My interpretation of the book is that the Giving tree and the boy have a parent to child relationship while teaching many important life lessons. In the book the parent being the tree gives the boy unconditional love throughout the book never keeping count. So she gives and gives and gives, never expecting anything in return, never asking for anything back, and never reminding the boy of all she has given up for him. For example when the boy needs a house after already …show more content…
Blanche Laver had interpreted the book to be promoting bad behavior instead of teaching good life lessons. For example she claimed that the book promotes a “destructive relationship”, and she claims that one person is a victim and the other is the beneficiary however the relationship is never really like that. It’s a problem in our society that people always want something in return. Really Blanche is just really selfish and doesn’t believe that unconditional love is a thing. For her both people need to be getting something out of the relationship to be happy however I believe that Silverstein is trying to say the opposite that you don’t always have to be getting something to be happy. But I do agree that somethings in the book aren’t portrayed correctly, for example the boy never thanks the tree for what he gets and I believe that gratitude should be displayed in the