Fairy tales have stood the test of time as a reflection of the values society strives to preserve in children’s literature. Case in point, we all remember Little Red Riding Hood–a young girl with a basket of baked goods sets off to see Granny, but ignores her mothers warnings and wanders off the right path. She meets a cunning wolf, and comes awfully close to meeting her end.

Maybe it was the way the wolf followed her through the woods, watching Little Red’s movements with unsettling interest, or perhaps it was the horrifying image of her being swallowed whole–nothing more than a morsel, helpless inside the belly of a beast. Regardless, for a children’s story, this was scary stuff. 

Little girls everywhere saw themselves in Red and agreed…

“As long as I live, I will never leave the path and run off into the woods by myself if mother tells me not to” (Brothers Grimm, 1812).

As impressionable children, we absorbed the story–whether through picture books or animated film–and learned a lesson: listen to your parents lest you meet your maker. 

And so, all the children of the world behaved, with the path to well-being clearly paved by obedience. But that’s not the only version of this story. In fact, it’s not even the original. The tale was first told by French writer Charles Perrault as Le Petit Chaperon Rouge, and his version unfolds quite differently.

Little Red receives no warning and breaks no rules. Instead, she simply stumbles upon the wolf, and falls victim to his deception just as any polite young girl might innocently trust the words of an adult. But unlike the aforementioned version, her fate is final—eaten and fully digested.

Though similar in premise, the two versions of the tale differ greatly in their circumstances and moral lessons. In the Western world, we’ve long embraced the Brothers Grimm for their “realistic” takes on classic stories, which have become staples of children’s education and are deeply ingrained in our cultural consciousness.

However, it’s telling that we’ve become so attached to the version that places the blame on a young girl. It suggests that her disobedience made her susceptible to male manipulation, rather than recognizing the presence of predatory men as an inevitable cruelty of the world–serving as a stark warning to real young girls.

Perhaps in the eyes of the Brothers Grimm, Little Red would have been safe if she had simply stayed on the right path. But who can guarantee that the wolf will only be waiting in the forest? How could her mother’s warnings protect her then?

This story, retold and reimagined across centuries in countless forms, still reflects a modern problem that calls for a modern solution, with the timeless moral of obeying your parents only taking us so far. Yet, ironically, Perrault had already provided one. So why have we chosen to forget it?

In Perrault’s telling, Red’s downfall isn’t due to disobedience, but rather a harsh reality of the world—the existence of predatory men. While both versions spotlight the danger posed by the wolf, who appears menacing only to the reader, Perrault makes one thing clear: Little Red could never have known his true intentions–being young, innocent, and trusting.

At this early stage in her life, her lessons have centered around politeness, which is evident in the way she stops to answer his questions. The author describes a “poor child, who did not know that it was dangerous to stay and talk to a wolf.” And how could she have known? This wolf is polite, well-spoken, and even insists on visiting her dear old Granny, provided that she tells him where her house is.

In the end, Little Red falls for his tricks, and both she and her grandmother are devoured. There is no heroic rescue, no second chance. Perrault’s version is a cautionary tale: children must be careful of who they trust. It teaches young readers how to recognize a predator, no matter how they might look or act at first. This lesson, in turn, helps protect them from abuse in any circumstance, regardless of where they are or who they’re with.

In contrast, the moral preached by the Brothers Grimm revolves around obedience, a lesson endlessly adored by lazy parents as the catch-all solution to problems inside and outside the household. This message–which will eternally have childrens’ media in a chokehold–becomes almost troubling when you consider that Little Red is still subject to the same series of events in their version of the story; the wolf is hungry, and she is naive.

The only difference now is that the story becomes simpler: crime and punishment, right and wrong. Little Red disobeyed her mother and strayed from the path, so she suffered accordingly. But is it truly a child’s fault for innocently believing in the inherent goodness of a stranger, politely answering his questions, and ultimately finding herself at the mercy of a man who takes advantage of her kindness?

The Grimm version sends a stark message: Little Red’s fate was her own fault, and the only way for children to stay safe from predators is to obey their parents.

---

Perrault teaches a much more nuanced, and arguably more useful, lesson that better reflects the realities of our world.

---

Perrault teaches a much more nuanced, and arguably more useful, lesson that better reflects the realities of our world. His version presents a truth that many people are reluctant to face and many parents are reluctant to teach—there are predators out there, and not all of them look like the snarling beasts we’ve been taught to fear.

Young girls may see the world through Little Red’s eyes, unable to recognize the danger, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. So, Perrault directly addresses them at the end of the story: 

“Children, especially attractive, well bred young ladies, should never talk to strangers, for if they should do so, they may well provide dinner for a wolf.  I say “wolf,” but there are various kinds of wolves. There are also those who are charming, quiet, polite, unassuming, complacent, and sweet, who pursue young women at home and in the streets. And unfortunately, it is these gentle wolves who are the most dangerous ones of all” (Perrault, 1697).

Even though the Brothers Grimm version of the story is favored, what we achieve in their account is not the protection of young children. Rather, we carelessly condemn young girls for the “crime” of innocence, when instead, they could be learning how to recognize real dangers. 

Even more troubling, we deprive them of the chance to learn the now-whispered truth of male predation they may one day encounter. Imagine the impact it could have if we taught children to recognize danger on their own, giving them the tools to navigate a world filled with those who prey on the young.  

The world of Little Red Riding Hood may be full of dark forests and cunning wolves, but as our own world grows ever scarier, the lessons of the original tale resonate more than ever. This is about giving our kids a fighting chance, not just to obey, but to understand and protect themselves from those who would exploit their trust.

Some may balk at the idea of putting Perrault’s version back on children’s bookshelves, but I would argue that Little Red Riding Hood is remembered for a reason: it’s frighteningly relevant. It doesn’t need to just be a fairy tale that teaches obedience–it can be a lesson in survival.

---

CHARLES PERRAULT (1628-1703) was a French writer and a member of the Académie Française. Perrault’s fairy tales were hugely influential to generations of writers that came after, including the Brothers Grimm who published their collections of local magical tales a century later.

Perrault’s Fairy Tales can be purchased here.

THE BROTHERS GRIMM, Jacob (1785–1863) and Wilhelm Grimm (1786–1859), were German academics, philologists, cultural researchers, lexicographers and authors who together collected and published folklore during the nineteenth century. They were among the first and best-known collectors of folk tales, and the top dozen most translated authors in the world.

Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales can be purchased here.