Meg Murray misses her father deeply. He vanished years ago when her younger brother Charles Wallace was just a baby. Meg often feels adrift.

At school, she is made to feel left out and dumb. At home too, she has the same feelings. Her older brothers are athletic and intelligent. Her younger brother is a genius. But she is just Meg. She wonders where she belongs. Out of all the people, Charles Wallace is the only one who truly understands her.

Then one night, Charles Wallace tells her about his three strange friends who live in a peculiar house in the woods - Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which. These three magically strange beings will take the children on a journey to rescue their father and teach them valuable lessons about life, the universe, and love.

When I learned that they were making a new movie adaptation of this book, I knew I had to read it again. I adored this book when I read it as a child. It reflected many of my own insecurities. I liked the discussions about poetry, mathematics, the universe, and God. Plus, the strange creatures and worlds they explore were fascinating. As a child, some of the philosophical and profound insights in the story were beyond my comprehension.

Rereading it as an adult, I was able to grasp more of the wisdom and lessons from this book than I did as a third grader. I never read the rest of the series when I was younger. I'm glad that I now have the entire set and can continue reading the story.

Now that I've reread the book, I'm eagerly waiting for the movie to be released on DVD. I'm curious to see if it stays true to the book or makes significant changes. There is a lot of talk about God in A Wrinkle in Time. I'm interested in finding out how much of that might have been omitted in the movie. I'm equally curious about the mathematics, physics, and science that are interwoven into the story. I can't wait to watch the movie to see how they might have altered the characters, the story, and the ideas, and whether the magic of the tale is still present in the film version.

A Wrinkle in Time is the first of five books in the Time series featuring the Murray family. I never read the complete series, so I'm excited to finally have the rest of the books. I also want to read the Austin Family Chronicles, another series written by Madeleine L'Engle.

The story unfolds over about 100 pages of tiresome and banal dialogue.

It's not until later that you're informed this is a battle against Evil, and that all you need is love. However, everything is overly simplistic and sketchy.

Everything is reduced to big words like "IT" and "evil". This "IT", also known as the Dark Thing, is striving to create a communist-like society.

In this society, everyone conforms, even the little children who bounce their balls in uniform rhythms and live in cookie-cutter houses.

I initially liked Meg. She was a believable character with her own set of problems, and I truly hoped things would work out for her.

But as she embarked on her journey, especially when she reached that dreadful communist planet, she became hysterical.

For half of the book, she didn't "say" anything - she yelled, gasped, screamed, and cried. She got angry at everyone for everything.

There was a hint that Charles Wallace might be a significant player, but he didn't live up to expectations.

There are constant references to his being special, but we never really learn what was so special about him, aside from the fact that he had a 30-year-old's mind in a 4-year-old's body and was called a "genius".

There was all this build-up for the confrontation between him and "IT", but nothing came of it. He looked at the guy, let him in, and was filled with ideas from Lenin himself.

Then there are the worlds. The characters traveled to a planet that was described in just three lines, with beautiful flowers and a tall mountain.

Another planet was not described at all, except to say that it was a winter wonderland. The residence of the Happy Medium was on another planet, where they conveniently found themselves in a cave.

The final stop was on a planet that was probably similar to Earth, but all we know about it is that it had rows of houses and tall buildings.

That's it - they traveled through the known Universe and have nothing much to show for it. There was no imagination put into describing and developing the worlds.

There are also strange references to gods that appear out of nowhere, in the oddest places, and then disappear just as quickly.

The characters are underdeveloped, the scenes are not fully realized, the worlds are left to their own devices, and the theme seems to be a fear of either the religious right or the communist left.

It's a caricature of evil, perhaps done in the belief that kids wouldn't understand it otherwise. There's not much of a plot, the worlds described are extremely thin, and it shows no historical understanding or outside knowledge.

More of Purplycookie’s Reviews @: http://www.goodreads.com/purplycookie


Book Details:

Title A Wrinkle in Time (Time #1)
Author Madeleine L'Engle
Reviewed By Purplycookie

This Newbery Award winner was the first novel by the prolific L'Engle (1918 - 2007) that I ever read.

Although I'd heard of her before, I didn't discover her work for myself until I was in my 40s. That I liked it as an adult is indicative.

It was marketed to younger readers, and has main characters who are, I'd guess, young teens (another is just five years old), but it isn't at all shallow or juvenile in its characterizations, plotting, or general execution.

L'Engle herself has stated that when she writes, she simply tells a story without picturing the listeners as any particular age, and leaves it to her publishers to market it as they choose. Adults can certainly appreciate this one.

Two or three generations of would-be gurus of writing technique have held up the sentence, "It was a dark and stormy night" as a supposed textbook example of a poor beginning for a fictional work.

That L'Engle deliberately picked that sentence to start this novel says something about her audacity and disdain for convention.

That the novel in question then went on to win a coveted major literary award says a lot about her writing skills.

Basically, this tale sends young Meg and her schoolmate Calvin, along with Meg's precociously bright little brother, traveling to other worlds in an effort to find and rescue her missing father.

The means of this travel is a tesseract, the titular "wrinkle in time" posited in 1888 by British mathematician Charles Howard Hinton.

Although L'Engle's science fiction isn't typically associated with the genre's "hard" tradition, the science here is legitimate.

But the author's main interest isn't in imparting a science lesson.

As in all great literature in any genre, her fundamental concerns are psychological and moral/philosophical -- and in this case spiritual.

The characters' real challenges are moral and spiritual, and have to be fought within themselves.

As a side note, it's profoundly unfortunate that this work has sometimes been denounced.

Briefly, one main ground of attack has been that Jesus is cited in a list.

The other complaint is that a character called the Happy Medium uses a crystal ball for scrying.

As Goodreads indicates, this is the first entry in a five-book series.

I've never actually pursued the latter any further.

But this 1991 printing of the book has an accompanying genealogy and a list of characters.

Interestingly, although I'd never noticed it before, it turns out that Stella and Theron's children and grandson do figure in some books of the latter. It's a small world! :-)

3.5/5 stars

This book took me an incredibly long time to read, but it was filled with countless MEMZ.

I truly have a deep affection for the characters within this book. Their unique personalities and the overall strangeness of the story really appealed to me.

However, at times, it could feel a bit *too* weird and random. By that, I mean that the events and the way the story unfolded seemed a bit disjointed and hard to follow at certain points.

Overall, though, there are some truly great life lessons and messages scattered throughout the book. These are things that I vividly remembered from my CHILDHOOD. They added an extra layer of depth and meaning to the reading experience.

Despite its flaws, I still found this book to be an enjoyable and thought-provoking read.

Lately, I've found myself in a rather interesting situation. I've been starting to read books without initially realizing that they have religious content or connotations. It's only when I'm about half way through that I begin to notice. This particular book is a prime example of that.

The beginning of the book was extremely promising. It had me hooked from the very start, with its engaging plot and well-developed characters. However, as I continued reading, I started to feel that it went downhill. The story seemed to lose its momentum, and I found myself getting less and less interested.

Moreover, the book also felt rushed to me. It seemed as if the author was trying to cram too much into too little space, and as a result, the story didn't all come together or make enough sense. There were several plot holes and loose ends that left me feeling dissatisfied. Overall, while the book had a great start, it ultimately failed to live up to my expectations.

I have a general, self-imposed rule when it comes to reviewing on this site. I write about the books I've read in the order I've finished them.

According to that logic, I should be putting together my thoughts on Hunger right now. However, I am so captivated by this childhood classic that my brain is filled with nothing but uncontrollable joy over this book that Madeleine has given to the world.

I never read this book as a child. I didn't read it as a teenager or a college student either. I read it for the first time when I was approaching 30, like a crazed stalker who won't be stopped by a restraining order.

This did concern me, especially after half-heartedly getting through the first four books of the Narnia Chronicles a few years ago and then taking an indefinite break from what should have been another beloved staple of a young reader's diet.

I was afraid that I had completely missed out on enjoying A Wrinkle in Time, a novel that I had heard so many people praise as the prime example of how good children's literature can be.

So I read it like a young girl who didn't realize she was at the beginning of a lifelong love affair with books, driven by an insatiable need to keep reading.

I read well past my bedtime, with a small light guiding me to a magical place, knowing full well that the satisfaction of being a bookworm far outweighed the inevitable tiredness in the morning.

I read it when I should have been doing other responsible things. I read to hear a story and consider ideas I had never come across before, but mostly I read to immerse myself in a writer's rich world, to lose myself in someone else's words.

I read it to let my imagination run wild through a universe that I passionately wished to be a part of.

And my adult self was just as enchanted as my inner child. Sure, A Wrinkle in Time has its flaws, but I couldn't tell you what they are because I was so thoroughly entertained, so taken with these characters that I could relate to in a way I never expected.

On one hand, I do feel a bit cheated that so much of what I needed to hear as a child was in these pages all along. But on the other hand, this book brought a touch of magic to my ordinary life for a few days, and I'm sure it will stay with me.

My first encounter with this book wasn't a hazy but fond childhood memory that would be tarnished by cynicism. Instead, it was the experience of a kid discovering a new favorite for the first time, in the midst of intense work days and the routine of adulthood.

And it proved to me that I don't always have to be such a snob about kid lit because when it's good, it can be truly extraordinary.

4.25 stars - English paperback - read again after 30 years

This English paperback has truly withstood the test of time. After a gap of 30 years, picking it up again is like reuniting with an old friend. The story within its pages still holds the same charm and allure as it did decades ago.

The words seem to dance off the paper, engaging the reader from the very first sentence. The characters come to life, their emotions and experiences palpable. It's a journey through different worlds and eras, filled with adventure, romance, and thought-provoking ideas.

The writing style is流畅 and engaging, making it a pleasure to read. The author's attention to detail and ability to create vivid imagery add depth and richness to the story.

Overall, this book is a gem that deserves to be read and reread. It's a testament to the power of good literature and its ability to touch our hearts and minds, even after all these years.

For those seeking a concise version of my review, I can encapsulate this book in a single word:

Pulp.

If permitted, I might also append:

Meh.

If "A Wrinkle in Time" were not extolled as a classic and instead received the far more accurate label of Christian pulp fantasy, I would have no qualms with the book. After all, no one complains about flank steak until you attempt to pass it off as a prime cut. Every aspect of the book is pulp: the prose, the characters, the plot, and the numerous contrivances only palatable to an incurious mind. It shares many similarities with those trashy vacation reads where the reader is tacitly nudged to simply go along with it to obtain the emotional payoff of a patently absurd climax and resolution. It might amuse - though I was not - but it cannot be deemed good.

The prose is especially unforgivable precisely because it won an award; the 1960s must truly have been a different era if lines like, 'something like a horse but at the same time completely unlike a horse,' could earn you accolades. Descriptions like this are lazy and endemic in the book. Either it's like a horse or it isn't; imagine your confusion if someone said, 'I saw this guy on the street, he looked just like you, except completely not like you.' And when she's not employing the 'somehow' school of description to circumvent whatever deficiency precludes her from actually using words, L'Engle reverts to the tried and true school of tell not show:

'There was something about the way he said "IT" that made a shiver run up and down Meg's spine.'

Did he gesture? Did he use a spooky high-pitched voice? Was he conveying fear, awe, or an awkwardly sincere veneration? I teach fifth graders who have superior descriptions than this.

And while we're on the subject of laziness, there is precisely zero character development in the book. Characters remain essentially the same individuals at every stage of the book, regardless of where they venture. After being whisked away by strange old ladies to an alien world, where they fly on the back of a cenaugusus into space, the kids are... exactly the same. I understand it's a children's book and not intended to possess the deep psychological realism of mature writing, but is that the best we can do for character reaction? No panicking, no freaking out, no crying to go home, just characters going along with it because that's how we advance the plot. What's particularly ironic is L'Engle's (mis)use of tesseracts when she can't even endow her characters with two dimensions.

Take, for example, Calvin. He meets Meg and Charles for the first time, having heard all sorts of nasty rumors about them, and within twenty minutes is exclaiming:

'"Lead on, moron," Calvin cried gaily. "I've never even seen your house, and I have the funniest feeling that for the first time in my life I'm going home!"'

Meg gets into fights at school regularly and clearly has no issue punching boys, so why is she allowing some gangly, red-haired punk to call her little brother - whom she will ultimately risk her life to save - a moron less than an hour after they met? No matter, though, because Calvin is immediately welcomed into the home and reads Charles a bedtime story. Because that's how we advance the plot.

And speaking of the plot, I won't bother to review it as the Noising Machine's blog did it better than I:

The story centers around a family of superior individuals. Each family member is highly intelligent, perhaps even genius. At least one of the children is a telepath, but his mother, supposedly a scientist, seems entirely uninterested in understanding his ability. Not only is the family superior in intellect but also in manners and wisdom. The rest of the town gossips while these wunderkinds are content to let people think they are stupid or freakish. The youngest child, although only five, has the vocabulary of a college student even though he can't read. His insights are incredibly mature as well – in fact, there is practically nothing about him that is believable in any way. (http://thenoisingmachine.wordpress.co...)

The ethnocentric bias of the book is palpable and embarrassing, dating the book to an era when American authors wrote for an American audience composed of WASP's and no one else. All characters are White; yes, ALL of them. On the other side of the galaxy, we find... White people. The least she could have done was toss in a babelfish, or translator microbes, or the f-ing Tardis translating languages for you. The kids are whisked around space by magical women; they could have just cast a spell to translate all languages and breathe all atmospheres. But instead, it just sits there, reinforcing the notion that everywhere you go is America(tm).

And speaking of the magical women, why are they all married? They're not married, so shouldn't they be Ms? It may seem trivial, but it sends another message loud and clear: all women are to marry. Even dead star angels are married. To Jesus, if necessary.

This book was read to me by my father when I was a child, so it actually pains me a bit to give it such a poor review. Some kids might like it; certainly, enough people have rated it highly. But I simply cannot overlook how bad it is. People like "Two and a Half Men" too, but that doesn't make it good, and it doesn't make watching it a worthwhile use of your time. If you want to read a book with your kids, choose another. There are more than enough modern, well-written books filled with believable and relatable characters out there that you should never have to pick up this piece of pulp nonsense and attempt to pass it off as a classic.

I read this when I was in fifth or sixth grade and I loved it.

Re-reading it as an adult, I realized there was no way my eleven-or-twelve-year-old brain could have fully appreciated this masterpiece.

After all, I am no Charles Wallace.

Sure, the book has fantasy elements like travel through time and space, magical beings, and other worlds.

But this is so much more than a children's hero tale.

This is a beautiful book about love.

It's about how love can conquer all, even in the face of great evil.

It's about being different and not being afraid to stand out.

And it's about what happens when we realize our parents aren't perfect and we have to grow up and do things for ourselves.

It's a story that can touch the hearts of readers of all ages and remind us of the importance of love, courage, and self-discovery.

I had forgotten so much of this book.

Most of my memories are of the kitchen and farmhouse, and just the fact that they were searching for their father.

I had forgotten how spiritual the book is. For one thing, as I read to my children about this fight between the darkness and the light, between free will and having every choice made for you, I found myself almost in tears.

Oh, how I love Madeleine L'Engle! Her words have such a profound impact. The story is not just about a simple search for a father; it delves deep into the human spirit and the eternal struggle between good and evil.

Reading it aloud to my children has opened up a whole new world of understanding for them. They are now able to grasp the concepts of free will and the power of choice.

Madeleine L'Engle's writing is truly a gift, and I am so grateful to have rediscovered this wonderful book.

\\n  

"Sweet dreams are made of this
Who am I to disagree?
I travel the world
And the seven seas,
Everybody's looking for something."

Eurythmics

\\n


You have an abundance of time to include this book in your reading queue before the movie hits the theaters in March of 2018, which stars the talented Chris Pine and Reese Witherspoon. By reading the book first and then watching the movie, you can create a wonderful synergy. It allows you to fully immerse yourself in the story and compare the different interpretations.

Don't forget to check out the trailer. It gives you a sneak peek into the magical world that awaits in the movie.

A Wrinkle in Time 2018 Movie Trailer

If you have a desire to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, I invite you to visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com. There, you'll find a wealth of information and insights. I also have a Facebook blogger page at: https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten. Connect with me and join the conversation.

I spent one night rereading a favorite from my childhood.

Who could ever forget the inviting Murry kitchen, where science and religion were held in equal regard, along with tesseracts and exciting planet adventures.

If a book could be like a warm blanket, this one is definitely mine.

When I was young, I adored Meg because I identified with her awkwardness and my own inability to imagine a boy liking me the way Calvin liked her.

But I also had those strange insights, though perhaps not as dramatic as Charles Wallace's. So, in a way, I was all of those kids.

My dad was always working, perhaps not on another planet, but far enough away that my mom had to manage the household on her own, minus the science experiments and liverwurst-and-cream cheese sandwiches.

Rereading this book brought back a flood of memories and made me realize just how much it had influenced me as a child.

It was like visiting an old friend and rediscovering all the things that had made me fall in love with it in the first place.

I'm so glad I decided to pick it up again and give it another read.