This is the fifth time I've read A Wrinkle in Time.

But I never actually enjoyed it that much. The first time I read it, I liked it but I also found it kind of annoying. I reread it once to see if I could understand it better, and then I reread it out of boredom (and because I was actually starting to like it). Literally the week after I read it the third time, my sixth-grade teacher told us that we were going to read it for English.

Which made me even more annoying during book discussions because I knew everything.

I haven't read it since then, so it gives me nostalgia going back to read this story. Even though I didn't even read it at that young an age (maybe fourth or fifth grade when I read it the first time). It's been three years and I honestly still don't understand Mrs. Who.

But that's the point of this kind of book. This and The Phantom Tollbooth formed an important part of my reading basis in elementary school. The kind of books that make you think.

"I see!" she cried. "I got it! For just a moment I got it! I can't possibly explain it now, but there for a second I saw it!"

Four years later and not that much wiser (I've lost brain cells), I still get that kind of moment reading this book.

The characters. None of them fit into any specific tropes (although I guess Meg could be labeled the 'outcast' and the twins could be labeled as 'basic') and none of them were my style of character. But I liked them all. Meg got annoying at times, but she's also very relatable.

“Meg, don't you think you'd make a better adjustment to life if you faced facts?"
I do face facts," Meg said. "They're lots easier to face than people, I can tell you.”

Calvin was my favorite because he reminded me of the boy I liked in sixth grade because he was good with his words and he was a really layered character; he appeared to be normal, but when Meg really got to know him, he was so much more than just the athletic boy.

“I don't understand it any more than you do, but one thing I've learned is that you don't have to understand things for them to be.”

I'm going to be honest, the Mrs. W's got on my nerves. They were definitely helpful, but they also felt unnecessary for a lot of the time. Mrs. Which was too strict and serious and boring, Mrs. Who just existed there, and Mrs. Whatsit was annoying.

“Have you ever tried to get to your feet with a sprained dignity?”

No, usually I'm still standing because someone else destroyed it.

The plot was very absorbing. It wasn't predictable the first time I read it, but this being the fifth time I kind of just followed along until the last two chapters. Because I forgot the last two chapters existed. Which is surprising because Chapter Eleven is my favorite.

This was a good, quick book to get me reading a bit faster, because I've been in a slump for a while now. It was only twelve chapters that still got my brain twisted again. I haven't developed since sixth grade.

For those looking for a TLDR version of my review, I can sum up this book in one word:

Pulp.

If allowed, I might also add:

Meh.

If A Wrinkle in Time were not lauded as a classic, and were instead given the far more accurate description of Christian pulp fantasy, I wouldn't have an issue with the book. After all, no one complains about flank steak until you try to pass it off as a prime cut. Everything about the book is pulp: the prose, the character, the plot, the dozens of contrivances only acceptable to an uninquisitive mind. It has a lot in common with those trashy vacation reads where the reader is silently prodded to just go with it so they can get the emotional pay off of a patently absurd climax and resolution. It might entertain - though I wasn't - but it cannot be called good.

The prose is particularly inexcusable exactly because it won an award; the 60's really must have been a different time if lines like, 'something like a horse but at the same time completely unlike a horse,' could win you awards. Description like this is lazy, and endemic in the book. Either it's like a horse, or it's not; imagine your confusion if someone said, 'I saw this guy on the street, you looked just like you, except completely not like you.' And when she's not using the 'somehow' school of description to get around whatever deficiency prevents her from actually using words, L'Engle falls back on 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 wave his hands around? Did you use a spooky high pitched voice? Was he communicating fear? Awe? An awkwardly sincere veneration? I teach fifth graders who have better descriptions than this.

And while we're on the topic of lazy, there is exactly zero character development in the book. Characters are essentially the same people at every stage of the book, no matter where they go. After being whisked away by weird old ladies to an alien world, where they fly on the back of a cenaugusus into space the kids are ... exactly the same. I get that it's a kid's book, and it's not meant to have the deep psychological realism of mature writing, but that's the best we can do for character reaction? No panicking, no freaking out, no crying to go home, just characters going 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 get her characters to have two dimensions.

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

'"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 on a regular basis, and clearly has no problem decking boys, so why is he letting some gangly, red haired punk call her little brother - who she will eventually risk her own life to save - a moron less than an hour after they met? No matter, though, because Calvin is instantly 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, when the Noising Machine's blog did it better than I:

The story revolves around a family of superior people. Each family member is quite intelligent, perhaps genius. At least one of the children is a telepath but his mother, supposedly a scientist, seems totally uninterested in understanding his ability. Not only is the family superior in intellect but 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, and dates the book to an age when American authors wrote for an American made 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 is throw in a babelfish, or translator microbes, or the f-ing Tardis translating languages for you. The kids are whipped 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 idea 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 seems 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 hurts a bit to give it such a bad review. Some kids might like it, certainly enough people have rated it highly, but I simply cannot get past 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 good use of your time. If you want to read a book with your kids, pick another. There are more than enough modern, well written books full of believable and relatable characters out there that you should never have to pick up this piece of pulp nonsense and try to pass it off as a classic.

I read this one a few years ago and just realized I never gave it a star review. I did read it when I wasn't always writing reviews, so here is a brief take on what I remember . . .

I had high hopes for this one because it is considered a classic. Many people read this one when they are in elementary/middle school and I remember back when I was that age hearing my fellow students singing its praises. A bit odd that I never tried it back then! When I finally got to it as an adult, those hopes I had built up were not lived up to.

Maybe if I had read it as a kid I would have felt different. But, to adult me it was just a bizarre and haphazard series of events - and not in a good way. I struggled to stay interested or even be able to tell what was going on. I do remember that since it is highly revered I fought my hardest to find something that I enjoyed about it.

You shouldn't have to fight to enjoy something if it is truly meant for you.

So, it is not one that I can recommend, but I am glad many love it and have fond memories of it.

Enjoyable by young and old alike!

The earth is surrounded by a sinister presence - a dark, foul fog that is the tool of an ultimate evil - whose ambition is to enslave the planet with the complete removal of free will. Three magical beings, Mrs Whatsit, Mrs Who and Mrs Which - witches, angels, demigods perhaps - appear to Margaret and Charles Wallace Murry and their friend, Calvin O'Keefe, to persuade them that it is their destiny to battle this evil on its own turf and to rescue Margaret and Charles Wallace's father. Dr Murry has been missing for some months and the kids learn that he has been captured by the evil while he was "tessering", traveling time and space in the course of his scientific research.

While the writing is straightforward, well crafted and obviously aimed at a younger audience, A WRINKLE IN TIME is nonetheless a fast paced enjoyable tale of good vs evil that combines elements of science fiction, fantasy and magic even adult readers will flip through relentlessly. But there are lots of life lessons, issues and moral themes sprinkled throughout - low hanging fruit just waiting for the eager child, the observant questioning teen, the confused parent or thinking adult to pick and chew on, as it were - the coming of age realization that parents are not infallible; the cruelty of malicious gossip; God and evil; the awkwardness of romantic adolescent relationships; the potential destructiveness of pride or vanity; the marginalizing of people who are different; the enormous difficulties of selflessness; the understanding that all life's questions will not be answered; and more.

While some readers criticize A WRINKLE IN TIME as being overtly moralist, I felt somewhat differently. It was clear to me that religion and, in particular, Christian symbolism was present but I felt that L'Engle let it sit quietly just beneath the surface and the story never became even remotely preachy.

It is little wonder that A WRINKLE IN TIME has been elevated to the status of children's classic and continues to be enjoyed by adults and children alike more than 40 years after it was first published for a grateful reading world.

Paul Weiss

“I don't understand it any more than you do, but one thing I've learned is that you don't have to understand things for them to be.”



This is one of the most outstanding books I ever read in my entire life. I can't believe it took me so long to pick it up. I am so glad this is a series, because just 200 pages of this is definitely not enough. This book is a cosmic dance of colour and poetry, a song made of angels and by angels, a psychedelic trip into imagination, humanity, and the mystery of God. The author hugs your whole self into a multicoloured blanket of words which tickle all your senses like a 5-star restaurant dinner. The only thought left in my mind after I finished reading it was "I just can't wait to read this again".



It starts off in such a simple, ordinary way: "It was a dark, stormy night", and then proceeds to catapult the reader into a plot so complex it just can't be described (no, really: I tried my best to describe what this book is about to my friends, but I just can't). The characters, the creatures, the incredibly rich imagination, made this read both incredibly whimsical and absolutely believable. Not to mention the lovable characters, the creepy enemies and the adorable protagonist. And the creatures... Oh, the creatures! I can't believe this is a children's book. But then again, so is Harry Potter!!

Anyway, why are you still here? Stop reading my silly review and pick up this book!!!!!!!!!!

Meg Murry and her friends and family become involved with unearthly strangers and a search for Meg's father, who has disappeared while engaged in secret work for the government.



As I'm reading the book I find myself surprised by the movie trailer... it's nothing like I'm imagining as I'm reading, which is weird. Not only is the family different, but the three women are nothing like in the book. I was surprised I recognized many sentences and metaphors in the story in other books. So far, Charles Wallace Murry is my favorite!



I found the trailer sort of pretentious, focusing more on effects and the three main actresses than the story and the children, it also focused on skin color and feminism more than the simple story, making a children book a cause, not for entertainment but to make a point. Enough is enough.



As for the story, it seems a story of faith and loss, and I'm not talking about Meg's father. I'm talking about the author, it seems like in its core the story holds a message. I guess that's why the author never liked her stories adapted into movies: they lost their meaning.

I do not like Meg. I really do not like Meg. She's a stubborn, whiny little brat.

I wasn't all that into this story until they got to the planet of Camazotz. Then it becomes sort of like a kids' book version of Brave New World, with "IT" instead of "soma."
"On Camazotz we are all happy because we are all alike. Differences create problems."
"We let no one suffer. It is so much kinder simply to annihilate anyone who is ill."

I'm not terribly wild about the in-your-face religious references in the book. That sort of thing needs to be used subtly or not at all. But perhaps this was more prevalent at the time the book was written.

Mrs. Whatsit is my favorite character. I think I'll start taking my fashion tips from her. I like Mrs. Who, also, with all her goofy quotes.

So, before I dive into my thoughts on this book, I have to start by reminding you all that the star ratings are based on *whether I personally would recommend the book*. I’m not saying anything about the actual quality of the book unless I specifically mention quality as a problem in my review.

I feel like I need to establish that again, because obviously in reviewing something that is considered a modern classic like A Wrinkle In Time, the writing is probably going to be good. That’s not what my stars are based on. If I am basing the star rating purely on writing and enjoyability, I’d probably give this book a 4. It gets 1.5 stars, because I found myself concerned with other aspects of the book.

Let’s start by defining dualism, shall we?

Dualism, according to the dictionary, is “a religious doctrine that the universe contains opposed powers of good and evil, especially seen as balanced equals”. As Christians, we do not believe in dualism. God is sovereign and all-powerful. “Satan” or “Evil” is not equally powerful with God. There is no “eternal battle of good and evil” - God completely wins, Satan is thrown into the lake of fire, and that’s that.

Unfortunately, I cannot get behind A Wrinkle In Time because it’s firmly grounded in this idea of dualism, that there is a “Dark Thing” in the universe that seeks to claim different planets, and there is this constant power struggle between “light” and “darkness” with some planets succumbing, some planets triumphing, and some planets “fighting” against it.

Also, apparently the worst thing this “Dark Thing” can do is take away our decision-making and individuality? I found that weird.

This wouldn’t have bothered me so much if this book were taking place in a separate, completely imaginary world - then I could categorize this as pure fantasy. But I couldn’t do that because L’Engle places the whole thing in our universe, and specifically seems to be trying to say something about God in the process. In this book, God is not all powerful, planets are “fighting” against “The Dark Thing” (mainly with love), and this whole thing is not presented as an allegory because Jesus is actually mentioned as one of Earth’s “fighters” against “The Dark Thing”. Jesus is mentioned as just as important as people like Rembrandt, and Shakespeare. What a compliment (sarcasm font needed here). Because the author even inserts Bible verses into the story, I felt like she was trying to fit Christianity itself into this imaginary narrative of the history of the universe. Creative? Sure. Biblically sound? No, it wasn’t at all.

Jesus is not a “fighter” against Evil, He is God Himself, who became a man (while remaining God) to save us from our own sin when we trust in Him. God is not in an eternal struggle with “The Dark Thing”, He is infinitely sovereign and powerful over everything.

Maybe you think I’m being nitpicky about something that’s supposed to be a fantasy story, but I firmly believe we should not accept any book at face-value but look at the worldview that is being communicated through the story. And I’m sorry to burst any bubbles, but the worldview here is certainly not in line with the God’s Word.

I’m particularly concerned that this book is being read by children because of a few references to occult practices and symbols that were presented by the “good” characters. We have a “Happy Medium” who observes things in her crystal ball, abilities that seem to be like "psychic" abilities to me, and a god-like character that wears the classic witch’s garb - pointy hat, black cloak, and a broom. I am particularly concerned with the author mixing Christian references and Bible verses with occult symbols and practices here. For Christian parents, I’m afraid that handing this book to our children could inadvertently send the message that these things are okay and can coexist wth Christianity, unless parents are carefully discussing the problem with mixing the two.

Personally, I won’t be handing this book to my children at all, at least not until they are able to read it with critical eyes and guard their minds. Maybe not even then. To me, the way Christianity was mixed with these competing views about God and the world is pretty insidious, and I’d recommend approaching this book with great caution.

I reread a childhood favorite in one night. Who can forget the cozy Murry kitchen, the way science and religion are valued equally, tesseracts and planet adventures. If a book can be a warm blanket, this is mine.

When I as young, I loved Meg because I felt as awkward as her, and also as unable to grasp a boy ever liking me the way Calvin just does. But I also had those weird insights in ways not quite as dramatic as Charles Wallace, so I was all of those kids. And my Dad worked all the time, maybe not on another planet, but far enough away for my Mom to run the household, minus the science experiments and liverwurst-and-cream cheese sandwiches.

I just finished reading this for the first time since, maybe college? Twelve year old Meg Murry, her precocious five year old brother Charles Wallace, and their new friend Calvin meet some highly odd beings who call themselves Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which. This strange, quirky trio sweeps the children away on an interstellar quest to find and rescue Meg and Charles Wallace's missing father. They fold space and time through tesseracts (the "wrinkle" in time and space) and battle the darkness that has taken over other planets and shadows ours.

This 1962 book is noticeably old-fashioned and a little simplistic in several ways. The symbolism and the links to religion and scriptures aren't subtle, and Meg's anger and stubbornness gets old, though it's interesting to see how those character traits can in some situations stand her in good stead. Also, in fairness it is a middle grade book, though a lot of older readers love it. There's something really lovely about the book's ultimate message and themes. I enjoyed revisiting it again after all these years.

I'm going to stick with my original 4 star rating, though I'm pretty sure that the nostalgia factor is playing into this rating. Full review to come!

January 2018 buddy read with the Pantaloonless group.

Original post: I read this book at least two or three times when I was a teen/young adult (actually, I own and have read the entire series), but it's been a long while since I last read this. I'm interested to see how it holds up!

That's what I felt I was seeing as I read this, a blank slate, a void, an empty room.

A Wrinkle in Time is a very nice tale, but I just wish L'Engle spent more time developing the settings. The decently rounded characters seemed to be floating in spartan landscapes like portraits hung in limbo.

Lackluster description is one thing, but perhaps more than anything, I think my tepid-3 star, ho-hum reaction to A Wrinkle in Time is due to my reading it as a middle-aged curmudgeon. It's made for kids and I haven't been one of them in a while.

My wife loved this book as a child and kept hinting I should read it, hinting so much that the hints became ultimatums. Could've sworn I heard her in my head shouting, "Read this or you do not love me!" So I read it and well...meh. I missed the age-appropriate boat on that one, I guess. But hey, at least I was smart enough not to give her my scathing review (yes, this would've been seen as a scathing review in her eyes). I just said, "It was nice," and that's the story of how I managed to stay married.

The End

I read this as a kid almost 40 years ago and just finished reading it to my 11 year old son last night. I found that the characters of Meg, Calvin and Charles Wallace were great and the ideas around tesseracts captured my imagination again as they did my son. The action moves along relatively well and the ominous man with the red eyes and the disembodied brain known as IT were both great bad guys in the plot. Where I stumbled on this more mature (atheist) reading of A Wrinkle in Time is on the Christian overtones which I had completely forgotten from my reading this as a (naive Christian) kid. I would have preferred that Mrs Who, Which and Whatsit were multi-dimensional creatures rather than guardian angels, that there was more Shakespeare and less scripture quoted, and that the references to the Christian religion were less obvious towards the end. Said another way, I really enjoyed the story when it was a sorta scary "where's dad" sci-fi thriller, but came away disappointed with the morality play that it evolved into. That being said, my kid really enjoyed it and the biblical references merely bored him rather than annoyed him (he has been brought up with no imposition of religion and so far chosen not to choose one).
Perhaps a reader of this review can tell me whether the other four books of the series have the same heavy Christian moral aspect to them or not...