What do you think?
Rate this book
Once Upon a Time There Was Truth: or, Why We Need Fairy Tales
Fairy tales take us to a world where magic is commonplace, where wishing works, where the conflicts in our hearts are literalized in the world around us. The living, vibrant, democratic genre of the fairy tale draws stories from people and places all over the globe, and spreads them just as broadly. Yet in a world exhausted by war, famine, climate devastation, and political strife, are these tales still valid? Are they merely an escape, or are they something more? The eminent folklorist Jack Zipes argues here that fairy tales remain relevant and powerful, that they still speak truth to power. Indeed, he writes, we cannot do without them.
In this collection of essays on such beloved tales as “Hansel and Gretel” and “Puss in Boots”; on the authors L. Frank Baum, E. T. A. Hoffmann, and the Brothers Grimm; and on the dubious influence of Disney, Zipes introduces readers to the history of the fairy tale and explores why the stories retain such a fierce hold on our imagination. He argues vigorously for the fighting utopian spirit the tales uphold—something our world sorely needs.
In this collection of essays on such beloved tales as “Hansel and Gretel” and “Puss in Boots”; on the authors L. Frank Baum, E. T. A. Hoffmann, and the Brothers Grimm; and on the dubious influence of Disney, Zipes introduces readers to the history of the fairy tale and explores why the stories retain such a fierce hold on our imagination. He argues vigorously for the fighting utopian spirit the tales uphold—something our world sorely needs.
200 pages, Hardcover
First published April 21, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 6, 2026
The titular query of why we need fairy tales did not feel truly addressed in this anthology based on the author, Jack Zipes’, essays and lectures until the very final epilogue where we receive ten pages of discussion on the topic. The rest of these chapters feel like history lessons on fairy tale authors - which are insightful, provide context for the discussion, and are enjoyable for the most part.
However, I, myself, had a difficult time agreeing with Zipes’ opinions - both on these seemingly gifted but often immoral authors (Zipes’ obvious idolatry pulses with bias), and on what requirements a fairy tale must have to be deemed important in the genre.
I had most certainly wished this book to be something different when its cover and title called to me from the shelf.
However, I, myself, had a difficult time agreeing with Zipes’ opinions - both on these seemingly gifted but often immoral authors (Zipes’ obvious idolatry pulses with bias), and on what requirements a fairy tale must have to be deemed important in the genre.
I had most certainly wished this book to be something different when its cover and title called to me from the shelf.
May 19, 2026
I personally have a number of complaints against this text. I will limit myself to these two:
1. Only in the very short epilogue do gestures towards the concept of “hope” as engendered in the fairy tale find any kind of full expression even approximating a defense of why we need the genre. Really, what I think Zipes is saying is that we need ways to voice A) our frustration with our current societies and cultural norms, and B) our (utopian) visions for how these might be improved. That’s all well and good. But what is so problematic for his project in this book, though, is that he spends a considerable amount of time detailing how influential authors and creators have used the fairy tale to do the exact opposite - i.e. defend patriarchal ideals, rationalize the abuse of children, domesticate and commodify the imagination, demonize women, and reinforce oppressive gender norms. Demonstrating that the genre has so readily lent itself to such pernicious uses does not constitute a very convincing argument for its necessity - even if some writers have apparently used it for good.
2. Yet even authors for whom Zipes cannot withhold his praise are deeply problematic. For example, for all his supposed “utopian spirit,” we hear that L. Frank Baum “wrote derogatory remarks about Native Americans” while running a newspaper in South Dakota. Zipes assures us that we should not be surprised by such “contradictions.” However, we should certainly be shocked that the "derogatory remarks” to which Zipes refers included a call for genocide: “The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are. History would forget these latter despicable beings, and speak, in later ages, of the glory of these grand Kings of forest and plain that Cooper loved to heroism.” (Saturday Pioneer, December 20, 1890). It seems impossible to fully square such remarks with Zipes’ claim that Baum “wrote from his heart with the hope that humans might be able to generate a world that was much more kind and humane than the world in which he lived” (141). The reader is left wondering what else has not been divulged about the many other authors under discussion.
1. Only in the very short epilogue do gestures towards the concept of “hope” as engendered in the fairy tale find any kind of full expression even approximating a defense of why we need the genre. Really, what I think Zipes is saying is that we need ways to voice A) our frustration with our current societies and cultural norms, and B) our (utopian) visions for how these might be improved. That’s all well and good. But what is so problematic for his project in this book, though, is that he spends a considerable amount of time detailing how influential authors and creators have used the fairy tale to do the exact opposite - i.e. defend patriarchal ideals, rationalize the abuse of children, domesticate and commodify the imagination, demonize women, and reinforce oppressive gender norms. Demonstrating that the genre has so readily lent itself to such pernicious uses does not constitute a very convincing argument for its necessity - even if some writers have apparently used it for good.
2. Yet even authors for whom Zipes cannot withhold his praise are deeply problematic. For example, for all his supposed “utopian spirit,” we hear that L. Frank Baum “wrote derogatory remarks about Native Americans” while running a newspaper in South Dakota. Zipes assures us that we should not be surprised by such “contradictions.” However, we should certainly be shocked that the "derogatory remarks” to which Zipes refers included a call for genocide: “The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are. History would forget these latter despicable beings, and speak, in later ages, of the glory of these grand Kings of forest and plain that Cooper loved to heroism.” (Saturday Pioneer, December 20, 1890). It seems impossible to fully square such remarks with Zipes’ claim that Baum “wrote from his heart with the hope that humans might be able to generate a world that was much more kind and humane than the world in which he lived” (141). The reader is left wondering what else has not been divulged about the many other authors under discussion.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews