Talk:The Very Hungry Caterpillar

Illustrations
I'd like to see more on the distinctive illustrations found in this book. The "real" look of the pictures was a big reason this book clicked with me as a child. 99.239.0.20 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't, as that would be a copyright violation. we can include the cover (perhaps the back cover) under fair use copyright laws. external links to the publisher and author websites are all we can do.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Picture of the google logo which is now included in the article and the book's title page picture gives some example of the illustrations. We have also increased the references to the illustrations, design features and the significance of these.I think there is some opportunity to expand on these further. I still haven't heard back from AIGA which is a bit disappointing. Anyone with any other ideas over illustrating the quality of design and the significance of it wit reputable sources? Kathybramley (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers?
Is it really necessary that spoiler tags be placed on such a book? The target audience will never likely find this page.
 * I think it's a wikipedia in-joke --Surturz 06:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This page ruined the book for me. -Victor
 * The second paragraph contains spoilers anyway.
 * We no longer provide spoiler alerts in articles, and in-jokes are not permitted in article space, no matter how funny.66.80.6.163 (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that if it's something that's more than four or five years old then it's fine to talk about it without having to write "WARNING SPOILERS!!" Considering this book was first published in 1969 I see no problem with not having a spoilers tag. God it's stuff like this that frustrates me with Wikipedia. - Another n00b (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this a Joke?
This article reads like some sort of joke. Film rights being sold for £1 million? Who the hell would make a film like this!? Is the book really this popular? PureLegend 21:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I read this in kindergarten when I was 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.167.243 (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree its highly notable, but the 1 mil statement is dubious. no news article was found by me that states "agency x sold ancillary rights y for this book to company/person z".66.80.6.163 (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis talk
Could we perhaps not have the day dividers? Its not really important to have them. Reignbow 21:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If its a vote, I say keep the day dividers. The separation of days is an important aspect of the story. KevinCarmody 00:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. Keep the dividers. --Surturz 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Horseplay following on: (Kathybramley (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC))


 * Oh my god did you really just say that. Come on, guys, I'm laughing way too hard at the fact this CHILDREN'S BOOK is being discussed as if it was a serious novel article.  Business suits during a toy show. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.138.96.4 (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
 * I would not be so quick to dismiss this book as simple children's fiction. Its apocalyptic imagery and masterful use of suspense ranks it as one of the great literary works of our time. --Surturz 13:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Back to historical 'Synopsis' talk: (Kathybramley (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC))


 * The day dividers are good. Oh, and this book is awesome. :) Megan102 08:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Shame the synopsis has gone. I appreciate that we are trying to build a good quality encyclopedia but we really don't need to be so sour. Ahh well, I'm not going to get into rv battles over it. So be it. KevinCarmody 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reinstated the synopsis. --Surturz 03:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know this might be a minor point, but it seemed to me that the part where the caterpillar gets fat (on Day 7, after eating the leaf) seems important, and would fill out the Day 7 section nicely I think. Apparently my edit got reverted. 76.16.241.17 09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Anna B.

Philosophy/symbolism
I know it's not suitable for an encyclopedia, but I thought that I might say that when I first read this article, when it had the interesting commentary on feasibility and philosophy on the story, it was a gripping read. It's a pity that it can't be kept as the current article, but i'm glad I can access it in the history. Kudos to that author. Wunderbear 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand those sentiments, partially. Wikipedia, or at least 'history' is an'unofficial' repository for opinion on a subject, but it's quite fiddly to access, and really, Amazon is the place to post that sort of discussion when you think about it. I liked your spirit Wunderbear, but there are probably lots of other interesting commentaries that may be made or even which I could make myself. I've never seen the section but on this page there has been several references to philosophical and symbolic aspects of the book. This is not meant to be a page for discussion of the book but for the wikipedia page. It would be nice to include a reference to some commentary of this kind that falls within Wikipedia Policy - has anyone notable or reputable, such as a educational, health, publishing and literature source or major university or newspaper (quotable) covered these aspects? Let's get searching - in amidst real life! Kathybramley (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

commentary on book
This book is awesome, and I recommend it to all children who are interested in caterpillars! Diego Bank (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Awards
I recently added an awards section to the article. The link might appear to belong to a local library but it actually takes you to a subsite of the University of Connecticut, and while state universities are generally agreed to be reliable sources, the information itself is actually provided by The Gale Group which supplies such information to schools and libraries across North America (also, while the awards list on that site may initially seem confusing once you read it you'll notice that it is indeed sorted by book). Aurum ore (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we just then link to the original source, if available? --98.227.143.82 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that George W. Bush's book preferences should go under the "awards and accolades" section? Interesting fact though. 58.111.250.76 (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, I may fix that. "cultural influence" would be a better section for that fact.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Page protected
It's protected so I can't edit it. Please could someone remove "(representing a human rather than true caterpillar diet)" from the introduction, as this is just plain silly. THanks you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.6.202 (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My edit - and now it is gone. Sorry it seemed silly- I'm new. I don't think the content was wrong - it is fact that caterpillars don't eat that diet (see entry), but it was a bit playful and maybe the wrong place for that point? The Royal Entomological Society endorsed the book -they included it in a booklist on their insect week page (should a link to that go in?) - but despite that I think the statement 'teaches the life cycle of a butterfly' is misleading because despite the basic life stages being rght, the context and diet is wrong. The book is a classic and i own and read it to my children- with a little discomfort at mis-education. I know I will teach them the right facts later (perhaps to disappointment). Not everyone goes beyond children's literature to learn about the natural world, which is a shame. Can we not rectify that a little? For balance and quality, at least. If that can be agreed, how should I have done it? Kathybramley (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(Accolades and awards) Symbolism essay references removed
I removed the following paragraph from the Accolades and awards section:

"Also in 2009, the essayist Todd Kalvin Washington brilliantly wrote about the symbolic references mentioned in this truly spectacular novel. The book is a metaphor for the proliferating United States, starting from its origin and until present day. In addition, an obesity connection was also created in this essay in that it is saying that the caterpillar transformed from a gluttonous creature to a beautiful butterfly. This not only shows that he can change, but he sets an example for all people around the globe. Carle was truly ahead of his time as demonstrated in this essay."

It doesn't site sources, it's badly written (as if the content is actually encyclopedic), it uses weasel-like words, etc. Not to mention the essay (if it exists) seems more like a joke, judging the above, than anything serious. Jalwikip (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * -I apologize for the poor edit summary, please forgive me. 75.75.106.183 (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Such material can be removed without quoting it here, as its in the article history if someone is intensely curious about exactly how an article has been vandalized.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

'Development' section: Holes & Design features
I think it's notable that the book has holes punched in most of the pages. The article says the book was inspired by a hole punch, but otherwise doesn't mention this at all. The holes were one of the reasons I liked the book as a kid, and why my kids like it today.--Rehcsif (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the overall design process, Carles design and authorship theories (as detailed in his website - see links section) has been under-represented, as has the design significance except as part of the miscellany in the Awards section. Better to redesign the whole article with valid research purposes in mind - so a section each on design; authorship and publishing; educational significance and use; popular culture. There is a lot of significant encyclopaedic material available missing, imho! Kathybramley (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I reworded the head section. It now describes Carle as designer, author, illustrator; expanded the awards mention to graphic design  as well as literary awards and describes the wholes which are a fundamental feature of the book and the overall design process. Although this is wordier I think justifiably wordy because it prefigures the sections in the rest of the article and reflects the style of the artist, who thinks not in terms of serperate writing and illustration but an integral design process following an inspiration. He writes about that on his site as an aid to would-be children's authors and an faq answer to all those interested. He was a graphic designer by original training and employment. I am not sure if an article stuffed full of references to the Eric Carle website is apropriate as it could be construed as advertising, but I hope I have justified my changes.


 * The original reference at the library catalogue entry does list the awards separately so adding explicit mention of the design award is still covered by that reference.


 * I would welcome some editing for style/grammar. I have a limited time to do things and have learnt to bang something out with minor style/grammar issues in long run is better than to get bogged down editing it. I have found I can easily lose coherence! cheers! Kathybramley (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet more synopsis talk
The synopsis is longer than the actual book. Something about that needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braniac294 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What happened?
This used to be my favourite article on wiki. Now it is sadly dry and boring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.53.1 (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This article needs a "Criticism of" section, for all the critical commentary from Noam Chomsky, Hannah Arendt, Sherman Alexie, E. O. Wilson, Julia Butterfly Hill, and Stephen Jay Gould, among other luminaries. (seriously, i will try to help the article a bit, it can be both NPOV and include some mention of the whimsical content that makes this and other classic kids books work)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds like really good leads. Out of interest, what sort of things did they say? Kathybramley (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Penny drops with a loud clink. Kathybramley (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have changed the articles quality rating to Start, as its not well organized and has some poor documentation. I compared it to Treasure Island, another Top importance, C quality article, and it doesnt come close. I do agree with it being Top, despite its status as a very young children's book.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the quality of the Treasure Island article is higher than C-class and has been improved since it was last assessed. Peer review/assessment tags on both articles? Kathybramley (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Problematic facts
When we reference articles which mention "a copy sold every 30 seconds worldwide", i wonder where the fact first appeared. I hope it didnt appear here first, and then get mirrored by journalists. I would like better sourcing for some somewhat promotional facts.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * this link is dead, but having read more on external links/refs, im putting it here in case someone can research it and find a valid link: interview of Eric Carle to celebrate the 40th anniversary, 2009-03-20 .Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is my first wave of fix-up. i have a bad habit of not cleaning up the formatting of references. sorry for that, but they are all good ones, i believe.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Mention in the news
Diet police mug the very hungry caterpillar. --Surturz (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What kind of caterpillar is he?
I've actually seen a big caterpillar with a green body and a brown (or was it orange?) face before, but I don't know what species that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.233.55 (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Animalis Fictionalis, commonly known as a made up animal. Any resemblance to actual caterpillars, living or dead, is purely coincidental.12.125.80.214 (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Banning?
A lot of sources list this book as being banned in Herefordshire, England due to promoting unhealthy eating habits, however no primary or secondary sources seem to exist for this. Would it be worth mentioning somewhere (perhaps in the pop culture section?) that this anecdote exists? --zandperl (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Googling "very hungry caterpillar banned book" returns over 11,000 hits, though I don't know if there's a limit on what's considered "a lot" of sources and thus worth mentioning. --zandperl (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is true. I've found no sources to say this is the case, and being from Herefordshire myself I have never heard of such a ban. None of the local media ever seem to have reported on it, and indeed the book continues to be promoted by the council. Tootsiesclaw (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Very Hungry Caterpillar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161123045649/http://www.slj.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/SLJ_Fuse8_Top100_Picture.pdf to http://www.slj.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/SLJ_Fuse8_Top100_Picture.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Warning
In 2015, Paris Review published a parody issue for April Fool's Day, which included a parody interview with TVHC author Eric Carle. Unfortunately, this parody interview was taken seriously by Clare Pollard, who included it in her 2019 history of children's books, and from there it was cited by other sources including Smithsonian.

Please do not add to the article any statements about Carle's publisher having insisted that the caterpillar experience a stomachache as punishment for gluttony. Thank you. DS (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch.--Droid I am (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Royal Entomological Society endorsement
I'm going to add a citation needed tag to this one. A cursory Google turns up quite a few results, but all very brief and echoing the language used by Wikipedia, which makes me fear there's some citogenesis going on here. The closest I can find to an actual reference is this blogpost: the post briefly mentions the book in (IMO) ambivalent light, and the author states at the end that they gave "a very condensed version of this talk at The Royal Entomological Society's annual meeting, ENTO18 last month". Could a talk at the RES AGM which possibly said that The Very Hungry Caterpillar "gives a positive view of insects" have become "an endorsement by the Royal Entomological Society" through the magic of Internet telephone, or can someone find a credible original source? --IslandHopper 973 03:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No. The blog post in question is from 2018, but the article history reveals that the RES detail was added in March 2011, and cited an educational resource at the RES's site for "National Insect Week". Regrettably, this educational resource doesn't seem to be on archive.org. DS (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGL 273 - Children's Literature
I am planning on making some changes to this article in the coming weeks. First, I plan on rewriting the lead, synopsis, development, UK releases, and ancillary products sections to eliminate irrelevant information and rewrite wordy and confusing information; this will make the article more concise and clearer. I will also be revising the reception section to include awards, endorsement, and bans to help bring the article in line with Wikipedia’s neutrality standards, as well as provide up-to-date information. I will also be adding a section on educational usage and influence separate from cultural influence; I have found a lot of research regarding the educational usage of the book and I believe the Wikipedia article should share the scholarly information available. I also plan on adding a section on publication history; this will bring the article closer to Wikipedia’s recommendations for articles about books. Ellekiko (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Male Dominated Narrative
"Male dominated narratives, like The Very Hungry Caterpillar, reinforce negative gender stereotypes; girls do not see themselves reflected in the book hurting their self perception." It's true that the caterpillar and most of the other animals in Carle's books happen to be male, so I don't think the sentence is THAT ridiculous. Were there a source specifically referring to Very Hungry Caterpillar as a male-dominated narrative, it would make sense to have that in the article. However, the cited sources appear to be talking about books with male human protagonists.2603:8081:2600:400:ACDA:810E:B679:23F0 (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * True. Furthermore, the source cited doesn't actually talk about TVHC. I will be removing that from the article. DS (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Cocoon vs. Chrysalis in the plot summary
It looks as if there have been several edits back and forth recently as to whether the plot summary says the caterpillar entered a chrysalis or entered a cocoon. The book says cocoon, but several edits to 'cocoon' by different users have been reverted back to 'chrysalis'. Yes, the book is wrong: A butterfly comes from a chrysalis. But surely it isn't our place to revise the book's content in a summary of the plot. After all, no-one has edited the list of foods to say that the caterpillar only ate leaves.

I have changed it to cocoon, but also added a small new Cocoon vs. Chrysalis section, with a citation to an article on the book's factual error. My hope is that, even if that section gets moved or changed, it can act as a new focal point for the chrysalis/cocoon debate instead of the plot summary itself, which should reflect the content of the book. Nition1 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)