It's the first of March (or almost), and that means that it is time to begin our discussion of that classic of French children's literature, The Little Prince! A work that has gained both popular and critical acclaim, it is also one that - here in the USA, at least - is often used in French language classes. I imagine that many readers have encountered it in one way or another...

Which brings me to a confession: I have not. No, I have never read The Little Prince, and for reasons that aren't altogether clear to me, I've been a little resistant to the idea, in the past. (Don't ask me why, I have no idea). Nevertheless, you all have chosen, and I am going to take this opportunity, try something new (despite my hesitation), and who knows? I may end up loving it! :)

What about all of you? Any big fans? Anyone with a school experience of this book that they want to share? As always, dive into the discussion, and remember:

There Will be SPOILERS In This Thread!!!

Although tempted, I don't have time to reread. Oh, I loved this book when I was a teen. I am not so sure I'd be as impressed now. I remember it quite well though and I do think I'd still like it. I'll jump in a bit if I feel I have anything to contribute to the discussion.

I'm going to "try" to read this in French, but I have the English version as well. Like Lisa, I loved this book as a teenager, and I am hoping that I will like it as much now.

I also am too busy with "new-to-me" books to join in with this month's discussion but wanted to say that I loved this book when I read some years ago. I hope you all enjoy the reading and I will try to pop back into the discussion later in the month!

I am trying to reread it with my five-year old. I do some 'homework' before each reading session selecting what to read. It's a fascinating experience to anticipate my son's reaction to a chosen piece. He was absolutely enchanted by the story about drawing of a boa constrictor and the sheep. We, also, decided to learn more about planets (at my son's request!). I think some of the pieces we have read are mesmerizing for a child. For example, how the author's "career as a painter was discouraged" and he "had never learned to draw anything except boa constrictors...". Also, how the little prince asked "so many questions, never seemed to hear the once [the author] asked him"... and the part about grown-ups and numbers.
I am looking forward to reading about the rose and the fox and what it means to be tamed.
It might be too ambitious to read it to a five-year old, but he might become "a serious man" before he has another chance to read it :))

Marinakoable wrote: "I am trying to reread it with my five-year old. I do some 'homework' before each reading session selecting what to read. It's a fascinating experience to anticipate my son's reaction to a chosen pi..."

How exciting to share this with your son and at such a young age! I think that "The Little Prince" is a story that can be appreciated on many levels and if your son is getting something from it now (which it sounds like he is!) then that is absolutely wonderful and should be encouraged :-) I hope you both continue to enjoy the journey.

I'm still hunting down my copy and hope to join in once I have gotten in a few pages.

I'm so ashamed to admit that I've never read this book! I will dig up a copy and "get with it!" Thanks for suggesting it.

I'm going to try to join as well! As usual I am crazy behind on my reading. I've always been intrigued by this book, but also a little hesitant - like you Abigail! I'd love to read with my daughter! We shall see!

While I loved it as a teen in the 1960s, I suspect I'd get irritated by it now. I'll be curious to see what members here think, especially if they're reading it for the first time as adults.

I loved it as a child, a teen, an adult, and last night. I was a little concerned it'd be annoying pseudo-philosophy like, I dunno, Zen/motorcycle or Celestine prophecy or Tao of Pooh or something, but it wasn't. I found it to be still fresh, innocent, and honest. I'm confident the author sincerely meant it to be offered to children. I don't believe there's any hidden occult or Christian message or anything like that. Nor is there any reason to take it too seriously - it is funny (as well as sad, and heartwarming)!

I too am especially interested in the reactions of people reading it for the first time. It's short and easy, just enjoy.

Oh, and be sure to read the dedication. I admit, I did not recognize it and may never have done so previously. :)

Cheryl, If I wasn't so behind in my reading, I'd definitely reread it. I do have a copy, so maybe someday not too far in the future. I remember quite a bit of it, and what I remember I still like.

Okay, Cheryl, you have me feeling encouraged! ;-)

Cheryl in CC NV wrote: "Oh, and be sure to read the dedication. I admit, I did not recognize it and may never have done so previously. :)"

Definitely!

Let me preface this post by assuring everyone here that it is not my intention to offend (or hurt!) anyone who loves this book. But honesty compels me (after dragging my feet for days) to say:

I really, really didn't enjoy The Little Prince. I read it once, and found it incredibly boring, and very smug. Then, thinking perhaps that the problem lay with the translation (I started with the more recent translation, by Richard Howard), I picked up an older edition, and read it a second time! I have now read both the Howard and the Woods translation. I've definitely given this book a chance! But my feelings remained the same, on my second try.

I just didn't find it moving, from an emotional perspective, or very thought-provoking. Yes, I agree that the intangible things are the most important, and that we often have greater understanding of, and love for, the things we know (specifics before generalities), but I don't feel that this book introduced me to those ideas (I already had them), nor did it really add much insight (for me) to them.

In addition to finding the tone rather smug and patronizing, I also was very irritated by the whole 'romance of the rose' storyline. As I said in my review, "In de Saint-Exupéry's cosmos, it would appear, a man can be a man, or he can be a little prince. He can be a king, a drunk, a tycoon, a geographer, or a streetlamp-lighter. A woman, on the other hand, can be a flower. A capricious, irrational flower, naively incapable of defending herself." I understand (and many people commenting on my review emphasized this point), that this book is a product of its time, but I found this vision rather limited, and limiting.

In any case, I don't want to go on and on. Your can read the full review, in all its gory detail, here:

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

But I know some of you were curious as to how a complete newcomer to the book would respond. So... there you have it! I honestly wish that I could love this book, because so many people whose opinion I respect really do. It's even my mother's favorite book! (She loaned me her copy of the original English translation).

Like Lisa, I read this book as a teenager and loved it to bits. However, unlike many other well-loved books from my childhood, which I have read and reread, I have somehow never dared to reread "Le Petit Prince" and I think the reason is that I was relatively sure that I would not like this book as much (or even at all) the second time around. I am still planning on rereading it, but after reading Abigail's excellent and eye-opening review, I am even more hesitant. It's funny, while many remember the "rose" episode (for good or for bad), the only episode that has remained a strong image in my memory, it episode with the fox.

Thank you for mentioning the fox, Gundula, because I'm thankful to be able to say that the episode with the fox was something I liked! But then, I love foxes...

Well now I'm freaked out! I recall trying to read this maybe in middle or high school and being bored/annoyed. I think I still may try to read with my daughter - will be interesting to get the dual perspectives! Hopefully it's a quick read!

I'm not surprised that a mature & thoughtful person reading it for the first time doesn't like it. Whenever I re-read it, I try to enjoy it from my mostalgic childlike perspective. And I try not to pay attention to the sexism. So, I guess I can say I'm lucky that I still love it. But you've made me realize that I can't recommend it indiscriminately, & for that I thank you, Abigail.

Chandra wrote: "Well now I'm freaked out! I recall trying to read this maybe in middle or high school and being bored/annoyed. I think I still may try to read with my daughter..."

I hope you both end up enjoying it, Chandra! Just because I didn't, doesn't mean you won't... It is definitely a quick read!

Cheryl: thanks for the kind words! I was worried that people would be very offended, since I know how much of a favorite it is. :) Despite my comments above, I can honestly say I'm glad to have finally read it. It's such a ubiquitous book, in the world of children's literature, and now, when the subject comes up in discussion, I can venture an opinion.

Also, although I can't say I got a lot of emotional or philosophical satisfaction out of it, I do think that The Little Prince is an interesting book, historically. We were just starting to explore, over in the comments on my review, the fact that this tale might be read as Saint-Exupéry's response to fascism - a commentary on the fragility of goodness, in the face of brutality, and the cold universe. It was written and published in the 1940s, when the author was living in New York, and the fate of his country, back in war-torn Europe, must have been very much on his mind. Perhaps he saw himself in the little prince, as a fellow exile. Perhaps New York seemed like another planet to him? I know he wouldn't be alone, in that! ;)

Books are written in context, and you make excellent points in msg 22.

Over in the Pippi Longstocking thread I just commented that I found it interesting that French publishers had such a problem with Pippi being disobedient and flouting authority that they wanted to eliminate whole scenes from the translated novel. I think it sheds some light on the country Exupéry was living in when he fantasized about a Little Prince who lived way off in space where "grown ups" couldn't reach him.

BunWat wrote: "Over in the Pippi Longstocking thread I just commented that I found it interesting that French publishers had such a problem with Pippi being disobedient and flouting authority that they wanted to ..."

That's a really good point. It's funny, I never imagined that the French would have had so much trouble with Pippi Longstocking being disobedient.

I read this book as a college student and liked it. I reread it today (and not having popped in to read the thread here) worried that I would be the only one that thinks it was okay but not great. Obviously, I'm not. I did like the scene with the fox, and the taming. I am not a huge dog lover in general, but we do have a dog (thanks to my husband) and I do love him. As a teacher, many of the students that are most memorable are the ones that I struggled to reach, to help and felt like I was able to, in a sense,"tame" and they me. :) I do think that there is a good message in there that "it is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." And often what we focus on are not the most important things... as adults we can get distracted.

But that said, there were some things that bugged me. I was annoyed that we were told repeatedly that the prince never dropped a question. Tell me once or twice but not over and over.

Also, the comments about how strange, how odd, how extraordinary grown ups are was bothersome. Yes, some odd adults were portrayed in this book. But to say that tending a rose, or loving a stuffed animal, was so important and that grownups love of figures and proof is so confused bugged me. I must admit that part of this may have only a little to do with this actual book and may have more to do with another recent read. But it is important for grown ups to Grow Up and get a job and be responsible. In both this and another book, it seemed to be saying that being responsible makes you lose the magic, the wonder of your dreams. And there may be some truth to that. But looking at family members and others I know that never did grow up and become responsible and fulfill their duty...it is not a pretty picture and would not make for a good world if we were all like that. I don't think I"m explaining my thoughts very well so sorry!

The narrators drawings of the snake and the grown-ups disregard for them did make me sad. As a parent and a teacher, I worry that maybe I sometimes I disregard a child's dreams/thoughts/feelings unintentionally and try to get them to focus on what I see as important...reading, math, science, etc. I hope I don't...and I certainly try not to but I'm sure it does happen, especially in this day of test scores and proficiency ratings.

All really great points Jenny! I especially like this: looking at family members and others I know that never did grow up and become responsible and fulfill their duty...it is not a pretty picture and would not make for a good world if we were all like that.

Amen!

Of course, back when this was written there was a little too much pressure to Grow Up, and to Grow Up meant, too often, to conform to a mold, to totally lose one's sense of wonder, to create only functional items, etc.

It was written in the bad old days when, for example, Laura Ingalls' mother told her not to use her imagination, and when homosexuality was defined as a disease, and a woman not married by 22 or so was considered a pathetic spinster.

I'm not disagreeing that people need to take responsibility; I'm just saying that we need balance, and a lot of people needed this book.

When I first read this book I was looking for something philosophical with quotes to analyze such as "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." or "The stars are beautiful, because of a flower that cannot be seen." The story spoke to me at the time about thinking about a child's dreams and feelings. Especially with the narrators drawing of a snake. As I read it now, I find it more difficult to read the book at all these different levels of meaning.

Jenny wrote: "it seemed to be saying that being responsible makes you lose the magic, the wonder of your dreams. And there may be some truth to that."

I agree with Jenny on this one and I think that is what I derived from the book this time around.

I agree with Cheryl, I think this book was written to address a time and place when people believed that adulthood required not just responsibility but conformity.

I don't disagree with Cheryl or BunWat. The time and place that a book is written is an important factor in considering how and why a book was written. On the other hand, in many ways, a classic to me, should have value in any age and while I do think the Little Prince does have merit, it does not speak to me in the same way (at this time) as many other classics do.

I definitely see what you're saying Jenny. It doesn't sound like this one has that 'timeless' thing going for it that so many other children's classics have. That's not to say that this kind of thing can't be fascinating, enlightening, etc. - obviously it's sparked a great discussion here! And I love reading books that give me insights into a specific time period - particularly the Victorian era. My favorite is Wilkie Collins. I just read Poor Miss Finch and loved it! But I could see how a lot of people could find it really overwrought, dated, etc.

BunWat wrote: "Over in the Pippi Longstocking thread I just commented that I found it interesting that French publishers had such a problem with Pippi being disobedient and flouting authority that they wanted to ..."

I wanted to jump back in, and mention that I think this is a wonderful point, Bun, and one more argument for interpreting The Little Prince as being of its time. It's so interesting that our discussions of these two books - Pippi and the Little Prince - overlapped, because I think that this has really helped me, in understanding and appreciating The Little Prince much more than I might have otherwise done, if going on my own personal enjoyment alone. Definitely a title of historical interest!

That said, I definitely agree with you, Jenny (no, you're not alone in not being thrilled with this one!), when you say: "a classic to me, should have value in any age and while I do think the Little Prince does have merit, it does not speak to me in the same way (at this time) as many other classics do." It's interesting to me that so many readers see this as timeless, when my appreciation (such as it is) is tied to its connections to a specific time - to its limitedness, if you will.

I read it long ago, when I was around ten, I think. it was supposed to be great and awesome, but though I saw some great moments of whimsy, overall it felt dull - no fun, no adventures, and the ending that I hated. It is, of course, a childish reaction, but I still don't want to read it again.

The picture though, I find marvellous.

Avrelia wrote: "I read it long ago, when I was around ten, I think. it was supposed to be great and awesome, but though I saw some great moments of whimsy, overall it felt dull - no fun, no adventures, and the end..."

The pictures are/were great. I loved the book as a child and I enjoyed reading it in French (at school), but when I recently tried to reread it, it felt (just as Abigail has mentioned), very smug (and the whole episode with the Rose really did bother me a lot this time around); I still love the fox, though.