What's the big deal with The Very Hungry Caterpillar?

I learned that this book was a classic of picture books, so I read a library copy, and... I don't get it. I don't get the appeal.

When I've read other classic kids' picture books as an adult, I enjoyed them—I'm a big Dr. Seuss fan, I'd give every one of the Eloise books 10 out of 10 and I consider Iben Sandemosen to be criminally underrated. But this one? I do not get why people like it.

And I mean that exactly as I say it, by the way. Usually, I get the appeal of a popular book even if I myself don't enjoy it. But here... There's no plot, there's no characterization... I'm not trying to be negative here, I'm just emphasizing that I just don't understand what the appeal is.

It's probably one of those things you have to read as a little kid to like. It's just very comforting and cute.

IT HUNGERS

If you're aiming young enough you don't really have adult appeal. Books written for pre-schoolers generally do not have adult appeal. Dr. Suess is aimed a little older.

My daughter loves the book (admittedly she likes lots of books), and she's 2 and three-quarters (fractions of a year still make a big difference at this age). It's much more entertaining if you're just on the verge of a full understanding of this whole counting business, like she is.

She likes Dr. Seuss too, but she can't read him yet, he's just a little too complicated still.

Edited by Bense on Sep 23rd 2019 at 3:34:59 AM

It fun to read it to little kids. And little kids like to have it read to them. The colors are bright and interesting, and little ones like to imagining eating all that food.

But literary merit?

Not so much.

And at least it doesn't have a messed up message like I Want My Hat Back.

I think it has to do with universal appeal to small children, the bright colours and cute drawings, and the tactility of all those little holes in the pages, making the text (such as it is) very literal.

A classic work does not necessarily need to have literary merit (though that certainly helps). If a work is so universally known that it becomes a part of culture (of MANY cultures, in this instance), then that could also make it a classic through it's sheer cultural weight.

It's not the book that makes it a classic, it's what it means to people. A book that is read by no one, no matter it's literary merit, is not really a classic, though it could certainly become one if a current readership discovers it and makes it culturally significant to them. And in turn, classics can disappear from view as they become culturally irrelevant, and cease to be classics as they disappear from literary canons.

Sounds like the debate over I'll Love You Forever over here in Canada. Ypu either love it as a kid's classic or you think it's some combination of depressing and Unfortunate Implications

I love it even though it makes sob like a baby

It's a book aimed at pre-schoolers, and as such it's pretty much as simple as a book can be. There's really not much about it to hold the interest of an adult, though an adult can certainly appreciate the skill that went into making it.

I read it as a pre-schooler myself, but I don't have any strong feelings about it. I liked There's a Monster at the End of This Book a lot better, myself.

It's more a nostalgia thing, I think, as well as it being a cultural touchstone for a lot of people.