"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
Critical Reception
In the days following the publication of The Little Prince, several positive reviews filled newspapers throughout the United States. One particularly positive review was published in the Los Angeles Times by Paul Jordan-Smith. Part of his transcript is as follows:
There is a verse in the New Testament which is often quoted but never taken seriously. Had it been we would not today be tearing the planet and its civilization to bits. That verse in the 18th Chapter of Matthew tells us that except we become as children we cannot enter the Kingdom. And I hope I give no offense in this connection if I say that the text may be applied to literature. For I think that much of the wisest literature is that which seems written for children--stories of Aesop and Hans Christian Andersen, for example. And please consider those sentences my review of a beautiful book written and illustrated by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, "The Little Prince" (Reynal & Hitchcock: $2). For here is a sweetly and simply told tale of a little boy from a very little asteroid, so big with meaning that even important people will find wisdom in it; so simply told that even critics and college professors ought to understand its beauty and meaning; a thin little book filled with rich substance; something easy to read and remember and hard to forget.
Many reviews of The Little Prince deemed it to be not a children’s book, but a grown up fairy tale instead. For example, a review by Beatrice Sherman published in the New York Times calls The Little Prince “a parable for grown people in the guise of a simple story for children” (Sherman). Many other reviews share similar sentiments, that although the watercolor illustrations may make the book seem child-friendly, the content is too complex for children.
P.L. Travers, author of Mary Poppins, admitted that she, herself, couldn't tell if The Little Prince was a children's book. "Not that it matter, for children are like sponges. They soak into their pores the essence of any book they read, whether they understand it or not." Travers goes on to say that The Little Prince has three aspects necessary in children's books: "it is true in the most inward sense, it offers no explanations and it has a moral" (Travers).
Despite not selling well immediately after its publication, it is now the most translated book in the French language (Gale Virtual Reference Library) and the most translated book in the world save for the Bible. Even today, reviewers question whether The Little Prince is suitable for children. One review published within the last ten years (specific date unknown) on commonsensemedia.org both praises the book and warns parents of possible scariness for children. Matt Berman, the author of this review, calls the book "beautiful and thoughtful," but also says that it "really isn't for kids. It looks like a picture book, with its size, brevity, and the author's delicate watercolors, but its thoughtfulness and nostalgia for childhood appeal more to teens and adults" (Berman). Berman warns parents of the potentially frightening a child in the fact that the little prince lets a poisonous snake bite him so that he can return to his beloved planet and rose (Berman).
In France, it was not until nearly 30 years after its first publication (1945 in France) that reviewers started believing that The Little Prince was “a thoroughly Gallic and slightly sophisticated version of J.M. Barrie’s Peter Pan” (Schiff 443). Adrienne Monnier, a bookseller who published Saint-Exupéry’s works, admitted to her patrons that she openly wept by the end of The Little Prince after realizing how much of himself Saint-Exupéry put into his book (Schiff 443).
To add a bit of historical context, The Little Prince was unlike most other books of its time in that most other books (in general, not just in children's books) were not translated right away. The Little Prince was translated and sold in both English and French to begin with as opposed to one language or the other. It was also unique in that, although a work of fiction, it was remarkably autobiographical of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. It was said that he "seemed to consider the book his autobiography and that he gave it to his friends as he might offer a photo" (Robinson). It was also autobiographical for this reason (or so I imagine): the little prince left his beloved planet and his true love (his rose) behind to explore and to find out some true meaning in the world just like Antoine de Saint-Exupéry left his beloved nation (France) and his true love (his wife) on flying adventures to explore.
P.L. Travers, author of Mary Poppins, admitted that she, herself, couldn't tell if The Little Prince was a children's book. "Not that it matter, for children are like sponges. They soak into their pores the essence of any book they read, whether they understand it or not." Travers goes on to say that The Little Prince has three aspects necessary in children's books: "it is true in the most inward sense, it offers no explanations and it has a moral" (Travers).
Despite not selling well immediately after its publication, it is now the most translated book in the French language (Gale Virtual Reference Library) and the most translated book in the world save for the Bible. Even today, reviewers question whether The Little Prince is suitable for children. One review published within the last ten years (specific date unknown) on commonsensemedia.org both praises the book and warns parents of possible scariness for children. Matt Berman, the author of this review, calls the book "beautiful and thoughtful," but also says that it "really isn't for kids. It looks like a picture book, with its size, brevity, and the author's delicate watercolors, but its thoughtfulness and nostalgia for childhood appeal more to teens and adults" (Berman). Berman warns parents of the potentially frightening a child in the fact that the little prince lets a poisonous snake bite him so that he can return to his beloved planet and rose (Berman).
In France, it was not until nearly 30 years after its first publication (1945 in France) that reviewers started believing that The Little Prince was “a thoroughly Gallic and slightly sophisticated version of J.M. Barrie’s Peter Pan” (Schiff 443). Adrienne Monnier, a bookseller who published Saint-Exupéry’s works, admitted to her patrons that she openly wept by the end of The Little Prince after realizing how much of himself Saint-Exupéry put into his book (Schiff 443).
To add a bit of historical context, The Little Prince was unlike most other books of its time in that most other books (in general, not just in children's books) were not translated right away. The Little Prince was translated and sold in both English and French to begin with as opposed to one language or the other. It was also unique in that, although a work of fiction, it was remarkably autobiographical of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. It was said that he "seemed to consider the book his autobiography and that he gave it to his friends as he might offer a photo" (Robinson). It was also autobiographical for this reason (or so I imagine): the little prince left his beloved planet and his true love (his rose) behind to explore and to find out some true meaning in the world just like Antoine de Saint-Exupéry left his beloved nation (France) and his true love (his wife) on flying adventures to explore.
Translator Controversy
In 2000, for the commemoration of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's birth 100 years previously, Harcourt released a new English translation of The Little Prince by Richard Howard ("Timeline for Antoine de Saint-Exupéry"). For the most part, reviewers lean strongly toward one translation or the other. Many reviews, like that of Allie Jones on Amazon.com, say things similar to "Katherine Woods' simple and beautiful translation is the only one that does justice to The Little Prince...Howard's lacks beauty, and is at times unintelligible: It simply does not make sense" (Jones). Looking at the "Most Helpful Reviews" of the new translation of The Little Prince on Amazon's page for the book gives a much different opinion than that of the first "Editorial Review" by James Marcus, who says that "Katherine Woods sometimes wandered off the mark, giving the text a slightly wooden or didactic accent. Happily, Richard Howard...has streamlined and simplified to wonderful effect" (Marcus).
As you can tell, there is not one clear-cut "winner" as to who translated The Little Prince better. Was it Katherine Woods, whose translation has been called "lyrical" and "poetic"? Or does the new "colloquial" version by Richard Howard take the cake? Or has one of the more recent translations captured the hearts of many? The answer to that question is best left to each individual reader.
As you can tell, there is not one clear-cut "winner" as to who translated The Little Prince better. Was it Katherine Woods, whose translation has been called "lyrical" and "poetic"? Or does the new "colloquial" version by Richard Howard take the cake? Or has one of the more recent translations captured the hearts of many? The answer to that question is best left to each individual reader.
Resources:
- "Adult fairy tale." Time. 26 Apr 1943: 102. Print.
- Berman, Matt. "The Little Prince." Common Sense Media, Common Sense Media, Inc. n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2012. <http://www.commonsensemedia.org/book-reviews/little-prince>.
- Bethune Sloan, Florence. "Let's Read Now." The Christian Science Monitor (1908-Current file): 8. Aug 30 1943. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Christian Science Monitor (1908-1999). Web. 16 Nov. 2012.
- Chamberlain, John. "Books of the Times." New York Times 06 Apr 1943, 19. Print.
- Hawkins, Loret. "A Fairy Tale Not Wholly For Children." Daily Boston Globe 15 Apr 1943, 19. Print.
- Howard, James. "Amazon.com review." Amazon.com. Amazon.com, Inc, n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2012. <http://www.amazon.com/The-Little-Prince-Antoine-Saint-Exupéry/dp/0156012197/ref=tmm_pap_title_1>.
- Jones, Allie. "Timless [sic], poetic translation captures the essential of Exupéry's story." Amazon.com. Amazon.com, Inc., 30 Aug. 2005. Web. 17 Nov. 2012. <http://www.amazon.com/review/R2MG47XFCG7BOJ/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0156528207&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=>.
- Jordan-Smith, Paul. "I'll be judge, you be jury." 2 May 1943. Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved fro
This website was created by Kristin Unruh as a project for LIS514A: History of Children's Literature at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in the Fall 2012 Semester.