In my opinion (and my considerable experience being a girl), the characters with long-lasting appeal are rooted in actual literature. They're lovely marketing versions of your fantasies (and what little girl doesn't fantasize about being a fairy? certainly not me, I was a fairy princess for Halloween several years running). Other than Tinkerbell, though, these fairies are all too intentional and it's my belief they'll also fall to a growing trend away from "stuff."

It's interesting that Disney chose fairies as its future, as they're also the icons of another movement: Waldorf. Every Waldorf store I've ever visited is filled with fairy equipment: flowy silk scarves, little wings, wooden wands, wide gossamer skirts. Fairies are central to the imaginative play focus of Waldorf educators, and even families who raise their children mindful of other educational philosophies (like Montessori and Reggio-Emilia, or even Unschooling) tend to be hip to the fairy love.

There's just one problem with the Disney-ifying of fairies for this (large and growing) subgroup of parents: they're highly suspicious of children's media, and usually name names. Disney is at the top of every Waldorf parent's sh!#list.

Tinkerbell will continue to be popular, but my prediction is that the fairy franchise as a whole won't have the lasting resonance that the princess franchise did. Little girls -- and little boys, like my son, Everett, who's pictured here -- either want their fairies "real" (as in, with a serious literary history) or entirely imaginary. And a very big segment of the fairy-obsessed population is growing up in households that forbid Disney from darkening their playroom doors.

There are many reasons I don't believe Disney has a growth story in this economy; and though the Tinkerbell craze looks good now, I don't think it will prove to be the next coming of the Mouse. My money is staying away from Disney still.