As an adoptee, The Giving Tree wasn’t just a book. It was a blueprint. One that mirrored everything I was conditioned to believe: you’re valuable only when you’re giving parts of yourself away.
Hi Mary, Thanks for sharing this! I didn’t know Shel Silverstein was adopted, and that adds even more weight to unpacking both The Giving Tree and The Missing Piece through the lens of an adoptee. The Giving Tree shaped so many of us to see self-erasure as love, and as adoptees, we often weren't allowed to have missing pieces, let alone express them.
It’s interesting to think how The Missing Piece might’ve been his way of exploring that ache, that search, that void, something adoptees know all too well. Just because someone is labeled a “grateful” or “chosen” adoptee doesn’t mean they didn’t carry deep losses. Thanks again for bringing that up, it adds another layer to this whole conversation.
You bet! Those were my thoughts exactly. I haven't read either book in many years but I might add that a mother or father who had a child taken for adoption could likely relate to both books as well. So many were manipulated into surrendering by the lie that the proof of their love was in separating from their own beloved child and giving it to "better" people, although their sacrifice may have left them broken for life, like The Giving Tree. And nearly all of us searched for our "missing piece" in the faces of every child we met afterward. I know I certainly did. <3
I've always loved, "The Giving Tree" . . . and viewed it as, both when I was young and now that I'm old, a lesson that there are givers and takers in this big world of ours. I chose to be a giver (as best I can be).
Hi Ann, I appreciate you sharing this. I think so many of us were taught to admire the tree’s giving, and it shaped how we saw ourselves and others. For many adoptees like me, though, that story hits differently; it mirrors a lifetime of being expected to give parts of ourselves away just to be accepted or loved. I think choosing to be a giver from a place of wholeness is powerful. But when it’s expected or demanded, as it often is for adoptees, it can leave us empty. That’s the tension I’m exploring in this piece. Thanks for adding your voice to the conversation.
The book taught me the value of giving, but also reflected the depletion that happens when relationships are one sided. I never thought about it from the lens of being an adoptee, until today.
Giving was not modeled but expected. BUT I learned that when I give…not out of expectation, but from the heart and it felt damn good! Especially when you do give incognito, or volunteer to help others. It is how I find my value and reason for being here. While I am here, (even if I was someone’s whoopsie moment) I am going to try to do some good. But within reason, without giving away more of myself than is realistic. I’ve done the depletion thing and became resentful. Balance is key. It’s not easy to get there and stay there, but continue to be mindful of not cutting off all my branches and my ability to use them.
The book now has given us the opportunity for conversation through you Pamela. Thank you.
Hi Leslie, Wow, thank you for this beautiful and honest reflection. You nailed something so many of us wrestle with: the difference between giving from the heart versus giving out of survival, expectation, or conditioning. Especially for adoptees, giving often wasn’t always modeled with love; it was often demanded as a way to secure belonging. That’s a hard truth.
What you said about doing good “within reason” and protecting your branches really hit home. That awareness, that balance, is everything. So many of us have been stripped bare trying to earn a place in this world, only to realize later how vital it is to preserve ourselves, too.
And yes… if this conversation has sparked even one new lens for someone, then it was worth writing. Thank you again for seeing the layers and for showing up with your truth. So grateful you are here! XOXO
I was also given this book by my adoptive mother. I think the reasons she loved it align with all the reasons you hate it, Pamela. She desperately wanted unconditional love and, having never received it from her own mother, “needed a baby,” one she assumed she would birth, but when that turned out not to be possible, any baby at all, to fill that void. She expected I would be the tree to her boy, and the boy to her tree. She expected she would be mine. The book, to her, was the very example of love. (Second only to The Velvateen Rabbit, aka “you’re only ‘real’ if I love you enough”).
Hi, Sullivan 😌 I resonate with all you said about The Giving Tree and your AM. But even more so, about The Velveteen Rabbit; as a child I couldn’t describe how affected I was by the Velveteen Rabbit. It deeply reinforced the dominant adoption narrative and the attachment wounds of my severed & adopted body.
Right? I couldn’t articulate until much older but, as a little kid, I had this gnawing sense that something was just not right with that story. But my AM loved it so much, I thought (like everything else) it just must be me.
Hi Sullivan, Whew, this hit deep. Thank you for sharing so openly. What you described is exactly what so many of us have lived through: being brought in to fill someone else's void, expected to become the embodiment of unconditional love without ever receiving it ourselves. That dynamic, where love is expected to flow one way, as if our only purpose is to meet someone else’s unmet needs, is why The Giving Tree became such a haunting symbol for me.
And The Velveteen Rabbit… yes. That idea that you only become “real” through someone else's love is another message that cuts straight into the adopted experience, like we don't exist fully unless we're validated by the person who claims us. It's so layered and painful.
Your comment lays out exactly why this story is more than just a children’s book for so many of us. It reflects an entire system of distorted expectations placed on adopted people from the moment we enter a family. I'm grateful you shared this. You are real without anyone else's permission. So glad you are here!
You've been through a great deal. Adoption can be just terrible for the adopted person as I'm learning from my son who I met seven years ago when he was 55. Our reunion is marred by his experience as an adopted child and that brings its own woes for me as I struggle to make it up to him for giving him away.
The main thing I take away from the story of the tree is that of a metaphor for all women's self-erasure in heteronormative relationships.
This is likely to be reinforced now that Vance and co are advocating that women get back in the kitchen and the birthing suite.
Another problem is the decreasing fertility rate and the crackdown on abortion which could lead to more children available for adoption. We know now that it's not good for some children.
Hi Kate, Thank you for being here and for sharing your story. Reunion is complicated and raw, especially when it brings long-buried pain to the surface. I hear the weight you're carrying, and I also want to gently say that no one can undo what’s been done. But showing up with honesty, accountability, and a willingness to listen matters more than most realize. It’s rare, and it’s powerful.
I also really appreciate what you said about The Giving Tree reflecting women's self-erasure in heteronormative roles. That metaphor has so many layers, and when you pair it with the rise of controlling narratives about women, bodies, and reproductive rights, it’s alarming. It creates a pipeline that often funnels pain straight into the adoption industry, and we’re watching that cycle rev back up.
You’re right, adoption isn’t always good for children. Many of us are living proof of that. I wish you and your son continued courage as you navigate this path. Thank you for being willing to learn, listen, and share.
Wow! I completely agree. This book always made me sad vs happy tears.
Yes!!! It's so wild and the fact that I finally opened my eyes to this reality... 😝
Even wilder, I was just talking about this book this week!!
Shel Silverstein was a grateful, "chosen" adoptee. However, he also wrote The Missing Piece!
I didn't know that, but does it ever make sense. 💔
Hi Mary, Thanks for sharing this! I didn’t know Shel Silverstein was adopted, and that adds even more weight to unpacking both The Giving Tree and The Missing Piece through the lens of an adoptee. The Giving Tree shaped so many of us to see self-erasure as love, and as adoptees, we often weren't allowed to have missing pieces, let alone express them.
It’s interesting to think how The Missing Piece might’ve been his way of exploring that ache, that search, that void, something adoptees know all too well. Just because someone is labeled a “grateful” or “chosen” adoptee doesn’t mean they didn’t carry deep losses. Thanks again for bringing that up, it adds another layer to this whole conversation.
You bet! Those were my thoughts exactly. I haven't read either book in many years but I might add that a mother or father who had a child taken for adoption could likely relate to both books as well. So many were manipulated into surrendering by the lie that the proof of their love was in separating from their own beloved child and giving it to "better" people, although their sacrifice may have left them broken for life, like The Giving Tree. And nearly all of us searched for our "missing piece" in the faces of every child we met afterward. I know I certainly did. <3
I've always loved, "The Giving Tree" . . . and viewed it as, both when I was young and now that I'm old, a lesson that there are givers and takers in this big world of ours. I chose to be a giver (as best I can be).
Hi Ann, I appreciate you sharing this. I think so many of us were taught to admire the tree’s giving, and it shaped how we saw ourselves and others. For many adoptees like me, though, that story hits differently; it mirrors a lifetime of being expected to give parts of ourselves away just to be accepted or loved. I think choosing to be a giver from a place of wholeness is powerful. But when it’s expected or demanded, as it often is for adoptees, it can leave us empty. That’s the tension I’m exploring in this piece. Thanks for adding your voice to the conversation.
The book taught me the value of giving, but also reflected the depletion that happens when relationships are one sided. I never thought about it from the lens of being an adoptee, until today.
Giving was not modeled but expected. BUT I learned that when I give…not out of expectation, but from the heart and it felt damn good! Especially when you do give incognito, or volunteer to help others. It is how I find my value and reason for being here. While I am here, (even if I was someone’s whoopsie moment) I am going to try to do some good. But within reason, without giving away more of myself than is realistic. I’ve done the depletion thing and became resentful. Balance is key. It’s not easy to get there and stay there, but continue to be mindful of not cutting off all my branches and my ability to use them.
The book now has given us the opportunity for conversation through you Pamela. Thank you.
Hi Leslie, Wow, thank you for this beautiful and honest reflection. You nailed something so many of us wrestle with: the difference between giving from the heart versus giving out of survival, expectation, or conditioning. Especially for adoptees, giving often wasn’t always modeled with love; it was often demanded as a way to secure belonging. That’s a hard truth.
What you said about doing good “within reason” and protecting your branches really hit home. That awareness, that balance, is everything. So many of us have been stripped bare trying to earn a place in this world, only to realize later how vital it is to preserve ourselves, too.
And yes… if this conversation has sparked even one new lens for someone, then it was worth writing. Thank you again for seeing the layers and for showing up with your truth. So grateful you are here! XOXO
Thank you for the opportunity to share and all you do for our community of adoptees and those who want to know more❤️
I was also given this book by my adoptive mother. I think the reasons she loved it align with all the reasons you hate it, Pamela. She desperately wanted unconditional love and, having never received it from her own mother, “needed a baby,” one she assumed she would birth, but when that turned out not to be possible, any baby at all, to fill that void. She expected I would be the tree to her boy, and the boy to her tree. She expected she would be mine. The book, to her, was the very example of love. (Second only to The Velvateen Rabbit, aka “you’re only ‘real’ if I love you enough”).
Hi, Sullivan 😌 I resonate with all you said about The Giving Tree and your AM. But even more so, about The Velveteen Rabbit; as a child I couldn’t describe how affected I was by the Velveteen Rabbit. It deeply reinforced the dominant adoption narrative and the attachment wounds of my severed & adopted body.
Right? I couldn’t articulate until much older but, as a little kid, I had this gnawing sense that something was just not right with that story. But my AM loved it so much, I thought (like everything else) it just must be me.
Hi Sullivan, Whew, this hit deep. Thank you for sharing so openly. What you described is exactly what so many of us have lived through: being brought in to fill someone else's void, expected to become the embodiment of unconditional love without ever receiving it ourselves. That dynamic, where love is expected to flow one way, as if our only purpose is to meet someone else’s unmet needs, is why The Giving Tree became such a haunting symbol for me.
And The Velveteen Rabbit… yes. That idea that you only become “real” through someone else's love is another message that cuts straight into the adopted experience, like we don't exist fully unless we're validated by the person who claims us. It's so layered and painful.
Your comment lays out exactly why this story is more than just a children’s book for so many of us. It reflects an entire system of distorted expectations placed on adopted people from the moment we enter a family. I'm grateful you shared this. You are real without anyone else's permission. So glad you are here!
You've been through a great deal. Adoption can be just terrible for the adopted person as I'm learning from my son who I met seven years ago when he was 55. Our reunion is marred by his experience as an adopted child and that brings its own woes for me as I struggle to make it up to him for giving him away.
The main thing I take away from the story of the tree is that of a metaphor for all women's self-erasure in heteronormative relationships.
This is likely to be reinforced now that Vance and co are advocating that women get back in the kitchen and the birthing suite.
Another problem is the decreasing fertility rate and the crackdown on abortion which could lead to more children available for adoption. We know now that it's not good for some children.
I wish you well.
Hi Kate, Thank you for being here and for sharing your story. Reunion is complicated and raw, especially when it brings long-buried pain to the surface. I hear the weight you're carrying, and I also want to gently say that no one can undo what’s been done. But showing up with honesty, accountability, and a willingness to listen matters more than most realize. It’s rare, and it’s powerful.
I also really appreciate what you said about The Giving Tree reflecting women's self-erasure in heteronormative roles. That metaphor has so many layers, and when you pair it with the rise of controlling narratives about women, bodies, and reproductive rights, it’s alarming. It creates a pipeline that often funnels pain straight into the adoption industry, and we’re watching that cycle rev back up.
You’re right, adoption isn’t always good for children. Many of us are living proof of that. I wish you and your son continued courage as you navigate this path. Thank you for being willing to learn, listen, and share.
Thank you for engaging and for your thoughts.