One
is somewhat hesitant when approaching such a classic as The Little
Prince, how can one be so bold as to think you have anything worth
saying about such a master piece.
I
find two disparate connections come to mind, the first is to C S
Lewis' “Cosmic” trilogy, which you will find considered elsewhere
on this blog, the writing of that trilogy spans the time in which The
Little Prince was created. Both are about space travellers, but
somehow to label them sci-fi feels a little misplaced. In common,
both use other worlds as a mirror to explore the earth and the state
of society.
The
other connection is to the Clangers, this is in part due to the
illustrations, the Little Prince's home planet, particularly its
small size, looks a lot like the Clangers home. There is also a
quality in the Prince's encounter with the others he meets which
seems to echo (or should I perhaps say foreshadow given the Prince
was written decades before) the Clangers. Do we do it a disservice if
we call it “childlike”?
If
I was to take a so-called “Ignatian”
approach to reading the
Little Prince, then I think the character with whom I would identify
most would be the Rose. The temperamental Rose, who maintains both a
pretence at invulnerability and yet a needy dependence on others, a
self-defence mechanism with only mixed results.
One
of the great lessons of the story is the Prince's discovery that the
Rose is unique, not in an inherent way as he first thought, but in
relationship with others. Our value comes from relationship. This
is a Christian “truth”, the human is precious because of not
characteristic born of themselves, but only because they are loved by
God. The failing of some of those the Prince meets, such as the
King, is that they have tried to establish a status for themselves
independent of any relationship, if you have no subjects you are left
with a very hollow kind of kingship.
No comments:
Post a Comment