The Little Prince question

I haven't read this book recently, so do perhaps take everything I say with a grain of salt.

However reflecting on this questions and what I remember of the book, I do have a few thoughts. I think that the visuals (especially considering the particular style and aesthetic utilized) are meant to highlight the innocence, simplicity, and authentic, childish wonder of the book. Images are a more direct, natural, and intuitive way of communicating than the written word especially considering that there is no universal language or alphabet but images are indeed fairly ubiquitous. Further, the images are not hyperealistic but rather simple and cartoonish. I think that they are vivid enough to engage your own imagination and creativity without informing/feeding each detail to you. The images invoke things - for example, roses - but you are required fill in the details with your own memory and experience.

The flat, pastel, cartoonish nature of the illustrations in the Little Prince acts as a means of activating the imagination. Live Eva said it requires some work for the pictures to 'come alive' as it were. Little Prince speaks directly to children intentionally with its visual language: its tone is privy to children and any ‘outsiders’ (adults) must adopt a childish nature to understand it.