The Little Prince/YMMV

• Faux Symbolism: Okay, he's Jesus. The Fox is a willing convert to faith. The snake is THE Snake. The Sheep in the box is an allegory. Or a parable, the college studies group hasn't gotten back on that. The Rose is Saint-Exupéry's wife.
  • But that leads to the question of who the Pilot is supposed to be.
    • The Pilot is all of us, grown up!
  • The little prince is arguably Jesus because he talks in somewhat ambiguous parables and dies for a noble cause only to be resurrected and go home. As well, Jesus says that one must enter the Kingdom of God as a child in order to truly grok it, which is similar to the recurring theme of children understanding what is really important in life and adults being useless.
• Tear Jerker: The end when the little prince returns to his asteroid.
  • Or, if you interpret it differently, the prince returns post-mortem.
  • And on a meta level, interpreting the narrator as Saint-Exupéry himself, who died in World War II soon after writing this novel. Then read the epilogue where the Narrator asks for word if the Prince ever returns...
  • Not to mention when the prince finally realizes that he must return to his rose, and consequently must abandon his now-tame Fox. It's worse if you've seen the movie, where the Fox is played by gentle Gene Wilder.

"Ah," said the Fox, "I shall cry."

• • • And then of course the Fox's last lesson for the prince, especially if you think of its importance near the end of the book... say with the laughing stars:

And now here is my secret, a very simple secret: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.

• • The exchange between the narrator and the Prince in chapter 6.

"One day," you said to me, "I saw the sunset forty-four times!" And a little later you added: "You know -- one loves the sunset, when one is so sad..." "Were you so sad, then?" I asked, "on the day of the forty-four sunsets?" But the little prince made no reply.

• What Do You Mean It's Not for Kids?: According to the author, it's a philosophical book under the disguise of a children's book. Then again, there's nothing saying that a philosophy book can't be for children.