This chapter explores the space between correspondence and response that is neglected by the materialist cum historicist approach taken by folklorists such as Jack Zipes and Anna Kérchy. Zipes writes: ‘Each innovative retelling and rewriting of a well-known tale in the cultural heritage is an independent human act seeking to align itself with the original utopian impulse of the first-told tale’ (Zipes, The Brothers Grimm 215). Though this statement basically traces the same line of approach followed by Kérchy, the most interesting connection is the point at which Kérchy’s sense of correspondence/response aligns with what Zipes frames as the ‘original utopian impulse’. This alignment seems to beg the introduction of an intermediary term, a utopian core to which a ‘core-response’ could be said to relate, thereby delineating the formal correspondence of texts from the ideological response of texts. When the core-response is one of utopian reification or recuperation (no matter how stylistically revisionary and/or superficially subversive), the narrative response is one that maintains this mythopoeic core – it both corresponds to and responds as a work of mythopoesis. However, when this utopianism and the ideologically loaded semiotic systems that support this utopianism become the subjects of profound doubt, are rendered indeterminate, or are eschewed altogether, the narrative can no longer be said to conform to the same literary mode and must, therefore, be placed within a separate mode and typological category. It is this relationship of correspondence and response that this chapter will analyse.