wild Horses" on Sticky Fingers and you'll be able to hear what I mean - it's a travesty. Then, go listen to the Flying Burrito Brothers' cover of the song. Gram Parsons did a much better reading of it than Jagger ever could.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I'm having difficulty understanding what you mean by "whimy."
quote:When you're tired, the keys all become a blur...Oh, gee whiz.
Ah, so not drug or alcohol impaired, just punch-drunk from sleep deprivation. Well, have a cup of chamomile tea mixed with warm milk, and a few crackers. Then brush your teeth, get into your pajamas, and go to bed. G'night!
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Please, 5) is pure garbage.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I've had a number of revelations lately.
1) The song "Can't Get No Satisfaction," is a double negative. Mick Jagger is actually saying that he CAN get some satisfaction. I just recently realized that.
Grammar is not the same thing as math. A double negative is not a positive.
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: 2) Shel Silverstein not only was a musician. But he was really heavily into drugs, just like I'd thought.
The Giving Tree is, quite frankly, the most disturbing story I have ever read.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
CT, do you think so? I really love it!
It made me cry when it was first read to me, and it stayed on my mind for a long time. Then I realized what happened next, after the end of the book, and it became one of my favorite books of all time.
One reason I adore it is that it doesn't tell us what to think, or what the lesson is. It leaves us pondering it all. What do you think about it? I would love to know.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think it's probably a lot like a Rorshach test, you know? How we interpret it likely reflects in great detail what we bring to it.
I was horrified at the tree's self-mutilation, even in the service of a greater good. That is, if it were a marriage, I would seriously consider it to be an abusive and abuse-enabling relationship.
Of course, I have struggled in my own time with the ecstasy of self-immolation, and for me it became very much a selfish thing. I think at one point I was even seeking out situations where I could put myself at risk, just to prove my devotion and willingness to self-sacrifice. That is, I was making the world a worse place over all in order to feel better about myself. Selfish in a negative sense, truly, albeit paradoxically so from a certain (self-centered, for me) perspective.
So that's probably what I saw to be afraid of or to dislike in the story. My own Rorshach. Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Rats, CT, now I'm going to have to read it.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I can see that aspect of it, and it may be that you and I are in different places on very similar arcs. And yet the giving tree isn't making the world worse, is she?
For me the story continues this way.
*** Spoiler Alert for The Giving Tree ****
The man dies that winter and his wife buries him at the foot of the tree to which he was so attached, as a child and an old man, and upon which their home and family life was founded. She knew the whole story, of course, and also loved the tree.
The lifetime of a tree is many times that of a man. As the days passed, the man lay dead under the earth, where he grew weary. The creatures of the earth, the worms and caterpillars, and all the small crawly things would come, upon occasion, to visit him. The man was repulsed, and thought himself to be far above these lowly creatures. He mourned his new circumstances and looked upon himself in this state with horror and loathing.
But over time, gradually, as he grew more lonely in the quiet weeks underground, he began to forget himself, and to notice the creatures more and more, for themselves. He began to know them by name, and slowly found interest in their small desperate lives and hopes. As time went by, he came to love them more than he had loved even his wife and children when he had been alive. And he realized that he could provide for them, that he didn't need his flesh any more. So he offered to them his body for food, and they ate him, and had abundance, and many children, and the man was happy.
For the worms this story lasted for what seemed an eternity, and ages and ages in their lives went past during the events of our tale. For the man it was one long lifetime, and aftermath. But for the tree, it was only a short season. And when spring came, there were rich nutrients in the earth about her roots, from the man's body and the bodies of all the many generations of worms and other living things who had lived and died under her shade. And the tree watched all these things, and continued to grow in love and understanding. Spring brought plentiful showers and warm sunshine, and the from her richly fed roots and stump, a new sapling sprang.
As the years passed the sapling grew and put forth shapely limbs, beautiful fruits, and glossy leaves, and again the tree was lush and bounteous. The children of the man, and his grandchildren and great-grandchildren in turn came and played among the tree's branches, and ate her fruit, and cut her limbs to make slingshots and other toys. Their grandmother kept alive in memory the life of the man, though her writings, which she passed down to succeeding generations. And ever after, once a year when the first fruits came, his descendants would choose the loveliest fruit from the tree to lay upon their grandfather's grave. And the tree watched and saw all these things, and the tree was happy.
[ March 19, 2006, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And yet the giving tree isn't making the world worse, is she?
The argument can be made -- and I've made it about this book, too, which I also regard with some cringing distaste -- that she makes her world worse, and is not healthy enough to understand why that might be a bad thing. To me, the book has always been a cautionary fable, NOT a redemptive one.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I can definitely see the cautionary aspects of the story.
And yet, isn't the giving tree the story of every good parent?
For me, of course, it's also a Christ-figure book. It's also the story of a loving God.
And where would we all be without them? Without loving parents and a loving God?
[ March 19, 2006, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude:
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: 1) The song "Can't Get No Satisfaction," is a double negative. Mick Jagger is actually saying that he CAN get some satisfaction. I just recently realized that.
I shouldn't have to explain this. But I will.
In some colloquial uses, the word "no" is used in place of "any". As in, "I went down to the store, but I couldn't get no soda pop because the delivery man hadn't dropped any off yet." That doesn't meant that the speaker could get some soda pop, but that he couldn't get any soda pop. Same principle works here. Neither is proper usage, but it isn't strictly a double negative, either.
So I'm an idiot? I don't remember seventh grade grammar class. There isn't any reason to rub it in.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
CT, I agree heartily with the idea that Giving Tree is a Rorshach. People who've experienced genuine joy through selflessness find joy in the book. People who've been taken advantage of see that in the book.
For me, having been more a recipient of selflessness than a practitioner of it, what I see is a story about the most ungrateful man I've ever beheld.
------------------
And I understood every bit of every Roald Dahl book I read, and I love the guy for every word.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: And yet, isn't the giving tree the story of every good parent?
No. And that's EXACTLY the danger, because that's what I think it was meant to seem like, and that's what I think most readers are meant to take away.
But the Giving Tree is a terrible parent.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:Now I've got (I think its called) 'Turn' by the Beatles.
If it's the cover I think it is, then it's in fact The Byrds. The Beatles never recorded it, although many mistake the Byrds' sound for the Beatles because in 1965 (on Rubber Soul) George Harrison was very much influenced by their tinny sounding guitar.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Tom, what should she have done differently?
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: So I'm an idiot? I don't remember seventh grade grammar class. There isn't any reason to rub it in.
Mea culpa, Steve. I was in an exceptionally cranky mood when I wrote that. You're not an idiot. But I obviously am for taking out my mood on you. Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude:
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: So I'm an idiot? I don't remember seventh grade grammar class. There isn't any reason to rub it in.
Mea culpa, Steve. I was in an exceptionally cranky mood when I wrote that. You're not an idiot. But I obviously am for taking out my mood on you.
Its alright. I over reacted a little bit. I'd had a really bad week.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, what should she have done differently?
At the point where she's giving away her branches, she could point out that chopping her down isn't something she's going to tolerate, and tell him to go get a job.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Indeed. Raising a selfish, self-centered jerk is not the mark of a good parent.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: At the point where she's giving away her branches, she could point out that chopping her down isn't something she's going to tolerate, and tell him to go get a job.
Wow. That would have been a much different book. Do you think it would have been at all popular?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The thing that I most hated about the book was that the boy chopped down the tree who loved him and who he supposedly loved. A good parent might indeed give her life for her child. A good parent would NOT, in my opinion, say, "Oh, you're broke? Why don't you murder me and collect the insurance money?"
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Its quite clear that the tree didn't think its actions through. I can picture it now.
"Cut me down and use me to build a cabin," or whatever the line is.
"Alright," said the man.
And then the tree thought, Oh crap, I just let him chop me into tiny pieces and build a house out of me. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Y'all thought the tree died?
The tree wasn't dead! It didn't give up its life. Only its trunk, branches, and fruit, and those it can grow new. They were gifts.
The tree is something greater than the man. As the man is to the tree so the worms are to the man. The man wasn't able to understand the tree while he was alive. He was a lesser being. Still the tree loved him and took joy in his happiness.
It's sort of cool how we all see such very different stories in this book. I sort of think that's what makes it so great. It touches all of us deeply, but we read in it very different things.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Ok, off the topic which may or may not be off topic, I had a revelation:
Chemistry SUCKS!
/revelation
Posted by signal (Member # 6828) on :
NOOOOOO! Don't say that! I have to take a chem class next semester.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm not enjoying my Geography class. But I think its because I hate the teacher.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Okay, the tree didn't die. But a good parent would also not say "chop my legs off and take my disability insurance."
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Because that would be fraud.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Also, because that would a)hurt a lot and, b) be very inconvenient.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
And the harm it does to the boy's soul is greater than the help it does to his finances.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That's it, exactly. For me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Okay, the tree didn't die.
Well, no. The tree died. Any other life that lived on following the death of the tree was grateful, no doubt, but was not the tree.
A martyr complex is not a virtue.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Tom, I love you.
Sorry, Christy.
Oh dear that shouldn't be on a new page.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: A martyr complex is not a virtue.
But can martyrdom itself be virtuous? If my daughter is about to be hit by a truck, is it good that I push her out of the way, sacrificing my life for hers? Or am I enabling her carelessness and I should let her get hit? That'll teach her.
Martyrdom is not necessarily virtuous, but it can be (and often is, despite the unworthiness of the beneficiary; or perhaps because of it).
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: The Giving Tree is, quite frankly, the most disturbing story I have ever read.
Did I ever post the link for The Healthy Giving Tree? I once corresponded with the author, and if I ever manage to create illustrations for him, he may actually get this published.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That's awesome, starLisa.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
I agree, much better, starLisa.
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
Yes, definitely better.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Now I just have to teach myself how to draw. <grin>
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
What do people who dislike The Giving Tree think of Oscar Wilde's fable, The Nightingale and the Rose. Do you have a similarly negative reaction?
When I read TGT, I thought it was tragic that the boy/man was too selfish to properly value the sacrifices the tree made on his behalf. But I always found the tree's selflessness to be something to be admired, not disdained.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
When I read TGT, I thought it was tragic that the boy/man was too selfish to properly value the sacrifices the tree made on his behalf. But I always found the tree's selflessness to be something to be admired, not disdained.
"Disdained" would not be the word I would use. "Saddened/horrified by" would fit closer, although not perfectly.
"Disdain" comes with an inherent flavor of superiority and looking down on another. That would not fit my emotion at all.
-----------------------
Edited to add: I am not fond of the other story you linked, but it does not grate at me so coarsely as TGT. Perhaps because the relationship and expectations are different?
The nightingale strikes me as rather misguided and quixotic (to say the least), but the nightingale seems to view this as a grand gesture Toward Love, not so much Of Loving. The latter feels more of a perversion to me, in these contexts, although neither (IMHO) is healthy or ultimately useful.
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
I agree with CT about the nightingale story.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I should add that I am very wary of those who would insist on sacrificing themselves on my behalf. In my family, it was not uncommon to metaphorically have family members chase you down the streets (through an alley, up the fire escape, leaping between tall buildings) in order to "do you the favor" of some self-sacrifice on their parts.
I got to know the metaphorical back streets pretty well, and I learned where all the best hidey-holes from other's excessive largesse were. *grin
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The thing that really irks me about TGT is that the boy learns nothing. I believe that love should give extravagantly, but it does bother me that the boy doesn't so much as notice the gift, much less strive to be worthy of it. I "get" the tree, but the boy really pisses me off.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: "Disdained" would not be the word I would use. "Saddened/horrified by" would fit closer, although not perfectly.
I knew 'disdained' wasn't quite right, but I couldn't think of anything better at the time
quote:The nightingale strikes me as rather misguided and quixotic
In both cases the words I would first use to describe the character's actions would be "noble" and "elevated" (moreso in the case of the nightingale, but also in the case of TGT).
<edit> In both cases I feel inspired by the purity of love, despite the unworthiness of the beneficiary. It appeals to the romantic in me that love (and sacrifice born of love) is its own raison d'etre (if I can't sound smart in English, I'll try a different language) </edit>
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It is a different perspective, I suppose. Very much the Rorshach, in some ways. *smile
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
In thinking more about this, I've come to realize that in cases where there truly is no other option to save another, I do find self-sacrifice to be noble and elevated.
For example, I've long been haunted by the memory of seeing a man in icy, frigid waters gathering others and strapping them in to be helicoptered to safety. (This was a news clip after, IIRC, a plane crash of the Atlantic coast.) He kept pushing others forward and eventually drowned himself before they could all be saved.
That is, in my estimation, one of the bravest and noblest things I've ever seen. I fear I couldn't live up to this example myself, although I would like to think I could find it in me to rise to the occasion. Similarly for the story of Scarlett, the very brave cat who returned into the burning building time and again to save her kittens from the fire.
In both these cases, there really was no other way to save the others. It was a last-ditch, desparate measure, not an embracing of a way of life.
Contrast this to TGT, who seemed possibly just a little too quick and eager to volunteer itself for the cause. Why not take the approach used by THGT? Or why not encourage the boy to find other ways of making his way in the world -- ways which would be "teaching him to fish" rather than just providing one meal?
I don't think I would've had such a problem with the story if it was clear that the (better, more healthy, more sustainable, less martyristic) other options had all been exhausted. As it is, I'm suspicious that this particular tree probably cuts initials into its own bark and has a childhood history of some longterm root abuse.
*wry look
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: As it is, I'm suspicious that this particular tree probably cuts initials into its own bark and has a history of some root abuse. *wry look
I don't often laugh at posts (and I *disdain* the rolling graemlin) but that made me chuckle.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(*grin)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: What do people who dislike The Giving Tree think of Oscar Wilde's fable, The Nightingale and the Rose. Do you have a similarly negative reaction?
Gawd, that was awful. But you know, it's different. In both cases, the boy/man is really rotten. Worse in Wilde's story, but only marginally.
The real difference is in the tree/nightingale. The nightingale gave its life for something it truly believed in and identified with. It formed a value judgement and acted on it. The tree... the tree is just pathetic, and as much as I found the boy appalling, my contempt for the tree vastly outweighed it.
I can respect the nightingale, even if I think it made a poor choice.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I should add that I am very wary of those who would insist on sacrificing themselves on my behalf. In my family, it was not uncommon to metaphorically have family members chase you down the streets (through an alley, up the fire escape, leaping between tall buildings) in order to "do you the favor" of some self-sacrifice on their parts.
I've had acquaintances (I hesitate to use the term "friends") who were constantly doing huge favors. But there was always an implicit string attached. I thought of it as similar to the kids who jump out at an intersection and clean your windshield without having asked you, and demand to be paid for it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yeah, exactly.
Remind me to tell you about my "Aunt Purple" sometime. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Tom, a tree stump is still alive, and can send up new shoots easily. The tree didn't die. Also, the tree had thoughts and feelings in the story after the point at which its trunk was taken. I don't want to minimize the sacrifice of the tree, for it was indeed great. That's why it affects us so powerfully, I think. But a tree can take a much longer view of things than a man can. That seems to me to be a key in the story. A tree is a greater being (in this story) than a boy.
Are we only to give our love and service to those who are grateful, then? I'm really surprised that you feel that way, CT and dkw. For me the blessing and exaltation of the gift is in the choice to give it. Then the one who accepts the gift also has a choice (free agency) to accept with joy and gratitude and be similarly blessed by it, or to take it thoughtlessly or not at all, and miss the blessing. Either way, the gift is a worthy and admirable act.
The tree can't force the boy to understand or be grateful. That choice belongs to him.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Why do you assume strings are always attached? Did the tree attach strings? I don't see any hint that it did.
It's rather funny that people tend to be suspicious of gifts, but if someone tries to take things then they feel they understand and can trust that person.
I feed the animals in my backyard. I do it because they are cute and I love watching them. And because the life of a wild animal is a hard one, and I sympathize and want to ease their lives just a bit. Also when they come around looking for something to eat, I feel empathy with their hunger, so I put out food for them. There are no strings. I do it for the joy of it. They aren't grateful. God does the same thing for me. He provides the earth's bounty, the sunshine, the rain, the beauty of nature, the sky, intelligence, etc. to bless me. I don't think there are strings on that transaction either.
Is it really true that I'm so different in outlook from you, CT, and from you, dkw? This discussion is making me feel sad. The world must be a fairly harsh and unloving place for you guys?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Are we only to give our love and service to those who are grateful, then? I'm really surprised that you feel that way, CT and dkw.
That is not even remotely what I said. Neither I nor CT said anything about gratitude.
quote:Is it really true that I'm so different in outlook from you, CT, and from you, dkw? This discussion is making me feel sad. The world must be a fairly harsh and unloving place for you guys?
No, the world is a place full of love and joy. But encouraging people to sin is not a positive thing, in my opinion, and that is what the tree was doing.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
dkw, I suppose this is a pastoral question. I'm trying to understand how being generous and loving is an encouragement to sin. Will you tell me more about what you think?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Being generous and loving is not an inducement to sin. Encouraging someone to do something that will deeply hurt another person, even if that person is yourself, is.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
There's a line between being "generous and loving" and being enabling. I tend to agree with dkw and CT on this one that TGT is more enabling.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Okay, I think I'm starting to understand a little better now, maybe. It's the harm to the tree that's the part where the sin comes in?
I see this as a Christ figure book. That makes me wonder though, if what the giving tree did was bad, why was what Christ did for us a good thing? He too was deeply hurt. By accepting his gift, am I not being in many ways like the boy in the story?
(Hopefully, I'm more grateful and cognizant of the sacrifice made than he was. But I'm not really positive he wasn't. He just didn't seem to be. Maybe he was. Or maybe he found wisdom in his old age, or after he died (as in my sequel). And regardless of whether he was or not, it's for sure that I'm not nearly grateful ENOUGH.)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
What do you think Jesus would have done if Peter had come up to him and said, "Jesus, I'm really not happy with my life. This whole "disciple" thing is just not working for me. Would you suffer physical, mental, and spiritual agony so that I can build a boat and sail far away?"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Either way, the gift is a worthy and admirable act.
The tree can't force the boy to understand or be grateful.
Anne Kate, in this scenario, the gift itself seems supremely selfish. If the point of the gift is the GIFT -- if the attitude or reaction of the recipient of the gift is completely incidental to the "nobility" of the gift itself -- then giving becomes its own supremely self-interested act. In this case, self-sacrifice is just another form of twisted vanity.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Tom, how is it twisted vanity to be kind and generous?
Isn't it the other way around? If you only give when the person is going to reward you by being grateful and admiring to you in return, isn't that a commercial transaction rather than a gift? Isn't that the gift with strings? The one that you wouldn't give to someone ungrateful?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
dkw, I don't find Peter's position admirable, in your hypothetical tale, but as for what Christ would do, I think he sort of already did that for me, sacrificed his life, and bore mental and physical and spiritual agony for my sorry self, long before I was cognizant of or grateful for his gift. :/
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Also, the boy didn't ASK the tree for its gifts. The tree offered and the boy accepted.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
For your sorry self, yes. To build you a boat, no.
And the boy did ask.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:What do you think Jesus would have done if Peter had come up to him and said, "Jesus, I'm really not happy with my life. This whole "disciple" thing is just not working for me. Would you suffer physical, mental, and spiritual agony so that I can build a boat and sail far away?"
You've nailed it dkw. Its not the fact that the tree makes these sacrifices for the boy which bothers me. Its that nothing the boy takes from the tree brings him happiness. The tree gives her all and still the boy is unhappy and unsatisfied. The trees gifts are essentially worthless. In fact it makes me wonder whether the trees gifts actually contribute to the boys life long selfish attitude.
It also seems to me that if the boy hadn't taken the trees branchhes and trees trunk, dozens of boys could have swung from her branches and eaten her apples. Over time, hundred of people could have sat in her shade and found joy in the beauty of the tree. Instead, this tree decided to sacrifice herself to the selfish lusts of one boy who never even go any joy from her gifts.
And Tatiana, Don't many years pass between when the boy takes the trees trunk for a boat and when he comes to sit on her trunk. Yet there are no new shoots. Some trees will continue to send up new shoots after they are cut down, many do not. Based on the story, this tree does indeed seem to be truly dead.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: dkw, I don't find Peter's position admirable, in your hypothetical tale, but as for what Christ would do, I think he sort of already did that for me, sacrificed his life, and bore mental and physical and spiritual agony for my sorry self, long before I was cognizant of or grateful for his gift. :/
But Christ's sacrifice has given you and I something of real and incomparable value. Christ didn't offer himself so that we could live in big houses or sail around in boats. He didn't offer himself so that we could glut ourselves with material things that never satisfy. Christ sacrifice was to bring us true eternal joy.
The tree sacrifices everything for the boy, but her sacrifices never give the boy anything of lasting value. They never even make the boy happy.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Rabbit, the tree still has thoughts and feelings as a stump at the very end, so it's definitely not dead.
dkw, Christ's sacrifice doesn't give us anything of any value at all unless we notice it and accept the gift and understand the magnitude of it and feel grateful for it. I think the boy is sort of in the same position with regards to the tree. He can only receive the blessing of the gift if he will notice and understand.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
The real gift isn't the physical fruit, or limbs or trunk. The real gift is the love they convey, and the desire for his happiness that they show. The physical things are just the hardware platform that supports the real gifts.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, how is it twisted vanity to be kind and generous?
It's hard to describe this to someone who's never experienced it, and I have to assume from what you've posted here that you (thankfully) never have. But there is indeed a twisted form of "generosity" out there that feeds on the need of others, even or especially when those others aren't grateful. It's a dark and particularly vile form of giving, not least because it can seem completely innocent. It becomes a sort of self-mutilation, an enforced martyrdom, a cross one chooses to bear -- and it doesn't even need to be something that anyone else appreciates, because the giver, deep down, gets the same satisfaction from his or her martyrdom that people sometimes get when peeling off a particularly thick and crusty scab.
It has to do with boundaries, I think, and concepts of self-sufficiency and self-worth. The tree was worth something, and she allowed herself to be destroyed when her destruction was neither necessary nor desirable, merely to grant some kid's ill-formed whims. She should have recognized the value of her own life and the long-term merit in continuing to exist while providing reasonable and useful gifts to someone deserving of them.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Are we only to give our love and service to those who are grateful, then? I'm really surprised that you feel that way, CT and dkw. For me the blessing and exaltation of the gift is in the choice to give it. Then the one who accepts the gift also has a choice (free agency) to accept with joy and gratitude and be similarly blessed by it, or to take it thoughtlessly or not at all, and miss the blessing. Either way, the gift is a worthy and admirable act.
All the tree has done is to teach a very bad moral lesson. It's like parenting. Parents who never demand anything from their children, but only give, give, give... that's close to child abuse, in my opinion.
The tree didn't teach the boy responsibility; it taught the boy the unimportance of responsibility. It taught the boy that taking advantage of others is okay. And the book has passed that lesson on to countless children.
To answer your question, though, the only reason to do things for those who are not grateful is if it's going to have some other positive effect. If there's hope that eventually the ungrateful person will learn to behave correctly. If there's hope that other people will learn from the pathetic example of the ungrateful person.
Certainly not just to parade ones own virtues.
(And not for nothing, but "giving love" is cool; "giving service" makes my skin crawl.)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Tom, how is it twisted vanity to be kind and generous?
Isn't it the other way around? If you only give when the person is going to reward you by being grateful and admiring to you in return, isn't that a commercial transaction rather than a gift? Isn't that the gift with strings? The one that you wouldn't give to someone ungrateful?
There's a middle ground. Yes, doing something because it's right may be better (context depending) than doing something because you're getting a concrete benefit out of it. But when it only harms the giver and the giver keeps doing it, and when it's not truly benefiting the recipient either, then it's either masochism or someone showing off how kind they are.
I think everyone reading this topic should take two spoonfulls of The Fountainhead and get some sleep.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Tatiana, I've been mulling over this since I woke up (and that was 6 hours ago, so it's a lotta mull), and I can't quite figure out how to respond in a way that would make sense. I think that maybe we are starting from two such different places that I would find it helpful to work on getting a better grasp on your perspective first.
I want to ask a few questions, but I also want to make sure you know that I'm not setting you up for something. They are honest, want-to-know questions, and I won't be pushing you to defend your answers. (You should also feel free not to answer, of course, especially if you get the sense that this isn't going in a productive way for you.)
So, if you're interested, willing, and able:
1) Did you think that the tree character in the original The Giving Tree or the one in The Healthy Giving Tree acted in a better way (however you may want to define "better," be it "nobler" or "more enlightened" or "more helpful," or whatever "better" may mean to you)?
2) Separately from #1, did you think that the tree character in the original The Giving Tree or the one in The Healthy Giving Tree was a better role model for how to act to another (however you may view the relationship between the tree and the boy, be it "friend-friend" or "parent-child," or whatever relationship resonates most strongly with you as the truest metaphor)?
I think I can get a better handle on how to piece through my thoughts in a useful way if I know where you are on these points (for whatever reason -- the reason itself isn't really what I need, though you are of course welcome to elaborate). Meanwhile, I'll keep struggling with the mulling.
[ March 22, 2006, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
So I talked about TGT vs. THGT with my wife last night. Her reaction to THGT was identical to mine. To wit, "The tree doesn't really give anything, does it? It's more like The Teaching Tree." Teaching is very important; I like the lesson of THGT. But it's no longer a lesson in giving (at least the portion of giving that is costly, i.e. sacrifice).
I would like TGT more if it was evident that the sacrifice was meaningful (like Christ's sacrifice for me). I see that as a shortcoming of the story, but it does not impinge on my appreciation of the message. This is akin to, "no parable is perfect, but the principles they teach can be."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
After giving it some more thought, I think part of my problem is that the tree is female. I hate reinforcing stereotypes where the woman makes huge sacrifices for an unworthy male and should consider herself fulfilled by that.
I do believe that love is a gift and that one should give it extravagantly and unreasonably, but that gift can only come from a place of great strength. It is a subtle but really important part of the equation that isn't well defined in the book. I think that often women make those sacrifices from a place of powerlessness in a relationship and I hate teaching little girls that that is how things should be.
I wonder if I would be less bothered if the tree was "male" and the "givee" was a little girl. Although that is a bit creepy, too now that I think of it.
[ March 22, 2006, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Grisha (Member # 6871) on :
I always thaught the tree was just trying to help the boy be happy, and making the boy happy, seemed to make the tree happy, because the tree loved the boy. I guess you all see the Tree as having other motives.
Oh well, I still like what I think it means. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I guess you all see the Tree as having other motives.
No. I just think the Tree was sick. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
CT, I didn't read THGT because
1) I love the original, which I think is a great work of art. 2) THGT is a takeoff on an original great work of art, and those don't ever seem to come off with anything like the impact or importance of the originals. The poem "Dover Bitch" is a good example of what I mean, but there are numerous cases like this, none of which are coming to mind at the moment. 3) I didn't want to spoil the beauty of the original in my heart.
I apologize if my "fanfic" sequel for the book did something like that (spoiled it) for anyone else. I've never really thought of my sequel in words before, it's just the idea that I've carried with me since a few days after hearing the story for the first time.
By the way, I first heard the story perhaps a year ago, or a bit longer, and it was read aloud to me by someone I dearly love, who reminds me very much of the tree.
To me the tree is definitely giving from a position of strength and puissance. It's only the boy's heedlessness which even hints at the viewpoint that the tree and the tree's sacrifice are not of great worth and magnificence. The tree is simple and humble, yet the tree is exalted, a higher being than the boy. It seems he may not realize this, or not until the end. I think he may have found wisdom while sitting in the sun on the stump, but if not then certainly he did as he lay under the earth after his death.
What the tree did for the boy is so much like what Christ did for me that I can't read the story without feeling an enormous influx of joy and power and love. It brings home the glory of the Atonement to me in a direct and immediate way, making me feel again this very moment what I only *remember* feeling most of the time.
This tree, in fact, is tied up in my mind with the image of the White Tree in the Lord of the Rings books, and the Tree of Lehi's dream in the Book of Mormon (Volemak's dream in the Homecoming series, for non-LDS people). The images of those three trees have partially merged in the storybank inside my head.
I want to understand your viewpoint on the story, because I do think I have a different approach to giving gifts than most everyone else I know, and I would like to understand the differences so I can know how to guess what other people are thinking.
I have some questions for those of you who see this book very differently from me, too, if you will indulge me. Same caveats apply as CT wrote concerning her questions to me.
1. Do you give money to panhandlers? Have you ever given over $5 to a panhandler?
2. Do you give money or items to charity? If you do, is the tax write-off worth more to you than the money or items you give?
3. Do you pay a regular percentage of your income to your church or other organization?
4. Have you ever done volunteer work? For what cause and about how many hours (or hours a month) have you volunteered?
5. Do you give blood? If so, would it matter to you if you found out that the recipient of your blood was a felon shot in the process of committing a felony? If you found out that 30% of blood recipients were felons, would it have an impact on your willingness to give blood?
6. If you help people in the course of your work, does the gratitude of the client have any impact on the diligence with which you would serve that client? Does your perception of them as a good or bad person have any impact?
7. Are there people who have been more generous to you than you "deserve" in the course of your life? How strongly do you identify with the boy?
8. Have you ever later been sorry for any act of generosity you've done, because of the ingratitude of the recipient? Does the recipient hold the power to change the meaning and worth in your heart of your actions by being grateful or not grateful?
If any of these are too personal or invasive, don't answer. I truly don't understand, and I want to understand.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
1. Do you give money to panhandlers? Have you ever given over $5 to a panhandler? Last time I encountered a panhandler was outside a Subway, and I bought him a sandwich. I think it cost more than $5.
2. Do you give money or items to charity? If you do, is the tax write-off worth more to you than the money or items you give? I do, and much of it is in cash with no tax write off.
3. Do you pay a regular percentage of your income to your church or other organization?10% plus special offerings and designated giving.
4. Have you ever done volunteer work? For what cause and about how many hours (or hours a month) have you volunteered? Yes. Appalachian Service Project, Habitat for Humanity, Iowa Peace Network, Heifer Project, Interfaith Economic Justice Inititive, local public schools, and a bunch of others. Time varies from a few hours a week to week-long service trips.
5. Do you give blood? If so, would it matter to you if you found out that the recipient of your blood was a felon shot in the process of committing a felony? If you found out that 30% of blood recipients were felons, would it have an impact on your willingness to give blood? Yes, no, and no.
6. If you help people in the course of your work, does the gratitude of the client have any impact on the diligence with which you would serve that client? Does your perception of them as a good or bad person have any impact? As part of my job I give out food at our church food pantry and also have a discretionary fund from which I can write checks for rent, utilities, gas, medicine, a hotel room for the night, etc. Gratitude is completely irrelevent and I rarely know enough about the people to judge whether they are "good" or "bad" people. If I think they're lying about why they need the money I might call and check their story, though.
7. Are there people who have been more generous to you than you "deserve" in the course of your life? How strongly do you identify with the boy? Yes. Not very strongly. I'm generally a pretty happy person and I think I've had and am having a great life. The boy seems to me pretty miserable and not content with his life.
8. Have you ever later been sorry for any act of generosity you've done, because of the ingratitude of the recipient? Does the recipient hold the power to change the meaning and worth in your heart of your actions by being grateful or not grateful? No. Gratitude is, as I've said, completely irrelevant.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again, the boy's gratitude (or lack thereof) isn't the problem. Frankly, I think you're reading a Christ metaphor into a book which is meant to be a parenting metaphor.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Actually, I think it's trying to be a Christ metaphor. I just think it fails.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
1. Do you give money to panhandlers? Have you ever given over $5 to a panhandler?
Yes and yes, although I prefer to give large sums to soup kitchens and shelters rather than directly to pan handers.
2. Do you give money or items to charity? If you do, is the tax write-off worth more to you than the money or items you give?
Yes. Although I do take the tax write off I would give as much if there were no tax break.
3. Do you pay a regular percentage of your income to your church or other organization?
Yes
4. Have you ever done volunteer work? For what cause and about how many hours (or hours a month) have you volunteered?
Yes. I've never kept track of the hours.
5. Do you give blood? If so, would it matter to you if you found out that the recipient of your blood was a felon shot in the process of committing a felony? If you found out that 30% of blood recipients were felons, would it have an impact on your willingness to give blood?
They won't take my blood because I have an autoimmune disorder. If they would take it, I would give and not it wouldn't matter to me who got the blood.
6. If you help people in the course of your work, does the gratitude of the client have any impact on the diligence with which you would serve that client? Does your perception of them as a good or bad person have any impact?
I'm a teacher so my job is primarily to help people. I find it gratifying when students show appreciation for my efforts but try my best not to let it affect my teaching or grading.
7. Are there people who have been more generous to you than you "deserve" in the course of your life? How strongly do you identify with the boy?
Yes but I still don't identify with the boy.
8. Have you ever later been sorry for any act of generosity you've done, because of the ingratitude of the recipient? Does the recipient hold the power to change the meaning and worth in your heart of your actions by being grateful or not grateful?
I don't regret giving when a person is simply inappreciative, but it really bothers me when I give something and it is wasted, particularly if it is a gift I put a lot of thought or time into.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Actually, I think it's trying to be a Christ metaphor.
See, knowing what I do about Shel Silverstein's religious beliefs, I have trouble imagining that this is the case, and in fact think being accused of writing a religious allegory would have alternately amused and horrified him.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Maybe I should change this thread title to Revelations of the Giving Tree...
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I'm pretty sure Tom is right and it has nothing to do with religion at all. I'm not convinced that it has much to do with parenting either, though if it does, he means it in a "don't do this" sort of way.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
OR he was high the whole time he was writing it and there is actually no meaning to it whatsoever?
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I'm not willing to bet against that on any book or song.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: So I talked about TGT vs. THGT with my wife last night. Her reaction to THGT was identical to mine. To wit, "The tree doesn't really give anything, does it? It's more like The Teaching Tree."
Well... did the boy wind up with more than he would have without the tree's help? Clearly, yes. So I'd say the tree gave quite a lot.
Do you believe that you have to lose something in order to give something? That unless you suffer in the process, your actions are somehow tainted?
I believe in a world where one person doesn't have to suffer in order for another to benefit. It's not a zero-sum game.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Teaching is very important; I like the lesson of THGT. But it's no longer a lesson in giving (at least the portion of giving that is costly, i.e. sacrifice).
I don't get the idea of sacrifice. It seems horrible to me. I mean, I'd take a bullet for my child, but I wouldn't consider it a sacrifice in any way. I'd be losing less by doing so than by not doing so.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grisha: I always thaught the tree was just trying to help the boy be happy, and making the boy happy, seemed to make the tree happy, because the tree loved the boy. I guess you all see the Tree as having other motives.
The tree could have helped the boy to be happy without acquiescing in its own destruction.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I have some questions for those of you who see this book very differently from me, too, if you will indulge me. Same caveats apply as CT wrote concerning her questions to me.
1. Do you give money to panhandlers? Have you ever given over $5 to a panhandler? I sometimes give money to panhandlers. If they are drunk or if they are smoking, I will not.
I've twice given a lot to panhandlers. A guy came up to me in Israel once who was wearing a huge backpack. A non-Jewish guy from Europe who was backpacking his way through the middle east, as I recall. He said he needed money to get back to his friends in Eilat. I asked him how much he needed, and he told me. I gave him the full amount. It was vastly more than I could really afford, and to make it stranger, I wasn't entirely convinced that he was telling the truth about why he needed the money.
I told him that I'd give it to him on one condition. I told him that some day, someone was going to ask him for money or a favor or whatever it might be, and that he had to promise me right then and there that he'd give the help, even if it was more than seemed entirely reasonable, and even if he wasn't sure that the request was on the level. And that he had to give the recipient the same shpiel I was giving him. This was a long time before "Pay It Forward" came out, but I believe I'd run across the concept in a Spider Robinson story first.
I did something similar a few years ago in California. Two kids, a boy and a girl, who'd come out to California for the summer, run out of money and gotten stuck. And they wanted to get back to Chicago. The boy was due to go to college in the fall. Or so he said. I asked them how much they needed. And I asked them how much they had already. And I gave them the difference.
I don't regret either case. I like the idea of a world where people help one another, because it's beneficial to me. I was homeless for a short time once, and it scared the hell out of me. A woman I knew online, though barely, sent me a loan for $500. I paid her back long since, but I'm still grateful to her for helping us through a tough time.
2. Do you give money or items to charity? If you do, is the tax write-off worth more to you than the money or items you give? I do. But I believe that I get something out of doing so, and it has nothing to do with the miniscule tax benefit.
3. Do you pay a regular percentage of your income to your church or other organization? Yep.
4. Have you ever done volunteer work? For what cause and about how many hours (or hours a month) have you volunteered? Not voluntarily. I got forced to "volunteer" at an old age home every Sunday for months when my principal in high school... well, suffice it to say that I got busted, and I got off easily.
5. Do you give blood? If so, would it matter to you if you found out that the recipient of your blood was a felon shot in the process of committing a felony? If you found out that 30% of blood recipients were felons, would it have an impact on your willingness to give blood? Multiple questions. I haven't given blood for a long time, because I'm infrequently well enough to do so. But I used to, and I hope to again. I would hope that my blood would not be used for a felon shot in the process of committing a felony (unless the felony happened to be something I don't think should be illegal in the first place, like buying illegal drugs or the like). Percentages don't matter to me for something like this. They're separate issues.
6. If you help people in the course of your work, does the gratitude of the client have any impact on the diligence with which you would serve that client? Does your perception of them as a good or bad person have any impact? I won't go out of my way for a jerk. And to the extent that I do, it's only because it's a job requirement. I will go above and beyond for someone who doesn't treat me like a servant. I will "work-to-rule" for someone who does.
7. Are there people who have been more generous to you than you "deserve" in the course of your life? How strongly do you identify with the boy? Two entirely separate questions. To the first one: yes. To the second one: not in the slightest. I consider the boy to be a malign thug, whose only excuse is that he grew up being taught that his behavior was just fine and dandy. While I don't excuse him at all, I cast a lot of blame on the tree.
8. Have you ever later been sorry for any act of generosity you've done, because of the ingratitude of the recipient? Does the recipient hold the power to change the meaning and worth in your heart of your actions by being grateful or not grateful? I have been sorry for generosity due to the ingratitude of the recipient. I don't live in a vacuum. None of us do. No action has worth or lack thereof in a vacuum. If I shoot a person who is attempting to kill someone, I've done a good thing. The same action directed at an innocent is an evil thing. If I see a murderer in peril and I save him and he goes on to murder again, my hands are not clean. Those are extreme examples, but they're intended to illustrate the idea of context.
A couple of weeks ago, I gave a panhandler a dollar. He said, "That's not enough." Honestly. And had I been physically able to do so, I would have knocked the man down and taken my dollar back.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Actually, I think it's trying to be a Christ metaphor. I just think it fails.
Since Shel Silverstein was Jewish, I think you're definitely reading into it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
[deleted for serious need of more thinking and editing for at least minimal clarity ]
[ March 23, 2006, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I have some questions for those of you who see this book very differently from me, too, if you will indulge me. Same caveats apply as CT wrote concerning her questions to me.
Sure! Hope it helps.
1. Do you give money to panhandlers? Have you ever given over $5 to a panhandler?
Yes [but not always] and yes. I've also given car rides across town (and even to other nearby towns), although not frequently [and I am more aware than ever of the dangers of this these days]. [Expectation of gratitude is not a part of the decision to give or not for me -- but usefulness (or not) of the gift is. And something may be very useful for an ungrateful person, or may be harmful to a grateful person. It depends on the situation, and that's a whole 'nother thread.]
2. Do you give money or items to charity? If you do, is the tax write-off worth more to you than the money or items you give?
Yes. I don't take tax write-offs for it, though.
3. Do you pay a regular percentage of your income to your church or other organization?
Yes. I don't take a tax write-off for this either, though.
4. Have you ever done volunteer work? For what cause and about how many hours (or hours a month) have you volunteered?
I am happiest when I volunteer. It is work I find more satisfying than paid work, nearly every time. Excepting pediatric residency (120+hrs/week -- our program ended up being put on probation for this, actually), I've averaged between 5-15 hrs/week since I left home at 17. At times, I worked fulltime as a volunteer. As far as various causes, it's hard to remember them all -- Habitat for Humanity, hospice for infants with HIV or otherwise medically fragile, soup kitchens, St. V DeP food pantry, Episcopalian church, providing free checkups and medical care at the Salvation Army, teaching ESL, etc.
5. Do you give blood? If so, would it matter to you if you found out that the recipient of your blood was a felon shot in the process of committing a felony? If you found out that 30% of blood recipients were felons, would it have an impact on your willingness to give blood?
I have not since I entered certain risk categories (status post transfusion myself, status post needlestick, etc) or have been anemic, but I have and do when I can. I rely on the standard criteria, though.
Who it goes to makes no difference to me.
I'm also a registered bone marrow donor.
6. If you help people in the course of your work, does the gratitude of the client have any impact on the diligence with which you would serve that client? Does your perception of them as a good or bad person have any impact?
I've spent the last two years figuring out how to be a professional; i.e., how to let the very natural and human reactions (which, I think, it would be dangerous to not acknowledge) wash up and through without holding onto them or lettting them affect my behavior as a professional.
Part of my training (actually, a large part) dealt with the problems likely to arise from not acknowledging and dealing with such reactions. This surely influences and biases my focus in answering the question, but there it is.
7. Are there people who have been more generous to you than you "deserve" in the course of your life? How strongly do you identify with the boy?
Yes, absolutely. I don't really identify with the boy, though, even though I think he is drawn as an extreme of certain traits we all share as fallible, self-absorbed human beings.
8. Have you ever later been sorry for any act of generosity you've done, because of the ingratitude of the recipient? Does the recipient hold the power to change the meaning and worth in your heart of your actions by being grateful or not grateful?
My answer to the first is (suprisingly, but truthfully as I can be) no, with two exceptions I'll get to later. (too now) My answer to the second part is no, as well.
quote:If any of these are too personal or invasive, don't answer. I truly don't understand, and I want to understand.
Not at all! Again, hope it helps.
[ March 23, 2006, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
But the tree stump is still alive!
Honestly, I haven't even thought about The Giving Tree in ages. I'm remembering bits and pieces of it from this thread and I can see both perspectives, though the one about the story being all happy-go-lucky seems pretty much naive and the denial of the idiotic character of the tree hopelessly optimistic.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Actually, I think it's trying to be a Christ metaphor. I just think it fails.
Since Shel Silverstein was Jewish, I think you're definitely reading into it.
I didn't say the author intended it as a Christ metaphor, much less a deliberate allegory.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: [deleted for serious need of more thinking and editing for at least minimal clarity ]
I'm having an interesting but rather bizarre case of the mental cud-chewing on this topic (digest, burp, regurgitate, examine, poke about, rechew again, rinse, repeat), and that's not likely to be either helpful or entertaining to do in public. *smile
I'll take some time out to keep mulling over the threads of this conversation, and if I do manage to produce (ew!) anything pleasant or useful, I'll dig this topic back up. Meanwhile, good wishes all around.
(My apologies! )
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I may be the only person on Earth who finds it WORSE when someone says "I'm having difficulty writing something coherent; I may come back to this" than when they either a) write something incoherent or b) don't tell us why they aren't writing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
How is this:
quote:Actually, I think it's trying to be a Christ metaphor. I just think it fails.
consistent with this
quote:I didn't say the author intended it as a Christ metaphor, much less a deliberate allegory.
?
If the attempt is not the author's, whose is it?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
[Tom, we'll just have to hash this one out in person. ]
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
I find it fascinating that the word "Codependency" hasn't surfaced in this conversation. Is it that cliched now?
Tatiana, I think the thing that bugs everyone (I haven't read the story and I'm only skimming the thread, so grain of salt, here) is that there is a definite undertone that the tree gives of itself in order to feel loved. The tree never says "no" (as far as I can tell) and any good parent, not to mention God Himself, does. A wise person once told me that you cannot say "yes" until you can say "no", among other things demarcating the line between love (which is an act of will) and compulsive giving (which is self-destructive). Speaking for myself, it is horrifically easy to cross the line from "this is a good thing to do" to "if I do this I will feel loved for a time because someone (maybe only God) will think I am a good person if I do."
This has been a subject that has dominated my life recently and I have to side with those who are trying to say that love is not a parasitic relationship but is meant to build both parties. With the cases you bring up (God and Parents) the sacrifices are made by the greater being for the specific reason of growing the lesser being into a position of similar status (in Christian parlance, Jesus' death was in order that we should become, also, "sons of God" and share in his inheritance).
To cite an example that fits in with your questions I recently was approached by a man on the street who wanted money for food. I told him no, but that I would buy him a sandwich if he would follow me as I was on my way to get lunch. He followed, protesting all the way that he didn't really like that sub shop, that it was too far to walk, and, finally, that what he really needed was bus fare. I never said anything to him but "I said I would buy you a sandwich... that's what I'm willing to do for you. Do you want one?" He eventually left. While I was amazed that anyone would turn down a genuinely free lunch, I certainly do not feel the least bit greedy for giving on my terms rather than his (he asked for a dollar, the sandwich was worth $6, so it's not a matter of trying to save money).
And I think that's the issue people have with the Giving Tree. When you give on someone else's terms, it isn't a gift, and the Giving Tree never says "here's what I'll do" -- it just says "ok".
I hope this helps. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pfagh.
The tree knew its place, that's all. It could no more refuse the boy than it could avoid shedding its leaves in autumn.
Bow to your human overlords, woody denziens of of the forest! Bow, I say, or face axe, and flame, and burnination!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
--------
Edited to add: password, that was an excellent and thoughtful post. It's helping me get somewhere in my thinking. Thanks!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I've always liked this quote by CS Lewis, and considering we're talking about a tree...
quote:Christ says `Give me All. I don't want so much of your time and so much of your money and so much of your work: I want You. I have not come to torment your natural self, but to kill it. No half-measures are any good. I don't want to cut off a branch here and a branch there, I want to have the whole tree down. I don't want to drill the tooth, or crown it, or stop it, but to have it out. Hand over the whole natural self, all the desires which you think innocent as well as the ones you think wicked - the whole outfit. I will give you a new self instead. In fact, I will give you Myself: my own will shall become yours.'
If the Giving Tree represents Christ, the Boy could not have received Christ's gifts until he had cut off his own arm.
Incidentally, Lewis' whole discussion on this topic is worthwhile reading, and not tangential to this discussion; find it here, and search for "Is Christianity Hard or Easy?"
[ March 23, 2006, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
Scott, in context with some of Lewis's other writings as well as other Christian work, the self that Christ gives us is, in fact, ours all along, or, at least, what we were made to be (edit: there's a hint of what I'm talking about in the toy soldiers section from your link). To move it back into psychology, what Christianity asks us to do is let go of the false egos we mistake for our real selves... they must die in order for our real selves to flourish -- if they do not, our real self will choke away and become nothing. I see a really profound unity underneath psychological health and Christian salvation.
Claudia - thank you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:in context with some of Lewis's other writings as well as other Christian work, the self that Christ gives us is, in fact, ours all along, or, at least, what we were made to be. To move it back into psychology, what Christianity asks us to do is let go of the false egos we mistake for our real selves... they must die in order for our real selves to flourish -- if they do not, our real self will choke away and become nothing.
Hmm. This is one of those areas (like faith vs. works) where I think Christianity is fairly muddy. Lewis says in 'Magician's Nephew' (I think) something that sums it-- we are Sons of Adam, and that is something to straighten the back of the lowliest beggar, as well as bow the head of the greatest king.
But he (Lewis) also says there are no ordinary people; we are all Gods.
My own religion (Mormonism) speaks about the natural man-- we are inherently selfish; but also states that each soul is a spirit child of God, literal heirs to divinity and goodness.
quote:I see a really profound unity underneath psychological health and Christian salvation.
Could you expand on this? I know a couple folks that beleive themselves to be saved but are NOT what I'd consider psychologically healthy.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tatiana, I love the impulse in you that never wants anyone to be lonely, or cold, or poor if you can anything about it. I don't think the giving tree is entirely healthy, but I think it's doing the very best it can to, in June Carter's words, matter, and to keep the boy from hurting.
The story is kind of a tragedy, and I don't agree with the tree's method of giving, but I love the impulse behind it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I've never read the book. But I have seen children's books that had freakish undertones, messages that I didn't think were good. Like the book "Love You Forever."
:waits to be stoned:
I will have to check this one out sometime, since it has sparked such a fascinating philosophical discussion. Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
um... I'll try First off I'm neither a psychologist nor a theologian, just a Christian who has been in therapy... I can only speak to my experience.
Secondly, this is going to be long and incoherent.
There is a tremendous emphasis in Christianity about not earning salvation, but accepting it as a gift. There is a similar emphasis in therapy for compulsive behavior based on low self-esteem-- you cannot earn love. Just as you can't make God let you into heaven by being good, neither can you make anyone love you by being good.
Paul says, at one point, "everything is permissible for me, but not everything is profitable." This baffled me and there is a lot of back and forth in the New Testament about behavior, with some passages implying that the wrong thoughts are worthy of hell and others that the most drastic sins are forgivable... in fact, there was a time where Jesus, strictly speaking, broke the law and encouraged others to (when he and the disciples picked grain on the Sabbath). I wondered what the key to this whole thing was.
What I found in therapy is that in both my life and my Christian walk I was doing things because I wanted to be "good". I wanted approval and love and acceptance, from others, from God, and, ultimately, from myself. This led to disaster. Everything was a struggle between what I wanted and what I ought to do. This is the attitude I (and I suspect others) projected on to the tree.
And it's trying to earn love. It's trying to earn your way into heaven. It's prideful, ultimately, even when it ran it's natural course into self-hatred, it was always an "I have to be better by force of will and then people/God/I will love and respect me" thing for me.
But, it can't be done. The intentions are good, but they do, indeed, pave the road to hell.
As I was getting my head straight, I learned that love was a gift to be enjoyed (in Lewis's words from Perelandra "a plain bounty") rather than a paycheck to receive and that I could, and should, love myself and stop blaming myself for things, many of which weren't even my fault, but which I had been beating myself up about for years. But doing this meant letting go of the need to achieve, to "be someone", because I had to recognize "I am someone... even someone loveable... just as I am." I had to let go of the idea of being admirable and merely be me, and be loved for who and what I was... meeting myself rght where I was at that moment... not making my love for myself conditional on what I did or did not do.
And, as I got my head straight, the parallels jumped out at me... "you can't earn it", "it's a gift, a plain bounty", "you have to let go of trying to1 be good and just let God's grace be enough", "Jesus will meet you where you are... He loves you while you are still a 'sinner'"
I really think the key to Christianity is recognizing and accepting the Love of God-- recognizing God loves you, no matter what you do, no matter what you say, no matter how ou fail. Because when you really and truly accept that you can be loved, here and now, as you are, it is absolutely a life transforming experience.
I have professed Christianity most of my life, and I would say that my salvation has been a lifelong process, but I do feel like the moment I really accepted and believed the truth that I was loved was my personal road to Damascus.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am with you beverly. She climbed into his window, for heaven's sake! Stalker Mom!
Lest you folks start thinking I hate all children's books I should let you know that in addition to once being a children's librarian and having a rather large collection of children's books myself, I am know to my nieces and nephews as "the Book Aunt."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Pfagh.
The tree knew its place, that's all. It could no more refuse the boy than it could avoid shedding its leaves in autumn.
Bow to your human overlords, woody denziens of of the forest! Bow, I say, or face axe, and flame, and burnination!
Heh.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: I've never read the book. But I have seen children's books that had freakish undertones, messages that I didn't think were good. Like the book "Love You Forever."
:waits to be stoned:
My partner dislikes that book for the same reason. I guess I never really thought about it as much. The book that really creeps me out is Miss Spider's Tea Party. <shudder> I think that one is actually criminal in its bad-message-ness.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Stalker Mom--exactly! You read my mind.
I've never read "Miss Spider's Tea Party," either. Though I think there is a show on Nick Jr based on it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
The art is beautiful. The story is that you should disregard a known danger rather than risk hurting the danger's feelings.
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
Scott, that was the best I could do... I hope it made sense?
The relative thread death has me worried that I just said something gauche.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote: Tatiana, I think the thing that bugs everyone (I haven't read the story and I'm only skimming the thread, so grain of salt, here) is that there is a definite undertone that the tree gives of itself in order to feel loved.
I think there is no hint of such an undertone. Instead we are explicitly told that the tree is happy each time she gives the boy a gift. The clear implication (I don't have the book to refer to for exact text) is that the tree takes joy from seeing the happiness of the boy. The boy never shows any love for the tree. If the tree were doing it to feel loved, she would have stopped after the apples.
CT, your deletions intrigue me. I am so curious what you think. I hope very much that you will return to this thread and tell me what you were thinking.
Thanks to everyone who answered my questions. So the gratitude of the recipient is not what is missing for you guys. I'm still pondering all this and trying to understand what it is I'm not seeing about your points of view. It's clear that my view of gifts is atypical, and I'd really like to understand "normal" people.
I think the tree gives for the pure joy of giving, and in the hope of generating happiness in others, while not requiring that they be happy or grateful at all, but just trying.
starLisa, you said something about disliking the word "service". I think it must have negative connotations for you, while for me it's a very positive thing. Rendering loving service to others is something I consider a great privilege and a joy. Accepting loving service from others is also a joyful thing, and mutual loving service goes way beyond joyful. Perhaps for you, there is some thought of compulsion in either direction? I am talking about service freely given and received, just for the fun of it, with no thought of payment or recompense.
[ March 23, 2006, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I suspect that the fun of it IS, for you, the payment and recompense. In other words, giving fulfills a need for you.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
I have very vivid memories of my reaction on first reading TGT. I hated it. I loved Shel Silverstien, and couldnt understand how I could dislike a book he wrote so intensly. And my sister, who I adored, had the exact opposite reaction as me. She loved this book, and considered it something to learn from and try to emulate. We would get into arguments about it, with me saying that the boy was a horrible brat and the tree was a wimp, and her saying the boy was misguided and the tree was the ultimate ideal of love.
Now that I analyze my reactions as an adult, her additude makes alot more sense to me. My sister absolutely believed in Ideals. They fueled her life. The Ideal of Love, the Ideal of Sorrow, The Ideal of Sacrifice. Elaine, Joan of Arc, Christ. Those were her heroes. She read that story and saw the Tree personifying her Ideal of Love and Sacrifice. The boy, I think, wasnt really much more than a foil, a teaching tool maybe, for the real story of the Trees perfect Love. I was, strangely enough, much more pragmatic. There were very few Ideals in my mind. My heroes were people who, while capable of sacrifice, were much more likely to contribute practically and healthily to society in general. Ghandi, Batman, Prometheus. Those were my heroes. And, to me, the Tree represnted the most selfish, least practical form of giving I could think of. Still does.
I still dislike that story quite a bit, but I can understand why others would love it intensely. If you can look at it as a story of Ideals, a apologue of love, then the practical aspect of it doesnt seem to matter as much. At least, thats what I think. I dont mean to sound patronizing about it, like the story couldnt possibly have any practical value for anyone. Obviously, it can. I just cant look at it that way.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Right, Tom! Of course people can only give from selfish motives.
May I take this opportunity to ask you henceforth to kindly keep your amateur psychology completely away from me and the people I love? Analyze yourself if you need a subject. I consider it arrogant, boorish, and presumptuous in the extreme for you to pretend you understand, and comment snidely upon, the inner workings of the hearts and minds of people you barely know. I believe this subject has come up between us before.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Nothing wrong with admitting that giving makes us feel good. It does me, anyway. If that's selfishness, consider me a miser. Freak, call me Ebenezer Scrooge, and may I grow ever more miserly every day!
There are worse things in the world than to gain freedom and happiness through service.
As for Tom's psychological insight, meh. I don't think it's any more valid than your morality questionnaire is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: May I take this opportunity to ask you henceforth to kindly keep your amateur psychology completely away from me and the people I love?
I'll be honest with you: you can ask, but I probably won't. This is after all a discussion board, and I'm inclined to generally discuss things that are said here in public. You might have some success if, following most of your posts, you write something like "Don't go reading anything into my personality based on the things I said in this post, Tom." That'd probably help me remember. Otherwise, though, I'm pretty sure to forget sooner than later.
And Anne Kate, amateur psychology aside, I was actually exercising linguistics. If the fun of giving is its own reward, in your own words above, then the fun of giving is the reward of giving. I didn't say anything new there; I didn't even paraphrase you.
I quoted you.
What would be so awful about admitting that you give because, as you have yourself said, giving makes you feel good?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Thanks to everyone who answered my questions. So the gratitude of the recipient is not what is missing for you guys. I'm still pondering all this and trying to understand what it is I'm not seeing about your points of view.
Hmm... how about this. It's not the boy's ingratitude that bothers me so much. When I give a gift, I'm not doing it for the gratitude. But the tree isn't just doing it freely: it's harming itself. If someone were to do something for me and unnecessarily damage itself in the process, I would be horrified. I'd like to think that any moral person would be horrified as well.
So I look at the boy. And not only is he not horrified at the depth of the self-destructiveness of the tree, but he's more than willing to take advantage of it. He seems bereft of any moral sense whatsoever. He feels no gratitude, no sense of guilt... not even, to put it in religious terms that maybe will resonate with some of the Christians here, not even a sense of awe at what the tree is willing to suffer for him. He just keeps taking and taking. He's a vampire.
At some point, this becomes a cycle of immorality. The first time the tree offers something that harms it, I'd say that it's a bad idea. The boy taking the offer without any sign of caring shows him to be a rotten person. The tree continuing to give more and more after that shows the tree to be sick. Deeply sick. And in each cycle, it gets worse and worse.
You'd think that after a while, the boy would be like, "God, I can't do this anymore. It's just wrong." But no. Whatever possible vestigial sense of morality he may once have had has been trained out of him by the tree's ongoing acquiescence.
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: It's clear that my view of gifts is atypical, and I'd really like to understand "normal" people.
I think the tree gives for the pure joy of giving, and in the hope of generating happiness in others, while not requiring that they be happy or grateful at all, but just trying.
So... do you see no difference between giving for the joy of giving and doing serious harm to ones own self in the process? And how would you react if someone were to cut off their own hand to have a necklace made for you out of their finger bones? I know that sounds disgusting, but that's what seems to be happening in this book.
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: starLisa, you said something about disliking the word "service". I think it must have negative connotations for you, while for me it's a very positive thing. Rendering loving service to others is something I consider a great privilege and a joy. Accepting loving service from others is also a joyful thing, and mutual loving service goes way beyond joyful.
<grin>
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Perhaps for you, there is some thought of compulsion in either direction?
I think so. Especially the way you'd phrased it. It sounds like seeing another person as ones master/owner is a positive thing, and that kinda squicks me out.
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I am talking about service freely given and received, just for the fun of it, with no thought of payment or recompense.
'Kay.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Anne Kate, I hate it when people dismiss what I'm saying by presenting my character as not worthy of respect through online psychoanalyzing as well. I don't blame you.
quote:I am talking about service freely given and received, just for the fun of it, with no thought of payment or recompense.
I know this is your ideal. I think it is very sweet. I actually don't agree with you in your assessment of the book, but I agree that what it hopes to be - unselfish, loving, and generous - is a wonderful thing to be.
I think the reason saying altruistic acts benefit the giver as much as the receiver is icky is because people try to be good. For whatever motivation, people want to believe that they are good people, and if all of one's attempts to be a good person are portrayed as unhealthy and selfish, then how to be a good person? If one has the choice between making oneself happy and making other people happy, but both choices are ultimately selfish, then it's a very unhappy state for someone who wants, very much, to not be a selfish person.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: The Giving Tree is, quite frankly, the most disturbing story I have ever read.
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I think it's probably a lot like a Rorshach test, you know? How we interpret it likely reflects in great detail what we bring to it.
I was horrified at the tree's self-mutilation, even in the service of a greater good. That is, if it were a marriage, I would seriously consider it to be an abusive and abuse-enabling relationship.
I am glad I am not the only one who thought this.
I have never been a big fan of Shel Silverstein in any case.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela: I have never been a big fan of Shel Silverstein in any case.
I have a copy of his ABZ book, and while it's twisted, it's for adults, rather than children, so it's okay.
I actually kind of like his take on "The Little Engine that Could", which I think is in Where the Sidewalk Ends.... Havah was horrified when I showed it to her, but I think the original story goes a little overboard. Sometimes thinking you can really isn't enough, and in those cases, you shouldn't have to feel that you just weren't trying hard enough.
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think the reason saying altruistic acts benefit the giver as much as the receiver is icky is because people try to be good. For whatever motivation, people want to believe that they are good people, and if all of one's attempts to be a good person are portrayed as unhealthy and selfish, then how to be a good person? If one has the choice between making oneself happy and making other people happy, but both choices are ultimately selfish, then it's a very unhappy state for someone who wants, very much, to not be a selfish person.
I think this hits on exactly what people were trying to get at, though.
Do you and Tatiana see how the segment I've quoted can translate to "if unselfishness is your goal then you must be unhappy"? Follow me on what your phrase sounds like to me:
Being unselfish makes a giver happy. That means the giver receives a benefit. If a giver receives a benefit, that makes their action selfish. Therefore, the giver must be unhappy... because being unselfish is selfish. It's a no-win scenario
And *that* is the attitude that people, rightly or wrongly, are reading into the Tree. That we must suffer to be "unselfish". I think the people you are arguing with are objecting to the idea that I have bolded above-- that you are necessarily selfish to do something that benefits you and its corollary that we should not do things which benefit us. the problem people have with the Tree (again rightly or wrongly-- I haven't read the book) is that they see it encouraging "unselfishness" as a goal which leads us to the no-win scenario.
Now I suggest changing the goal to being "giving" rather than "unselfish."
Giving makes a giver happy. The giver receives a benefit. Both giver and receiver are happy. It's a win-win scenario.
"Selfishness" need not enter the picture.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you want to have a different goal from unselfish, that's completely fine. There are many good things to be, and different words for it.
What you are doing, however, is telling someone what they should value and what they should strive to be, and you're doing it by speaking disparagingly of what they current value and are trying to be. It shouldn't be a surprise that it isn't going well.
I suspect that Tatiana is having a different discussion from the rest of the people in the thread.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Of course people can only give from selfish motives.
You said this sarcastically, but it's completely true.
I think your complaint is with the assertion that giving is an inherently selfish act. Of course, it is, but (to paraphrase sL) purely in the sense that breathing is selfish, that is, taking the broadest possible definition of the word.
For me, the joy of giving is that it makes me feel selfless, which is a great thing to be, if only for short chunks of time in my otherwise selfish existence. It makes me feel that way because I'm taking something from me and giving it to someone for nothing in return. What Tom said was correct, but not complimentary.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
password, I think you're entirely missing the point that those of us who don't like the book are trying to make. At least I recognize none of my own objections to it in your statements, and don't agree with your summary of what you think the book you haven't read is about.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: Of course people can only give from selfish motives. ___________
You said this sarcastically, but it's completely true.
Not exactly so. I think the 'feel good' part of service is just a little mental reinforcement. Subconscious, like.
Very few people give with the primary motive of feeling good; a great many people give because they love the ones they serve.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I guess it's a bit of 'the chicken or the egg'. I think of the case where I give to people I don't know and will never see again. I don't love them, but (usually) I feel sorry for them. Giving, in that case, is motivated by empathy. If the giving didn't alleviate the sorrow I don't know that I'd do it. I might, but how can I test that hypothesis? So while I don't think of it as 'giving so I can feel good about myself' that's still what I'm doing, right?
On the other hand, when I donate stuff to the drop box for Goodwill or Salvation Army I don't feel particularly good about myself. I don't feel bad, I just don't get that rush of happiness and satisfaction that I typically associate with giving. Why is that? I'm still giving something, and helping out someone by depriving myself. I should feel good about that, but I don't. I guess giving to a person is a lot more satisfying than giving to an institution.
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
Tatiana, I meant no disparagement. You obviously emotionally reacted to Tom and I was trying to re-phrase things from a less charged source, while still explaining what people were trying to get at. The part I bolded was never said by anyone, but implicit in the segment I quoted from Katharina as well as in your reaction to Tom. I don't think that anyone was trying to tell you that you are a selfish person, but that's clearly what you heard. I apologize if I made things worse.
Scott, being an apparent C. S. Lewis fan, you might enjoy a chapter in The Screwtape Letters that relates fairly well to the turn this thread has taken.
Edit: dkw, just doing the best I can with some fairly raw raw materials. I'll stop speaking of that which I don't know.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
What you are doing, however, is telling someone what they should value and what they should strive to be, and you're doing it by speaking disparagingly of what they current value and are trying to be. It shouldn't be a surprise that it isn't going well.
I'm at a loss as to what the proper way to engage in this discussion would be, katharina. (And I promise to listen very carefully to your response, and try to take it to heart.)
This particular discussion seemed to originate when I said I hadn't read anything that disturbed me more than The Giving Tree, and Tatiana asked why that was so. At the time I didn't realize that anyone in the discussion might personally identify so strongly with the tree itself, and that any explanation of why the tree was disturbing would (understandably, given what I know now) likely be taken as a criticism of individuals in the discussion.
(I also didn't realize how close this topic was to my own host of unresolved issues -- and I have many! -- surrounding my own self and my relationships with certain key others in my life. It's not surprising, given that I did say "most disturbing thing I've ever read" -- naturally, it must be associated with some pretty fundamental stuff for me. Hindsight is 20/20.)
But to withdraw from the conversation is then awkward, as well. To take the approach that Tatiana "can't handle" this discussion is to be patronizing, rude, and unmistakably arrogant. To state that one cannot explain rationally (even if one possibly could, although it would be possibly hurtful <see above>) may feel like a lie and a tacit endorsement that what one sees as harmful is the only rational response, anyway.
As for me, I'm off dealing with my own tailspin about thinking through my issues with my mother's death, so I'm not in good shape to be objective here. I can see that. I also can see that I'd have no idea of how to either continue with the discussion in a helpful way or to back out of it in a way that felt consistant with my own morality.
I very very much wish I had never mentioned my reaction to the text to begin with.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I very very much wish I had never mentioned my reaction to the text to begin with.
I, for one, would be intellectually and emotionally poorer had you not. This would also be true had Tatiana not shared her thoughts.
That probably won't be enough to tip the balance and cause you to change your wish, I realize, but I hope the fact that you've given at least one person new thoughts to ponder concerning the ideas of charity, giving, and receiving adds to the value of your having shared your reaction in the first place.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Thanks, Dagonee. That is good to know.
I do think we have a group of very well-intentioned people here trying to talk about a powerful and important topic, with each person bringing a different mix of gunpowder and fire extinguishers to the mix.
What a complicated thing!
I think the world of Tatiana, and I'm glad to have her in my life to learn from. Her conception of different religious faiths as experiments of a sort left me breathless, and I still remember that often.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Very few people give with the primary motive of feeling good; a great many people give because they love the ones they serve.
I have a value for not giving, based on my desire to continue having whatever it is I'm considering giving away. I have a value for giving, based on the percieved consequences, including how it will affect people I care about. My value for giving outweighs my value for not giving, therefore I choose to give. In this sense, there's no such thing as an unselfish action. Every action is selfish because it's what we choose and we choose based on our valuation of the alternatives.
However, I have no problem with calling an action "unselfish" because I think utility theory obscures things by assuming semantics that aren't generally used in conversation. "Selfish" means something different to a utilitarian(?) than someone who doesn't think in those terms.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Katharina, you seem to be reading a different thread than the one I'm reading.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I agree with Dag, CT - I'm glad you brought it up because it's been an interesting discussion to follow, all around.
I'm not going to join in because it's been years since I read TGT, and while I don't remember particularly either loving or hating it, I don't want to weigh in with such limited knowledge of the subject matter. (which may be a first for me! LOL)
At any rate, I wanted to echo Dag's sentiment and let you know I personally have appreciated everything you've said.
I think this is a good thread for all parents, because it brings home the idea that children's books can be very influential on the people who read them and that parents should always be involved in what their kids are reading. I'm not talking necessarily about censoring books and only letting kids read what you've approved ahead of time and only exposing them to one narrow point of view, but more reading WITH your child, so you can discuss the issues that come up in books. For example, I think it would be a good idea to read The Giving Tree with my 8 year old, and ask her some of the questions we've discussed here, to get her take on it. Be interesting to see what she thinks.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the question of whether or not people give out of a "primary motive" is ultimately a flawed one, since establishing primary motive is largely impossible. But consider that many people see giving as a virtue, and selfless giving as being even more virtuous -- and virtue itself as a desirable thing. In this scenario, the desire to be virtuous is ITSELF the justification for giving, and the joy one derives from being virtuous is, as Anne Kate and Scott have pointed out, the reward for the act. I don't understand why this is seen as somehow more immoral than refusing to acknowledge this fact.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I thought this has been a really thought provoking and interesting thread. I feel bad if Anne Kate's feelings were hurt. I for one certainly wasn't trying to persuade her or anyone else that her view of giving was anything but virtuous.
For the last couple of days I've been mulling over why I dislike the book TGT. Part of it revolves around Anne Kates question 8.
quote:8. Have you ever later been sorry for any act of generosity you've done, because of the ingratitude of the recipient? Does the recipient hold the power to change the meaning and worth in your heart of your actions by being grateful or not grateful?
Gratitude isn't the issue for me, and regret isn't the right word. But if I give a gift that doesn't do what I'd hoped, I am disappointed.
For example, I like to cook for people. I do it because I want them to feel the joy that comes from eating delicious food. Desserts are my specialty. When I make a dessert and people want a second piece, it makes me feel good because I believe I've succeeded in making something that people enjoy. On the other hand, if they eat only a few bites and leave the rest on the plate, I feel a bit disappointed even if they rave about how good it was. Maybe they didn't eat it all because the rest of the meal was so good and they already ate too much. But still, some of that yummy dessert I made is going to end up in the garbage instead bringing pleasure to people and that is disappointing. I wouldn't regret making the cake, but I would wish I had done something so that people would have enjoyed it more. Perhaps I should have served smaller pieces, served it first, made the dessert on a different day, used a different recipe, . . . .
I also like to knit sweaters for people. I knitted a sweater for my father several years ago. He appreciates it but I'm a bit disappointed that he rarely wears it. He just isn't a sweater wearer. In contrast, I knitted a sweater for my Mom last Christmas. I've seen her wear it since then several times. It makes me feel great when I see her in it because its clear that the sweater makes her feel warm, and pretty and loved -- which is why I made it.
I could give more examples, but I think I've made my point. I make an effort to select gifts that will have some specific impact on people, when my gifts suceed -- I'm happy, when they don't I'm disappointed and sometimes saddened.
So this line of thought made my wonder why I felt that the tree's gifts didn't suceed. The boy seemed happy when he was young and swung on the trees branches and it seemed that all through the trees life what the tree wanted was to make the boy happy. It gave everything it had, but somehow it seemed that the boy was never happy.
I recognize that this isn't in the book. The boy may be very happy for along time with his money, and his house and his boat, but it doesn't seem that way to me.
So finally I decided that my real problem with the book is that I love trees. My parents have apple trees in there back yard and there is one particular tree that I climbed all the time as a kid. We had a tire swing that hung from one of its branches and we could pull the swing way up so that he could climb into it from another branch in the tree and swing out across the yard. It was the tallest tree around and from the high branches, I could see over all the roofs in the neighborhood. The tree had sweet tart Jonathan apples that my mother made into pies and apple sauce. We played all kinds of games in the tree. Somedays it was a sailing ship and somedays it was a house and some days it was a space ship.
That tree is still in my parents backyard. I've have climbed it not long ago. It's old and rarely bares apples in more. It is no longer the tallest tree in the neighborhood. The walnut tree to the south and the blue spruce to its north are now taller and block the sunlight. Some of the trees limbs have died and I worry that the tree will not survive much longer. It's old and dying and one day my Dad will decide to cut it down instead of letting it fall down. When that happens, I will miss the tree.
But it is not only that tree that I love. I simply love big old trees. They're beautiful. They provide shade and food and O2. They are homes of birds, and squirrels and bugs. To me they seem very wise and very alive. To me, trees are worth more than money and houses and boats. So when the tree decides to give its body so the boy can have money and a big house and a boat, it seems that something of lasting value has been traded for something of lesser worth. I can't just say, its OK because the tree wanted to give itself to the boy. To me, trees and people don't just belong to themselves, they are part of a community. When a tree (or a person) does something that diminishes themselves, it takes something of value from the whole community. If the tree lets the boy take its apples, its branches and its trunk -- where will other boys play? Where will the birds nest and the squirrels make their homes? What about the worm in the ground which will be hotter without the shade from the tree and the O2 the tree used to make?
So I think that the simple bottom line is that I love trees. I think that trees are valuable living things that benefit everyone and so the books makes me sad. We started with a beautiful tree with leaves and branches, a sturdy trunk and apples. In the end the money is gone, the house is gone, the boat is gone and all we have left of the tree is a stump. Stumps just aren't anywhere near as beautiful as trees.
Once again, I'm not trying to persuade anyone that they shouldn't like this book. One of the great things about stories is that they mean different things to different people. I'm just trying to understand why this story seems so sad to me.
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
) smiley is one smiley. Its not separated into three different smilies.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Of course!![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
Oh, I wish I could. I'd wish upon a star, but I'm inside.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
now) My answer to the second part is no, as well.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
How is this: