What do you think?
Rate this book
Saving Cinderella: What Feminists Get Wrong About Disney Princesses and How to Set It Right
It’s time to save Cinderella! Ready for a radical statement? Disney princesses aren’t anti-feminist. Until the 1990s, Disney princesses were role models for little girls, teaching them how to grow up into strong, centered, moral women. But then something terrible happened. A vocal minority of viewers and film critics (let’s call them “princess critics”) got hold of the narrative. They called Disney princesses “drips”, said they were “boring”, and boiled their dreams down to “husband hunting”. And Disney listened, churning out princesses who were virtue-signaling, man-hating puppets shouting the ideas of the princess critics. But the princess critics were wrong.
Each chapter in this book covers one of the eleven “official” Disney princesses (plus Elsa and Anna from Frozen, who aren’t yet “official”). In chronological order, the book will explore the themes, tropes, and symbolism of these movies, and the ways in which the princess critics have influenced our perceptions of them. And then it will prove the princess critics wrong.
Saving Cinderella rescues the Disney princess narrative from the princess critics, giving Disney fans everywhere the validation they need to proudly love the princesses they’ve always admired in secret.
Each chapter in this book covers one of the eleven “official” Disney princesses (plus Elsa and Anna from Frozen, who aren’t yet “official”). In chronological order, the book will explore the themes, tropes, and symbolism of these movies, and the ways in which the princess critics have influenced our perceptions of them. And then it will prove the princess critics wrong.
Saving Cinderella rescues the Disney princess narrative from the princess critics, giving Disney fans everywhere the validation they need to proudly love the princesses they’ve always admired in secret.
Audible Audio
Published May 30, 2019
62 people are currently reading
274 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
December 18, 2022
I’ve been talking to some people at work about the idea of writing a book on fairy tales. Or rather, using fairy tales as a way to explain how different social theories help show different things about texts. And so using Cinderella as the background text to show how Marx, Freud, Foucault, Derrida, Saussure, Butler and so on might have approached the text and what you might have learnt from them doing that. Different theories apply different lenses and those lenses allow you to see things that aren’t available without them. And so, I’ve started reading books on fairy tales to see what people say about them. And this is the first of the recent books on the topic I’ve read. It is a very conservative and sort of angry book. Some of what she has to say is quite interesting - but she is doing the exact opposite of what I’m hoping to do in my book if it ever eventuates.
To the author here, there is only one ‘proper’ reading of fairy tales. And the problem is that modern scholars - particularly feminists - have destroyed the ‘wisdom of the ages’ that fairy tales provide. Now, don’t get me wrong here - I do believe fairy tales do provide deep forms of wisdom - as Einstein is supposed to have said, if you want your children to be smart, read them fairy tales, and if you want them to be really smart, read them lots of fairy tales. Even if he never said that, I still think it is true.
At one point in this the author claimed that the main problem that feminists have with Beauty and the Beast is that Beauty is attracted to the beast as a form of beastiality. She quotes someone saying pretty much that. But really, it is such an absurd claim. That you can find someone on the ‘other side’ who says something stupid isn’t enough. You really should engage with the arguments they make, not the most extreme of those arguments. I think there is merit in the feminist argument that Beauty and the Beast teaches young girls that their love is enough to transform a male beast into someone deserving of their love. And I don’t think this is a particularly good lesson for young girls to learn. Quite the opposite - here in Australia over one woman a week is killed by an intimate partner. Presumably many of them thought that their love would be transformative in ways it proved not to be.
I’m not saying this is the only lesson Beauty and the Beast teaches. I’m not saying we shouldn’t tell kids this story. But to say that the transformative power of love is the basis of the story and to ignore the problematical aspects of it hardly seems worthwhile to me.
This is an ideologically driven book, one that provides strong arguments for the most traditional and conservative readings of these tales - particularly the versions that end up being made by Disney. It really isn’t that she has nothing worthwhile to say here - I particularly liked her Christian interpretation of Cinderella - it’s just I wish she had applied this same level of care and understanding to the arguments of her ‘enemies’ - in fact, I wish she didn’t have enemies at all. Oh well.
To the author here, there is only one ‘proper’ reading of fairy tales. And the problem is that modern scholars - particularly feminists - have destroyed the ‘wisdom of the ages’ that fairy tales provide. Now, don’t get me wrong here - I do believe fairy tales do provide deep forms of wisdom - as Einstein is supposed to have said, if you want your children to be smart, read them fairy tales, and if you want them to be really smart, read them lots of fairy tales. Even if he never said that, I still think it is true.
At one point in this the author claimed that the main problem that feminists have with Beauty and the Beast is that Beauty is attracted to the beast as a form of beastiality. She quotes someone saying pretty much that. But really, it is such an absurd claim. That you can find someone on the ‘other side’ who says something stupid isn’t enough. You really should engage with the arguments they make, not the most extreme of those arguments. I think there is merit in the feminist argument that Beauty and the Beast teaches young girls that their love is enough to transform a male beast into someone deserving of their love. And I don’t think this is a particularly good lesson for young girls to learn. Quite the opposite - here in Australia over one woman a week is killed by an intimate partner. Presumably many of them thought that their love would be transformative in ways it proved not to be.
I’m not saying this is the only lesson Beauty and the Beast teaches. I’m not saying we shouldn’t tell kids this story. But to say that the transformative power of love is the basis of the story and to ignore the problematical aspects of it hardly seems worthwhile to me.
This is an ideologically driven book, one that provides strong arguments for the most traditional and conservative readings of these tales - particularly the versions that end up being made by Disney. It really isn’t that she has nothing worthwhile to say here - I particularly liked her Christian interpretation of Cinderella - it’s just I wish she had applied this same level of care and understanding to the arguments of her ‘enemies’ - in fact, I wish she didn’t have enemies at all. Oh well.
May 9, 2025
I meant to take my time and read this slowly, but before I knew it I’d devoured the majority of it in one day and then the last bit of percent the next, it was that good and engrossing!
While I don’t agree with all the author’s thoughts and opinions about each of the princesses/movies, I do agree with most of them and especially how Disney bowed to the whims of people who just don’t get how fairy tales are supposed to be as they’re still doing that to this day. The biggest one I disagreed with was Mulan as I love that movie and think it needs to be taken out of the context of a “Disney Princess movie”, since it was never meant to be one to begin with, being a legend and not a fairy tale, and be judged more for its storytelling, both of which Pocahontas (which while I like I also had to laugh at her thoughts as she has a point and now I need to study it more clearly) and Brave (why all the bears again?) suffer from in different forms as their storytelling is, er, lacking in many ways, heh.
I really liked how she talked about fairy tale shorthand and what exactly those tales were trying to say as it’s something I’m fascinated by and really want to learn how to interpret better. Each princess/movie was thoughtfully presented and debunked, so much so I actually want to watch the ones I’ve never seen before, The Princess and the Frog (the whole they’re frogs most of the time thing kinda threw me off not gonna lie, lol) and Sleeping Beauty (at least I think so? I don’t recall any random scenes popping to life in my head so I think I must have skipped this one as a kid?). And as a rabid Tangled fan I especially loved her thoughts/take on it!
A wonderful resource and proof that these princesses are wonderful role models and strong women who deserve all the love and respect we can give them. Makes me want to go watch/rewatch the movies and form my own opinions on how I feel about them!
While I don’t agree with all the author’s thoughts and opinions about each of the princesses/movies, I do agree with most of them and especially how Disney bowed to the whims of people who just don’t get how fairy tales are supposed to be as they’re still doing that to this day. The biggest one I disagreed with was Mulan as I love that movie and think it needs to be taken out of the context of a “Disney Princess movie”, since it was never meant to be one to begin with, being a legend and not a fairy tale, and be judged more for its storytelling, both of which Pocahontas (which while I like I also had to laugh at her thoughts as she has a point and now I need to study it more clearly) and Brave (why all the bears again?) suffer from in different forms as their storytelling is, er, lacking in many ways, heh.
I really liked how she talked about fairy tale shorthand and what exactly those tales were trying to say as it’s something I’m fascinated by and really want to learn how to interpret better. Each princess/movie was thoughtfully presented and debunked, so much so I actually want to watch the ones I’ve never seen before, The Princess and the Frog (the whole they’re frogs most of the time thing kinda threw me off not gonna lie, lol) and Sleeping Beauty (at least I think so? I don’t recall any random scenes popping to life in my head so I think I must have skipped this one as a kid?). And as a rabid Tangled fan I especially loved her thoughts/take on it!
A wonderful resource and proof that these princesses are wonderful role models and strong women who deserve all the love and respect we can give them. Makes me want to go watch/rewatch the movies and form my own opinions on how I feel about them!
January 11, 2019
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a firm believer in Christ. I'm also far from being a feminist. And I absolutely love the truths that are present within every fairy tale. I love how the Gospel is echoed through fairy tales, and I believe that is why they have survived for so many centuries. The feminist backlash against Disney is not something I care much about, but I was interested in seeing a defense of Disney's fairy tales because they are so vastly different from the stories that have existed for ages. I was very curious to see what could be said for the Disney films. I do absolutely agree that there is far more to fairy tales than the feminists would believe, but I was not impressed with what this book had to offer. While there definitely were parts that were interesting, the book reached too far into an unhealthy ideology of the self and though it's written from the perspective of a Christian, I believe it misses the point of the Gospel in a number of ways.
If you are interested in fairy tales from more of a historical and literary perspective, I'd recommend looking up Angelina Stanford and listening to any of her talks she's given on the topic.
If you are interested in fairy tales from more of a historical and literary perspective, I'd recommend looking up Angelina Stanford and listening to any of her talks she's given on the topic.
October 22, 2019
I wanted to like this book. I was excited to read it even but I found myself doing a lot of eye rolling. Nearly as much as I do when the classic and early renaissance princesses get shit for being bad influences. What was with this fairy tale short hand business? I felt like I was missing something every time she said that. Same with the princess vs “princess” and prince vs “prince” like what? I also didn’t really care for the fact that she kept implying that one needed marriage and a family to truly be happy.
This review isn’t turning out to be very coherent but it’s hard to put my finger on just one thing that didn’t click with this book for me. I also didn’t get her issues with Brave and Frozen. Admittedly I’ve only seen Brave once but I don’t remember Merida saying or the movie implying she was never going to grow up and was going to stay with her parents forever. I’m not sure what the issue with subbing parental/child love or sibling/sibling love for romantic love is? The book wasn’t without good points but overall it just didn’t work for me and that bums me out.
This review isn’t turning out to be very coherent but it’s hard to put my finger on just one thing that didn’t click with this book for me. I also didn’t get her issues with Brave and Frozen. Admittedly I’ve only seen Brave once but I don’t remember Merida saying or the movie implying she was never going to grow up and was going to stay with her parents forever. I’m not sure what the issue with subbing parental/child love or sibling/sibling love for romantic love is? The book wasn’t without good points but overall it just didn’t work for me and that bums me out.
February 14, 2019
A charming, thorough examination of the complexity behind the simplicity of fairy tales, examining symbolism and the fairer sex representations in Disney's iconic films. With good humor and sharp wit, Moore offers a quiet but powerful rebuttal to the cultural call for more feminist-approved princesses, shifting the paradigm and digging into the fallacies political correctness seeks to hide. Moore fully lives up her title of Queen of the Princesses as she leads the charge to save them.
January 13, 2021
It’s so refreshing to listen to a common-sense discussion of how feminism has affected even the culture of Disney princesses. Unlike many girls, I didn’t grow up loving princesses, partly because I sort of fell in a gap. The “Original Heroines,” as Faith Moore coins Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty, were already old movies when I was a child, and The Little Mermaid didn’t come out until I was 11. I was already sort of past the make-believe stage of young girls pretending to be princesses by then. Still, I have seen most of the Disney princess movies at some point (The Princess and the Frog being the lone exception), so I could follow along with Faith’s analysis of the storylines of each movie. Beginning with Disney’s first princess movie, Snow White, all the way through their latest, Frozen, Moore examines each movie on its own merit and tackles criticisms from so-called “princess critics.”
I appreciate how Moore begins by explaining “fairy tale shorthand.” She says, “a prince represents true love, a witch represents the underlying tensions between mother and daughter, a dark forest is symbolic of transformation, etc. Each symbol and what it means remains constant from fairy tale to fairy tale, so that the listener implicitly understands the story’s moral underpinnings and gleans the fairy tale’s lesson.” If we don’t understand this shorthand, our modern-day sensibilities will balk at things like love at first sight. Looking back (and under the influence of princess critics), we might think Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora were passive, waiting around for a man to come rescue them. Faith Moore shows this is simply not true. Each of these princesses was resourceful, smart, kind, and had a mind of their own. Their stories are symbolic of growing up and coming of age, a concept that resonates with all of us.
After Sleeping Beauty, Disney took a long break before attempting another princess movie. The “Renaissance Princesses,” as Moore calls Ariel, Belle, and Jasmine, came next, and while Ariel and Belle more or less stick to the traditional princess narrative, Aladdin started to break away from it, in subtle ways we may not even notice. Most notably, through the way the movie portrays men. Moore explains, “Until Gaston from Beauty and the Beast, the villains in Disney princess movies were female, in keeping with the traditional fairy tale symbolism of the blossoming woman pitted against the spent old crone. But a feminist princess isn’t concerned with fairy tale symbolism. She’s fighting the patriarchy… With the exception of the genie in this film, the men are either evil, infantile, or in need of instruction in the feminist worldview. The sultan is a childish pushover—at one point we even see him alone in his room playing with toys—who struggles to assert his will. The villain, Jafar, is two-faced and toxic, and the hero, Aladdin, needs Jasmine to give him a stern talking-to before he figures out how to be a hero. ‘This,’ the movie seems to be saying, ‘is the state of manhood.’” This movie is what Moore calls “the beginning of the end.”
Next, Moore explores the “Historical Heroines,” Pocahontas (I wasn’t even aware she was a “princess”) and Mulan, both of which continue to stray further from the traditional narratives and cater more to feminist influences. Then Disney does a “Return to the Traditional” with The Princess and the Frog and Tangled, starring Tiana and Rapunzel. (I’m so relieved to learn that Rapunzel is largely free of feminist motifs, because Tangled is far and away my favorite Disney princess movie. If I’d been a little girl when this came out, I would be obsessed with Rapunzel. But I digress…) But then came “Disney Princesses in the Modern Age,” with Brave and Frozen, both of which get the entire fairy tale shorthand completely wrong.
This was a fascinating and important look at each of the Disney princess movies, and provides a good starting point of discussion. As a mom of two girls, this would be a great book to read together, one chapter at a time, before (or after) watching each of the movies together in turn. There are important lessons to be learned from the movies if only we know how to interpret them. As Moore reminds us in her epilogue, “If we are going to take the princesses back from the feminists—and we can—we have to remind them of what a fairy tale truly is. It’s an allegory for growing up.”
I appreciate how Moore begins by explaining “fairy tale shorthand.” She says, “a prince represents true love, a witch represents the underlying tensions between mother and daughter, a dark forest is symbolic of transformation, etc. Each symbol and what it means remains constant from fairy tale to fairy tale, so that the listener implicitly understands the story’s moral underpinnings and gleans the fairy tale’s lesson.” If we don’t understand this shorthand, our modern-day sensibilities will balk at things like love at first sight. Looking back (and under the influence of princess critics), we might think Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora were passive, waiting around for a man to come rescue them. Faith Moore shows this is simply not true. Each of these princesses was resourceful, smart, kind, and had a mind of their own. Their stories are symbolic of growing up and coming of age, a concept that resonates with all of us.
After Sleeping Beauty, Disney took a long break before attempting another princess movie. The “Renaissance Princesses,” as Moore calls Ariel, Belle, and Jasmine, came next, and while Ariel and Belle more or less stick to the traditional princess narrative, Aladdin started to break away from it, in subtle ways we may not even notice. Most notably, through the way the movie portrays men. Moore explains, “Until Gaston from Beauty and the Beast, the villains in Disney princess movies were female, in keeping with the traditional fairy tale symbolism of the blossoming woman pitted against the spent old crone. But a feminist princess isn’t concerned with fairy tale symbolism. She’s fighting the patriarchy… With the exception of the genie in this film, the men are either evil, infantile, or in need of instruction in the feminist worldview. The sultan is a childish pushover—at one point we even see him alone in his room playing with toys—who struggles to assert his will. The villain, Jafar, is two-faced and toxic, and the hero, Aladdin, needs Jasmine to give him a stern talking-to before he figures out how to be a hero. ‘This,’ the movie seems to be saying, ‘is the state of manhood.’” This movie is what Moore calls “the beginning of the end.”
Next, Moore explores the “Historical Heroines,” Pocahontas (I wasn’t even aware she was a “princess”) and Mulan, both of which continue to stray further from the traditional narratives and cater more to feminist influences. Then Disney does a “Return to the Traditional” with The Princess and the Frog and Tangled, starring Tiana and Rapunzel. (I’m so relieved to learn that Rapunzel is largely free of feminist motifs, because Tangled is far and away my favorite Disney princess movie. If I’d been a little girl when this came out, I would be obsessed with Rapunzel. But I digress…) But then came “Disney Princesses in the Modern Age,” with Brave and Frozen, both of which get the entire fairy tale shorthand completely wrong.
This was a fascinating and important look at each of the Disney princess movies, and provides a good starting point of discussion. As a mom of two girls, this would be a great book to read together, one chapter at a time, before (or after) watching each of the movies together in turn. There are important lessons to be learned from the movies if only we know how to interpret them. As Moore reminds us in her epilogue, “If we are going to take the princesses back from the feminists—and we can—we have to remind them of what a fairy tale truly is. It’s an allegory for growing up.”
December 24, 2018
Holy cow - someone actually GETS IT!
I follow Faith K. Moore’s Disney Princess Addict Facebook page and I’ve read her blog and, I have to say, after growing up hearing critics dumping on Disney princesses and fairy tales in general, it is sooooo refreshing to hear someone talk about why these stories are so good and valuable. The symbolism of being a princess, the value of innate feminine traits, what “Happily Ever After” really means (and it’s not just marrying Prince Charming, though that is an important aspect of the story). I was going to pace my reading of this book out over the course of the Christmas break, but I couldn’t help but devour it in the course of not-quite-two-days.
I loved her take on the early Disney princesses - how those stories were purely symbolic and that Walt Disney didn’t feel the need to smack audiences over the head with the lesson about growing up and maturing into adulthood. We inherently knew these things as children - it’s all these so-called “educated” adults who ruin it by being so danged literal all the time.
Also, I was practically tap-dancing with glee over Moore’s takedown of”Pocahontas,” because even as a ten-year-old girl, I knew that movie was garbage and I am so sick of feminist critics proclaiming it was the second coming of princess movies 🤮
(Hey, critics - How many times are you going to characterize a new Disney Princess as a departure from the traditional Princess? Get a new narrative - it’s been the same thing for the past 30-odd years. Sheesh.)
Anyway, if you love traditional Disney Princesses and want to see an intelligent critic explain why those traditions give you all the warm fuzzies, “Saving Cinderella” is HIGHLY recommended. And it’s even pretty affordable on Kindle (yay indie publishing!!)
I follow Faith K. Moore’s Disney Princess Addict Facebook page and I’ve read her blog and, I have to say, after growing up hearing critics dumping on Disney princesses and fairy tales in general, it is sooooo refreshing to hear someone talk about why these stories are so good and valuable. The symbolism of being a princess, the value of innate feminine traits, what “Happily Ever After” really means (and it’s not just marrying Prince Charming, though that is an important aspect of the story). I was going to pace my reading of this book out over the course of the Christmas break, but I couldn’t help but devour it in the course of not-quite-two-days.
I loved her take on the early Disney princesses - how those stories were purely symbolic and that Walt Disney didn’t feel the need to smack audiences over the head with the lesson about growing up and maturing into adulthood. We inherently knew these things as children - it’s all these so-called “educated” adults who ruin it by being so danged literal all the time.
Also, I was practically tap-dancing with glee over Moore’s takedown of”Pocahontas,” because even as a ten-year-old girl, I knew that movie was garbage and I am so sick of feminist critics proclaiming it was the second coming of princess movies 🤮
(Hey, critics - How many times are you going to characterize a new Disney Princess as a departure from the traditional Princess? Get a new narrative - it’s been the same thing for the past 30-odd years. Sheesh.)
Anyway, if you love traditional Disney Princesses and want to see an intelligent critic explain why those traditions give you all the warm fuzzies, “Saving Cinderella” is HIGHLY recommended. And it’s even pretty affordable on Kindle (yay indie publishing!!)
January 17, 2022
This was a really fun read at first. I had a lot of laughs in part one. I was really surprised that one of the princesses she took issue with was Pocahontas. She’s my favorite and not what I would consider feminist or politically correct. I actually live in fear of Disney doing one of their woke, live-action remakes of it.
I assumed it would be about the more recent ones but Jasmine(I get it), Pocahontas(how dare you?), and Mulan(fair enough) were relentlessly mocked. It wasn’t just that she took issue with them, she absolutely dragged them for filth. Wigs were snatched.
I think her issue with them was the reaction to them by the “princess critics” more than the actual princesses themselves but instead of ridiculing the critics’ logic, she did it to the princesses. In a way, she sort of did to them what the critics did to the ones she enjoyed.
The last 2 parts of the books dragged on a lot. Not sure I agree with it being an issue that some of the newer ones are more about love of family than romantic love.
So I guess what I’m really trying to say is that I enjoyed the perspectives, it became less light-hearted joking and more evil stepsister(kidding). It was an interesting read though and good points were made.
I assumed it would be about the more recent ones but Jasmine(I get it), Pocahontas(how dare you?), and Mulan(fair enough) were relentlessly mocked. It wasn’t just that she took issue with them, she absolutely dragged them for filth. Wigs were snatched.
I think her issue with them was the reaction to them by the “princess critics” more than the actual princesses themselves but instead of ridiculing the critics’ logic, she did it to the princesses. In a way, she sort of did to them what the critics did to the ones she enjoyed.
The last 2 parts of the books dragged on a lot. Not sure I agree with it being an issue that some of the newer ones are more about love of family than romantic love.
So I guess what I’m really trying to say is that I enjoyed the perspectives, it became less light-hearted joking and more evil stepsister(kidding). It was an interesting read though and good points were made.
February 14, 2024
This was a book that I had some high hopes for an interest since I was part of the generation that grew up with the conflicting grasp of the princesses. Although I was never a fan of the much older princesses, which my sister seemed to enjoy more, I was set on Ariel and eventually Jasmine with the series that came out for the Aladdin. But it most definitely confused me and even more so that Jasmine wouldn't consider herself a prize to be won when in fact she should be as any sane person should be when entering into the competitive world of dating and relationships.
Anyway in Saving Cinderella, Faith Moore sets out the mostly highly favored Disney princesses from Snow White to Elsa and Anna to explore how well these once favored princesses now fare when it comes to the job of role models for future generations. And that is where it seems to fall to pieces for this book. In the start of the book the author mentioned that she was going to put down why she thought the princesses were good or not but then afterwards the book becomes a challenge to those critics who favor feminism whether they read the book or not.
At the same time the author chose that each chapter needed to summarize the movie even though most readers will know the movies by heart, especially if they were raised Disney such as I was. From there the book hit the same points over and over, included most often quoted lyrics from the songs and was quite rabid about challenging princess critics whom I am strongly leaning as will never pick-up this book to start with.
In all honesty I would have formatted the book quite differently by collecting all the princess challenges in one area while then slowly debunking them with examples and possibly even some lyrics as they may have related to the point. Furthermore Pocahontas wouldn't have made the list as she is barely recognized in the Disney Princess franchise most of the time and since she is based off a real character it makes it hard for anyone to actually make a story that resembles the other movies that hers is being compared to.
At the same time, though, if you can get through slogging through the whole mess there are most definitely some valid points made about each princess as well as where their movie stands in the unraveling of Disney as a great film producer. And the author does also at times also confirm when the older models are just a bit on the weird and/or annoying side.
All in all it was an okay read but not one that I will be revisiting soon. Instead I would love for Jordan Peterson to publish some of his Disney analyses that he used in his classroom to teach students about psychology in a book as that would most definitely be something interesting to read about.
Anyway in Saving Cinderella, Faith Moore sets out the mostly highly favored Disney princesses from Snow White to Elsa and Anna to explore how well these once favored princesses now fare when it comes to the job of role models for future generations. And that is where it seems to fall to pieces for this book. In the start of the book the author mentioned that she was going to put down why she thought the princesses were good or not but then afterwards the book becomes a challenge to those critics who favor feminism whether they read the book or not.
At the same time the author chose that each chapter needed to summarize the movie even though most readers will know the movies by heart, especially if they were raised Disney such as I was. From there the book hit the same points over and over, included most often quoted lyrics from the songs and was quite rabid about challenging princess critics whom I am strongly leaning as will never pick-up this book to start with.
In all honesty I would have formatted the book quite differently by collecting all the princess challenges in one area while then slowly debunking them with examples and possibly even some lyrics as they may have related to the point. Furthermore Pocahontas wouldn't have made the list as she is barely recognized in the Disney Princess franchise most of the time and since she is based off a real character it makes it hard for anyone to actually make a story that resembles the other movies that hers is being compared to.
At the same time, though, if you can get through slogging through the whole mess there are most definitely some valid points made about each princess as well as where their movie stands in the unraveling of Disney as a great film producer. And the author does also at times also confirm when the older models are just a bit on the weird and/or annoying side.
All in all it was an okay read but not one that I will be revisiting soon. Instead I would love for Jordan Peterson to publish some of his Disney analyses that he used in his classroom to teach students about psychology in a book as that would most definitely be something interesting to read about.
February 19, 2019
This book crossed my radar when the author appeared on the AMA (Ask Me Anything) slot in the Facebook group Fairy Tale Forum. I was intrigued by her claim that ‘princess critics,’ who say the Disney princesses are negative role models for our little girls, have completely misunderstood the films.
As I returned to fairy tales as a middle aged woman, and read retellings and critiques of them, I saw Cinderella, Snow White and Sleeping Beauty through the eyes of feminism. These girls sat or slept through their stories only to get rewarded with wealthy suitors. Disney was at fault for focussing on the soppy-girl stories: a careful study of Grimm, or the collections of Joseph Campbell, for instance, will bring up a score of more proactive girls, brave, kind, loyal to their families, and not averse to lopping off a few ogre heads. They didn’t have such good marketing behind them, though, and rows of doe-eyed Cinderellas, Snow Whites and Sleeping Beauties, joined by Belles and Rapunzels, still sparkle on countless shop shelves, while the sight of a little girl joining her mother in the weekly supermarket shop dressed as Elsa from Frozen is an everyday sight.
Faith Moore takes each Disney princess, from Snow White, through historical figures like Pocahontas and Mulan to Elsa and Anna in Frozen, and examines how the princess narrative was formed, developed and adapted in the light of criticism. Her careful study of the events, dialogue and song lyrics has given her ammunition for her argument that these early girls are in fact great role models – kind, brave, positive in the light of trials, criticised unfairly for lack of agency, because what is a girl with no resources of her own to do? Leave home and live under a bridge? She goes on to show that Disney uses fairy tale symbolism, and so ‘princess’ is shorthand for adulthood, coming into your own, being the person you were meant to be, while ‘prince’ means someone who recognises that girl for who she really is, under the rags. As Faith moves through the princesses, she argues that a misunderstanding of Disney’s message led to a distortion of the coming-of-age narrative, with films like Pocahontas letting down the audience, and Frozen sending out curious mixed messages.
Clearly argued in everyday language, this book is very easy to read and there was not one dull moment. Its style is chatty and casual despite the subject matter, so very accessible. Personally, I think the eye-rolling at feminist misunderstanding of the films is unwise, but this is my only criticism. I’ve enjoyed looking with fresh eyes at the Disney princess films. I’m unfamiliar with many of them, my children having grown up by the time some were released, but now I feel inspired to make up the deficit!
As I returned to fairy tales as a middle aged woman, and read retellings and critiques of them, I saw Cinderella, Snow White and Sleeping Beauty through the eyes of feminism. These girls sat or slept through their stories only to get rewarded with wealthy suitors. Disney was at fault for focussing on the soppy-girl stories: a careful study of Grimm, or the collections of Joseph Campbell, for instance, will bring up a score of more proactive girls, brave, kind, loyal to their families, and not averse to lopping off a few ogre heads. They didn’t have such good marketing behind them, though, and rows of doe-eyed Cinderellas, Snow Whites and Sleeping Beauties, joined by Belles and Rapunzels, still sparkle on countless shop shelves, while the sight of a little girl joining her mother in the weekly supermarket shop dressed as Elsa from Frozen is an everyday sight.
Faith Moore takes each Disney princess, from Snow White, through historical figures like Pocahontas and Mulan to Elsa and Anna in Frozen, and examines how the princess narrative was formed, developed and adapted in the light of criticism. Her careful study of the events, dialogue and song lyrics has given her ammunition for her argument that these early girls are in fact great role models – kind, brave, positive in the light of trials, criticised unfairly for lack of agency, because what is a girl with no resources of her own to do? Leave home and live under a bridge? She goes on to show that Disney uses fairy tale symbolism, and so ‘princess’ is shorthand for adulthood, coming into your own, being the person you were meant to be, while ‘prince’ means someone who recognises that girl for who she really is, under the rags. As Faith moves through the princesses, she argues that a misunderstanding of Disney’s message led to a distortion of the coming-of-age narrative, with films like Pocahontas letting down the audience, and Frozen sending out curious mixed messages.
Clearly argued in everyday language, this book is very easy to read and there was not one dull moment. Its style is chatty and casual despite the subject matter, so very accessible. Personally, I think the eye-rolling at feminist misunderstanding of the films is unwise, but this is my only criticism. I’ve enjoyed looking with fresh eyes at the Disney princess films. I’m unfamiliar with many of them, my children having grown up by the time some were released, but now I feel inspired to make up the deficit!
December 5, 2023
I love fairy tales especially princess fairy tales and I have enjoyed many of the Disney princess movies so I was interested to read this analysis of the Disney princesses. I think the author makes some great points about the symbolism in fairy tales and the importance of the symbolic messages for young girls as well as women. I didn't agree with all of her analysis but much of what she said confirmed my own thoughts on the subject.
Unfortunately, the chapters often read like an English 101 term paper. I want to share the message with my daughter and daughters-in-law but I wish the quality of writing were better.
During the Snow White chapter, I felt like she was a little bit condescending toward women who do not stay at home full time. I wish she had not engaged in the "mommy wars". I was a stay at home mom myself but I understand that is not always feasible and is an individual choice dependent on so many variables. Whether a woman stays home full time, works outside the home part-time, or pursues a full-time career, the message of the fairy tale princesses is beneficial to all of us.
Unfortunately, the chapters often read like an English 101 term paper. I want to share the message with my daughter and daughters-in-law but I wish the quality of writing were better.
During the Snow White chapter, I felt like she was a little bit condescending toward women who do not stay at home full time. I wish she had not engaged in the "mommy wars". I was a stay at home mom myself but I understand that is not always feasible and is an individual choice dependent on so many variables. Whether a woman stays home full time, works outside the home part-time, or pursues a full-time career, the message of the fairy tale princesses is beneficial to all of us.
January 28, 2020
Soooo when I first heard about this book I liked the general concept - it annoys me when people criticize some of the older Princesses as being "bad role models" because I think they have lots of admirable traits. So the idea that this book might be "saving Cinderella" and showing how princesses are positive figures was a nice thing for me. However, it ended up being more painting the original princesses as good role models and all the recent ones as terrible. I really wish it didn't feel like she was attacking "Princess critics" so much as just being positive about the good that the princesses have to offer.
For some brief positives I will say that because of what I was hoping the book would be, I did like a lot of the initial chapters concerning earlier princesses. In particular I appreciated her defense of Ariel - a princess who is often criticized for doing "everything for a man." In the book Moore states that "Eric is the catalyst, not the motivation." Ariel isn't just going after some guy she's only seen, she really just wants to be part of the human world, and he's the closest she's gotten so far. It gives her a more concrete reason to become "part of that world."
However, once we get to Jasmine everything went downhill for me. At one point she states that "Jasmine's pole vaulting skills make her, somehow, more attractive to Aladdin, even though they say absolutely nothing about her inner character." I strongly disagree. Jasmine's actions show bravery, a willingness to try new things and take chances, and those ARE attractive traits. It's things like this that are constantly being said about the more modern princesses and things that bother me.
She goes on to say that "Of all these Disney princesses, I'd say Pocahontas is the least fiercely independent or free spirited of the bunch." And by the time we get to Mulan... I was honestly starting to get a little upset. She constantly disses feminists, stating that "Because, surely, implying that, in order to be taken seriously, a girl must be able to successfully embody male traits, implies that male traits are better than female ones." Noooo. Real feminism is about equality. That's the whole point.
But my biggest issue with the ideas in this book is the one that implies that romantic love is "necessary." She tries to insist that this is the message of Princess and the Frog, but I couldn't disagree more. I think that movie is just supporting love in general, and Tiana happens to find it with Naveen. Not that she NEEDS it. Because holy smokes. I know so many AMAZING women who are not married or coupled for various reasons. They have friends and family who love them dearly and they don't NEED a man. That message in this book made me a little sick to be honest, and not what I would want to instill in a daughter. Even though I personally am happily married, I'd want girls to know that they can be independent, strong, and complete without marriage.
She has a big problem with the later movies that don't involve romantic love, particularly Frozen (because it turns everything on it's head with the idea that Anna thinks it's romantic love that will save her, but it's actually familial love). She actually describes Anna's finding true love in her sister as "icky." To me this just seems like such a narrow view of what love is.
Moore also continually talks about how things are done a certain way in older fairy tales because that's the fairy tale format, and the newer ones are somehow lesser because they don't follow that same format. I don't think it's a bad thing that Disney has chosen a different take to stories now. They are growing and changing with the times and their movies are modern interpretations, not just straight retellings.
And finally, a little more nitpicky - she writes the name of the kingdom as Frozen as "Arundel" multiple times. I had a pretty early e-book copy of this book so I'm hoping it was fixed in later editions, but it just makes me question how much research was really done when you don't even know how to spell Arandelle.
I originally had a few more positive things to say and was leaning two stars, but the whole second half of the book was such a difficult read that I just can't.
For some brief positives I will say that because of what I was hoping the book would be, I did like a lot of the initial chapters concerning earlier princesses. In particular I appreciated her defense of Ariel - a princess who is often criticized for doing "everything for a man." In the book Moore states that "Eric is the catalyst, not the motivation." Ariel isn't just going after some guy she's only seen, she really just wants to be part of the human world, and he's the closest she's gotten so far. It gives her a more concrete reason to become "part of that world."
However, once we get to Jasmine everything went downhill for me. At one point she states that "Jasmine's pole vaulting skills make her, somehow, more attractive to Aladdin, even though they say absolutely nothing about her inner character." I strongly disagree. Jasmine's actions show bravery, a willingness to try new things and take chances, and those ARE attractive traits. It's things like this that are constantly being said about the more modern princesses and things that bother me.
She goes on to say that "Of all these Disney princesses, I'd say Pocahontas is the least fiercely independent or free spirited of the bunch." And by the time we get to Mulan... I was honestly starting to get a little upset. She constantly disses feminists, stating that "Because, surely, implying that, in order to be taken seriously, a girl must be able to successfully embody male traits, implies that male traits are better than female ones." Noooo. Real feminism is about equality. That's the whole point.
But my biggest issue with the ideas in this book is the one that implies that romantic love is "necessary." She tries to insist that this is the message of Princess and the Frog, but I couldn't disagree more. I think that movie is just supporting love in general, and Tiana happens to find it with Naveen. Not that she NEEDS it. Because holy smokes. I know so many AMAZING women who are not married or coupled for various reasons. They have friends and family who love them dearly and they don't NEED a man. That message in this book made me a little sick to be honest, and not what I would want to instill in a daughter. Even though I personally am happily married, I'd want girls to know that they can be independent, strong, and complete without marriage.
She has a big problem with the later movies that don't involve romantic love, particularly Frozen (because it turns everything on it's head with the idea that Anna thinks it's romantic love that will save her, but it's actually familial love). She actually describes Anna's finding true love in her sister as "icky." To me this just seems like such a narrow view of what love is.
Moore also continually talks about how things are done a certain way in older fairy tales because that's the fairy tale format, and the newer ones are somehow lesser because they don't follow that same format. I don't think it's a bad thing that Disney has chosen a different take to stories now. They are growing and changing with the times and their movies are modern interpretations, not just straight retellings.
And finally, a little more nitpicky - she writes the name of the kingdom as Frozen as "Arundel" multiple times. I had a pretty early e-book copy of this book so I'm hoping it was fixed in later editions, but it just makes me question how much research was really done when you don't even know how to spell Arandelle.
I originally had a few more positive things to say and was leaning two stars, but the whole second half of the book was such a difficult read that I just can't.
October 23, 2024
Disney princesses are not at the top of the priority list of feminist issues.
The only feminists who have taken ill with them are a select few of chronically online, liberal choice feminists (whom Moore conflates with radical feminists - a typical assumption from conservative protestors because they don’t understand what they’re talking about where women’s liberation movements are concerned) whose articles bemoaning the malignancy of fabricated princesses are, admittedly, a bit silly. Thus, the book is predicated on a strawman premise: a quest to take down no-good feminists who hate femininity and spit on love.
(I am a feminist - though not the kind Faith Moore thinks exists - and I love fairy tales. Many traditional fairy tales aren’t about romance; they’re about death, human folly, and errant children. Great stuff. My favorite Disney princess, by the way, is Rapunzel.)
I did appreciate some of Moore’s interpretations of familiar fairy tale stories. There’s immense importance in dissecting well-known stories from new angles and discovering (or rediscovering) how they resonate with people across cultures and ages - that is, after all, what makes fairy tales timeless. The analyses at first (on Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora) are fairly standard, with a bit of a Freudian bent (symbols are subconsciously sexual). The chapter on Belle is probably the best-constructed and best-argued one. Moore even admits that a self-professed feminist (Linda Woolverton) wrote the best, most complex Disney princess film ( Beauty and the Beast) - so that sort of undermines a lot of what Moore asserts about how feminists are incapable of nuance of understanding the princess character.
When the book reaches the chapter on Jasmine, Moore really begins to crack down on Evil Feminism.
Moore claims that Disney’s princesses after Jasmine were “doomed to become man-hating” - but I can’t think of a single Disney heroine, princess or otherwise, who explicitly or implicitly hates men.
Then Moore criticizes the storyline of Pocahontas as follows:
Very early on, the movie sets up the “unenlightened” European attitude and negatively juxtaposes it to the “enlightened” Indian way of life. “Remember what awaits us there,” the evil Governor Ratcliffe tells his men. “Freedom, prosperity, and the adventure of our lives!” These ideals - the inherently American ideals of freedom, prosperity, adventure - are wrong, the movie tells us. We know because the bad guy believes in them and couples them with killing Indians - whom he calls “bloodthirsty savages” - and assuming personal wealth. And the men, blindly following Ratcliffe, believe in these things too. Pg. 140
Yes, that’s what most of the men who sailed to the “New World” believed. They abused their ideals of prosperity and adventure to murder other humans (whom they did refer to as “savages”) who got in the way of their assumed freedom. Moore calls this “idealogy” but it quite literally is not - it’s just the history of North America.
Then Moore gripes about how “backward” Native Americans were because they didn’t have European inventions, and that “we are living the life that people like John Smith claimed for us” which is a sort of White Supremacy Lite that I didn’t anticipate reading in a book about Disney princesses. (She ends her rant by writing, verbatim, “nah nah nah nah boo boo,” which is funny because earlier in the Pocahontas chapter, Moore complains about Pocahontas being childish.)
Moore is very upset at Disney’s Pocahontas because she’s convinced that it’s feminist propaganda. I don’t view Pocahontas as a feminist figure or the film as a feminist allegory in any way. (If anything, the film is about the beauty and sanctity of the natural world and the importance of protecting indigenous traditions in the face of social change.) But to someone with a hammer, everything is a nail.
Then, on Pg. 151:
It shouldn’t be feminist to give up on love.
It isn’t.
It shouldn’t be feminist to give up on your dreams. It shouldn’t be, but it is.
It isn’t, though. This is not a problem that exists in real life.
Now, Mulan.
It was a childhood favorite and I still love it to this day. I have no bad things to say about 1998’s Mulan. It’s beautifully animated, funny, has memorable music, and the protagonist is a passionate misfit.
But according to Moore, Mulan is about “a princess who literally has to become a man in order to prove her worth.”
I know Moore understands story themes and metaphors because she applied them to other Disney princesses she discussed. But somehow, Mulan is meant to be taken very literally and not examined for deeper meaning.
I…am uncomfortable with what [the film] tells little girls about being a girl…Implying that, in order to be taken seriously, a girl must be able to successfully embody male traits, implies that male traits are the goal. Surely this, in turn, implies that male traits are better than female ones. Is that really what we want to tell little girls? Pg. 153
That is certainly one interpretation. But I sincerely believe that is not what the film implies at all, nor what the film is even about. Moore seems to not understand some baseline things about the Mulan story in general - a story based on a Chinese folk tale. A lot of things she criticizes Disney for (like the idea of girls bringing honor to their families by marrying well) are just literal aspects of Chinese culture - especially in Imperial China.
Moving onto the only hand-drawn Disney princess film of the 21st century, Moore declares that the theme of The Princess and the Frog is that “nothing matters if you don’t have love - romantic love…Without it, you might as well give up on your entrepreneurial dreams.”
Our culture places romantic love (specific expressions of it, at that) on a pedestal. It is, for many people, an idol. It certainly seems like one for Faith Moore, with her assertation that if you are a woman your life has no true meaning outside of the romantic affections of a man and that if you find yourself, as a woman, romantically unattached, no other dreams of yours truly matter (because you have nothing to strive for).
As a feminist, I don’t believe that every woman must be a feminist. But outrightly implying that a woman’s life has no purpose outside of romance is a bit regressive, no? And as a Christian, implying so is deeply antithetical to the teachings of Christ that Moore claims to adhere to. Romantic love, in her view, is the highest of the high. “Romantic love…completes us and fulfills us in ways that nothing else can (Pg.220)” - except, like, the love of God? If God is not at the center of our love - romantic or otherwise - our love is unstable.
Moore seems to believe that love has one meaning and one ultimate way it can be expressed (heterosexual, on a culturally acceptable timeline, leading to the culmination of the Western nuclear family). But love has many different flavors. Romantic love is a bit like dessert. Dessert is awesome! Most people want it. But is it necessary for a fully realized life? Not really - certainly not all of the time, and in all instances. Sugar is, however. Humans need sugar for our bodies and brains to function. But sugar comes in many forms - fruit, for example. Or pasta. Sure, most people would say that life is better with dessert, and I agree - but dessert is not the pinnacle or purpose of one’s life.
(Moore cements this view by describing a pure love outside of romance - such as in the case of Merida and her mother, or between sisters Elsa and Anna - as “yucky,” “icky,” and “creepy.” Because again, to Moore, the only love that really “counts” is eros between a man and a woman.)
“[Romantic love is] the thing that shows us that we’re going to be okay,” says Moore, Pg. 241. “That we can leave our parents, and go out into the world, and do the things we want to do. It shows us that someone other than our parents can love us.”
Not only is this a bizarre, single-minded take on the subject of love (and definitely projection), but Moore seems like she’s admitting she doesn’t have any close friends (or is that…icky?).
In Faith Moore’s world, there is one right way to be a woman and one right way to be a grown-up. Only men have “base urges” - that women’s graces are made to “tame.” Men and women possess intrinsically opposing male/female natures that “fit together like puzzle pieces” (complementarianism, a deeply patriarchal worldview that I won’t be dissecting here). Women realize their full (mature) selves by uniting themselves romantically (sexually) with a man (“A woman who rejects the prospect of romantic love entirely rejects her adulthood” declares the author on Pg. 215).
These ideas - born of male dominance and rejecting the deep complexities and individuality of each human person - are the real fairy tales, in the end.
The only feminists who have taken ill with them are a select few of chronically online, liberal choice feminists (whom Moore conflates with radical feminists - a typical assumption from conservative protestors because they don’t understand what they’re talking about where women’s liberation movements are concerned) whose articles bemoaning the malignancy of fabricated princesses are, admittedly, a bit silly. Thus, the book is predicated on a strawman premise: a quest to take down no-good feminists who hate femininity and spit on love.
(I am a feminist - though not the kind Faith Moore thinks exists - and I love fairy tales. Many traditional fairy tales aren’t about romance; they’re about death, human folly, and errant children. Great stuff. My favorite Disney princess, by the way, is Rapunzel.)
I did appreciate some of Moore’s interpretations of familiar fairy tale stories. There’s immense importance in dissecting well-known stories from new angles and discovering (or rediscovering) how they resonate with people across cultures and ages - that is, after all, what makes fairy tales timeless. The analyses at first (on Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora) are fairly standard, with a bit of a Freudian bent (symbols are subconsciously sexual). The chapter on Belle is probably the best-constructed and best-argued one. Moore even admits that a self-professed feminist (Linda Woolverton) wrote the best, most complex Disney princess film ( Beauty and the Beast) - so that sort of undermines a lot of what Moore asserts about how feminists are incapable of nuance of understanding the princess character.
When the book reaches the chapter on Jasmine, Moore really begins to crack down on Evil Feminism.
Moore claims that Disney’s princesses after Jasmine were “doomed to become man-hating” - but I can’t think of a single Disney heroine, princess or otherwise, who explicitly or implicitly hates men.
Then Moore criticizes the storyline of Pocahontas as follows:
Very early on, the movie sets up the “unenlightened” European attitude and negatively juxtaposes it to the “enlightened” Indian way of life. “Remember what awaits us there,” the evil Governor Ratcliffe tells his men. “Freedom, prosperity, and the adventure of our lives!” These ideals - the inherently American ideals of freedom, prosperity, adventure - are wrong, the movie tells us. We know because the bad guy believes in them and couples them with killing Indians - whom he calls “bloodthirsty savages” - and assuming personal wealth. And the men, blindly following Ratcliffe, believe in these things too. Pg. 140
Yes, that’s what most of the men who sailed to the “New World” believed. They abused their ideals of prosperity and adventure to murder other humans (whom they did refer to as “savages”) who got in the way of their assumed freedom. Moore calls this “idealogy” but it quite literally is not - it’s just the history of North America.
Then Moore gripes about how “backward” Native Americans were because they didn’t have European inventions, and that “we are living the life that people like John Smith claimed for us” which is a sort of White Supremacy Lite that I didn’t anticipate reading in a book about Disney princesses. (She ends her rant by writing, verbatim, “nah nah nah nah boo boo,” which is funny because earlier in the Pocahontas chapter, Moore complains about Pocahontas being childish.)
Moore is very upset at Disney’s Pocahontas because she’s convinced that it’s feminist propaganda. I don’t view Pocahontas as a feminist figure or the film as a feminist allegory in any way. (If anything, the film is about the beauty and sanctity of the natural world and the importance of protecting indigenous traditions in the face of social change.) But to someone with a hammer, everything is a nail.
Then, on Pg. 151:
It shouldn’t be feminist to give up on love.
It isn’t.
It shouldn’t be feminist to give up on your dreams. It shouldn’t be, but it is.
It isn’t, though. This is not a problem that exists in real life.
Now, Mulan.
It was a childhood favorite and I still love it to this day. I have no bad things to say about 1998’s Mulan. It’s beautifully animated, funny, has memorable music, and the protagonist is a passionate misfit.
But according to Moore, Mulan is about “a princess who literally has to become a man in order to prove her worth.”
I know Moore understands story themes and metaphors because she applied them to other Disney princesses she discussed. But somehow, Mulan is meant to be taken very literally and not examined for deeper meaning.
I…am uncomfortable with what [the film] tells little girls about being a girl…Implying that, in order to be taken seriously, a girl must be able to successfully embody male traits, implies that male traits are the goal. Surely this, in turn, implies that male traits are better than female ones. Is that really what we want to tell little girls? Pg. 153
That is certainly one interpretation. But I sincerely believe that is not what the film implies at all, nor what the film is even about. Moore seems to not understand some baseline things about the Mulan story in general - a story based on a Chinese folk tale. A lot of things she criticizes Disney for (like the idea of girls bringing honor to their families by marrying well) are just literal aspects of Chinese culture - especially in Imperial China.
Moving onto the only hand-drawn Disney princess film of the 21st century, Moore declares that the theme of The Princess and the Frog is that “nothing matters if you don’t have love - romantic love…Without it, you might as well give up on your entrepreneurial dreams.”
Our culture places romantic love (specific expressions of it, at that) on a pedestal. It is, for many people, an idol. It certainly seems like one for Faith Moore, with her assertation that if you are a woman your life has no true meaning outside of the romantic affections of a man and that if you find yourself, as a woman, romantically unattached, no other dreams of yours truly matter (because you have nothing to strive for).
As a feminist, I don’t believe that every woman must be a feminist. But outrightly implying that a woman’s life has no purpose outside of romance is a bit regressive, no? And as a Christian, implying so is deeply antithetical to the teachings of Christ that Moore claims to adhere to. Romantic love, in her view, is the highest of the high. “Romantic love…completes us and fulfills us in ways that nothing else can (Pg.220)” - except, like, the love of God? If God is not at the center of our love - romantic or otherwise - our love is unstable.
Moore seems to believe that love has one meaning and one ultimate way it can be expressed (heterosexual, on a culturally acceptable timeline, leading to the culmination of the Western nuclear family). But love has many different flavors. Romantic love is a bit like dessert. Dessert is awesome! Most people want it. But is it necessary for a fully realized life? Not really - certainly not all of the time, and in all instances. Sugar is, however. Humans need sugar for our bodies and brains to function. But sugar comes in many forms - fruit, for example. Or pasta. Sure, most people would say that life is better with dessert, and I agree - but dessert is not the pinnacle or purpose of one’s life.
(Moore cements this view by describing a pure love outside of romance - such as in the case of Merida and her mother, or between sisters Elsa and Anna - as “yucky,” “icky,” and “creepy.” Because again, to Moore, the only love that really “counts” is eros between a man and a woman.)
“[Romantic love is] the thing that shows us that we’re going to be okay,” says Moore, Pg. 241. “That we can leave our parents, and go out into the world, and do the things we want to do. It shows us that someone other than our parents can love us.”
Not only is this a bizarre, single-minded take on the subject of love (and definitely projection), but Moore seems like she’s admitting she doesn’t have any close friends (or is that…icky?).
In Faith Moore’s world, there is one right way to be a woman and one right way to be a grown-up. Only men have “base urges” - that women’s graces are made to “tame.” Men and women possess intrinsically opposing male/female natures that “fit together like puzzle pieces” (complementarianism, a deeply patriarchal worldview that I won’t be dissecting here). Women realize their full (mature) selves by uniting themselves romantically (sexually) with a man (“A woman who rejects the prospect of romantic love entirely rejects her adulthood” declares the author on Pg. 215).
These ideas - born of male dominance and rejecting the deep complexities and individuality of each human person - are the real fairy tales, in the end.
March 4, 2019
An insightful and educated rebuttal to the likes of "Cinderella Ate My Daughter," looking at the history and symbolism of fairy tales and how Disney princesses have extolled the virtues and truths that have led these stories to endure across cultures and generations. Moore's writing style is clear, easy to read, and fun. Like a good fairy tale, her book moves briskly, but has much of meaning to say. Even when my take on a particular princess is not exactly in line with hers, she provides solid food for thought on her perspective. (FYI, I wanted to stand up and cheer through her analyses of the first 5 princesses and the things that don't work in Brave and Frozen. I am more charitable toward Jasmine and Mulan, though there were points I agreed with there, too.) Moore reminds readers why these stories endure and highlights how short-sighted it is to try to make these stories to be read first and foremost as products of their time, meant to be taken at surface level. She speaks and understands the language of fairy tales: one where the beauty on the surface often reflects an even deeper beauty within. A great read for a time that strives to ignore it subvert that deeper layer.
October 28, 2019
I've been a huge Disney fan ever since I was little. As a huge bookworm, I've wanted to be Belle for as long as I can remember, but I love all the Disney princesses dearly (with the exception of Pocahontas... and I'm not sure how I feel about Merida and Elsa). I'm not a hardcore feminist, by any means, but I've always been a bit distressed by feminist critiques. I didn't believe these critiques, but I did wonder "they say Cinderella sat around waiting for a prince to come and save her... that is kind of what it looks like... maybe they're right?" I knew there was more to it than that, but I didn't know how to defend the Disney princesses on my own. Enter this book. I'm currently a senior in college, as an English major, and I absolutely LOVE Moore's English Major-y approach to each Disney princess and her story. After reading her analysis of each princess movie, I love these movies even more, and in addition, I finally feel like I know why I love them, and I feel like I'm able to defend why I love them to others! I cannot recommend this book enough to any Disney fan. These princesses are great role models and have great stories to tell, and they deserve defenders!
September 27, 2023
(2.5) I really, really wanted to love this book. I loved the premise of the book—that feminists have gotten the princess movies very wrong and that a correction is needed. I actually quite enjoyed Faith Moore’s analysis of the modern reception of princess movies. I thought she did a wonderful job of showing where feminists get it wrong with these movies, and she pointed out many things that I had never noticed. However. I completely could not get behind what Moore thinks is going on in fairytales, and so her alternate analysis of the movies left me cold. Had she been able to get out of the Freudian interpretations that are so popular in folklore academic work and looked at them on a deeper level I think she would have been better off. I would have liked to see her draw less on Bettelheim, and more on Tolkien, Lewis, Northrop Frye and the Grimm brothers themselves.
May 11, 2019
I must admit, halfway through chapter 3, thinking "Why am I reading a book about Disney princesses? I'm a DUDE!"
Ah, but I'm a dude who is a father of daughters, and I have seen all these movies. I know which ones I like and which ones, darn the luck, I just can't seem to find when requested by an in-house would-be princess.
What I hadn't done, until now, is spend much time thinking about what makes these stories tick. Ms. Moore has done all the thinking and presents it in a light, witty, engaging, sometimes personal tour of all the Disney princess movies.
I intended to read only a chapter or two to evaluate whether "Saving Cinderella" would make a good Mother's Day present. It would (and it will). Turns out, it's good reading for fathers too!
Ah, but I'm a dude who is a father of daughters, and I have seen all these movies. I know which ones I like and which ones, darn the luck, I just can't seem to find when requested by an in-house would-be princess.
What I hadn't done, until now, is spend much time thinking about what makes these stories tick. Ms. Moore has done all the thinking and presents it in a light, witty, engaging, sometimes personal tour of all the Disney princess movies.
I intended to read only a chapter or two to evaluate whether "Saving Cinderella" would make a good Mother's Day present. It would (and it will). Turns out, it's good reading for fathers too!
April 1, 2019
This book was a pure delight! An intelligent and engaging analysis of the history, meaning, and cultural impact of fairy tales in general, and the Disney princesses in particular. This book also helped me understand why I like certain princess movies (Cinderella, Tangled) and why I really don’t like others (Pocahontas, Brave). I found myself thinking, “Wow! So that’s why I feel that way!”
On top of all that, this book is laugh-out-loud funny. I was nearly suffocating with laughter during the chapter on Pocahontas. Moore’s wit (and occasional biting sarcasm) are a joy to behold.
A must-read for Disney Princess fans!
On top of all that, this book is laugh-out-loud funny. I was nearly suffocating with laughter during the chapter on Pocahontas. Moore’s wit (and occasional biting sarcasm) are a joy to behold.
A must-read for Disney Princess fans!
June 25, 2019
“Who you are inside is much more important than what you look like outside.”
“The important thing, you see, isn’t what you want, it’s who you are.”
This was an excellent book that opened my eyes to “why” I have always loved Fairy Tales (and particularly, The Little Mermaid). The author goes through each Disney princess and explains the symbolism and the strengths (and weaknesses) of each of them. It’s unfortunate that Disney has eschewed the traditional fairy tale narrative and trappings to kowtow to the princess critics. I’m glad to have read this book to vindicate my love for these princess stories/movies.
“The important thing, you see, isn’t what you want, it’s who you are.”
This was an excellent book that opened my eyes to “why” I have always loved Fairy Tales (and particularly, The Little Mermaid). The author goes through each Disney princess and explains the symbolism and the strengths (and weaknesses) of each of them. It’s unfortunate that Disney has eschewed the traditional fairy tale narrative and trappings to kowtow to the princess critics. I’m glad to have read this book to vindicate my love for these princess stories/movies.
November 27, 2019
The auther is waaaaaay invested int he Disney princess aura/trope/mystique and though she presents scholarship on the NO side, and attempts to rebut said scholarship for her YES side, her own scholarship is simply opinion. Lots and lots and lots of opinions that stretch credulity and leave me behind, scratching my head and puzzled. Not for me, I abandoned early. PS - I read the paperback edition, same cover.
March 17, 2019
Finally someone who gets it!
In a world full of horrible messages for little girls it is so refreshing to read this book! I will definitely re-read this with my daughter once she is old enough do dig deeper into the princess symbology.
In a world full of horrible messages for little girls it is so refreshing to read this book! I will definitely re-read this with my daughter once she is old enough do dig deeper into the princess symbology.
August 2, 2024
Disney’s adaptations of classic fairy tale and folk stories like Cinderella have charmed girls across generations, but as the decades pass they’ve been subject to increasing criticism that the early princesses were passive sillyhearts lying around waiting to be rescued. Disney’s efforts to create more active princesses have been met with approval on release — see The Little Mermaid and Aladdin — only to be attacked in subsequent years. Well, stuff and nonsense, says Faith Moore: the early princesses were not passive or weak, and Disney’s recent attempts at making more empowered princesses have only succeeded in missing what makes princesses special: the inner beauty of character, not the ability to pole-vault. This is an interesting study of Disney’s attempts at creating modern stories from fairytales over the years, which I enjoyed despite not being the ideal audience for.
This probably goes without saying, but I’m not a Disney princess kind of guy. I enjoyed the movies as a kid, but despite my love of musicals, the only films I’ve rewatched over the years are The Lion King and Aladdin. I’ve seen none of the newer films, except for the live-action remakes of those same classics. Recently, though, I discovered a podcast called Storytime for Grownups, where the author of this book delves into classic literature. She’s currently doing a series comparing Jane Eyre to the classic story of “Beauty and the Beast”. I’ve enjoyed it enormously, so I was eager to give this book a shot.
Saving Cinderella covers every princess-ish movie from Snow White to Frozen, The author analyzes the characters, their growth, and the storytelling style. We start with Snow White, which is pure fairytale, with its characters functioning more as symbols than fully developed persons — especially the nameless Prince.The author argues that critics often misunderstand the early Disney movies’ essential nature, particularly the importance of symbols. Consider the dress in Cinderella: it isn’t merely a dress. Cinderella could have gone to the ball in one of her stepsisters’ dresses and looked perfectly pretty. However, the magical dress serves to bring her inner beauty—her kindness, resilience, etc.—to the surface, making it visible. There’s always enchantment in these stories, and symbols like The Woods as a place of transformation play into that. Ultimately, Disney’s princess stories are fundamentally about growing up and accepting one’s status and responsibilities as an adult — and specifically, Moore argues, accepting one’s development as a woman capable of entering into a mature, loving relationship and beginning a family. This isn’t the case for some of the princesses here, but (she argues) the story is so much the worse for that. Presumably some readers will harrumph and scream at the idea that the ideal end for every woman and man is to pair up, but there is a reason there are eight billion humans and a very healthy romance-book market despite the west’s modern cynicism about love. In addition to examining how each movie handles the fundamental “growing up” theme — its version of the hero’s journey — Moore also addresses each princess directly, defending and critiquing — sometimes both, in the case of Sleeping Beauty. Some examples: she points out that Arial gave her voice up to be human, not for a man, and that Belle did not try to “fix the Beast”, but rather inspired him to want to overcome his own beastliness (like Melvin in As Good as it Gets), etc. With many of the stories I’m not able to comment, having not read them, but I always appreciate someone going to bat for maligned and abused stories.
This probably goes without saying, but I’m not a Disney princess kind of guy. I enjoyed the movies as a kid, but despite my love of musicals, the only films I’ve rewatched over the years are The Lion King and Aladdin. I’ve seen none of the newer films, except for the live-action remakes of those same classics. Recently, though, I discovered a podcast called Storytime for Grownups, where the author of this book delves into classic literature. She’s currently doing a series comparing Jane Eyre to the classic story of “Beauty and the Beast”. I’ve enjoyed it enormously, so I was eager to give this book a shot.
Saving Cinderella covers every princess-ish movie from Snow White to Frozen, The author analyzes the characters, their growth, and the storytelling style. We start with Snow White, which is pure fairytale, with its characters functioning more as symbols than fully developed persons — especially the nameless Prince.The author argues that critics often misunderstand the early Disney movies’ essential nature, particularly the importance of symbols. Consider the dress in Cinderella: it isn’t merely a dress. Cinderella could have gone to the ball in one of her stepsisters’ dresses and looked perfectly pretty. However, the magical dress serves to bring her inner beauty—her kindness, resilience, etc.—to the surface, making it visible. There’s always enchantment in these stories, and symbols like The Woods as a place of transformation play into that. Ultimately, Disney’s princess stories are fundamentally about growing up and accepting one’s status and responsibilities as an adult — and specifically, Moore argues, accepting one’s development as a woman capable of entering into a mature, loving relationship and beginning a family. This isn’t the case for some of the princesses here, but (she argues) the story is so much the worse for that. Presumably some readers will harrumph and scream at the idea that the ideal end for every woman and man is to pair up, but there is a reason there are eight billion humans and a very healthy romance-book market despite the west’s modern cynicism about love. In addition to examining how each movie handles the fundamental “growing up” theme — its version of the hero’s journey — Moore also addresses each princess directly, defending and critiquing — sometimes both, in the case of Sleeping Beauty. Some examples: she points out that Arial gave her voice up to be human, not for a man, and that Belle did not try to “fix the Beast”, but rather inspired him to want to overcome his own beastliness (like Melvin in As Good as it Gets), etc. With many of the stories I’m not able to comment, having not read them, but I always appreciate someone going to bat for maligned and abused stories.
October 11, 2022
I really wanted to like this book. It was recommended to me by a fellow children's theater teacher, and since we mainly do Disney productions, I thought it would be great to have an eloquent defense of the classic princess stories. It took me months to get through this. It not for the recommendation by a friend I would have given up after the first section. It's not that I disagree with Moore's premise or her conclusions, I actually think they are valid and important. I just didn't love her methods.
One issue for me was with the writing style. Moore uses a lot of words in quotes that don't need to be in quotes, a lot of thoughts in parentheses, and a lot of redundant descriptions. Maybe not everyone is as familiar as I am with the stories and the song lyrics and needed the refresher but it made the book seem to drag on and on. The important content probably could have been covered in an essay rather than a book. I would sum it up in one sentence: fairy tales are meant to be symbolic and princesses make great role models when you understand that their stories of transformation reveal how they exhibit strength, courage and kindness.
The biggest issue I had was the Pocahontas chapter. Instead of simply explaining what she disliked about the movie and how it differs from the traditional princess fairy tales in ways that makes Pocahontas a poor role model, Moore ridicules Native American culture. She goes beyond taking issue with how Disney chose to represent the culture and traditions and is shockingly critical about those traditions.
Moore addresses princess critics rather than a wider audience. I think it unlikely that she can persuade any true princess critics to come to her way of thinking and should instead focus not on how wrong these critics are but why her own opinions are important. Maybe a gentler approach would be better received by those who claim middle ground. Present the evidence and let people reach their own conclusions rather than word-screaming at them.
One issue for me was with the writing style. Moore uses a lot of words in quotes that don't need to be in quotes, a lot of thoughts in parentheses, and a lot of redundant descriptions. Maybe not everyone is as familiar as I am with the stories and the song lyrics and needed the refresher but it made the book seem to drag on and on. The important content probably could have been covered in an essay rather than a book. I would sum it up in one sentence: fairy tales are meant to be symbolic and princesses make great role models when you understand that their stories of transformation reveal how they exhibit strength, courage and kindness.
The biggest issue I had was the Pocahontas chapter. Instead of simply explaining what she disliked about the movie and how it differs from the traditional princess fairy tales in ways that makes Pocahontas a poor role model, Moore ridicules Native American culture. She goes beyond taking issue with how Disney chose to represent the culture and traditions and is shockingly critical about those traditions.
Moore addresses princess critics rather than a wider audience. I think it unlikely that she can persuade any true princess critics to come to her way of thinking and should instead focus not on how wrong these critics are but why her own opinions are important. Maybe a gentler approach would be better received by those who claim middle ground. Present the evidence and let people reach their own conclusions rather than word-screaming at them.
July 7, 2025
I recommend this book! It gives such great insight into Princess Disney symbolism!
I am so grateful that is someone who finally understands and agree with my opinion of not liking Frozen! Same with Brave.
I think she was a little harsh on Aurora (I love Aurora) but it wasn’t too bad. And also Mulan (I love Mulan as well).
I love her perspectives on Pocahontas, and Aladdin. It made me see those movies a little differently or explain things I felt but couldn’t quite find words for. I still love Aladdin but it made me understand Jasmine a little more and appreciate other things/characters in that movie.
I wish there was one for Moana though I can guess what she would say about. Maybe she can do an extra insert or something for it.
It did seem like she wrote this book very quickly and maybe needed to spend a little more time on it. The writing voice she uses is a little “know it all” or like “reactive” to Disney Princess feminists. But I guess it is a reaction to their claims. And there were quite a few spelling mistakes. But nothing you wouldn’t understand what she was saying.
I am so grateful that is someone who finally understands and agree with my opinion of not liking Frozen! Same with Brave.
I think she was a little harsh on Aurora (I love Aurora) but it wasn’t too bad. And also Mulan (I love Mulan as well).
I love her perspectives on Pocahontas, and Aladdin. It made me see those movies a little differently or explain things I felt but couldn’t quite find words for. I still love Aladdin but it made me understand Jasmine a little more and appreciate other things/characters in that movie.
I wish there was one for Moana though I can guess what she would say about. Maybe she can do an extra insert or something for it.
It did seem like she wrote this book very quickly and maybe needed to spend a little more time on it. The writing voice she uses is a little “know it all” or like “reactive” to Disney Princess feminists. But I guess it is a reaction to their claims. And there were quite a few spelling mistakes. But nothing you wouldn’t understand what she was saying.
April 10, 2019
A thought-provoking read. There were definitely some times I felt the author was a little harsh on feminists, but, for the most part, I thought she was spot on in identifying the mindset against princesses (namely Disney princesses) and why some of the more modern Disney Princess tales just didn’t work.
At times I found her voice a little over the top in an effort not to offend, but for the most part I enjoyed the lighthearted defense of princesses. She was able to put into words why many of the modern Disney princess characters failed at the box office, and it really wasn’t due to feminism, but due to the symbolic nature of fairy tales, which most people tend to blatantly disregard these days. (I mean, who cares about symbolism anymore?!)
However, I’m a classicist. And so this is a book that I might come back to in order to strengthen the symbolism in my own fairy tales.
Overall, a read well worth the time. And it made me want to rewatch some classic Disney movies.
At times I found her voice a little over the top in an effort not to offend, but for the most part I enjoyed the lighthearted defense of princesses. She was able to put into words why many of the modern Disney princess characters failed at the box office, and it really wasn’t due to feminism, but due to the symbolic nature of fairy tales, which most people tend to blatantly disregard these days. (I mean, who cares about symbolism anymore?!)
However, I’m a classicist. And so this is a book that I might come back to in order to strengthen the symbolism in my own fairy tales.
Overall, a read well worth the time. And it made me want to rewatch some classic Disney movies.
August 9, 2022
Faith writes in a very conversational style, kinda like a big sister. Being closer to her father's age, this didn't hit me as well as she intended. Be that as it may, I still recommend her book for the message she shares and the time she has invested in thinking through the ramifications of The Princess story. I learned a lot about the intention and import of this storyline, and one would have to be quite stubborn to deny the impact it has on a little girl.
Were this book around when my own were littles, I'd have read it and used it for reference to make sure that my girls were getting the right and wrong messages. With the newer Disney films, I often knew I found them unsettling and felt off-step with culture. Saving Cinderella helped me to pinpoint why. She stopped writing with Frozen. I can only imagine her response to Moana! I can fairly hear her, "Yuck!"
Were this book around when my own were littles, I'd have read it and used it for reference to make sure that my girls were getting the right and wrong messages. With the newer Disney films, I often knew I found them unsettling and felt off-step with culture. Saving Cinderella helped me to pinpoint why. She stopped writing with Frozen. I can only imagine her response to Moana! I can fairly hear her, "Yuck!"
March 5, 2019
The old princesses are inspiring
Amazing. I love Disney princess films and never saw any problems with them so I didn't get what princess critis had against them. Now I can defend myself about why someone should watch them.
Saving Cinderella is a great look into why princess critis are wrong to judge the old movies.
Amazing. I love Disney princess films and never saw any problems with them so I didn't get what princess critis had against them. Now I can defend myself about why someone should watch them.
Saving Cinderella is a great look into why princess critis are wrong to judge the old movies.
September 19, 2021
thank you for believing
I found out about this book from Faiths father Andrew Klavan. Being in my 50's & still loving fairytales, I had to check it out.
Enjoyed the way she broke down each story, did not necessarily agree with every aspect.But did get new insight into Frozen .
She shows us how the feminist are trying to ruin a wonderful adventure.
A good quick read.
I found out about this book from Faiths father Andrew Klavan. Being in my 50's & still loving fairytales, I had to check it out.
Enjoyed the way she broke down each story, did not necessarily agree with every aspect.But did get new insight into Frozen .
She shows us how the feminist are trying to ruin a wonderful adventure.
A good quick read.
March 11, 2023
I was totally sold until the author talked about those who don't want a romantic relationship or to have children are having a less fulfilled life. I'm aromantic and I don't want kids, my life is great I'm not missing out by not having things I don't want.
Honestly your life isn't whole without a romantic relationship and kids is probably one of the most sexist things in all of this.
Honestly your life isn't whole without a romantic relationship and kids is probably one of the most sexist things in all of this.
March 15, 2019
Illuminating read on a fun and important topic
I so enjoyed the clarity and insight of this well written book that transports us back to our formative childhood fairytales, while looking deeply at why women (and little girls) love our princess stories.
I so enjoyed the clarity and insight of this well written book that transports us back to our formative childhood fairytales, while looking deeply at why women (and little girls) love our princess stories.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews