LePetitPrinceasagraphicnovel:imagesanddualaddressinintersemiotictranslation

RobTwissSchoolofTranslationandInterpretation

UniversityofOttawa

SupervisedbyRyanFraser,PhDSchoolofTranslationandInterpretation

UniversityofOttawa

ThesissubmittedtotheSchoolofGraduateandPostdoctoralStudiesattheUniversityofOttawainpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofMasterofArtsinTranslationStudies

©RobertTwiss,Ottawa,Canada,2016

ii

AbstractOneof themost interestingaspectsofLePetitPrince byAntoinedeSaint-Exupéry (1999[1946]) is its

dualaddress.The illustratednarrative isatonceacharmingstory forchildrenandanallegory inviting

adults to consider philosophical questions. In the graphic-novel adaptationof thebookby Joann Sfar

(2008), thisallegory isobscured: theabstract,philosophical ideas recedeto thebackgroundwhile the

materialdetailsofthestorybecomemoreprominent.Butthisrecessionoftheallegorydoesnotmean

that the adaptation turns its back on adult readers completely. The graphic novel creates a web of

intertextual references,which,amongother things,amplify thesuggestion in thesource text that the

protagonist is Antoine de Saint-Exupéry himself. It thus displaces the adult interest from allegory to

autobiographyandthemechanismofadultaddressfromallegorytointertextuality,restrictingitsadult

audience. For those adult readers who remain addressed by the graphic novel, however, the text

identifiesitselfexplicitlyasatranslation,whichhasconsequencesforweshouldthinkaboutthe“voice”

ofthetranslator.

RésuméUndes aspects les plus intéressants du livre LePetit Prince d’Antoinede Saint-Exupéry (1999 [1946])

tientaufaitquelerécitillustréestunehistoirecharmantepourlesenfantsenmêmetempsqu’ilinvite

lesadultesàréfléchiràdesquestionsphilosophiques.Dansl’adaptationdurécitenbandedessinéepar

JoannSfar(2008),lesélémentsabstraitsdulivres’estompentderrièrelesdétailsconcretsdel’histoire.

Ceteffacementdel’allégorienesignifiepourtantpasquelabandedessinéetourneledosauxadultes:

elle créeun réseau intertextuel qui renforce l’impressiondonnéepar le texte sourceque le véritable

protagonisteestAntoinedeSaint-Exupéry.Ainsi,l’intérêtpourlesquestionsphilosophiquessereporte

sur l’autobiographieet,passantdel’allégorieà l’intertextualité, labandedessinéesollicitealorsmoins

les adultes. Cependant, pour les adultes auquelles la bande dessinée s’addresse toujours, le texte

s’identifie explicitement comme une traduction, ce qui implique une réévaluation du concept de la

“voix”dutraducteur.

iii

Acknowledgements

I amgrateful toanumberofpeople for theirhelpingmewrite this thesisand formakingmy

time in the masters in translation studies program at the University of Ottawa such a rewarding

experience.

Firstandforemost,IamgratefultoRyanFraserforhissupervision.IneverhadaquestionRyan

couldn’t answer, and Iwasnever so lost in a thicketof ideas thathe couldn’t showme thewayout.

Whatyouareabouttoreadismuchbetterforhismanygoodideasandclearerformulations.ButRyan

did more than merely save this thesis from being what it would have been without his guidance.

Throughouttheprocessheremainedateacher,fromwhomIlearnedmorethanIcansayaboutwriting,

research,andthinking.

IamalsogratefultothefacultyattheSchoolofTranslationandinterpretationforallthatthey

havetaughtmeinthreeyearsoftranslationcoursesandalsoforfosteringalearningatmospherethatis

challengingwhilebeingfun,friendly,andcollegial.

Finally,Iamgratefultomyfriends—inandoutsidetheschool—andfamilymemberswhohelped

me stay saneduring thewritingprocess. Imust thankespeciallymygirlfriend, Lili Atala,whodespite

bearing the brunt ofmy stress and confusion,was always quick to offer emotional support andwise

advice.

Toallofyou,mysincerethanks.Ofcourse,nothinginthisthesiscanbeblamedonyou,butany

valueinitisyoursasmuchasitismine.

iv

Contents

Chapter1:ImagesandDualAddressinTranslation 1

1.AntoinedeSaint-Exupéry 2

2.Theplot 4

3.Narrativeaddressandimages 7

4.Methodandliterature 8

5.Methodology 10

Chapter2:ImagesandDualAddressinTheory 12

1.Duallyaddressednarratives 12

1.1Childrenandadults 12

1.2Storyandnarrativediscourse 14

1.3Discursiveanchorageandrelay 18

2DualaddressinLePetitPrince 20

2.1Intertextualityand(auto)biography 20

2.2Allegory 21

3.Anchorageandrelaybetweenwordandimage 25

Chapter3:ImagesandDualAddressinPractice 32

1.Fromsourcetotargetnarratives:relaytoallegory,anchoringinthestory 33

1.1Dedication 34

1.2Introduction 36

1.3AsteroidB612 41

1.4Baobabs 43

1.5Repairs 45

2.Relayinsourceandtargetimages 47

2.1Theimagesofthesourcetext:relaytoallegory 47

2.2Intertextualrelayinthetargettext 55

3.Conclusions 58

ReferencesandImageCredits 62

1

ImagesandDualAddressinTranslation

Le Petit PrincebyAntoinede Saint-Exupéry (1999[1943]) is a remarkable text. First published

(simultaneouslyinFrenchandEnglish)intheUnitedStatesin1943,itwasanimmediatecriticalsuccess

and has been a consistent commercial one, selling more than 150,000,000 copies1. Translation has

played an important role in this success. Of the book’s 1300 editions, the United Nations Index

Translationumlists712intranslation2.Availableinmorethan250languages,LePetitPrinceisthemost

translated work of French literature and, along with the Bible and the UN Universal Declaration of

HumanRights,oneofthemosttranslatedtextseverwritten.

Thebookhasbeen“translated”intoglobalcultureaswell.Ithasinspirednumerousoperasand

musical theatreproductions, TV series, and several films, anotherofwhichwill be released this year.

Nextyear,theNationalBalletofCanadawillperformachoreographybasedonthestory.Avideogame

isapparentlyalsointheworks.Thelittleprinceappearedonthe50-francnotebetween1993and2001,

andthecharacterhasbeenusedincampaignsbytheUNRIC,theFondationRéunica,theVeoliagroup,

andToshiba.InFrance,youcanflyinanAirPetitPrincehotairballoon;inBaden-Baden,Germany,you

can stayat theHotelDerKleinePrinz; inCuritiba,Brazil, youcan convalesceat thePequenoPríncipe

Hospital.

Theadaptationof thestoryasagraphicnovel, the full titleofwhich isLePetitPrinceD’après

l’oeuvred’AntoinedeSaint-Exupéry,wasdoneby JoannSfarandpublishedbyGallimard in2008. It is

recommendedbytheFrenchministredel'Éducationnationale,anditreceivedthePrixLireforthebest

comic book in 2008 and the Essentiel Jeunesse award at the 2009 Festival international de la bande

dessinéed'Angoulême.

1http://www.thelittleprince.com/licensing/.Forcomparison,accordingtoWikipedia,C.S.Lewis’TheLion,TheWitch,andtheWardrobe,firstpublishedin1950,hassoldsomethinglike85,000,000copies:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books.2http://www.unesco.org/xtrans/bsresult.aspx?a=Saint-Exup%C3%A9ry&stxt=Le+Petit+Prince&sl=fra&l=&c=&pla=&pub=&tr=&e=&udc=&d=&from=&to=&tie=a

2

Thiscommercialsuccessandcultural influenceofLePetitPrincemakethebookan interesting

artifactonseveral levels:asaproductthat isboughtandsold,asapartofFrenchcultureexportedto

therestof theworld,andasameaningfulnarrativeappreciatedbyavery largenumberofpeople. In

thislastsense,oneofthemoreinterestingaspectsofLePetitPrinceisitsdualaddress.Thereisbroad

agreement that the text isneithera“children’sbook”nora“book foradults,”but ratherbothat the

sametime(Renonciat,2006:16).AsIwillargue,theillustratednarrativeisatonceacharmingstoryfor

children and an allegory inviting adults to consider philosophical questions. However, in the graphic-

noveladaptationofthebookbyJoannSfar(2008),thisallegoryisobscured:theabstract,philosophical

ideasrecedetothebackgroundwhilethematerialdetailsofthestorybecomemoreprominent.Butthis

recessionoftheallegorydoesnotmeanthattheadaptationturnsitsbackonadultreaderscompletely.

The graphic novel creates a web of intertextual references, which, among other things, amplify the

suggestioninthesourcetextthattheprotagonistisAntoinedeSaint-Exupéryhimself.Itthusdisplaces

theadultinterestfromallegorytoautobiographyandthemechanismofadultaddressfromallegoryto

intertextuality.Iwillarguethatthisshiftrestrictstheadultaudienceofthegraphicnovelrelativetothat

of the original illustrated book. In explaining this perceived shift, I will attempt to illustrate how a

narrative that employs both words and images can address two audiences separately but

simultaneously.

AntoinedeSaint-Exupéry

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1900–1944) was a French author and aviator, acclaimed as both

duringhislifetime3.Infact,flyingandwritingobsessedhimatayoungageandlargelydefinedhislife.

Hisfather,JeandeSaint-Exupéry,diedbeforehisson’sfourthbirthday,andAntoine,hisbrother,andhis

threesisterswereraisedbytheirmother,MarieBoyerdeFonscolombe,andAntoine’sgodmother,the

ComtessedeTricaud.Mostofhis childhoodwas spentat theCountess’s chateauatSaint-Maurice-de

3AllbiographicalinformationistakenfromSciff(1994),Vircondelet(2008),andSaint-Exupéry(1941)

3

Rémens.Antoinewasextremelyhappythere,andherecalledthistimefrequentlyinhiscorrespondence

withhisfamily.

Antoine’syoungerbrother,François,wasoneofhisclosestfriends.HediedwhenAntoinewas

17.Onhis deathbed, he toldAntoine that he shouldnotworry: “I’mall right. I can’t help it. It’smy

body.”Antoinerememberedthatwhenhediedhe“remainedmotionlessforaninstant.Hedidnotcry

out.He fell as gently as a tree falls.” (cited in Schiff, 1994:62). Thesearealmostprecisely thewords

describingthedeathofthelittleprince(c.f.Saint-Exupéry,1999[1946]:95)

Antoinewasapoorstudentwhoseemedtobeabletoapplyhimselfonlytowhateveritwashe

was not supposed to be doing. After failing the entrance exams to the École Navale, he failed to

completehisstudiesinarchitectureattheÉcoledesBeaux-Arts.Heneverindicatedanyinterestinbeing

a naval officer or an architect. He then failed tomake a living as a bookkeeper and later as a truck

salesman.Were itnot forhispassionfor flying(whichhehadbeenfascinatedbysincehewasachild

andwhichhe learnedtododuringhiscompulsorymilitaryservice),hemightneverhavebeenableto

hold a regular job. He secured one, however, with the Latécoère company (later Aéropostale), and

between thewars he flewmail between France andNortheast Africa and later in South America. In

1927,hewasbeing flownasapassenger toDakarbya fellowLatécoèrepilot.Amechanicalproblem

forced them to land in the SaharaDesert, probably inMauritania, betweenwhat is nowNouadhibou

(Port-Étienneatthetime)andDakar.Afriendwhohadbeenflyingbehindwasabletolandnearby,but

hedidnothaveroomtoflybothSaint-Exupéryandtheotherpilot totheirdestination,sotheauthor

hadtospendthenightaloneinthedesert,whichleftanunshakeableimpressiononhim:“Isuccumbed

tothedesertassoonasIsawit”(Saint-Exupéry,1941:127).

WritingwasalsoanearlypassionforSaint-Exupéry,andtheonlyareainwhichheachievedany

academicsuccess.Thereceptionofhisearlypublicationswaslukewarm.Hisliterarystarbegantorisein

1931withthepublicationofVoldeNuit,afterwhichhismajorpublicationsincludednonfiction(1939,

4

1944),aswellasmorefiction(1942,1999[1946],1949).Hiswritingbetraysaromantichumanistic

philosophyandoftencontainselementsofautobiography.

In1935,hebarelysurvivedacrashintheLibyandesertafterattemptingtobreaktherecordfor

the fastest flight between Paris and Saigon. The plane was completely destroyed, and he and his

mechanic, Andre Prévot, spent four dayswithout food,water, shelter, or any ideawhere theywere.

Theywerehallucinatingandhadgivenuphopewhen,againstallodds,theywerefoundbyaBedouin

caravan.ThisexperienceisrecountedinWind,SandandStars,abookofmemoirs/essaysaboutaviation

(Saint-Exupéry’s1941:193–236)

Saint-ExupéryfoughtbrieflywhenWWIIbegan,butheleftforNewYorkafterGermanyinvaded

France.Hewasveryunhappythere.Hismarriagecontinuedtobecharacterizedbyfights,absences,and

infidelity,andhefeltstronglythathewasfailinginhisdutytohiscountry.Itwasthere,between1942

and1943, thathewroteLePetitPrince afterhispublisher’swife suggested thathewritea children’s

bookaboutthe littlemansheoftensawhimdoodling.Writingthebookobsessedhimandapparently

broughthimsomerelief,butintheendheusedhisinfluencetobesenttofightwiththealliesinAlgiers,

despiteobjections thathewas toooldandunfit to flybecauseofprevious injuries (fromyetanother

crash).HewasextremelyproudofLePetitPrince,andkeptacopywithhimtoshowtoeveryonewho

wouldlethim.InJuly1944,heleftforareconnaissancemissionanddidnotreturn.

Theplot4

ThemainprotagonistandnarratorofLePetitPrince is anunnamedaviatorwho,althoughhe

livesamonggrownupsandcaninteractwiththemwhenhecondescendstodoso,doesnotholdthemin

highregard.Whiletryingtorepairhisplane,whichhehascrashedinthedesert,hemeetsalittleman

who constantly asks questions but never answers them. The aviator pieces together the story of this

funnylittleprinceandrelaysittous.

4Whilethisisstrictlyspeakingasummaryofthesourcetext,itservesasanapproximatesummaryoftheadaptationaswell.

5

Beforecoming toearth, theprince livedaloneonaverysmallasteroid,watchingsunsetsand

weedingoutdangerousbaobabsproutsfromhisgarden.Whenaroseofunknownprovenanceblooms,

he falls in lovewith her, but quickly learns howdifficult and complicated love can be. He decides to

leavehisasteroidstovisitotherplanets“pourychercheruneoccupationetpours’instruire.”Thefirst

planet he visits is ruled by a kingwho demands to be obeyed but, being reasonable, only orders his

subjectstodowhattheywouldhavedoneanyway.Thesecondisthehomeofvainmanwhowishesto

be recognized as “l’homme le plus beau, le mieux habillé, le plus riche, et le plus intelligent de la

planète.”Becausethevainmanistheplanet’sonlyinhabitant,theprincemayreadilyacquiesce.Onthe

thirdplanet, he finds adrunkwhodrinks to forget thathe is ashamedofdrinking.On the fourth, he

meets a very serious businessman busy counting the “petites choses dorées qui font rêvasser les

fainéants”(i.e.thestars).Oncehehascountedthem,hewillbeabletowritetheirnumberonapieceof

paperandlockitaway.Theseencountersservetoconvincetheprincethat“lesgrandespersonnessont

décidémenttoutàfaitextraordinaires.”(SaintExupéry,1999[1946]:40–53)

Thefifthplanettheprincevisitsisthesmallest:ithasroomforonlyastreetlampandamanto

light and extinguish it. Due to the planet’s size (and the consequent shortness of its days), hemust

performhis taskeveryminute,withnotimetorestorsleep.Althoughtheprincefindsthisbehaviour

absurd,herecognizesthatthismanis lessabsurdthantheking,thedrunk,orthebusinessman:every

time he lights his lamp, it is as if another star comes out. “C’est une occupation très jolie. C’est

véritablementutileparceque c’est joli” (ibid.: 53–54). Theprince concludes that, although theothers

would disdain him, the lamplighter is the only person the prince does not find ridiculous, perhaps

becauseheattendstosomethingotherthanhimself.Alas,thereisnotenoughspaceonthatplanet,and

theprinceleaves.

Thesixthplanetistentimesthesizeofthefifth.Itisthehomeofageographer.Thegeographer,

whoistooimportanttodohisownexploring,sendstheprincetoearthtoexploreforhim.

6

Thefirstthingtheprincemeetsonearthisasnake,whotellshimthathecantakehim“plusloin

qu’unnavire”andthat“Jepuist’aiderunjoursituregrettestroptaplanète.”(64–65)

Later, theprince iscrushedto findagardenfullof roses:hebelievedhisrosewasunique.He

meetsafoxandasksittoplaywithhim,butthefoxrepliesthatitcannotbecauseithasnotbeentamed

(apprivoisé).Taming,whichthefoxdefinesas“créerdesliens,”isimportantbecause“Onneconnaîtque

les choses que l’on apprivoise.” It involves a ritual (a silent one, of course, given that “le langage est

source demalentendus”). Rituals have largely been forgotten bymen,who as a result “n’ont plus le

tempsderienconnaître.”Theprincetamesthefoxandthenreturnstothegardenofroses.Herealizes

thathisownroseisuniquepreciselybecausesheishisrose:theirrelationshipmakesherspecial.Before

heleavesthefox,ittellshimasecret:“onnevoitbienqu’aveclecœur.L’essentielestinvisiblepourles

yeux.C’estletempsquetuasperdupourtarosequifaittarosesiimportante.”(ibid.:71–78

After theprince leaves the foxhe findsa rail traffic controller shuttlingbusypeoplebackand

forthathighspeeds.Thesebusypeopledonotknowwheretheyaregoing;theyonlyknowtheyarenot

happywheretheyare.Onlythechildrenhavetheirnosesgluedtothewindowstoseetheworldgoby.

“Lesenfantsseulssaventcequ’ilscherchent,”concludestheprince.(ibid.:79)

Afterrelatingtoustheprince’sadventures,theaviatorasnarratorreturnstohispredicamentin

thedesertwiththeprince.Theaviatorhasbeenunabletofixhisplane,andhehasrunoutofwater.The

prince suggests they go look for a well. On the way, the aviator looks out at the desert and has a

revelation: “qu’il s’agisse de lamaison, des étoiles oududésert, ce qui fait leur beauté est invisible!”

(ibid.:82).Theprincerespondsthatheisgladtheaviatoragreeswiththefox.

Theyfindawelleventually.Theydrinktogether.Theirfriendshipdeepens,asdoestheaviator’s

understandingofhisepiphany.Finallytheprincesendstheaviatorawaytofixhisplane.

Theaviator returns to find theprince talking to the snake, telling it that theyare in the right

place,but that it isnotquite time.Theaviator scares the snakeaway,buthe finallyunderstands the

7

prince’s intentions.He initiallyrefusestoacceptthattheprincemust leave,buttheprinceexplainsto

himthathehasaresponsibilitytohisrose.Thenextnight,theprincewalksoutinthedesertsothatthe

snakemaybitehimandhemayreturntohisplanet(whichistoofarawayforhimtotravelto“carrying”

hisheavybody—theimplicationisthathewilldie).Theaviatorneverfindsthebody.

Theaviatorescapesthedesert.Thefinalchapterisdevotedtohisreflectionsonhisexperience.

Ofcourse,asinterestingasallthisnodoubtis,whyareyouabouttoreadawholethesisabout

it? Because Le Petit Princeand its graphic-novel adaptation provide an ideal opportunity for thinking

aboutnarrativeaddress,wordsandimagesinnarrative,andthe“voice”ofthetranslator.

Narrativeaddressandimages

Alltranslationaimstobringatexttoanewaudience,i.e.tochangeitsaddressee,byenablingor

merely facilitating its consumption by that new audience. In fact, ifwe consider textual address as a

functionoftextualdesign,onebroaddefinitionof“totranslate”mightbe“tomodifyatextinlightofa

newaddressee.”Fortranslationstudies,“sourceandtargetaudiences”generallymean“speakersofthe

sourceandtarget languages,”respectively,andthetextualmodification inquestionusuallyconsists in

changingthelanguageofthesourcetext.However,asthetextsIhavechosentoanalyzeillustrate,one

textcanaddressdifferentgroupsofreaderssimultaneously,andashiftof textualaddresscan involve

notonlyinterculturaldifferences(suchaslanguage)butalsointra-culturalones.Theintersemioticand

intralingual translation of Le Petit Prince as a graphic novel carries the source text not across a

linguistic/culturalbarrier,butratherforwardintimewithinthesameculture,sowecannotcharacterize

thetargetaddresseewithregardtolanguage.Rather,themainfeatureofthetargettext is itsgreater

relianceonthevisualmode.LePetitPrince in itsoriginalversion isan illustratedbook—amultimodal

text that uses both language and images to construct its narrative. However, its primary mode is

linguistic,whereasinthegraphicnovel,theworkofstorytellingissharedmoreequallybytheverbaland

visualmodes. Just asno interlingual translationmerelydelivers its source textunchanged intoanew

8

language,theadaptationdoesnotsimply“update”thesourcetextformodernreaders.Iwillattemptto

showhowthegreater relianceon images in thegraphicnoveldisplaces the interest foradult readers

from,inthesourcetext,philosophicalquestionsraisedbytheallegoryto,inthetargettext,intertextual

links to specificbiographicaldetailsabout theauthor,narrowing itsadultaudience. Iwillpresent this

argumentindetailinthenexttwochapters.

Butfirst,twoquestionspresentthemselves:

• Howdid I account for thedual addressof the source text anddecidewhat to look for in the

target?

• How can I parsimoniously explain the differences between the two narratives, especially

consideringthegreaterroleoftheimagesinthetargettext?

Methodandliterature

Todescribeatextasduallyaddressedtochildrenandadultsistoimplythatchildrenandadults

aredifferentkindsofreaders.Thisisobviousenough,butunfortunately,weneedtoknownotjustthat

childrenandadultsreaddifferentlybuthowtheyreaddifferentlyifwewanttodescribeatextasdually

addressedtochildrenandadults.Afterall,thetextprovidesthesameinformationtobothaudiences,so

if it isduallyaddressed, it isbecause it isdesignedtobe interpreteddifferentlybybothof them.Any

descriptionofdual address requires someassumptions about thedifferent readingbehavioursof the

twogroups.MaryanneWolfstudieschilddevelopmentandisthedirectoroftheCentreforReadingand

LanguageResearchat TuftsUniversity.Herdetailed synthesisof readingdevelopment (2008) allowed

me to ground and orient my assumptions. As I will explain in the next chapter, I have based my

hypothetical child and adult readers of Le Petit Prince and the graphic novel on her “fluent,

comprehendingreader”and“expertreader,”respectively.

Secondaryliteratureaboutthework(Mitchel,1960;Laffont,2008;DeKoninck,2006)helpedme

identify the allegory as the engine of the text’s dual address. My interpretation of the allegorical

9

meaningofthetext,however, isbasedonmyownexegesisanddefinitionsof“allegory”fromliterary

theoristsJonWhitman(1993)andChrisBaldrick(2008).

Toexplainnarrativeaddressasafeatureofnarrativedesign(asopposedto,say,asamarketing

decisionoras theavowed intentionof theauthor), Ineededa theoretical vocabulary todescribe the

twonarrativesIwasworkingwith.Herethenarratologicaldistinction,whichweshallseeinthecoming

chapter, between “story” and “narrative discourse” is particularly useful. This distinction, in

approximatelytheformproposedbyFrenchnarratologistGerardGenette(1980),hasbecomestandard

innarratology;H.PorterAbbotdiscussesthedistinctionfromacontemporaryperspective(2007).This

distinction isnotonlyhelpful forexplainingallegoricalnarratives; italsogavemeaconvenientwayto

describe the differences aswell as the similarities betweenmy two texts. But like any form/content

distinction, it has its limitations. Postmodern literary theorist Johnathan Culler (2001) reveals these

limitations while providing an amazingly clear perspective on how “story” and “narrative discourse”

workandwhytheyareindispensablefortheanalysisofnarrative.

Finally,FrenchSemiologistRolandBarthesprovidestheoreticalmetalanguageforthinkingabout

the the relationship betweenwords and images. In an essay describing the different levels at which

images signify (1977), he proposes two possible word/image relationships: “relay” and “anchorage.”

Theseconcepts,whichIwilldescribeindetailinthenextchapter,areparticularlyusefulformyanalysis

for two reasons. First, the idea of relay betweenwords and images already implies a story, so it fits

easily into narrative analysis; second, the binary distinction nicely parallels that between “story” and

“narrative discourse.” Although Iwill also use them in their original sense, this parallel allowsme to

retro-fitBarthes’conceptsinordertoexplainhowatextcanseparatelybutsimultaneouslyaddresstwo

differentaudiences.

10

Methodology

BecauseIaminterestedintextualaddressasafeatureoftextualdesign,aclosecomparisonof

thesourceandtargettextsandtheirdescriptionviadiscourseanalysiswasthelogicalchoiceofmethod.

However,thisapproachhassomeimplicationsforhowmyargumentshouldbeevaluated.Inonesense,

thegoalofthisprojectistoexplaindifferencesbetweensourceandtargettexts(theirdifferentformsof

dual address)with regard to their respectivemedia (thedifferentways inwhicheachemployswords

andimages).SomyhypothesiscouldbecalledanexplanatoryonewithrespecttoAndrewChesterman’s

causalframework(2000).ButIamtryingtoexplaindifferencesofmeaning,somyexplanationdepends

heavilyonmyinterpretationofthetextsaswellas literarytheoriesbasedonothers’ interpretationof

texts.Obviously,my interpretations—Chestermanwouldcall them“interpretivehypotheses”—must

be accepted beforemy explanation can even be evaluated, so I have a responsibility to justify them

against “criteria of parsimony, logic and descriptive or explanatory power, and against alternative

hypotheses”(Chesterman,2008:55).Becausemyinterpretationsandexplanationwillnotbefalsifiable,

mygoalistoaddvalue.Chestermandefinesaddedvalueas“thatwewillunderstandXbetter,beableto

examineitfruitfully,derivefurtherinterestingresearchquestions,solveaproblem,improveasituation,

and soon” (loc. cit.,original italics).Ultimately, thequestion is notwhether thedifferencesbetween

source and translation can be explained by their different media, but whether useful, insightful,

parsimoniousexplanationscanbeofferedatthislevel.

Inthenextchapter,Iwilllaythetheoreticalgroundworkformyanalysisofmysourceandtarget

texts. Basedon someassumptions about thedifferent reading behaviours of children and adults and

withthehelpofsomebasicnarrativetheory,I’llworktowardsadefinitionofdualaddressinnarrative

andproposemyowntheoryofhowitmightbedescribed,combiningnarratologicaltoolswithBarthes’

conceptsof relayandanchorage.Then Iwillusethis theory toexplain thedualaddressof thesource

11

text.Finally I’lluseexamplesfromthesourceandtargettextstoexplainBarthes’theoryofanchorage

andrelayasitpertainstotheword/imagerelationship,whichIwillapplyinmyanalysis.

Inthethirdandfinalchapter,Iwillusethismetalanguagetoexplaintheeffectoftheadaptation

onthedualaddressof thesource. Iwillbeginbycomparingthesourceandtargetnarratives,arguing

that thegraphicnovel tends topromoteastory-based interpretation (the interpretationofachild)at

momentswherethesourcetextpromotesanallegoricalone(theinterpretationofanadult).Then,Iwill

zoominontheimagesofthesourceandtargettextsinordertoillustrateindetailthedifferentwaysin

whicheachtextusesitsimagestoaddressanadultreadership.

12

ImagesandDualAddressinTheory

In the last chapter, I argued that translation studies should be able to talk about how texts

“address” their audiencesandabout the semiotics (and translation)of imagesaswell as language. In

this chapter, Iwill start by developing aworking definition of dual address as it applies to narratives

addressed to children and adults. I will then explain the dual address of Le Petit Prince, and present

sometoolsthatwillbenecessaryforanalyzingnarrativesthatuseimagesaswellaswords.

1.Duallyaddressednarratives

The first thing we need to think about textual address (as a function of textual design) is a

pictureofouraddressee(s).BeforeIcanaskhowanarrativemightcaterseparatelytobothchildrenand

adults, I need to construct two hypothetical readers based on assumptions aboutwhat children and

adultscanandwilldowhenreading.

1.1Childrenandadults

ThechildreaderofLePetitPrinceIhaveinmindisnotextremelyyoung;heisaroundnineyears

old. His literacy, strictly speaking, is not going to impede his comprehension. He iswhatWolf calls a

“fluent, comprehending reader”, though not yet an “expert” one (2008: 136–162). He reads and

understandsbooksonhisown,andhe longago learned to tell fact from fiction (SkolnickandBloom,

2006:B9–B10).Hecaneven“gobelowthesurfaceofwhat[hereads]toappreciatethesubtextofwhat

the author is trying to convey” (Wolf, 2008: 138). But his reading experience more or less ends at

comprehension;heis“justleavingthemoreconcretestageofcognitiveprocessing,”beginninga“long

phaseofreadingdevelopment”which“oftenlaststillyoungadulthood”(Wolf,2008:138–139).Hisisa

somewhatmechanical interpretation,basedonputtingpiecesof information together. Thedegree to

whichhecontemplateswhathereadsandrelatesittohisown(relativelyshort)lifeislimited.

My hypothetical adult reader is nowhere in the vague, fuzzy transitional period between

childhoodandadulthood.Let’ssayshe’satleast23yearsold,thoughshemayalsobemucholder.She

13

hasdevelopedapersonaltasteinbooks,TV,music,etc.Sheremembersmanyofthetextsshehasread

inherlifeandisawareofthegeneralcirculationofinformationandideasinthecultureshelivesin.She

isan“expertreader”(ibid.:143–162).She

brings to the textnotonly [cognitiveexpertise],butalso the impactof lifeexperiences—[her]loves,losses,joys,sorrows,successes,andfailures.[Her]interpretativeresponsetowhat[she]readshasadepththat,asoftenasnot,takes[her] innewdirectionsfromwheretheauthor’sthinkingleft[her](ibid.:156).

Hers is amore organic interpretation than the child reader’s. Associations occur to herwhether she

wantsthemtoornot,associationsbasedonthewealthofexperience—and,Iwouldadd,knowledge—

shehasobtainedinherlife.

Themaindifference,then,betweenmyhypothetical(fluent)childreaderand(expert)adultone

is the degree to which they relate what they read to their own experience and knowledge. This

differenceisaugmentedbythefactthatadultshavemoreexperienceandknowledgetodrawonwhen

readingandinterpretingatext.Obviously,thisexperiencewillvarywidelybetweenindividualreaders,

butonegeneralizationissafetomake:childrenhaveanexperienceofchildhoodonly,whileadultshave

bothanexperienceofadulthoodandamemoryofchildhood.Childrencanthinkaboutwhatitisliketo

beachildbasedontheirexperienceofplaying,beingeducated,beingcared for,etc..However, they

haveonlyachild’s-eye-viewofadulthood:theycannotthinkaboutwhatitisliketobeanadultinlight

of the roles and responsibilities of adulthood. Based on this, a text could be described as dually

addressedtochildrenandadultsaccordingtotwocriteria.Thefirstisthatthetextmustbesodesigned

thata“fluent”childreadercanobtainacoherentinterpretationofitbasedonlyonhisrelativelylimited

knowledgeandexperience(thisimpliesrelativesimplicitynotonlyofsyntaxandvocabularybutalsoof

content). The second is that the text must be so designed that it will suggest a second, additional

readingtoan“expert”adultreaderinlightofheradditionalknowledgeandexperience.Wemightthink

oftheadultreader’sinterpretationasdeeperormorecomplex.Thegreaterthedifferencebetweenthe

14

tworeadings,andthemorethedeeperreadingissuggestedtotheadult,themorethetextshouldbe

describedasduallyaddressed.

It is easy enough to see how prerequisite experience and/or knowledge might be used to

describedifferenttextsasaddressedtodifferentgroups,butcanonetextreallybedesignedtoberead

differentlybydifferent readers? Surely anarrative text suchasLePetit Prince tells the same story to

whoeverreadsit.Perhapsthereisnothingmoretothebook’s incrediblesuccessamongadultreaders

thanthenostalgicenjoymentofacharmingstoryfromtheirchildhood.Orperhapsthere ismoretoa

narrativetextthanthestoryittells,somethingtowhichadultsareprobablymoreattuned.

1.2Storyandnarrativediscourse

In narratology “story” and “narrative” are not synonymous. Rather, a story is component of

narrative framed by, and distinguishable from, narrative discourse. “Story” refers to the events

recounted, “what happened”, the facts or fictionof thematter. To engagewith the story is tomove

downthepathtovisceral immersion,astrongvicarioussenseof theprotagonist’sexperience.Onthe

otherhand,“narrativediscourse”(henceforth just“discourse,”butstill inthisrestrictednarratological

sense)istheframingofthestory,themannerinwhichitistold.Inprosenarrative,itistheguidingvoice

ofthenarrator,whointervenestosetthestoryinmotionanddirectitsunfoldinginauniquerhetorical

style.Discoursedeterminesthingslikeplot(thespecificorderinwhichthenarratorrecountstheevents

of the story,whichmay ormay not correspond to the story’s chronology), biases (explicit or implicit

attitudesassumedbythenarratortowardsthestoryand/orthenarrator’sowntellingofthestory),and

higherlevelsofsignification(suchasmetaphoricalmeaningorintertextualrelationships).

Abbot, who further divides narrative discourse into “plot” and “narration,” defines the

distinctionbetweennarrationandstoryas“animplicitacknowledgementthatthestoryisunderstoodas

having a separate existence from its narration. As such, it can be told in different ways by different

narrators,” potentially resulting in “different words, different emotional inflections, different

15

perspectives,anddifferentdetails”(2007:39).Bymanipulating informationaboutthestory,discourse

may(ormaynot!)attempttopullthereaderdowntowardsimmersion.Butthissamemanipulationof

informationisalsothesourceofall inferentialmeaningsthatconnectthenarrativetoalargercultural

frameand shape itsethos. Toengagewith thediscourse is toaskwhereandhow it isdirectingyour

attentionatvariousmoments.

Butstoryanddiscoursecanneverbefinallyandclearlyseparatedwithinonenarrative.Theyare

distinctbutdependoneachother.Onemustbetakenforgranted.Cullerexplains:

Analysis of narrative depends […] on the distinction between story and discourse, and thisdistinction always involves a relation of dependency: either the discourse is seen as arepresentation of events which must be thought of as independent of that particularrepresentation, or else the so-calledevents are thoughtof as thepostulatesorproductsof adiscourse. Since the distinction between story and discourse can function only if there is adeterminationofonebytheother,theanalystmustalwayschoosewhichwillbetreatedasthegivenandwhichastheproduct.[…]Intheabsenceofthepossibilityofsynthesis,onemustbewillingtoshiftfromoneperspectivetotheother,fromstorytodiscourseandbackagain.(2001:208)

ToillustratethiswithrespecttoLePetitPrince,let’sconsiderchapterXXII,whentheprinceseesatrain

full of childrenwith their noses pressed to the glass and concludes from that that “les enfants seuls

saventcequ’ilscherchent”(Saint-Exupéry,1999:79).IfIwanttoexplaintheliterarysignificanceofthis

event,itisnecessaryformetoacceptthathedid,infact,seethetrainandutterthatsentence,i.e.that

thediscoursecanbedependedupontodeterminethestory.Ontheotherhand,howremisswouldIbe

to ignore the fact that the book is absolutely saturated with comments about children, sight, and

knowledge,andthatthisevenisonemorevariationonthosediscursivethemes?

Butdespitetheinter-dependencyofnarrativediscourseandstory,theirdistinctionpermitstwo

observationswhichwillhelpusthinkaboutthedesignofanarrativetext(and,eventually,abouthowa

narrative can be designed for dual address). The first observation is that narrative discourse fulfills a

foregrounding function for thestory. Ifweconsider thestoryascollectionofdetailsaboutcharacters

andunfoldingevents,thenitisthediscoursethatdetermineswhichofthosedetailswillcomeforward

16

atanygiventimeandwhichwillbeconcealed,forwhateverpurpose.Considerthesewords,spokenby

theaviator/narrator:“lanuittomba,etlesétoilescommencèrentdes’éclairer.Jelesapercevaiscomme

enrêve,ayantunpeudefièvre,àcausedemasoif.”(Saint-Exupéry,1999:81)Whenhesaidthat,was

theprincetotherightortheleftoftheaviator(orbehindhim,infront,etc.)?Thatquestionisridiculous

becausenarrativediscourse is obviously apartial presentationof the story.At the level of story, it is

necessarilytruethatthetwocharactershadsomephysicalorientationwithrespecttoeachother,but

evidentlythenarratorfeltthatthatinformationwasnotimportantenoughtoincludeinthediscourseat

thattime.Everynarrativeisastorytoldinsomewayinsteadofsomeotherway(s).Moreseriously,we

couldtakeastepbackandaskwhatisunusualaboutthatforegrounding?Comparedwiththerestofthe

discourse,thoseshortsentencesfrompage81provideanunusualamountofconcrete,materialdetail

abouttheaviator’ssurroundingsandphysicalcondition(i.e.anunusualamountofconcretedetailabout

thestory).Whyshouldtheaviatorstarttellingushowthingslookandhowhefeelsonlynow,onpage

81/99?Whatarewe tomakeof the fact that,overall, such information isabsent fromthediscourse,

despitethefact that,at the levelofstory,physicalappearancesandsensationsalways“exist” (always

couldbedescribed)atanygivenmoment?

The second observation enabled by the story/discourse distinction is that discourse can (and

nearly always does) do more than merely give an account of the story. Genette (1980: 255–257)

identifiesfivefunctionsofthevoiceofthenarrator.Thefirstandmostobviousisthefunctionoftelling

thestory:thenarrativefunction.Butthenarratorcanalso

• refertoanotherpartofthetext(directingfunction):“Voilàlemeilleurportaitque,plustard,j’airéussiàfairedelui.”(Saint-Exupéry,1999:16),

• establishormaintaincontactwith thenarratee (functionofcommunication): “Maisneperdezpasvotretempsàcepensum.”(ibid.63),

• expressanaffective,moral,and/orintellectualrelationshipwithhisroleinthestory(testimonialfunction):“Quandonveutfairedel’esprit,ilarrivequel’onmenteenpeu.”(loc.cit.),or

17

• commenton theaction (ideological function): “Lesgrandespersonnesnecomprennent jamaisrien toutes seules, et c’est fatigant, pour les enfants, de toujours et toujours leur donner desexplications…”(ibid.14).

These five functions are “certainly not to be put into watertight compartments5 […] rather, it is a

questionofrelativeweight”(Genette,1980:257).Whennarrativediscourseforegroundsagreatdealof

detail about the situationandevents, it emphasizes thenarrative function (what LabovandWaletzky

callthe“referentialfunction”(1967:20)).Butthenarratormightalsoallowtheconcretesituationand

events to recedemomentarily in favourofanycombinationof theseother functions.Considering the

narrativediscourse in lightof these five functionsallowsus togeta senseof theextent towhich the

narratorintervenesinthenarrative, inthesensewhereamore“interventionist”narratorwouldmake

moreovert/explicituseofthefourextranarrativefunctions—allofwhichareareminderofthepresence

ofthenarrator.ThenarratorofLePetitPrinceishighlyinterventionist.

Foregrounding draws attention to (and thus away from) literal details about the story; its

primaryregisterofmeaningisdenotative.Incontrast,theprimaryregisterofmeaningofextranarrative

intervention isconnotative; it reflexivelydrawsattentiontodetailsabout thediscourse. It tellsusnot

whathappenedandhow,butratherwhatthenarratorthinksaboutboththestoryandhisorheractof

storytelling—andso,byextension,whatweshouldthinkaboutthem.AsLabovandWaletzkyobserve,

strictly denotative, referential narratives arepossible, but incomplete: theyhavenopoint (1967: 33).

Thediscoursemustprovidenotonlyanaccountoftheeventsandmaterialdetailsofthestory,butalso

a justificationof theaccount; itmustpre-empt thequestion“sowhat?” (LabovandWaletzkycall this

“evaluation”(ibid.33–39)).Althoughthisjustificationmaybeimplicit6,itcanonlybemadeinreference

to a broader cultural frame of concepts and values. Just as discursive foregrounding guides readers’

interpretation by controlling the flow of denotative information about the story, extranarrative

5Ifinditespeciallydifficulttodistinguishbetweenthetestimonialandideologicalfunctions.Genetteseemstoaswell.6Labovnotesthatnoonewouldrespond“sowhat?”whentold“Ijustsawamankilledonthestreet.”(1972:370)

18

intervention guides interpretation by controlling the flow of connotative information about the

narrative.

Now thatwe knowwhat narrative discourse is andwhat it does,we can ask how it helps us

determinetheaddressofatext.First,ifnarrativeiscomposedofstoryanddiscourse,address(dualor

other) isobviouslya featureofdiscourse.LePetitPrincedoes indeed tell thesamestory tochildand

adultreaders;ifthetextisduallyaddressed,itisbecausethemeaningofthediscoursechangesinlight

of adult experience. Second, understanding that discourse provides (mainly denotative) information

aboutthestoryaswellas(mainlyconnotative)informationaboutitselfallowsustomakeasecondand

finalmajordistinctiontoaccountfordualaddressinnarrative.

1.3Discursiveanchorageandrelay

As we will see below, Barthes uses the terms “anchorage” and “relay” to describe two

relationships betweenwords and imageswhen both are presented in a singlemessage. I echo them

here inorder todescribe,byanalogy, two functionsofdiscourse related todirecting theattentionof

readers,includingreaderswhobelongtodifferentgroups.Iproposethatnarrativediscoursecaneither

“anchor” the reader in the story or “relay” him or her to information outside the text. Discursive

anchoragepromotes immersion in thestory; itattempts toabsorb thereader in thespecificconcrete

situationandaction.Discourseanchorsreadersbydrawingtheirattentiontoawealthofmaterialdetail

about the story and by justifying the narrative implicitly. To anchor the reader, the discourse must

create a detailed storyworld for the reader to be immersed in andmake the story appear obviously

interesting for its own sake.On the other hand, discursive relay provides information (denotative or

connotative)thatsendsthereadertofurther,analogous information inothertextsorotherframesof

personal/culturalexperience.Torelaythereaderoutsidethetext,thediscoursemustmanipulatehisor

herinvoluntaryassociations.Theseassociationsmaybelimited(eventrivial),aswhenadetailintextA

19

remindsthereaderofasimilardetailintextB.Buttheymayalsotriggerunrestrainedreflectiononthe

abstractprinciplesthatformthereader’slargerworldview.

Anchorageandrelayarebestunderstoodasaspectrum;thediscourseofaparticularnarrative

may be skewed towards one or the other function at any given point. But the functions are also

necessarilyinconflict:bydefinition,themoreareaderis“anchored”inthestory,thelessheorshecan

think about analogous information. Because of this, the narrative discourse may elect to suppress

(background) literal details about the story andmakemore exclusive and overt use of extranarrative

intervention, discouraging immersion and highlighting its philosophical framing. But whether relay

movestowardsrestrictedintertextualreferencesorabstractethicalprinciples,therelaydestinationsof

discourse depend on knowledge and experience; therefore, adults, who have more knowledge and

experienceandaremorelikelytorelateittowhattheyread,aremorerelay-ablethanchildren.

Armed with the concepts of story/discourse and anchorage/relay, we’re in a much better

positiontodescribetexts(atleastnarrativeones)asduallyaddressedbasedonwhatIhadbeenvaguely

calling “textual features” but can now call,more specifically, “narrative discourse.” Anchorage is an

anathematodualaddressas Iunderstand it.Becauseanchoragedraws the reader toonedestination

only,itdrawsallreaderstothesamedestination.Anchoragehomogenizesinterpretation,encouraginga

kindofconventionregardingtheeventsofthestoryastheyunfoldatthedenotativelevel.Relay,onthe

otherhand,engageswithpersonalexperienceandknowledge,soitopensupthetexttointerpretations

as various as are the individuals that pick up the book. Dual address depends on discursive relay.

Specifically, it depends on the ability of the discourse to discriminate in its reader-relay, sending

differentgroupsofreadersindifferentdirectionsorsendingsomefurtherthanothers.Inthe(relatively

simple and tractable) case of dual address to children and adults, the discourse need only provide

informationthatwillrelayadultreaderstodestinationsunavailabletochildren.

20

2DualaddressinLePetitPrince

ThediscourseofLePetitPrince relaysadultreaderstospecificbiographical informationabout

the author and (especially) philosophical ideas about what is important in life. But these relay

destinationsarenot likely tobeavailable for children,whoseprimary interest inLePetitPrince is,by

default,thestory.

2.1Intertextualityand(auto)biography

Some adult readers may note the parallels between the aviator in the story and the book’s

author.AntoinedeSaint-Exupérywas, inhis lifetime,almostas famousasanaviatorashewasasan

author.Healsohadseveralmisadventuresinairplanes,andLePetitPrinceshowsshadesoftwoofthem.

Onewas in in1927,when theauthorhad to spend thenightalone in thedesertafteranemergency

landing.Thisrecallstheopening linesofchapter II:“J’aiainsivécuseul,[…] jusqu’àunepannedans le

désertduSahara[…].Quelquechoses’étaitcassédansmonmoteur”(1999:15).Butthesimilaritiesend

there. The authorwas not flying the plane at the time, nor did he spend several days repairing it. A

friendwhohadbeenflyingbehindwasabletolandnearby,buthedidnothaveroomtoflybothSaint-

Exupéryandhispilot to theirdestination, soalthoughSaint-Exupérydidspendonenightalone in the

desert,hedidsowithfood,water,andtheknowledgethathewouldberescuedthenextday.Thereare

more similaritiesbetween the storyofLePetitPrince and the storyof the second timeSaint-Exupéry

crashedintheSahara,inLibyain1935.Thistimehewasinrealdanger,completelylostwithverylittleto

eatordrink. Inhisaccountof theordeal inWind,SandandStars,hereminisces fora fewparagraphs

aboutfindingthetracksofafennec(adesertfox)(1941:208–210).Healsodescribestheagonyofthirst

and his several hallucinations, one of which involved a “permanent well” (ibid. 213). One of the

charactersinLePetitPrinceisafox.Theaviatorsays,aboutlookingatthestars,that“Jelesapercevais

comme en rêve, ayant un peu de fièvre, à cause de ma soif.” (Saint-Exupéry, 1999: 81). When the

fictionalaviatorrunsoutofwater,heandtheprincesearchfor,andeventuallyfind,awell:“Lepuitsque

21

nous avions atteint ne ressemblait pas aux puits sahariens. Les puits sahariens sont de simples trous

creusésdans lesable.Celui-là ressemblaitàunpuitsdevillage.Mais iln’yavait làaucunvillage,et je

croyaisrêver.”(ibid.84).Butagain,LePetitPrinceprobablyshouldnotbeconsideredafictionalaccount

of the real event. The crash completely destroyed the airplane; there was never any question of

repairingit.Again,hewasnotalone,buthismechanic,AndrePrévot,wascertainlynotaninspirationfor

theprincecharacter.Thetwowerefantasticallyluckytobediscoveredbyacaravanafterfourdays.

Fromareader’sperspective,thelinksbetweenthecharacterandtheauthorcanbeconsidered

intertextual,inanarrowsensesuchasGenette’s(1997:1–3),whereinformationfromonetextappears

inanother, implicitly(as inallusion)orexplicitly(as inquotation).Thediscourseprovokesassociations

with—relaysthereaderto—othertexts,specifically,onescontainingbiographicalinformationaboutthe

author. Assuming that children generally do not read biographies and other historical texts about

others,thehintsofautobiographyinLePetitPrincerequireadultknowledgetograsp.Childrenwillread

theabove-quoteddiscourseasadescriptionoftheeventsofthestory(which,ofcourse,itis);adultswill

readitbothasadescriptionofthestoryandasareferencetoinformationoutsidethetext.Thisrelay

discourse gives adults, but not children, something to ponder in addition to the story: what is the

relationshipbetweentheaviatorandAntoinedeSaint-Exupéry?

Buttheauthor/aviatorsimilaritiesarerelativelylimited,andthetextcertainlydoesnotinsiston

them.Intertextualityisaminoraspectofthebook’sdualaddress.Farmoreofthediscourseaddresses

adultsbyrelayingthemtophilosophicalideas,turningthestoryforchildrenintoanallegoryforadults.

2.2Allegory

“Allegory”isgenerallyusedtodescribeeitheranarrativeoranimage.Iwillbeconsideringthe

narrativesenseonly:

A story or visual image with a second distinct meaning partially hidden behind its literal orvisible meaning. […] An allegory may be conceived as a metaphor that is extended into astructuredsystem.Inwrittennarrative,allegoryinvolvesacontinuousparallelbetweentwo(or

22

more) levels of meaning in a story, so that its persons and events correspond to theirequivalentsinasystemofideasorachainofeventsexternaltothetale(Baldrick,2008)

Thetwolevelsofmeaningareparallel,buttheliteralmeaninginasenseprecedesthesecondlevelof

interpretation,whichmayormaynotbeasfleshedoutasthefirst:

Perhapsthedominantattitude incurrentclassifications isthattherearedegreesofallegoricalcomposition, depending on the extent to which a text displays two divided tendencies. Onetendency is for the elements of the text to exhibit a certain fictional autonomy. The othertendency is for these elements to imply another set of actions, circumstances, or principles,whetherfoundinanothertextorperceivedatlarge.(Whitman,1993)

The“fictionalautonomy”of thenarrative is thestory, thespecific, literaldramaof theevents.At the

levelofstoryinLePetitPrince,theaviatorcrasheshisplaneinthedesert,meetsandinteractswiththe

prince,repairshisplane,andescapestosafety.Thislevelalsoincludestheretrospectiveaccountofthe

prince’sadventuresbeforecomingtoearth.Thisstory,likejustaboutallstories7,isoneofaproblem(a

planecrashinthedesert)andasolution(repairingtheplaneandescapingthedesert).Atthislevel,we

areinterestedinquestionslike“Whatishappening?”“Whatisitlike?”“Whatwillhappennext?”

Attheallegorical level,ontheotherhand,weareinterestedinquestionslike“Whatdoesthis

mean?” and “does this resonatewithme?” The allegorical level implies a philosophical problem and

solutiontoparallelthoseoftheliteraldrama.Thesenon-literalaspectscanandwillalwaysbedescribed

differentlybasedondifferentreaders’interpretations.Fornow,let’ssaythatthephilosophicalproblem

is loneliness, the absence ofmeaningful friendship, and alienation from the apparent futility of adult

pursuits; the solution is aesthetic sensibility and emotional commitment—learning how to appreciate

beautifulthingsandformstrongaffectiveties.

Asthedefinitionsaboveattest,allegorydependsondiscursiverelay.Forastorytocorrespond

to “a system of ideas or a chain of events external to the tale” or “imply another set of actions,

circumstances, or principles, whether found in another text or perceived at large,” its narrative

7Gottschallobservesthatstoriesdevoidof“trouble”—thoseinwhichnothinggoeswrongorhasgonewrong—areunusualandusuallyboring(2012:32–44)

23

discoursemustrelaythereader’sattentiontowardsideasand/orvaluesoutsidethetext.Adultreaders,

withtheirgreaterstoreofculturalknowledgegainedthroughexperienceandtheirgreaterinclinationto

relate texts to their experience, are thusmore susceptible to allegory than children. Comparedwith

children,adultsaremore likelytonoticeanallegorical levelofmeaning inanarrative,abletograspa

greaternumberofallegoricalmeanings,andabletoengagewithmorecomplexallegories.Accordingto

Mitchel,“Virtuallyeverythingtheherodoes,eg.[sic]hisdrinkingfromawellinthedesert,issusceptible

tosymbolicinterpretation;indeed,itobviouslyrequiressuchinterpretation”(1960:459)

Thereare,ofcourse,allegoriesforchildren.Therearemany,infact,becauseallegorycanbea

usefuldidactictool.Butallegoriesdesignedtoteachsomethingtochildrenarealmostbydefinition

simplisticfromanadultperspective.IftheallegoryofLePetitPrincehasanythingtooffertoadult

readers,itisbecauseitallowsthemtoreadmorethanchildrencan.AndthediscourseofLePetitPrince

ensuresthisbyplantingtheallegoryintheveryideasofchildhoodandadulthood.

LePetitPrincearguesthatmeaningfulfriendshiprequiresaffectiveunderstandingandsensibility

asopposedtologicalreasoning:“Lelangageestsourcedemalentendus,”saysthefox:“onnevoitbien

qu’avec le cœur. L’essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.” (Saint-Exupéry, 1999: 75, 76). In the text, the

opposition between affective and logical understanding is symbolized by the opposition between

“enfants”and“grandespersonnes”.Inthetext,grownupsthinklogicallyandquantitatively;theirmindis

theseatoftheirunderstanding.Asaresult,theyhaveaskewedsystemofvaluesandareincapableof

truefriendship(“Thelittleprincedeclareshisscornforpedestrianadultlogic,”saysMitchel(1960:457).

Ontheotherhand,childreninLePetitPrincethinkaffectivelyandqualitatively;theyseewiththeirheart

andasaresultcantrulyunderstand.Boththeprinceandtheaviatormustlearnthischildlike,affective

sightbeforetheycanunderstandfriendshipandescapetheirpersonaldesertsofloneliness.Laffontcalls

LePetitPrince“uneallégorieoùl’ondiscernelavolontédefairecomprendreauxenfantsqu’ilspeuvent

24

atteindre la vraiedignitéde l’hommes’ils savent continuerà regarder les chosesavec la simplicitéde

leurcœur”(2008:18)

The symbolic, metaphorical meaning of terms—the specific and restricted connotations

attached to the concepts “child” and “adult”—can only be understood in opposition to their literal

denotations and ordinary connotations. Because adults necessarily have a deeper andmore complex

understandingoftheseterms(fromtheirexperienceoflifebothasachildandasanadult),theyhave

moreways tocompare their literalandmetaphoricalmeanings.Theyarealsomore likely to leverage

thesemetaphoricalmeanings,associating the textwith theirpersonalexperience.This isnot to imply

thatallchildrenwillreadthetextinonewayandalladultsinoneother(thecontinuedcriticalinterestin

thebookattests to itsmultiplepossible interpretations).Every individual’s interpretationwilldiffer in

the light of their own personal experience, but Le Petit Prince demands that the experience of

childhood/adulthoodbepartof this light,and thatexperience is radicallydifferent forchildandadult

readers.Atextthatbegsitsreaderstoforsake“adulthood”infavourof“childhood”mustbeunderstood

differently for twogroupswhounderstand“child”and“adult” indifferentways.Becausechildrenare

blocked from a full appreciation of the allegory, they will remain relatively anchored in the story

comparedwithadults,whowillmoreoftenberelayedawayfromittopersonalexperienceandgeneral

ideas in order to think aboutwhat itmeans to be an adult andwhat itmeans to have a friend. For

children, Le Petit Prince is primarily a story about lonely people who make friends; for adults, it is

primarilyanallegoryaboutlonelinessandfriendship.

Butwhataboutthegraphicnoveladaptation?Althoughthebroadstrokesofthestoryremain

thesameinthetargettext,thesubstanceofthenarrativediscourseischangedradicallyfromlanguage

supplementedbyoccasional imagesto languageandimagesworking intandem.Tobetterunderstand

theeffectofthenewform—primarilycharacterizedbythegreaterroleofimagesintellingthestory—

25

ontheaddressofthenarrative,weneedBarthes’ theoryabouttherelationship(s)betweenwordand

image.

3.Anchorageandrelaybetweenwordandimage

Barthesdescribestwopossiblefunctionslanguagecanplaywithregardtothe“iconicmessage”

of images, and we know what he calls them: “anchorage” and “relay” (1977: 38–41). For Barthes,

anchorage is “selective elucidation.” Language anchors the image when it helps the reader/viewer

choosethecorrectlevelofperception:

thelinguisticmessage[…]guides[…]interpretation,constitutingakindofvicewhichholdstheconnotedmeaningsfromproliferating.(ibid.39)

Opposedtoanchorage,ofcourse,wehavethefunctionof“relay”:

Heretext(mostoftenasnatchofdialogue)and imagestand inacomplementaryrelationship;thewords, in thesamewayas the images,are fragmentsofamoregeneral syntagmand theunityofthemessageisrealizedatahigherlevel,thatofthestory”.(ibid.41)

Hopefully,my analogous use of these terms is now clearer. For Barthes, anchorage is homogenizing,

directing all viewers to one interpretation of the image, just as my discursive anchorage directs all

readers to one interpretation of the narrative: story immersion. For me, discursive anchorage

constitutes a kindof vicewhichholds the reader’s associationswithpersonal experienceandoutside

knowledge from proliferating. For Barthes, the function of relay sends the viewer back and forth

betweentheimageandthelanguageforinformation.

For me, discursive relay implies a complementary

relationshipbetweenthetextandinformationoutside

the text; it promotes an understanding of the

narrativeatahigherlevel,thatofculture.

But Barthes’ notions of image/text relay and

anchoragearealsousefulforunderstandingnarrative

Figure1

26

discourseofwordsandimagesandforunderstandingtheintersemiotictranslationofprimarilylinguistic

discourseintomorebalancedword/imagediscourse.Forinstance,ingraphicnovels,alldialoguestands

inarelayrelationshiptothe image.Onlythewords inacaptioncananchorthe image,andthenonly

occasionally,whentheytelluswhatwearelookingat,asinFigure1.Thewordstellusnotjustthatthis

isaflowerbutthatitisaflowerontheprince’splanetandthatitisnotbotheringanyone.Anchoragein

graphicnovelsresultsintwothings:acertainamountofredundantinformation,and(almostinevitably)

theproliferationofliteraldetail(inthewaythattheimageoftheflowerismoredetailedthantheword

“fleur”).Thefunctionofrelayismuchmorecommon,however,asinFigure2.Notethatthestoryhere

couldnotbeconveyedby the imagesorwordsalone—it requires relaybetween the twomodes. It is

worth noting that such longish stretches of caption-less frames, where the only language is direct

dialogue8,are fairly common ingraphicnovels,andcertainly in theSfaradaptation.Here, the images

takeovertheinformationalandnarrativecharge,essentiallyrevealingtheeventsofthestoryontheir

own.Generally,thistypeofvisualnarrationreadsfasterandmoreeasilythannarrationsharedbetween

framesandcaptions,whichinvolvesmore(relatively)laboriouslinguisticparsing.Butlanguagepermitsa

rangeofcommunicativefunctions,suchasdeixis,(explicitandspecific)address,comparison,evaluation,

negation,andsimile,whichcannotbeexpressedbyanimage.CompareFigure2withthe“equivalent”

discoursefromchapterIIofthesourcetext:

Lepremiersoirjemesuisdoncendormisurlesableàmilemillesdetouteterrehabitée.J’étaisbien plus isolé qu’un naufragé sur un radeau au milieu de l’océan. Alors vous imaginez masurprise,auleverdujour,quandunedrôledepetitevoixm’aréveillé.Elledisait:…«S’ilvousplait…dessine-moiunmouton!—Hein!—Dessine-moiunmouton…»J’aisautésurmespiedscommesij’avaisétéfrappéparlafoudre.J’aibienfrottémesyeux.J’aibien regardé. Et j’ai vu un petit bonhomme tout à fait extraordinaire qui me considéraitgravement.Voilà lemeilleurportaitque,plus tard, j’ai réussià fairede lui9.Maismondessin,bien sûr, est beaucoup moins ravissant que le modèle. Ce n’est pas ma faute. J’avais été

8Genetteatleastregardedasrepresentationofspeechandnotasakindofnarration(1980:162–175)9Thissentenceappearsonpage16.Opposite,onpage17,isoneofSaint-Exupéry’swatercolourillustrationsofthelittleprince.Thisisanexampleofanchorageinthesourcetext.

27

découragédansmacarrièredepeintreparlesgrandespersonnes,àl’âgedesixans,etjen’avaisrienapprisàdessiner,sauflesboasfermésetlesboasouverts.Jeregardaidonccetteapparitionavecdesyeuxtoutrondsd’étonnement.N’oubliezpasque jemetrouvaisàmillemillesdetouterégionhabitée.Ormonpetitbonhommenemesemblaitniégaré, nimort de fatigue, nimort de faim, nimort de soif, nimort de peur. Il n’avait en rienl’apparenced’unenfantperduaumilieududésert,àmillemillesdetouterégionhabitée.Quandjeréussisenfinàparler,jeluidis:«Mais…qu’est-cequetufaislà?»Etilmerépétaalors,toutdoucement,commeunechosetrèssérieuse:«S’ilvousplaît…dessine-moiunmouton…»(Saint-Exupéry,1999:15–16)

Figure2

28

29

Broadlyspeaking,therearetwoimportantdifferencesbetweentheexcerptfromchapterIIand

Figure2.Thefirstistheamountoffixedmaterialdetail.Theimagesrevealinformationthatwouldtake

quitea lotof text todescribe: the colour schemeandnameof theairplane, the fact that theaviator

sleptunder it, the fact thathe tookhisbootsoffbeforegoing to sleep, thedirection fromwhich the

princeapproachedtheaviator,etc.Theimageseven“describe”therivetsconnectingtheplane’swings

toitsbody.Whenthediscoursereliesonimage/textrelay,suchliteraldetailsaboutthestoryproliferate

to the extent that the style of the imagesmoves away fromminimalism (stick figures, for example)

towardsrealism.

The second main difference between the two excerpts is that the four interventionist

extranarrativefunctionsofthenarrator’svoiceareessentiallyabsentfromthetargettext.Theimages

can show us what happened, but they cannot comment on them or reflexively refer to the act of

showing.Ingeneral,theimagesofagraphicnovelcandoalmostnoneofthethingsthenarratordoesin

the source text in addition to narrating the story. In the passage from the source text, the narrator

refers to another part of the text (directing function: “voici le meilleur portrait…”), addresses the

narratee(functionofcommunication:“Alorsvousimaginezmasurprise…”),expresseshisownsubjective

opiniononthenarration(testimonialfunction:“mondessin,biensûr,estbeaucoupmoinsravissantque

le modèle”) and comments on the action (ideological function: “Ce n’est pas ma faute. J’avais été

découragédansmacarrièredepeintre…”).Theseextranarrativefunctionsarethetoolswithwhichthe

narratorshapesandcontrolstheconnotationsofthediscourseandsignalstheallegory.

Graphic novels can, of course, include extranarrative discourse in the captions. But unlike in

prosenarratives,where stretchesof commentary candigress from the story, the imagesnever really

stopnarrating:

30

Figure3

Because the images are still showing the story,which is understood in light of the commentary, the

relationship between the words and the images is one of relay. In the captions (which repeat the

discourseofthesourcetext),thenarratorisdigressing,commentingonadetail inthestoryinsteadof

tellingit.Butintheimages,theprinceiswanderingthroughthedesert(allsixframesonthepageshow

himdoingthis).Thesourcetextdoesn’tprecludehiswandering,but itdoesn’tmention it,either.Not

onlydoliteraldetailsaboutthestoryproliferatewithimage-textrelay,butthestoryitselfasshownby

the imagesalsotendstoexpand,competingwithanyextranarrativediscourse inthecaptions.But,as

with interlingual translations,we normally expect intersemiotic translations to tell the same story as

their source texts. There is thereforepressure toomit extranarrativediscourse, as in Figure2, rather

thanaddstory,asinFigure3,especiallyconsideringthatsuchmainlyiconicnarrationiseasiertoread

thansymbolic(linguistic)narrationandcommentary.

In the next chapter, I’ll use these concepts to analyze Le Petit Prince and the graphic novel

adaptation.Iwillarguethatthegraphicnovel, likethesourcetext, isduallyaddressedtochildrenand

adults.However,whilebothtextsaddresschildrenprimarilythroughthestory,themechanismofadult

address is different in the source and target texts. The source text appeals to the interests of adult

readersthroughallegory:thetextraisesphilosophicalquestionsaddressedspecificallytoadults.Inthe

31

target text, thisallegory isobscured; theabstract,philosophical ideasrecedetothebackgroundwhile

thematerial details of the story becomemoreprominent. Instead, the graphic novel addresses adult

readersbycreatingawebofadult-specific intertextualreferences,which,amongotherthings,amplify

the suggestion in the source text that the protagonist is Antoine de Saint-Exupéry himself. It thus

displaces theadult interest fromallegory toautobiographyand themechanismofadultaddress from

allegorytointertextuality.

32

ImagesandDualAddressinPractice

In the last chapter, I tried to assemble a set of tools thatwould allow us to form aworking

definitionofdualaddresstochildrenandadultsandtoanalyzemultimodaltextscomposedoflanguage

and images. As it turned out, the tools came in the form of binary distinctions. The first was the

distinction between my hypothetical child and adult readers. The most salient differences between

themwere, first, that the adult reader ismore likely than the child to relate what she reads to her

experience and knowledge (to involuntarily associate the story to her life and to other texts she has

read) and, second, that the adult reader is (obviously) able to relate to the text in light of greater

knowledge and experience. The second tool was the distinction between story and discourse—the

notionsthatallowustoseparate(however imperfectly)thecontentofthenarrativefromitsform.To

the extent that we can maintain the distinction, it allows us to see that dual address, if it can be

described as a design feature of the text, is a property of narrative discourse. Story is a matter of

consensus.Differentreadersrarelydisagreeaboutwhathappenedinastory—theydisagreeaboutwhat

wasimportantabouttheevents.

Acloser lookatnarrativediscoursehelpsusunderstandhow itdrawsreaders’attentiontoor

away fromvariousaspectsof thenarrative,manipulating their involuntaryassociations.Basedon the

mechanics of narrative discourse (foregrounding, Genette’s five functions of the narrative voice, the

needtojustifythenarrativeaswellastellthestory),thethirdandfinaltoolwasdesignedtoletusask

whetherandhownarrativediscoursecansuggestassociationstotheadultreader—totheadultreader

only—in a way that is sufficiently regular and systematic to identify the text as dually addressed by

design.Thistoolistheopposition(really,moreofaspectrum)betweendiscursiveanchorageandrelay.

Discursive anchorage pulls readers down into the story, promoting a specific, concrete, and

homogeneous interpretation; discursive relay sends them away from the text to other texts or ideas

33

with which they have experience (these, unlike the story, vary greatly among different readers),

promotingheterogeneousinterpretationsofthenarrativewithinbroaderculturalframesofreference.

Basedontheseconcepts,wearrivedatthefollowingdefinition.A narrative is dually addressed

tochildrenandadultstotheextentthatitsnarrativediscourseis,first,atleastsuperficiallyaccessibleto

children,andsecond,designedtorelaytheadultreader(butnotthechild)outsidethetextand/orrelay

herfurtherthanthechild.Toaccomplishthis,thetextmustavoiddiscursiveanchorageandmayeven

backgroundthestorytogivemorespaceandweighttoextranarrativediscoursethatovertlyjustifiesthe

narrative with respect to cultural frames of reference (for example, typical interactions between

childrenandadults).

Butisthisdefinitionuseful?Canit(withthehelpofBarthes’notionsofanchorageand/orrelay

between language and images) be applied to real texts in order to provide convincing, parsimonious

explanations? Is it flexibleenoughtoaccountfortextsaswellastheirtranslations,even intersemiotic

ones?Inthischapter,Iwilltrytoshow,throughacomparativeanalysisofLePetitPrinceanditsgraphic

novel adaptation,that the answer to these questions is yes. In the first section, I will focus on the

narratives,arguing that the image-driven targetdiscourseaffectsaddressbyanchoring readers in the

storywhere the source text relayed adults to the allegory. In the second section, I will focus on the

images. I will explain the role of the source-text illustrations in allegorical relay and show that the

imagesofthetargettextestablishalayerofintertextualrelay,ultimatelymaintainingthedualaddress

ofthenarrativebutdisplacingthenatureofaddresstoadultreaders.

1.Fromsourcetotargetnarratives:relaytoallegory,anchoringinthestory

The source text addresses children through story and adults through allegory. Its discourse is

stronglycharacterizedby the functionof relay. It frequentlybackgroundsmaterialdetails in favourof

overt self-justification,demanding that readers compare thenarrative to cultural framesof reference

(ideasandvalues)acquiredovertheirlives.Thisextranarrativeself-justifyingdiscoursealwaysturnson

34

themetaphorical oppositionbetween children and adults, resulting in different readings for different

readers: because adults aremore able and inclined to appreciate themetaphorical use of the terms

“enfants”and“grandespersonnes,”andbecausetherelativepaucityofinformationaboutthestoryisa

notable featureof thediscourse, theprimary locusof adult interest in Le Petit Prince is the allegory.

Because childrenare less inclined to interpret the text in lightof informationoutside it, andbecause

they have a smaller frame of reference within which they can interpret the metaphorical vehicles

constitutingtheallegoryeveniftheyareinclinedtodoso,theirreadingis,bydefault,moregroundedin

thestory.

Thediscourseof the target textdoesnot,byanymeans,doawaywithallegoricalmeaning. It

does,however,reversetheabovementionedtendencyofthesourcetext:thegraphicnovelforegrounds

material detail andusually omits, curtails, ormodifies theextranarrative, allegory-signallingdiscourse

about children and adults. In addition, the images of the graphic novel that do relay readers to the

abstract ideasof theallegoryare,at thesame time, inequallypowerful service to thestory. Inother

words,thediscursivefunctionofanchorageismuchstrongerinthetargetthaninthesource.Unlikethe

sourcetext,thegraphicnovelneverimposesallegoricalinterpretationsattheexpenseofstrictlystory-

basedones.

1.1Dedication

Allegorical meaning is, however, imposed in the source text. The directive to interpret

allegoricallyoverridesthechoiceofstrictlystory-basedinterpretationsbeforethestoryevenbegins:the

themes of loneliness, understanding, and friendship, as well as the symbolic opposition between

childrenandgrownups,areintroducedinthededication:

ÀLéonWerth.

Jedemandepardonauxenfantsd’avoirdédiécelivreàunegrandepersonne.J’aiuneexcusesérieuse:cettegrandepersonneestlemeilleuramiquej’aiaumonde.J’aiuneautreexcuse:cette

grandepersonnepeuttoutcomprendre,mêmeleslivrespourenfants.J’aiunetroisièmeexcuse:cettegrandepersonnehabitelaFranceoùelleafaimetfroid.Elleabienbesoind’êtreconsolée.Sitoutesces

35

excusesnesuffisentpas,jeveuxbiendédiercelivreàl’enfantqu’aétéautrefoiscettegrandepersonne.Touteslesgrandespersonnesontd’abordétédesenfants.(Maispeud’entreelless’ensouviennent.)Je

corrigedoncmadédicace:

ÀLéonWerthquandilétaitpetitgarçon.

LéonWerthwas in factaclose friendofAntoinedeSaint-Exupéry’s,but thisdedicationdoesobvious

doubledutyaspartofthefiction.Itisnotpartofthestory,butitusesthenarrator’svoicetocelebrate

thewisdomofchildrenincontrasttothesupposedincomprehensionofadults.Thisdedicationimplies

an allegorical level of meaning10 by attaching to the terms “enfants” and “grandes personnes”

connotationsthatareincompatiblewithliteralmeaningsandexperience(whichtellusthatadultsoften

can understand when children cannot). The discourse thus relays readers outside the text to their

general knowledge.The terms“enfant”and “grandespersonnes” come to connote, respectively, “the

emotionallyintelligent”and“peoplesadlyblinkeredbyrationality.”Infact,alltheusesofthesetermsin

the dedication could be replaced with some variation of their connotations, and the allegorical

implicationswouldbecomeexplicit:“…evenbooksfor[emotionally intelligentbeings]…Iwould liketo

dedicate thisbook to the [emotionally intelligentbeing] that thisgrownuponcewas…All [peoplewho

arerationalandthusconfused]wereonce[emotionallyintelligentbeings]…”

In the target text, however, this dedication is omitted, so there is no advance notice of

philosophicalthemesorofthefactthatthat“enfants”and“grandespersonnes”shouldbeunderstood

metaphorically. Interestingly,thegraphicnoveldoesdeclareitselfachildren’sbook,butnotwithouta

hintofirony:intheopeningframes,theaviatorconverseswithasnakeformedofthesmokefromthe

aviator’scigarette.After thesmokesnakehasserved itspurposewith regard to theexpositionof the

story,itreprimandstheaviator:“Etonnedevraitpasfumerdansunouvragedestinéàlajeunesse,”and

crushesouttheaviator’scigarette(Sfar,2008:3). Inthefollowingtwoframes,thesnake’seyesbulge

outofitssocketsasitrealizesitsmistakeandevaporates:

10Oratleastametaphoricalone:strictlyspeaking,anallegoryrequiresanarrativeframework,i.e.astory.

36

Thededicationofthesourcetexttakespainstointroduceandlinkthephilosophicalthemes(loneliness,

friendship,understanding)andmetaphoricalvehicles(childrenandadults)oftheallegory,andtorelay

readerstotheallegoricallevelofthenarrativebyelevatingthestatusofchildrenoverthatofadults.In

contrast,thetargettextidentifiesaveryliteralmarketdemographic(“lajeunesse”)andconcludeswith

agagaboutoneofthelighteraspectsofsocialresponsibility—thesocialresponsibilityofadults,intheir

literal role as the caretakers of children. More importantly, however, the physical joke draws the

reader’sattentiontowardsaparticularinteractionbetweencharacters,anchoringtheminthestory.

1.2Introduction

Thefirstchapterofthesourcetextbuildsonitsdedication.Thechapterhasnoexplicitsetting

and does not introduce the primary drama of the story (the fact that the aviator is stranded in the

desert). Instead, the discourse focuses on ideas, perspectives, and judgements—the abstract building

blocks of the allegory. The chapter begins with an anecdote from the aviator’s childhood: his first

attemptsatdrawingresultedinapictureofaboa-constrictorswallowinganelephant.Whenheshowed

thisdrawingtogrownupsandaskedthemwhethertheywereafraid,theyreplied,“Pourquoiunchapeau

ferait-ilpeur?”(Saint-Exupéry,1999:13).(Thedrawingisreproducedinthetext.Thebulgeinthemiddle

of the snake causedby theelephant in itsbellymakes it lookmuch like ahat. I’ll examine the visual

componentof this anecdote inmoredetail below.)When the youngnarrator indulged the grownups

37

with a cross-section of the snake showing the elephant inside, they told him to turn his attention to

moreseriousmatters.Hewasdiscouraged,butunderstanding:“Lesgrandespersonnesnecomprennent

jamais rien toutes seules, et c’est fatigant, pour les enfants, de toujours et toujours leur donner des

explications…”(ibid.14).Hethentellsusthathetookupaviation,andthatsincethen

J’ai beaucoup vécu chez les grandes personnes. Je les ai vues de très près. Ça n’a pas tropaméliorémonopinion. Quandj’enrencontraisunequimeparaissaitunpeulucide,jefaisaisl’expériencesurellede mon dessin numéro 1 que j’ai toujours conservé. Je voulais savoir si elle était vraimentcompréhensive.Maistoujoursellemerépondait:«C’estunchapeau.»Alors jeneluiparlaisnide serpentsboas,nide forêts vierges,nid’étoiles. Jememettaisà saportée. Je lui parlaisdebridge, de golf, de politique et de cravates. Et la grande personne était bien contente deconnaîtreunhommeaussiraisonnable…(ibid.14–15)

Notice how the narrator not only recounts events but also tells us how he feels andwhat he thinks

aboutthoseevents11—awayoftellinghisnarrateeswhattheyshouldthinkandfeelaswell.Andnotice

how the literal events recounted are essentially at the service of the abstract ideas: there is nothing

interestingabouttheeventsperse(achildproducingadrawingthatisincomprehensibletochildren,a

person not being able to relate to those around him)—what is interesting is theway the framing of

theseeventsclasheswithconventionalconcepts, inthiscase,thedifferentrolesandcharacteristicsof

childrenandadults. Thenarrator’sdiatribeagainst theadultworld relays readersoutside the textby

challengingwhattheyhavelearnedaboutchildrenandadultsintheirculture.

Butitrelaysadultsfurtherthanchildren.Noone,ofcourse,believesrigorouslyandliterallythat

childrenarecontinuallyexhaustedbytheneedtoexplainthingstoadults,butwithoutanexperienceof

adulthood, children cannot consider how a metaphorical version of the statement might be quite

reasonable. Children can only accept the aviator’s speech as hyperbolic and sympathize with him to

varyingdegrees.Adults,ontheotherhand,haveallhadtheexperienceofbeingunabletounderstand

somethinginspiteoftheiradulthoodandareprobablymoreawarethanchildrenthatliterature(suchas

11RecallGenette’sfivefunctionsofthenarrator’svoice.Thisdiscourseisnotonly“narrative,”but“testimonial”and“ideological”aswell(1980:256)

38

Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876) and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885))

oftenuseschildcharactersassymbolicmirrorsforadults.Forchildren,thediscursiverelayofthefirst

chapter ultimately takes them back to the story by making the character/narrator amusing and

interesting.Adultsaremore likelytoberelayedtoabstractionsthatwillpromptthemtoconsiderthe

allegory.

The source-textdiscoursealso relays readers to theallegoryby introducingaparadoxical and

literallyimpossibleambiguity,whichismaintainedanddevelopedthroughoutthenarrative:theaviator,

even though he has grown up, is not a grownup; but he is not a child, either12. He is variably and

ambiguouslyeitheroneatdifferentmoments(inthequoteabove,heplaystheroleofthemetaphorical

child;laterwewillseehimactingasanadult).Accordingtothediscourseofthesourcetext,adulthood

isafunctionnotofagebutofignorance:oneisanadulttotheextentthatoneisdeceivedbyoutward

appearances and thus doomed to mistakenly think that golf and politics are worth talking about.

Throughoutthenarrative,theaviatoralternatesbetween“childlike”and“adultlike”behaviour,between

adamantlyresistingthelabel“grownup”andconcedingthathehassomegrownupcharacteristics.For

example,whilethefirstchapterhastheaviator/narratorinthechild’srole,impatientwiththegrownups

whodonotunderstandhisdrawing,thesecondchapterputshimintheplaceofthelogic-blindedadult.

Whentheyfirstmeet,theprinceaskstheaviatorforadrawingofasheep.Theaviatortriestooblige,

buteachtimetheprinceisdissatisfied.Finally,frustratedandimpatienttobeginhisrepairs(attendto

hisliteralproblem),theaviatordrawsabox:“Çac’estlacaisse.Lemoutonquetuveuxestdedans”(ibid.

18). The prince—the child in the situation—is delighted. As the narrative progresses, the aviator

graduallybecomeswiser,movingalongthespectrumfromgrownuptochild,withoccasional lapsesof

adult perspective. Because the narrator’s ambiguous child-ness or adult-ness clashes with the literal

meaningsof “child”and“adult”, it relays readers towhat theyknowaboutchildhoodandadulthood,

12Andheiscertainlynotanadolescent.

39

forcing them to ask, basedon this knowledge,what itmeans to be an adult or a child, andhow the

criteriamightvaryfromdifferentperspectives.

ThesourcetextdoesnotintroducethetroublethatinitiatesthestoryuntilchapterII:

J’ai ainsi vécu seul, sans personne avec qui parler véritablement, jusqu’à une panne dans ledésert du Sahara, il y a six ans. Quelque chose s’était cassé dansmonmoteur. Et comme jen’avaisavecmoinimécanicien,nipassagers,jemepréparaisàessayerderéussir,toutseul,uneréparationdifficile.C’étaitpourmoiunequestiondevieoudemort. J’avaisàpeinede l’eauàboirepourhuitjours.(Saint-Exupéry1999:15)

Thisparagraphintroducestheproblemonwhichthestoryisbased(beingstrandedinthedesertwitha

brokenplane),buteverythingaboutthediscourseisdesignedtodisconnectthereaderfromtheliteral

probleminordertorelayhimorhertothephilosophicalproblemthatisthefoundationoftheallegory:

loneliness. The “story problem” is mentioned for the first time only as an adverbial complement

(“jusqu’àunepannedansledésertduSahara”)totheaviator’sloneliness,whichestablishestheprimary

frame (“sans personne avec qui parler véritablement […] nimécanician, ni passagers, […], tout seul).

From theoutset, theproblemsenabling the storyandallegoryare connected,but farmoreweight is

placedonthephilosophicalchallengeofsolitudethanonthematerialchallengeofsurvival.Therestof

thesourcetextdoesnothingtobalancethescales:thisparagraphisoneofthelongestexcerptsinthe

entirebookaboutthecrash.Infact,thesourcetextdiscoursealmostalwaysmovesfromtheconcreteto

theabstractinthisway,usingthematerial levelofthenarrativeonlyasaspringboardtotheallegory.

When the plane, the repairs, and/or survival in the desert are mentioned, it generally marks the

beginningofalongerdiscussionofabstractideas.

Theintroductiontothegraphicnovel(thepagescorrespondingtochaptersIandIIofthesource

text), however, places less discursive emphasis on loneliness or the symbolic opposition between

children and grownups and provides much more material information about the story, anchoring

readersinthelatterinsteadofrelayingthemtophilosophicalideas.Foronething,inthegraphicnovel

the aviator is obviously and viscerally anadult.He is balding and, after eightdays in thedesert, has

40

facialstubble(Sfar,2008:86).Hewearsgrownupclothes:ashirtandtie(tiesareexplicitlyconnectedto

adulthoodinboththesourceandtargettexts,p.15and4,respectively).Healsosmokescigarettes(ibid.

1–3,6,15–18,28,105).Bymakingajudgementabouttheaviator’sage,thediscourseofthetargettext

works against the allegory-signaling ambiguity of the source,while at the same time providingmore

informationabouttheliteralstory.

Incontrasttothefirstchapterofthesourcetext,thegraphicnoveltakesusimmediatelytothe

desert, where the plane has already crashed. Here the expediency/efficiency of graphic storytelling

(Whytellthestorywhenyoucanshowit?)createsanincentivetocurtailtheextranarrativeintervention

ofthenarrator’svoice.Theanecdoteaboutthedrawingsandtheaviator’smonologueabouthisinability

to relate to the adultworld are abridged. For example, after saying that grownupsnever understand

anythingontheirown,hedoesnotsay:“...etc’estfatigant,pourlesenfants,detoujoursettoujoursleur

donner des explications.”He also does not say that,when talking to a grownup, “Jememettais à sa

portée.”Thegraphicnovelbacksofffromthesourcetext’sunrelentingattackontheconfusionofadults

andcelebrationofchildlikewisdom,anallegory-signaling incongruence.Althoughsomeofthesource-

textdiscourse is retained (inan identicalor similar form), thewordscompetewith the images,which

showstory-leveldetailsuchastheplane’sinstrumentpanel,theplane,thedesertsun,andtheaviator’s

furiousandfrustratedattemptstorepairhisairplane.Thetwoframesatthebottomofpage4giveus

moreslapstickcomedy,focusingattentiononthestory:

41

Whilethesourcetexttendstomovefromtheconcretetotheabstract(as inthebeginningof

chapter II), in the target text, thematerial elements (theplane, the repairs, thedesert, etc.) exist for

theirownsake,asconstantremindersofthestorylevelofthenarrative.Inaddition,word/imagerelay

floods thediscoursewith literaldetails about the story. Forexample, theairplaneappears frequently

throughoutthefirstthirdofthegraphicnovel,andwearecasuallyremindedoftherepairstwicemore

(Sfar, 2008. 10, 23). While the word “avion” does not necessarily imply a description of a specific

airplane, every image of the plane in the graphic novel anchors readers by showing them the

orientation,colour,size,etc.ofthespecificairplanetheaviatorhascrashedinthedesert.

1.3AsteroidB612

InchapterIVofthesourcetext,thenarratordigressesfromthestorytoexplainhisreasonsfor

believing that the littleprince comes fromasteroidB612.Heexplains that theasteroidwasoriginally

discovered by a Turkish scientist in 1909, but that no one would believe him until 1920, when he

presented his discovery wearing Western clothes. Then follow a few pages that are alternately

communicative,directing,testimonial,andideological.Thenarratorbeginsbyrevealinghismotivations

fortellingthenarrateeabouttheasteroid:

Sijevousairacontécesdétailssurl’astéroideB612etsijevousaiconfiésonnuméro,c’estàcausedesgrandespersonnes.Lesgrandespersonnesaimentleschiffres.Quandvousleurparlezd’unnouvelami,ellesnevousquestionnentjamaissurl’essentiel.Ellesnevousdisentjamais:«Quelestlesondesavoix?[…]Ellesvousdemandent:«Quelâgea-t-il?[…]

Thediscoursetransitionsfromacomparisonofchildrenandadults intoareflexivejustificationforthe

narrator’stellingofthestoryandareflectiononthephilosophicalthemesoftheallegory.

Mais, bien sûr, nous qui comprenons la vie, nous nous moquons bien des numéros!J’auraisaimécommencercettehistoireàlafaçondescontesdefées.J’auraisaimédire: «Ilétaitunefoisunpetitprincequihabitaituneplanèteàpeineplusgrandequelui,etquiavaitbesoind’unami…»Pourceuxquicomprennentlavie,çaauraiteul’airbeaucoupplusvrai. Car jen’aimepasqu’on lisemonlivreà la légère.J’éprouvetantdechagrinàracontercessouvenirs.Ilyasixansdéjàquemonamis’enestalléavecsonmouton.Sij’essaieicideledécrire,c’estafindenepasl’oublier.C’esttristed’oublierunami.Toutlemonden’apaseuun

42

ami.Etjepuisdevenircommelesgrandespersonnesquines’intéressentplusqu’auxchiffres.[…]Jemetromperaienfinsurcertainsdétailsplus importants.Maisça, il faudrame lepardonner.Mon ami ne donnait jamais d’explications. Il me croyait peut-être semblable à lui.Maismoi,malheureusement,jenesaispasvoirlesmoutonsàtraverslescaisses.[this,I’llexplainbelow]Jesuispeut-êtreunpeucommelesgrandespersonnes.J’aidûvieillir.(Saint-Exupéry,1999:22–25).

This three-page speech does nothing to advance the story per se, but it provides quite a bit of

information about what the narrator wants us to think about it: the narrative is justified by the

importanceof friendship,andfriendshiprequirestheabilitytoseeasachild.Adultshaveahardtime

with friendship because they are too preoccupied with numbers. Of course, this particular

understanding,apparentlydesiredbythenarrator,iscounterintuitiveinanyliteralsense.Weknowthat

adults“knowbetter”thanchildren,thatadultsareoftenimpressivelyunconcernedwithnumbers,that

infacttheverydecisiontoprivilegefriendshipovernumbercanonlybemade,withgenuinereflection

and lastingconsequence,byanadult, fromanadult’sperspective.Onceagain,Saint-Exupéry’schild is

no literal“child,”butratheraqualityofemotional intelligenceascribedtochildren,andwhichshould

ideally beprotected and conserved into adulthood. The implicationhere is quite defining: “The Little

Prince”isnochild.Heisatrope.Notealsotheemphasisontheambiguityoftheaviator’schild-oradult-

ness,which ismeasuredbyhisability toseeasheep insideadrawingofabox.This sortofdiscourse

makesiteasytoseewhyMitcheldescribedLePetitPrinceas“almostpureallegory”(1960:459)

Suchadigressionfromthestoryishardtoaccomplishinagraphicnovel.Intheadaptation,the

narrator’smonologue to the narratee becomes a scenewhere the aviator and prince try to find the

prince’shomeonamapofthesky.Theshiftfromtheextranarrativeasidetoanarrativesceneoverrides

relay and anchors the reader in the story.When the aviator suggests the ideaof finding theprince’s

planet,theprinceaskshimwhetherhecansparethetimefromhisrepairs(Sfar,2008:15),areminder

of thematerialdangerenabling the storyandprecisely the sortof fussingovera logical,quantitative

questionthatthelittleprinceofthesourcetextwouldneverabide.Becausetherearenocaptionsinthe

scene,thereisnospaceforthereflexivejustification—thenarratorcannotspeaksimultaneouslyasthe

43

narratorandasacharacterinthescene.Asaresult,mostoftheextranarrativediscoursewesawabove

issimplyomitted.Andthediscoursethatisretainedinthedialogueisputintoaformthatclashesless

withliteralmeanings.Insteadofcomplainingtothenarrateeaboutadults’mistakenpreoccupationwith

numbers, theaviatorattributesthisconfusiontohimself:“j’aibesoindedonnerdesnomsauxchoses,

desnuméros, de savoir leur taille. Si ça continue je vais tedemander combienelle coûte, taplanète.”

Whentheprinceaskswhy,theaviatorresponds:“Parcequejecroisquejesuisunegrandepersonne.”

(Sfar,2008:17).

He says this lyingonhis back, looking relaxedwithhis handsbehindhis head, giving a verydifferent

impressionfromtheruefuladmissionofquasi-adulthoodinthesourcetext.Theprinceevenacquitsthe

aviator, implying, contra theethosof the source text, that adulthood is simplyan inevitable resultof

aging,asopposedtoacollectionofpersonalityandbehaviouraltraits.

1.4Baobabs

InchapterVofthesourcetext,aconversationbetweentheprinceandtheaviatorseguesinto

anexplanationofthedangersofbaobabsproutsonasteroids.Theprinceaskstheaviator ifhissheep

willeatshrubs,includingbaobabs.Whentheaviatorsuggeststhatbaobabtreesarefartoolargetobe

eatenbysheep,theprinceobserves,“avecsagesse”:“Lesbaobabs,avantdegrandir,çacommencepar

44

êtrepetit.”Theaviatorconcedesbutstillwantstoknowwhytheprincewantstoknowwhethersheep

willeatthem:“Ilmerépondit:«Ben!Voyons!»,commes’ils’agissaitlàd’uneévidence.Etilmefallutun

grandeffortd’intelligencepoutcomprendreàmoiseulceproblème.”(Saint-Exupéry,1999:26).Again,

the extranarrative intervention of the narrator’s voice tells us how to interpret the exchange. The

aviatornotesthewisdomofthechildlikeprinceandobserveshisfrustrationwhentheaviatordoesnot

immediatelyunderstandwhatshouldbeobvious.Forhisownpart,theaviator(whohasjustconceded

to being a little bit like a grownup) has a hard time understanding on his own, echoing his claim in

chapterIthat“Lesgrandespersonnesnecomprennentjamaisrientoutesseules”(ibid.14).

Theaviatorthengoesontoexplainthatdenizensofasteroidsmustbediligentaboutuprooting

theirbaobabsproutsbeforetheybecometoobig,orthetrees’giantrootswillconsumetheplanetand

mayevenmakeitexplode.Finally,theaviatordrawsapictureofsuchadoomedasteroidandwarnsthe

children reading the narrative (using Genette’s function of communication) to beware of baobabs.

Again, this chapter has essentially nothing to dowith the story. It pertains instead to the narrative’s

allegorical levelofmeaning.It ishardtoavoidthemetaphoricalequationofchildrenwithsproutsand

adultswith baobabs: sprouts and small plants (children) are fine, but beware lest they grow up into

baobabs(adults),whichruineverything.Thediscoursealsoremindsusofthe ideathatpreoccupation

withthingslikesizeprevents“adults”fromseeingclearly.Ifallegoryisextendedmetaphor,thisconcise

andblatantmetaphor-within-a-metaphor isanother remindernot togethungupon literalmeanings.

Whyelsewouldthenarratordevoteawholechaptertothisdigression?

But, as with the aside in chapter IV, the graphic novel turns this abstract extranarrative

discourse into concrete, iconic narration. This adaptation from aside to scene generally requires

inventingandaddinginformationanddetailatthelevelofstoryonly,whilecurtailingtherelayfunction

ofthediscourse.Thisdrawsattentionawayfromtheallegorytowardsthestory.Intheadaptation,the

baobabepisodebeginswhentheprincewakesuptheaviatorafterhavinganightmareaboutanasteroid

45

consumed by baobabs13. The prince’s explanation of his nightmare transitions into the dialogue of

chapterVofthesourcetext.Wearenottoldthattheprinceiswise,thattheprinceassumesthedanger

of baobabs to be obvious, or that the aviator has trouble understanding the danger onhis own. The

graphicnoveldepictsthesameconversation,butwithnoneofthediscursiveremindersthatthereader

shouldreflectontheuseof“child”and“adult”inthetext.

Asignificantexpansionofstoryfollows.Thenextmorning,theprincewakestofindtheaviator

shouting a distress signal into the radio of his airplane about a baobab infestation that threatens to

destroytheplanet.Whentheprinceaskshimwhomheistalkingto,theaviatorrespondsthattheradio

isbroken,soheisfoolingaround.Theprinceisdelighted,andthetwogoontogoofaroundforawhile.

Then, instead of warning the children reading his narrative directly (addressing his narratee via the

functionofcommunication),theaviatortellstheprincethatheiswritingalettertowarnthechildrenof

hisplanetaboutbaobabs.Theyfoldtheletterintoapaperairplane,andtheaviatorrelaysthecontents

oftheletterasthetwowatchitflyaway.Theepisodeisrecastintoaformofplay.Themessageisnot

serious,oratleastitcanbeinterpretedassimpleradiophonicmiscommunicationorstatic.Allsenseof

moraldidacticismislostastheprincehimselfisabsolvedofhispartinthisepisode.

1.5Repairs

So far, the literal story—the specific events in thedesert—have largelybeenabsent from the

sourcetextbutarecontinuallypresentinthetargettext,almostnecessarily.Thesourcetextreturnsto

theproblemofthebrokenplaneforthefirsttimeinchapterVII.Whiletheaviatorisbusytryingtoundo

aboltonhisairplane,theprinceisbotheringhimwithquestionsaboutwhethersheepeatflowersand

why flowers have thorns. Unsatisfiedwith the aviator’s answers, the prince persists until the aviator

eventuallyloseshispatienceandreplies:“Maisnon!Maisnon!Jenecroisrien!J’airépondun’importe

quoi!Jem’occupe,moi,dechosessérieuses!”(ibid.32).Theprinceturnsfromshocktoangerandfinally

13Nightmaresaretypicalofrealchildren,butseeminappropriatefortheprince,whoisassociatedwiththeidealizedwisechildrenofthesourcetext.

46

bursts into tears because the aviator has implied that thedangerposed to theprince’s flowerbyhis

sheepisnotsomethingtheaviatorconsidersserious.Theaviatorrepentsimmediately:“Jememoquais

biendemonmarteau,demonboulon,delasoifetdelamort.Ilyavait,suruneétoile,uneplanète,la

mienne, la Terre, un petit prince à consoler!” (ibid.34). When the aviator dares to focus even for a

momentonhisphysicaldanger(amaterial,concrete, logicalproblem),he isberatedbytheprincefor

more than a page. As in the second chapter, our attention is brought to the literal story only

momentarilybefore it is redirected to thephilosophicalquestionofwhat is truly important. Thevery

insignificanceoftheaviator’srepairshighlightstheimportanceoftheprince’sloveforhisflower.

Inthecorrespondingpagesofthegraphicnovel,itishardertoseethemechanicalproblemsas

onlya foil for thephilosophicalones,andmanyof theextranarrative interventionsareomitted.First,

there is the fact that the toolsandairplanepartsappear inmostof the frames,acontinuallypresent

reminderofthestorydrama.Moreimportantly,whentheprinceloseshistemper,theaviatordoesnot

immediately concede his mistake. Instead, he pushes back, pleading for the importance of his adult

work.Theprinceevenlooksconciliatoryafterwards:

47

(Note the tools and airplane parts lying around and reminding us of the literal drama of the story.)

Although the aviator consoles the prince as he does in the source text, he does not express to the

narrateehisregretforhavingworriedabouthismaterialproblemswhenheshouldhavebeenattending

tohisfriend.Thatistosay,hedoesnotacknowledgethathewaswrongtoactasanadult.

2.Relayinsourceandtargetimages

Ihavetriedtoshowhowthediscourseofthegraphicnoveladaptationtendstoanchorreaders

in the literal,concreteeventsof thestoryatmomentswhenthesource-textdiscourserelays themto

theabstractphilosophicalargumentoftheallegory.Butwhatabouttheimagesofthesourcetext?Ifthe

iconic mode of the graphic novel promotes anchorage in the story, shouldn’t it do the same in the

illustratedbook?Mightallimagesinanarrativetendtoanchorreadersinthestory?

In this section, I will show that images in narrative are not necessarily an instrument of

discursive anchorage. Not only do the source text images play an important role in constructing the

allegory,butmanyof thetarget text imagesdo indeedrelayadult readersoutsidethetext.However,

thisrelayisfrequentlynottotheallegory,butrathertobiographicalinformationaboutSaint-Exupéryin

othertexts.

2.1Theimagesofthesourcetext:relaytoallegory

Discursive relay depends, as I have been arguing, on the reader’s ability to complement

narrativediscoursewithhisorherprior,extra-textualknowledge.By“complementing,”Idonotmean

thereinforcingoftheirunderstandingthrough“mirroring”or“imitation,”inthesensethatyouhaveto

knowwhat an airplane is tounderstand the story, or that seeing theword “airplane”mightbring an

imageof one to yourmind.On the contrary, the complementing in discursive relay occurswhen the

reader“fillsintheblanks,”asitwere,completingwiththeirextra-textualknowledgeameaningthatwas

only suggested,onlypartly there, tobeginwith. In thesource text,allegoricalunderstanding requires

48

readers to complement the information they encounter in the immediate narrative discourse

systematicallyandregularly.

Thiscomplementingrelayrelationshipbetweenthetextandtheallegory isanalogoustowhat

Barthes called the relay relationship between words and images. Recall that, according to Barthes,

languageandimageinarelayrelationshipcomplementeachotherinordertosignifyneitherasimage

noraslanguage,butasstory.Inotherwords,textandimagethatrelayarenotredundant;rather,they

completeeachotherwiththeirrespectiveinformationloads,whichmaybequitedifferent.Ontheother

hand, imagesthatare“anchored”bytheirsurroundingtextaresomewhatredundantwith it: thetext

bothtellsandshowsthereaderwhat ishappening,primarily in thestory.Anchoring, therefore,hasa

“mirroring,”or“imitative”function.Forexample,theillustrationonpage30showstheprincewatching

a sunset while the coincident text describes how he liked to watch sunsets. The redundancy of the

anchoredtext-imagerelationshipcanbeapprehendedataglance,whilethecomplementaryfunctionof

therelayedrelationshiprequiresagreateramountofthereader’sattention.

2.1.2Drawing#1,drawing#2

Thiscomplementingfunctionoftext-imagerelayisillustratedbytwoimagesthatarepartofthe

verybeginningofthesource-textnarrative.Theseillustrations“exist”asdrawingsinthestory,seenand

interpreted by the characters. Remember the introductory anecdote from the source text about the

youngaviatorshowingadrawingtothegrownups?Hereitis:

Lorsquej’avaissixansj’aivu,unefois,unemagnifiqueimage,dansunlivresurlaforêtviergequis’appelaitHistoiresvécues.Çareprésentaitunserpentboaquiavalaitunfauve.[…] J’aialorsbeaucoupréfléchisurlesaventuresdelajungleet,àmontour,j’airéussi,avecuncrayondecouleur,àtracermonpremierdessin.Mondessinnuméro1.Ilétaitcommeça:

J’aimontrémonchef-d’oeuvreauxgrandespersonneset je leuraidemandésimondessin leurfaisaitpeur. Ellesm’ontrépondu:«Pourquoiunchapeauferait-ilpeur?»

49

Theimagerelayswiththewordsinthatweneedtoseethedrawingtounderstandthereactionofthe

grownups.Theirresponseisthelastlineofthatpage.Turnthepage,andthenarratorcontinues:

Mon dessin ne représentait pas un chapeau. Il représentait un serpent boa qui digérait unéléphant. J’ai alorsdessiné l’intérieurdu serpentboa,afinque lesgrandespersonnespuissentcomprendre.Ellesonttoujoursbesoind’explications.Mondessinnuméro2étaitcommeça:

Again,itistheword-imagerelay(andthedelayedrevelationofdrawingnumber2)thatallowsustoget

thejoke,torealizeour“mistake”andempathizewiththenarrator,whocontinuestoventhisfrustration

at theperpetual confusionof adults14.Unlike theanchored images,wemust look at and think about

these images inorder tounderstandthenarrative.This“puzzlingout”of thenatureof the imagery is

concomitant with the further puzzling out required at the level of the allegory. In the source text,

enigmaticrelaybetweentextandimagesetsthestageforthemorecomplextypeofrelayimplicitinthe

text-allegoryrelationship.

Thisanecdoteaboutdrawings1and2couldhardlyinsistmoreonthemetaphorsunderpinning

the allegory. Literally, the child sees an elephant where the grownups do not; metaphorically, the

emotionally intelligent being understands what is on the inside (the part that counts!) while the

(lamentably)rationalbeingsfailtounderstandbecausetheyarehunguponsuperficialappearances.But

drawings1and2domorethanplaythisstructuralorfunctionalroleinestablishingthemetaphorsand

connecting abstract ideas; they also take advantage of the different tendencies of child and adult

readerstorelayadultstotheallegory.

14Afterrevealinghisdrawingnumber2,thenarratorexplainshisinabilitytorelatetotheadultsaroundhim.Seethequotationabovefrompp14–15.

50

Wecanassume that the childdoesnot see theelephanton the firstpageandwill be just as

aware as the adult that he was tricked. But his tendency is to stay within the text, and his goal is

comprehension,whichstilldoesnotcometohimeffortlessly(Wolf2008:136–138).Thushisreactionto

the“deception”ismorelikelytoberelatedtoalinear,asopposedtoholistic,understandingofthetext.

He ismore likely toask “howdo I interpretwhat comesnext in lightof this joke?”Theadult,on the

otherhand,comprehendseffortlesslyandinterpretsmoreorganically.Sheismorelikelythanthechild

readertoask“WhatdoesthisjokesuggestaboutthetextIamreading?”andmoreawarethatliterary

narrativesareoftennottobetakenliterally.Inaddition,theadult’sunderstandingofthefirstfewpages

isprobablymorecomplexthanthechild’s.Wemightspeculate,forinstance,thatthechildnoticesthat

drawingnumber1 looks likeahatandthatdrawing2 isaplausiblecross-sectionof it,whilethatthe

adultnoticesnotonlythatdrawing1wasdesignedtolooklikeahat,butthatdrawing2wasdesigned

sothatdrawing1mightlooklikeahat.Ifshearrivesatthatobservation,shewillalmostinevitablyask

“why?”Itisthatsortofspeculationthattakestheadultreaderoutsidethetexttoconsideritsmeaning

withinaframeofreferenceofabstractideasandculturalvalues.

Whathappenstodrawings1and2intheadaptation,wheretext-imagerelationshipis largely

oneof anchoring?Aswehave seen, the first chapter of the source text eschews the setting and the

dramaof thestory to focusontheabstract ideasofunderstandingand loneliness,but thetarget-text

discourse takesus straight to thedesert.Asa result, theanaleptic anecdoteabout thedrawingsgets

folded inwith the introduction of the literal situation (which the source text delays until the second

chapter). As a result, the anecdote (or what remains of it) not only competes with the rest of the

expository informationforreaders’attention,butalsohastobealteredsignificantly. Insteadoftelling

theanecdotetohisnarratee,theaviatortellsittothesmokesnake(theonewhocrushestheaviator’s

cigarette and disappears). And little remains of the connection between the drawings and the

abstractionsandmetaphorsoftheallegory:thedrawingisstillconnectedtotheaviator’schildhood,and

51

itisstillmistakenforahat;butitismisinterpretedbythesnake,notbythegrownups,anddrawing#2is

omittedentirely, so the reader isneverallowed to“see likea child,”as in the source text,andmuch

allegory-signallingadultbashingisomitted.Whereinthesourcetexttheanecdoteaboutthedrawings

leads directly into the aviator’s explanation of his loneliness, in the target text these elements are

separatedbytheself-destructingsnake,andtheaviatordoesnotsay,ashedoesinthesource,thatheis

inthehabitofusingdrawingnumber1totestthereasonablenessofadults.Inthetargettext,drawing

#1 retains its status as a story object, reproduced by the narrator/aviator, but in it appears as one

amongmany,adetailmorethananattention-grabbingfocalpoint.

2.1.3Theaviator’sambiguousdrawings

Otherillustrationscomplement(relaywith,inBarthes’sense)thelinguistictext,notbecause

theyareapartofthestory(asaredrawingsnumber1and2andthesheep)butbecausetheyarethe

basisforthenarrator’sextranarrativecommentary,establishingarelayrelationshipwiththerestofthe

textandrequiringmoreattentionfromreadersthantheimagesanchoredbythesurroundinglanguage.

Forexample,thenarratorintroducestheprincewiththesewords:

Etj’aivuunpetitbonhommetoutàfaitextraordinairequimeconsidéraitgravement.Voilàlemeilleurportraitque,plustard,j’airéussiàfairedelui.Maismondessin,biensûr,estbeaucoupmoinsravissantquelemodèle.Cen’estpasmafaute.J’avaisétédécouragédansmacarrièredepeintreparlesgrandespersonnes,àl’âgedesixans,etjen’avaisrienapprisàdessiner,sauflesboasfermésetlesboasouverts.(ibid.16)

Opposite,onpage17,isadrawingoftheprince.Theword“Voilà”allbutforces(relays!)thereaderto

take a good look (to slow down and think about the discourse, which adults tend to domore than

children).Inhiscommentary,thenarratordrawsreaders’attentiontotwothingsabouttheportraitthat

applytoalltheillustrations:theirpaedomorphicqualitiesandtheirinsufficiencyasrepresentations.

TheOxfordEnglishDictionarydefinespaedomorphosis (abiological term)as“the retentionof

juvenile or larval characteristics in a reproductivelymature organism.” The aviator repeatedly draws

attentiontothefactthathestilldrawsasasix-year-old,thathehasretainedthatchildlikecharacteristic

52

inspiteofhavinggrownup.Thetensionbetweenthelinguisticdiscourseofanarratorwho“speaks”as

anadult and thevisualdiscourseof an illustratorwhodrawsasa child contributes to the imageofa

narratorwhoisambiguouslyneitherachildnoranadult,relayingadultreaders(inmyuseoftheterm)

to the allegory for reasonswehavealready seen. Iwould add that to recognize that the illustrations

really do resemble those of children (or even to deny that they do) is to relate the text to past

experience,whichadultsaremorelikelytodothanchildren.

Thenarratoralsoemphasizes the inabilityofhis illustrationstoexpresshis intendedmeaning.

Aswithdrawing#1,thenarratorwantsyoutobeabletosee(literallyandfiguratively)whathemeansin

spiteofwhatitlookslike(inspiteoftheliteraldiscourse).Itissignificantthattheprince’sportraitfrom

page17looksnothinglikeanyotherdepictionoftheprince.Inmostofthesourcetextillustrations,the

princeisdrawninsimpleclothes:agreenshirtandpantsandascarf(orbowtie)thatvariesincolour.His

portrait,however,showshimholdingasaberandlookingveryregalinalong,trimmedcoat,highboots,

a cummerbund,and ruff. Logically,wemightbalkat the inconsistency;butof course, ifwedo,we’re

readingitwrong.

Thecommentaryontheprince’sportraitisnottheonlytimethenarratorusestheillustrations

towarnthereadernotsosubtlyaboutstayingatthesurface,abouttakingthingstooliterally.Hedoes

soagaininchapter4:

Si j’essaie icide ledécrire,c’estafindenepas l’oublier. […]C’estdoncpourçaencoreque j’aiacheté une boîte de couleurs et des crayons. C’est dur de se remettre au dessin, àmon âge,quandonn’ajamaisfaitd’autrestentativesquecelled’unboaferméetcelled’unboaouvert,àl’âgedesixans!J’essaierai,biensûr,defairedesportraitsleplusressemblantspossible.Maisjenesuispastoutàfaitcertainderéussir.Undessinva,etl’autreneressembleplus.Jemetrompeunpeuaussisurlataille.[…]Jemetromperaienfinsurcertainsdétailsplusimportants.Maisça,ilfaudramelepardonner.(ibid.24–25)

Thisexcerpt ispartofthesamepassagewesawabove, insection1.3,wherethenarrator justifieshis

telling of the story. Here, he uses the relay relationship between the images and thewords to relay

readers’ attention to the allegorical level of interpretation: however uneasy the narrator feels about

53

includinghisillustrations,heincludesthembecauseheisconfidentthathisreaderswillbeabletograsp

thenon-literalunderstandingof thenarrativethathe intends. Insupportof this, late inthenarrative,

theprince teases theaviatorabouthispoordrawings.Theaviator responds that this isunfair:before

theymet,theaviatorcouldonlydrawclosedoropensnakes.“Oh!çaira,lesenfantssavent”repliesthe

prince,(ibid.86).

Clearly, many of the source-text illustrations aremeant to inspire and support an allegorical

readingof thenarrative, particularly for adult readers. Butwhat about theothers?Are the anchored

images(theonesthatdonotinteractwiththewordsbutaremerelyexplainedbythem)aninstrument

of discursive anchorage in the story? Having spent the first half of this chapter arguing that similar

imagesinthetargettextanchorreadersinthestory,I’mhardlyinapositiontodenythisabilitytothe

imagesofthesourcetext.Iftheydo,however,thereisstillasignificantquantitativedifferencebetween

thesourceandtargettexts.AsimportantastheillustrationsofLePetitPrinceare,theyappearononly

39ofthe87pagesofthenarrative,oftensurroundedby linguisticdiscourse.Butthenarratorgoesto

great lengths to invest them with as much discursive relay as he can. All the drawings are

“paedomorphic” as discussed above, and the narrator’s extranarrative commentary often refers

generallytohis illustrations, insteadoftooneorotherspecificdrawing.Finally,thenarratorseemsto

trytosetatoneorestablishanexpectationofword-imagerelay,whichinturntendstorelayreadersto

theallegory.Thenarratortakesresponsibility forthe illustrations intheveryfirstparagraph(“Voilà la

copiedudessin.”(ibid.13)),andthefirsteightillustrationsrelaywiththesurroundinglinguistictext.

Now,whathappens to the source-text illustrations in the target text? Itdependsonhowyou

count,butnomorethanhalfofthesource-textillustrationsappearinthegraphicnovelinanyform.On

the one hand, you might expect the source-text images to form the basis of the images in the

adaptation,andtheyveryoftendo.Butontheotherhand,thegraphicnovelmediumimposescertain

constraints on the images (for instance, the fact that theymust all fit into evenly sized frames) that

54

make it easy to see, if not interesting to explain, why some source-text illustrations seem to simply

disappear in the adaptation. However, because the narrator in the adaptation no longer takes

responsibility for thedrawings, essentially all of theextranarrative commentaryon the illustrations is

dropped. In addition, the illustrations lose their paedomorphic character, further dissolving the

ambiguityregardingtheaviator’sage.One“omission”ofanillustrationthatisinterestingistheportrait

oftheprincefrompage17ofthesourcetext.Thediscrepancybetweentheprince’sappearanceinthe

portrait and everywhere else makes its omission unsurprising, but the adaptation still goes to the

troubleof includingthe idea,whichcouldeasilyhavebeen leftoutatnocost tonarrativecoherence.

Hereishowitisintroducedinthegraphicnovel:

The illustrations of the source text were done by the authorwith pencil andwatercolour paint. The

dialogue in the framesthat followdoesnotrepeatthethemesof thesource-textcommentaryonthe

portrait. Instead, in the target text, the aviator’s portrait of the prince is extracted from its original

contextandfunctionofdiscursiverelayandplacedinanewcontextattheserviceofanew,different

mechanismofdiscursiverelayand,ultimately,ofdualaddress:theequationofthefictionalaviatorwith

thereal-lifeAntoinedeSaint-Exupéry.

55

2.2Intertextualrelayinthetargettext

Aswesawinthepreviouschapter,parallelscanbedrawnbetweentheaviatorinthestoryand

AntoinedeSaint-Exupéryandbetweenthefictionalstoryandthestoriesofsomeoftheauthor’sreal-

lifeaviationmisadventures.Thesourcetextthusrelayssomereaderstotextsabouttheauthor.These

readerswill almost certainly be adults only: few children read biographies of authors. It is therefore

possibletoseetheseintertextualparallelsasamechanismofdualaddressinthesourcetext,butonlya

minorone.However,theimagesofthetargettextamplifythisintertextualdiscursiverelaysignificantly,

equatingtheaviator/narratorofthestorywithAntoinedeSaint-Exupéryandplayingupthesimilarities

betweenthestoryandtheauthor’scrashinLibyain1935toadegreethatfarexceedsthestrengthof

theseassociationsinthesourcetext.

Forastart,thereisamarkedphysicalresemblancebetweentheaviatorinthegraphicnoveland

AntoinedeSaint-Exupéry15.

15Theauthoralsosmokedcigarettes,astheaviatordoesthroughoutthegraphicnovel.

56

Thedrawingofaviator’sairplaneisalsoobviouslybasedontheSaint-Exupéry’s(theonehecrashedin

Libya):aredandwhiteCaudron-SimounchristenedF-ANDRY:

Thenameisfullyvisibleinfullatleastfivetimesintheadaptationandpartiallyvisibleinmanyframes

(the plane, like the aviator, is never physically described in the source text). In the source text, the

aviator tells us that “J’avais à peine de l’eau à boire pour huit jours” (Saint-Exupéry, 1999), but the

adaptationshowstheaviatordrinkingcoffeeandwine(Sfar,2008:14–16).Thismightseemlikeonlya

minordetailaddedtothestory(which it is),but inhisaccountofhisordeal inWind,Sand,andStars,

Saint-Exupéry claimed that these were the only two liquids he and Prévot had to drink (1941: 197).

Whenthegraphicnovelidentifiestheaviatorasawatercolourartist(aswasSaint-Exupéry),itgivesthe

words“à l’aquarelle”theirownframe,pausingforemphasisonthisdetail.Finally,pages106and107

showtheaviatorflyingaplaneoverwater.TheplaneheisflyingisclearlymodeledonaLockheedP-38

57

Lightning, thesame typeofplaneSaint-Exupérywas flyingwhenhedisappearedover theoceanona

reconnaissancemissionin1944:

This evident (and evidently deliberate) intertextual relay equating the aviator in the graphic

novelwiththeauthorof thesourcetext isclearlyaimedatadultsonly: it requires thedistinctlyadult

knowledge of biographical facts about the author, and the associations are all but unavoidable for

readerswhohavethisknowledge.Ofcourse,byaddressingadultsinthisway,thegraphicnovelrestricts

itsadultaudiencerelativetothesource.Whilewecanassumethatmostadultshavesomeinterest in

meaningful social bondsand thenatureofunderstanding, far fewer readersof this graphicnovelwill

know, for example, what a Lockheed P-38 lightning looks like and that Saint-Exupéry was flying one

whenhedied.

Nowthatwe’veseenhowimagescanestablishintertextualrelay,therelationshipbetweenthe

sourceand target imagesbecomesmore interestingand, Iwouldargue, relevant to target text’sdual

address. Given thepopularityof the source textand the fact that it is theauthor’smostwell-known

workby far, Iwouldassume thatall adult readerswhohave thenecessarybackgroundknowledge to

appreciate the above-mentioned biographical references are also familiar with Le Petit Prince.

Therefore, they are probably aware that the autobiographical inclination of the story is significantly

playedupinthetargettext,i.e.,thatSfardoesnottrytohidehiscreativeinfluenceonthetranslation

andthatheisdeliberatelydirectingreaderswithspecificbackgroundknowledgeawayfromthetarget

58

texttoothertexts.Therefore,whenthegreedybusinessmantheprinceencountersinchapterXIIIofthe

sourcetextinexplicablyappearsasarobotinthetarget(Sfar,2008:57–59),theadultreaderaddressed

bythetargettextcanhardlyfailtonotice.

Themanipulationofadultreaders’attentionisevidentinthetargettext,butitisnotevident(at

least initially, to me) what such readers are supposed to think about this manipulation. Unlike the

source text, which relays readers to open-ended abstractions making up a relatively clear ethical

argument via allegory, the target text relays its restricted audience of adult readers to closed details

withouttellingthemwhattothinkabouttherelay.Itiscertainlynotclearwhattheadultaddresseeof

the target text is supposed to thinkwhen the prince’s flower strikes a pose reminiscent of a famous

paintingbySandroBotticelli:

3.Conclusion

Throughoutthisthesis,IhaveapproachedSfar’sgraphicnovelasaderivativetext,discussingit

intermsofSaint-Exupéry’snovellaandusingtheloadedterms“source”and“target.”Thereareseveral

reasonstodisapproveofsuch“source-oriented”criticism,especiallyinlightofthefactthatmuchofmy

energy has gone towards arguing that the “target” text attenuates and obscures an attribute of its

“source,”thattheallegorygetssomewhat“lostintranslation.”

59

Iwanttoinsist,however,thatmyaimhasnotbeentodeplorethedifferences.Iseenoreason

thatthegraphicnovelshouldhavebeendesignedtopreserveorreproduceallaspectsofthesourcetext

(evenifthiswerepossible!).Instead,mygoalhasbeentousethispairoftextstoexplainandillustrate,

with examples, away of thinking about certain narratives. Specifically, I have tried to show that it is

productive,when thinkingabout theaddressee(s) of anarrative, to take intoaccountwhere readers’

attention is being directed and how this attention-directing implies assumptions about reading

behaviourandreaders’knowledge.Atranslationpairisusefulforthiskindofprojectbecauseweshould

expectmanyaspectsoftheworktoremainconstantinbothtextswhileothersvary.Thistranslationpair

was useful for this project because there is such broad agreement that Le Petit Prince is dually

addressed.Ialsosubmitthatthetextsareinterestingandworthanalyzingintheirownright.

But so far this analysis hasn’t given me much to say about translation. I have also left it

somewhatunfinishedbyonlynoting that the target textaddressesadult readers through intertextual

relay insteadof theallegory,withoutdrawinganyconclusions fromthat shift. I think that inorder to

properly explore the meaning implied by Sfar’s intertextual additions, I would have to shift my

perspectiveandreadthetextonitsownterms,nolongerasoneofmany“versions”ofLePetitPrince,

butasatextforwhichLePetitPrinceisonlyoneofmanytextswithwhichthegraphicnovelestablishes

certain intertextual relations. This dead-end (or exit sign) that the graphic novel imposes for source-

orientedtranslationcriticismgivesmeonelastthingtosayabouttranslation.

It iseasiertoassertthattranslationsareeitherderivedfromor independentoftheir“source”

textsthantospecifywhateitherofthosethingsmean.Hermans,Ithink,offersanexcellentperspective

onthis:analogous to theChristiandoctrineof theRealPresence,wherebythehostandwine“is” the

bodyandbloodofChrist forChristians—forbelieversonly—afterandonlyafter it isconsecratedbya

speech act, a text such as Sfar’s graphic novel “is” Le Petit Prince only after it is designated as a

translationbyaspeechact(2007:86–108).Beforethisdesignation,thismetaphoricalconsecration,itis

60

atextlikeanyother;after,it“is”theworkofwhichitissaidtobeatranslation,butonlyfor“believers”

intranslation.

Thisanalogyinvitesustoflipbackandforth(oratleasttorecognizethatwecandoso)between

whatMartinandWhite(2007:206–207)call“compliant”and“tactical”readingsoftranslations(seealso

Hermans, 2014: 290–299). Compliant readings “accommodate the reading position naturalized by a

text” (Martin andWhite, 2007:206).A compliant reader readsa translation “as” theoriginalwork; a

compliant readerofSfar’sgraphicnovelwouldanswer“yes” (possiblywith somequalification) to the

question“haveyoureadLePetitPrince?”Tacticalreadings,ontheotherhand,“arereadingswhichtake

someaspectoftheevaluationatextaffords,andrespondtoitinaninterestedwaythatneitheraccepts

norrejectscommunionwiththetextasawhole.”(loc.cit.)Therearemanywaysinwhichatranslation

mightbereadtactically,oneofwhichwouldbetoapproachitasatextthat,“is”apreviouswork,but

onlyforbelievers.

WhatdoesthishavetodowithSfar’sgraphicnovelanditsintertextualrelay?Hermansbaseshis

tactical readings on paratextual elements (such as marginalia, translator’s notes, or the word

“translation”onthecover),elementsheearliercalled“thetranslator’svoice”(1996),featuresofatext

thatidentifyitasatranslationforthereader.Because“Thelargemajorityoftranslationsaremadefor

readerswhodonothaveaccess,orhavenoeasyaccess,totheoriginal,andasaresulttranslationsand

originalstendtocirculateindependentlyofeachother”(Hermans,2014:286),itmakessensetolookfor

thetranslator’svoiceprimarilyinparatextualelements,atleastininterlingualtranslations.

Butinthegraphicnovel,theintertextualreferencesthatmakethetextduallyaddressedshould,

Ipropose,be consideredamanifestationof the translator’s voice—a textual formof it, rather thana

paratextual one. Any adult reader capable of noticing the biographical referenceswill also recognize

themasmaterialaddedtothesourcenarrative,asignofthedifferencebetweenthesourceandtarget

texts and the relative independence of the latter. Even in the absence of paratextual indicators, the

61

discourseofthegraphicnovel,foritsadultaudience,pre-emptsbeliefintranslation.Itmaybethatthe

primaryfunctionoftheBotticelireferenceistobreakthespell,toperpetratetranslationheresy.

Althoughsuchtextual(asopposedtoparatextual)manifestationsofthetranslator’svoiceare

probably rareenough in interlingual translation,whichpresumesthat itsaudience isnot familiarwith

the source work, it is not obvious that they might not be more common in intralingual and/or

intersemioticadaptations,manyofwhichareprobablyarecreatedpreciselybecausethesourceworkis

awell-knownclassic,suchasLePetitPrince.

62

References

Abbot,H.Porter(2007).“Story,plot,andnarration.”TheCambridgeCompaniontoNarrative,DavidHerman(ed.).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Baldrick,Chris(2008).“Allegory.”OxfordDictionaryofLiteraryTerms.OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Barthes,Roland(1977[1964]).“RhetoricoftheImage.”Image,Music,Text.StephenHeath(trans.,ed.).NewYork:HillandWang.

Booth,WayneC.(1961).TheRhetoricofFiction.ChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Cerisier,Alban(2006).Ilétaitunefois…LePetitPrinceAlbanCerisier(ed.).Paris:Gallimard.

Chesterman,Andrew(2000).“ACausalModelforTranslationStudies.”inMaeveOlohan(ed.)InterculturalFaultlines:Researchmodelsintranslationstudies1,textualandcognitiveaspects.ManchesterandNorthampton:St.Jerome.

Chesterman,Andrew(2008).“Thestatusofinterpretivehypotheses.”InHansenetal.(eds.)EffortsandModelsinInterpretingandTranslationResearch.AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.

Culler,Jonathan(2001).ThePursuitofSigns.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

DeKoninck,Thomas(2006).“RéflexionssurLePetitPrince.”inAlbanCerisier(ed.)Ilétaitunefois…LePetitPrince.Paris:Gallimard.

EncyclopædiaBritannicaOnline,s.v."AntoinedeSaint-Exupery",accessedSeptember16,2015,http://www.britannica.com/biography/Antoine-de-Saint-Exupery.

Genette,Gérard(1980[1972]).NarrativeDiscourse:AnEssayinMethod.JaneE.Lewing(trans.)Ithaca,NewYork:CornellUniversityPress.

Genette,Gérard(1997).Palimpsests:Literatureintheseconddegree.ChannaNewmanandClaudeDoubinsky(trans.).LinconandLondon:UniversityofNebraskaPress.

Gottschall,Jonathan(2012).TheStorytellingAnimal:Howstoriesmakeushuman.BostonandNewYork:HoughtonMifflinHarcourt.

Hermans,Theo(1996)."TheTranslator'sVoiceinTranslatedNarrative."Target8:1pp23–48

Hermans,Theo(2007).TheConferenceoftheTongues.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

63

Hermans,Theo(2014).“PositionningTranslators:Voices,views,andvaluesintranslation.”LanguageandLiterature23:3,pp.285–301.

Labov,William(1972).LanguageintheInnerCity:StudiesinblackEnglishvernacular.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.

Labov,WilliamandJoshuaWaletzky(1967).“OralVersionsofPersonalExperience.”InJuneHelm(ed.)EssaysontheVerbalandVisualArts:Proceedingsofthe1966AnnualSpringMeetingoftheAmericanEthnologicalSociety.pp.12–44.

Laffont,Robert(2008).Donnerunsensàl’existence,oupourquoiLePetitPrinceestleplusgrandtraitédemétaphysiqueduXXeesiècle.Paris:ÉditionsRobertLaffont.

Martin,J.R.andP.R.R.White(2005).TheLanguageofEvaluation:AppraisalinEnglish.London:PalgraveMacmillan.

Mitchell,Bonner(1960).“‘LePetitPrince’and‘Citadelle’:TwoExperimentsintheDidacticStyle.”TheFrenchReview.33:5,pp.454–461.

Saint-Exupéry,Antoinede(1939).TerredesHommes.Paris:Gallimard.

Saint-Exupéry,Antoinede(1941).Wind,SandandStars.LewisGalantière(trans.)NewYork:Reynal&Hitchcock.

Saint-Exupéry,Antoinede(1924).PilotedeGuerre.Paris:Gallimard.

Saint-Exupéry,Antoinede(1944).Lettreàunotage.Paris:Gallimard.

Saint-Exupéry,Antoinede(194).Citadelle.Paris:Gallimard

Saint-Exupéry,Antoinede(1999[1946]).LePetitPrince.Paris:Gallimard.

Saldanha,GabrielaandSharonO’Brien(2014).ResearchMethodologiesinTranslationStudies.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Schiff,Stacy(1994).Saint-Exupéry.NewYork:Knopf.

Sfar,Joann(2008).LePetitPrinced’aprèsl’oeuvred’AntoinedeSaint-Exupéry.Paris:GallimardJeunesse.

Skolnick,DeenaandPaulBloom(2006).“WhatdoesBatmanthinkaboutSpongeBob?Children’sunderstandingofthefantasy/fantasydistinction.”Cognition.101,pp.B9–18.

Twain,Mark(1876).TheAdventuresofTomSawyer.Hartford:AmericanPublishingco.

Twain,Mark(1885).TheAdventuresofHuckleberryFinn(TomSawyer’scomrade).NewYork:CharlesL.Websterandco.

64

Whitman,Jonetal.(1993).“Allegory.”TheNewPrincetonEncyclopediaofPoetryandPoetics.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Wolf,Maryanne(2008).ProustandtheSquid:Thestoryandscienceofthereadingbrain.NewYork:HarperPerennial.

Imagecredits

FirstphotographofAntoinedeSaint-Exupéry,inpilot’sgear:

Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "Antoine de Saint-Exupery", accessed July 22,2015,http://www.britannica.com/biography/Antoine-de-Saint-Exupery.

SecondphotographofAntoinedeSaint-Exupéry:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Saint-Exup%C3%A9ry_4.pngBy Zyephyrus (Ownwork) [CCBY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], viaWikimediaCommons

Thirdphotograph,ofAntoinedeSaint-Exupéryinfrontofhisplane:

Succession de Saint-Exupéry d’Agay via Le Musée de l’Air et de l’Espace viahttp://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/antoine-de-saint-exupery/AccessedJuly24,2015.