Children’s Perspective in Antoine de Saint’s The Little Prince

 Antoine de Saint’s The Little Prince offers us another perspective about children through the story of a man who meets a friend called the little prince. He is a pilot, and one day he crashes his aeroplane in the middle of the Sahara desert. While he is trying to repair his aeroplane, a little boy appears and asks him to draw a sheep. The pilot, as the narrator, tells about a journey of a pure child who meets some grown-ups which can represent his own perspective about the grown-ups. 

 In the beginning, the narrator uses his children’s point of view to tell us the way children think which usually is forgotten by the grown-ups. They treat children, just as “children”, whose opinion will not be considered. They do not want to think anything abstract, but only want to know about the things with numbers or empirical proofs. According to the narrator, usually the grown-ups do not think about essential things. “When you tell them that you have made a new friend, they never ask you any questions about essential matters. They never say to you, ‘What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies?’ Instead, they demand: ‘How old is he? How many brothers has he? How much does he weight? How much money does his father make?’ Only from these figures do they think they have learned anything about him.”

When he was a child he drew a picture of a boa constrictor digesting an elephant, “the grown-ups’ response, this time, was to advise me to lay aside my drawings of boa constrictors, whether from the inside or the outside, and devote myself instead to geography, history, arithmetic and grammar.” Before that, he shows them a picture of boa constrictors only from the outside and the grown-ups thought it was a hat. Then the narrator states that the children have to explain anything to the grown-ups although now he is also a grown-up. It shows that there is still the childness in himself, even though he uses the word ‘they’ for ‘the grown-ups’ as he is not one of them. So, he decided to draw the next picture to explain what the picture means. They cannot accept the narrator’s fantasy because in reality there is no ‘a boa constrictor digesting an elephant’, so the grown-ups try to make him know the fact and leave his fantasy. It is interesting when the narrator states that the children have to explain anything to the grown-ups because they cannot understand by themselves. Generally, the grown-ups think that the children know nothing, but never do they think it is possible that the children also know something that cannot be caught by the grown-ups. 

Opinions when he was a child about the grown-ups never change until the pilot has also grown up. “I have seen them intimately, close at hand. And that hasn’t much improved my opinion of them.” Although he has grown up like the others and lived among them, he never feels that he is like them and part of them. He is like a child in the body of grown-ups, not because he is childish, but he looks down on grown-ups. The opinion about them has not improved by showing his drawing of boa constrictor as consideration that always be recognized as a hat. Extremely, he even said, “I would bring myself down to his level.” 

Because he never thinks he is the same as grown-ups and he also is not a child anymore, the narrator cannot find someone who can share thoughts with him. “So I lived my life alone, without anyone that I could really talk to, until I had an accident with my plane in the Desert of Sahara, six years ago.” In his life, he never was himself. When he talks to his friends of the same age, he acts like them and talks about what he calls matters of consequence. Until he met the little prince in the accident that he thinks has the same thought as him. 

There is also a possibility that he just imagines a friend who he wishes for all the time, so in the middle of the Desert of Sahara and in the desperation about his plane comes a mirage of the little prince. Although he thinks he has never changed since a child, there is still a distance between his present and his past. He cannot remember clearly his own childhood, so he imagines the little prince as the way to get memories of his childhood. The story about the little prince is probably the reflection of the narrator’s past, so there is an ambiguity about who is the little prince. ”And if I forget him, I may become like the grown-ups who are no longer interested in anything but figures...”, in other words, he says that the little prince is not a figure. 

It seems like his own childhood that he transforms into the little prince with his journey. “To forget a friend is sad. Not every one has had a friend.” As the reflection of his past, the little prince is really precious to the narrator. He is the only one who becomes the narrator’s real friend whether he is real or not. Therefore, forgetting a friend can also mean forgetting his childhood.

Besides, the narrator has regrets about his childhood. He wants to go back to that time and do what he wanted to do without being controlled by the grown-ups. Imagining about the little prince helps him back into his childhood. When the narrator writes about the little prince, he tries to draw him but he is not satisfied with his own drawing. He blames the grown-ups in the time when he was a child who stopped him from learning drawing. “That, however, is not my fault. The grown-ups discouraged me in my painter’s career when I was six years old, and I never learned to draw anything, except boas from the outside and boas from the inside." Unlike the narrator, the little prince will force someone to listen to himself, instead of giving up to explain to them. The little prince freely expresses what he feels and he wants.

The little prince never explains anything although someone asks him. “As each day passed I would learn, in our talk, something about the little prince’s planet, his departure from it, his journey.” The narrator can interpret many things about the little prince without his explanation. The more he understands the little prince, the more he understands his own childhood. 

As the pilot spends his time with the little prince in the desert, he realizes that now he has also changed, his mind starts thinking like the grown-ups compared with the way the little prince thinks.“He thought, perhaps, that I was like himself. But I, alas, do not know how to see sheep through the walls of boxes. Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups. I have had to grow old.” When he cannot see a sheep in the box that is made by himself, it reminds him of the grown-ups who cannot see an elephant in the body of a boa constrictor in his first drawing. Although he is the one who draws the box and expects he can see or imagine the sheep in the box, but actually he cannot. Before, he always thought that he is still like a child, but he cannot deny that he has grown old.

The Little Prince shows how people can only understand different things in the world through experiencing them. The narrator can see who he is through the little prince’s journey. The grown-ups whom the little prince meet only play a role what they think they are and make others around them being what they want. The one whom the little prince sympathizes with is a lamplighter on the fifth planet who is the only one who has a simple profession compared to the king, conceited man, businessman, or geographer. The last is a tippler for whom the little prince almost feels sorry, if only he has a rational reason why he drinks. How the story mostly tells about the journey of the little prince, although actually it is about the narrator, shows that sometimes fantasy is more important than the fact. 

Mistakes to Learn in Children’s Literature

 Literature for children is one of the most effective ways to teach children how to behave according to adult’s will. Through stories, they hear examples from which they can take lessons. Instead of being scolded, with stories, children can learn how to correct their mistakes or how to avoid them. When an author of children's stories intends to make children learn not to do a wrong deed, he or she will show punishment or consequences for the character who does the mistake. For example, in Grimm’s “King Grisly-Beard”,  a princess who is rude and arrogant has to marry a poor man, which makes her suffer until she can learn about her mistake. Another example is Oscar Wilde’s “The Devoted Friend”, who wants to argue that children should not always be obedient, makes the little Hans die at the end as a result of always obeying Hugh the Miller.  Unlike both stories, Wilde’s “The Happy Prince” is difficult to determine what the author’s beliefs that he recommends for children because of the sad ending even after the characters have done good deeds.

Peter Hollindale (1988), in his essay “Ideology and the Children’s Book”, explains about three levels of ideology in children’s books. The first is made up of the explicit social, political, or moral beliefs of the individual writer, along with his wish to recommend them to children through the story. The second is the individual writer’s unexamined assumption, but the texture of language and story will reveal them and communicate them. The third is inscribed within the words, the rule-systems, and codes which constitute the text. With this theory, I will analyze the ideology that the authors try to promote to children in the three aforementioned stories. These stories have similarity in the way the plot shows its moral value, which is by illustrating the consequences of mistakes that the author does not want the children to make.

In “King Grisly-Beard”, the Grimm Brothers tell about the rude and conceited princess who gets punishment so that she can learn the lesson. She is used to living a luxurious life where she will get what she wants, so she never learns how to appreciate others and always insults other people. The punishment she gets comes from the man who she has insulted even though she does not know who the man is at first. The author clearly suggests that the children must not behave like the princess does by showing the consequence she gets. Because she makes her father, the king, angry and ashamed for treating all his guests badly, he commands her to marry a poor man.

During her marriage, she has to suffer in “a paltry place”, contrast with her previous life in the palace. King Grisly-Beard (the insulted name from the princess) is a representative who delivers the author’s ideology that children should not be rude and insult people. He disguises as a fiddler that becomes the princess’ husband to give her lessons so that she will have an empathy for other people after she experiences the difficulty in life. 

“Fear me not! I am the fiddler who has lived with you in the hut. I brought you there because I truly loved you. I am also the soldier that overset your stall. I have done all this only to cure you of your silly pride, and to show you the folly of your ill-treatment of me. Now it is all over: you have learnt wisdom, and it is time to hold our marriage feast.” (Grimm 1905)

He explicitly says that he purposely gives her punishment until she can behave properly because she loves her. Grimm wishes that the children can learn from the plot, where the main character behaves badly in the beginning and gets the punishment, then realizes her mistakes and has a happy ending with her husband. Besides, the reason is probably because he loves and cares about the children, similar to King Grisly-Beard who loves the princess. Nevertheless, the reason is mostly because, as Knowles (1996) says in his essay “Language and Control in Children’s Literature” that it is adults’ task to make children behave in ways that are generally acceptable with any method, such as “a regime of reward and punishment” (p.44).

On the other hand, Oscar Wilde’s “The Devoted Friend” shows the bad result of being too obedient. According to Sarah Marsh (2008) in her essay “Twice Upon a Time: The Importance of Rereading  ‘The Devoted Friend’”, Wilde began writing fairy tales that subverted the didactic tradition initiated by the Brothers Grimm (Happily Ever After 5). In order not to be didactic, Wilde does not reveal the moral value explicitly just like Grimm because “the texture of language and story will reveal them and communicate them” (Hollindale 1988:30). He lets the children think by themselves by showing the tragic ending of the main character.

Although Wilde’s story looks like using the second category of ideological content because of its implicit way in showing the ideology, yet he does it consciously, instead of taking it for granted according to the second ideology, since Marsh states that he implies “satire” on traditional fairy tales. Instead, it is more likely the first level of ideology where there are “intended surface ideology that fiction carries new ideas”  and “efforts to change imaginative awareness in line with contemporary social criticism.”

Rereading “The Devoted Fiend” therefore increases the reader’s awareness of Wilde’s critique of social obedience, which suggests that it is not always moral to follow the dictates of parents... [but to] teach their children more than one way to behave “properly”. (Marsh: 81-82)

Even though not everyone, especially children, are able to grasp the satire, the plot of the story itself can be taken as a lesson by them. The opposite of “King Grisly-Beard” that gives a bad impression of the main character at the beginning, “The Devoted Friend” introduces the main character as a kind-hearted person and a very devoted friend, that makes him seem like a role model for children. But later, he begins to look like a fool that is always being tricked by Hugh. Most children will see the ending of the story is very unfair for the kind character. However, by seeing that example, they can learn that giving everything is not always the best thing. Besides, they will be more thoughtful in trusting people, even their own friends, and not easily being manipulated by others, like what Hugh does to the little Hans. 

Another Wilde’s short story, “The Happy Prince”, is tougher to see the author’s ideology in it on account of its plot. At the beginning, the Happy Prince is described as a statue that is admired by everyone because of his eternal happiness. Later we know that in fact, he is sad because he “can see all the ugliness and all the misery of [his] city” (p.4). Before he dies and becomes a statue, he lives in the Palace of Sans-Souci where he can only find happiness and delight and is isolated by society. But, surely it is not real happiness because he never knows about the sorrow behind the wall of the castle. Similar to the princess in “King Grisly-Beard”, he has to come out of his comfort zone to see that there are other people who are less fortunate than himself. Thus, he feels sorry because he cannot help them since he cannot move until the Swallow comes to him. 

From here, we can see the Prince’s generosity that he gives his treasures to the poor, his ruby, sapphire eyes, and the gold that covers him, with the Swallow’s help. There is a “surface ideology” which is told explicitly in the story.

'It is curious,' he (the Swallow) remarked, 'but I feel quite warm now, although it is so cold.' 'That is because you have done a good action,' said the Prince. (p.6) 

Wilde clearly wants to tell the children to do good actions, in this case helping people by giving what we have. Unlike the little Hans in “The Devoted Friend” that feels misery after he gives his belongings to Hugh, the Swallow and the Prince feel warm and happy for giving the others. However, as the plot moves forward, Wilde denies the previous moral value he shows bluntly, because in the end, the Swallow dies for he always helps the Prince giving the jewelry for the people in the cold weather . The Prince himself has nothing left and his leaden heart is broken after knowing his friend’s death, then the statue of the Happy Prince is pulled down by the Mayor. 

Ironically, when The Happy Prince is alive and does not do anything except being happy, he is loved and respected, but after he helps people by sacrificing himself, he is thrown away. As usual, Wilde uses that kind of satire in his story that may not be understood by children. But it can be concluded that “giving” has limits, and we have to think about ourselves too as Wilde shows the consequence of sacrificing too much. This can be called “passive ideology” (Hollindale) because it is “the writer’s unexamined assumption.” Besides, this story is not completely a sad ending, because again, he turns the tragedy into a happy ending when God brings them to His “garden of Paradise”. Therefore, this story, just like “The Devoted Friend”, has an open ending where the readers can conclude by themselves what the moral value is, or even children can take the values for granted “unless they are helped to notice what is there” (Hollindale 1988: 30).

In conclusion, an author for children can show his or her ideology not only by showing a role-model character who has a happy ending after struggling, but also through the mistakes made by the characters in the story. In an implicit or explicit way, the story can point out what the authors do not wish the children to do by showing the consequences of the character’s mistake. It could be the general moral beliefs like Grimm’s stories or a new idea that opposes the traditional values like Wilde’s stories. 

References:

Grimm, Jacob, and Wilhelm Grimm. (1905). “King Grisly-Beard.” Grimm's Fairy Tales. New York: Maynard, Merrill, & Co.

Hollindale, P. (1988), ‘Ideology and the Children’s Book’, Literature for Children: Contemporary Criticism, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 19–40.

Knowles, Murray (1996). Language and Control in Children's Literature. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-203-41975-5.

Marsh, Sarah. (2008). Twice Upon a Time: The Importance of Rereading ‘The Devoted Friend. In Children’s Literature 36, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 77.

Wilde, Oscar. (1888). “The Devoted Friend”. The Happy Prince and Other Tales. Project Gutenberg EBook.

Wilde, Oscar. (1888). “The Happy Prince”. The Happy Prince and Other Tales. Project Gutenberg EBook.