I like it. I got a lot out of the encounter with the fox, specifically, and that helped me in how I relate to a lot of my friends and lovers.

interesting. may I ask which region of the world you live in?

> I don't think it's as popular as the article claims.

that may be telling more about the region you live or yourself.

I suggest go to it's Wikipedia article and check the books impact.

ps: and to get a physical copy and to read it...

This is the second most translated book after the Bible

I also highly recommend the 2015 animated film adaptation. It has a rock-solid cast, and presents the classic story within entirely new layers of interpretation that speak to multiple generations at once. It's a real tearjerker that only gets more potent with age.

I'm also not sure why so many commenters here seem confused or negative towards The Little Prince. It is a timeless, culture-invariant treatise on the most precious and important facets of human existence.

When I finally decided to give it a try, I found it to be a very interesting read.

So, you can bet people who show disdain for it probably haven't read it. Or they have weak character and are afraid to be considered dumb by association.

I would add that there is something in it for all ages. I have read it many times, between ages 6 and 25 and in different languages. The later readings were for language learning without any expectations but each time I finished it, I was deeply touched.

With that it’s also a great one to read with kids.

I think the author would be very surprised if he'd been there to see what amount of fluff has been generated around his nice and simple quasi-autobiographical codebook.

Later it got more popular and adults found all kinds of deep things. It was so sentimental I've never got back to the book if I hadn't read it first as a children's book. In my mid twenties I got my own copy from a girlfriend who saw me as a little prince.

Now about a week ago I reread it again. Well, you can find all kinds of things in it but I think you should read it as a kid first time.

Children need to learn a lot of things they understand only as adults. It builds a real connection to the stories and ideas. Adults cannot absorb new thoughts anymore. They try but it's too late.

Like if you haven't read Nietzsche and Dostoevsky first time at the age of say 16 or 18 you will never be an intellectual. You didn't get the right impulses at the time. You cannot built on shallow experiences you can have after the childhood and youth.

I cannot see that many dismissive comments. Those I can see are things like dismissing it purely because its not recent, or because the commentor has not read it which really say more about the person being dismissive than anything else.

It is very popular (in translation) in the UK (and other Engli8sh speaking countries) too.

If one were to apply it to life in general, it seems even less fitting. Although we can never achieve perfection, I think most people would agree that a meaningful life is lived through growth and gain towards a particular ideal or goal. The more we grow, the closer we come to that unattainable perfection. Removing what's harmful or a hindrance is a part of this, but if all you do is take away and not add, you just end up with nothing.

Ultimately, I think it's lacking because while you can err both due to deficiency and excess, it only considers excess and denies deficiency. It serves more to assuage feelings of inadequacy in the face of unattainable perfection than to give an accurate representation of life. And even if you don't believe in perfection, this quote doesn't deny that it exists, it merely claims that it can be achieved solely by treating excess, while ignoring deficiency.

I'm sorry if this is all very pedantic.