Re: "Love You Forever"

["Lex Systems Inc." <lex@THE.LINK.CA>]

At 01:28 PM 5/18/97 -0500, Suby Wallace wrote:
>
>I also wish I'd been asked to edit The Giving Tree.  I'm so glad to hear
>some of you say you don't like it.  I've always thought I was the only one
>who didn't like it.  I've hated it since I first read it.  The boy is so
>selfish, and taking, and the tree is such a doormat.

My apologies for mixing religion in my reply, but hey no supreme court
rulings to prevent it, on LM_NET right?

I used to use this story with Church youth groups.  Students would
generally get upset with the tree for being a wimp, and the kid
for being an insensitive clod.

I would then bring up a crucifixtion analogy.  Couldn't he have defended
himself when he was arrested? Why didn't Christ get a decent lawyer for his
trial?  Why wouldn't he argue for his beliefs?

Would it not have been better for the Christ to descend from the tree
with an army behind him?

In a similar way, were not Gandhi and King wimps?  They did so little
to defend themselves, and the evil ones around them triumphed, right?

The arguments would be furious and healthy.  The story of the Giving
Tree is really intended to show that goodness is its own reward.
We shouldn't do good because others will reward us, we
do so so that within ourselves we are rewarded.  The stump of the
giving tree triumphed in a way that others (like me) can't truly
participate in or understand.  Personally, I would have thrown
rotten apples at the little devil.  However, I respect rare
individuals who can be Giving Trees, instead of Taking Trees
like yours truly.

BTW, I do want to encourage people to stand up for their rights,
and those of others.  King and Gandhi required enormous strenght
to live their lives as they did.  There is a difference between
being a giving tree and being a trampled doormat, but that difference
is often too subtle for everyone else to perceive.

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this interesting work.

Jim Bruce