Happy Arbor Day! In honor of Arbor day Time has a list of the top ten coolest “trees” of all time. How the Keebler elves’ tree ranked higher than Tolkien’s Treebeard is beyond me. Also among the top ten was Shel Silverstein’s The Giving Tree, a tree that was the topic of much debate in the pages of First Things some years ago. It was, interestingly enough, mostly the female participants in the Giving Tree Symposium—Mary Ann Glendon, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and Midge Decter—who thought the The Giving Tree a bad example for children and a warped view of motherly love. As Mary Ann Glendon described the tree who gave of herself until there was nothing left of her but her stump, “Tree’s qualities would make her a terrible mother—a masochist who, quite predictably, has raised a sociopath . . . . Whatever it means to say she ‘loved’ Boy, she did not care for him enough to set him straight on a few minor points, like saying ‘thank you,’ or treating others as fellow human beings rather than as instruments for the satisfaction of his own desires.”
Most of the male participants thought the Tree an admirable example of self giving and I’m inclined to agree. The fact that the boy is not as grateful as he ought to be emphasizes that truly selfless love is, as Gil Meilaender said, “is not without risk.” Because we want and work for the best for the people we love is no guarantee that it will finally work out. The Tree, after all, gave selflessly but not recklessly; the things the Boy wanted were all human goods—money, a home in which to raise a family—the Tree was not foolish to think that she was contributing to the Boy’s happiness. “Is this a sad tale?” Timothy Jackson asked of The Giving Tree?
Well, it is sad in the same way that life is sad. We are all needy, and, if we are lucky and any good, we grow old using others and getting used up . . . . Our finitude is not something to be regretted or despised, however; it is what makes giving (and receiving) possible. The more you blame the boy, the more you have to fault human existence. The more you blame the tree, the more you have to fault the very idea of parenting. Should the tree’s giving be contingent on the boy’s gratitude? It it were, if fathers and mothers wiated on reciprocity before caring for their young, then we would all be doomed.”
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…