n  Okay, the film's an *April 2018* release but principal photography is over at least.n

2018 UPDATE What is wrong with people? I do not comprehend the downer delivered by everyone and her little dog on this film. Can't be misogyny, the character was always a girl; so that leaves...mm hmm...racism. A black woman behind the camera, a lovely and talented young one as Meg. Must have fits and fall in 'em! "It's not like the book!" Umm...it's a movie...and guess what? It's a lot closer than y'all let on. It's a decent film and it wouldn't have been *possible* to get this close in a live-action film until this century. I've now watched it twice and from my very informed perspective as a reader and a filmgoer, lots and lots of information and criticism absorbed and debated, this is a fine film and more faithful to the book than anyone had any reason to expect.

Rating: 4* of five

The Publisher Says: It was a dark and stormy night; Meg Murry, her small brother Charles Wallace, and her mother had come down to the kitchen for a midnight snack when they were upset by the arrival of a most disturbing stranger.

"Wild nights are my glory," the unearthly stranger told them. "I just got caught in a downdraft and blown off course. Let me be on my way. Speaking of way, by the way, there is such a thing as a tesseract."

Meg's father had been experimenting with this fifth dimension of time travel when he mysteriously disappeared. Now the time has come for Meg, her friend Calvin, and Charles Wallace to rescue him. But can they outwit the forces of evil they will encounter on their heart-stopping journey through space?

My Review: Meg Murry's daddy left home unexpectedly and without saying goodbye. The adored parent left behind an adolescent daughter, three sons, and a beautiful and smart wife. Meg cannot make herself get used to his absence and can't even pretend that she's not hurt by the town's opinion that he ran off leaving her mother. This, plus braces, wildly curly hair, an intelligence far greater than her contemporaries', and glasses, isolate the girl with her even weirder little brother Charles Wallace against their normal brothers and the rest of the world.

In time-honored tradition, these misfits are actually being prepared to fight the ultimate battle of Good Versus Evil, no pressure on the children no no no, and save their Daddy, not like it's gettin' piled even higher oh no! One fine day, Meg and Charles Wallace are called to their destiny by Mrs Which, Mrs Who, and Mrs Whatsit, the eccentric old ladies who prove to be avatars of interdimensional good beings with the agenda of making the Universe safe for goodness and happiness again.

The children are joined by fellow misfit Calvin, a popular boy athlete in their town whose hidden depths have tormented him all his life, in the quest to make the evil entity, a disembodied brain called "IT," that slowly takes over planets and compels all life thereon to submit to being in a group mind, erasing individuality and leaching away happiness.

This is a YA novel, so all turns out well, with Mr. Murry coming home and the children being brought home all safe and sound. But how they get home is very interesting: They travel via tesseract, a geometric figure that extends into a fifth dimension beyond spacetime. Mr. and Mrs. Murry have been researching this in their roles as scientists, and Mr. Murry has used the tesseract to get to the planet from which he's rescued. The Mrs Who/Which/Whatsit interdimensional beings use the tesseract to "tesser" or wrinkle the fabric of spacetime to get the children there as well.

Fascinating stuff for a Christian housewife to be writing about in 1960-1961! And make no mistake, the book is a very Christianity-infested Message about the perils of brains without hearts leading to Communistic group-think. Mrs. Murry, a capable scientist, stays home with the kiddos and makes dinner over Bunsen burners so she can keep working while she stays home to be a wife and mom. Ew.

And Meg, poor lamb, worries that she's not pretty enough because she needs braces and glasses and she's not all gorgeous like her mom is. Then Calvin, a popular boy and an athlete, shows hidden depths and falls for little Meg. So bells ring, doves coo, and hands are held, so all is well. Ew.

But it ain't Twilight, so I'm good with it. In fact, because I first read it before I was ten, I'm good with all of it. The stiff, unrealistic dialogue, the socially regressive and reprehensible messages, the religiosity...all get a benign half-smile and an indulgent wink.

Because sometimes you just need to know that n  someonen out there believes that good CAN triumph over evil.

**** I read this at a time when I needed a big surge of joy, magic, and distraction. I see I only remarked in writing that I would be surprised if there had not been a film of this 1962 extravaganza. I verbally noted to my spouse, Ron and he remembers: if anyone tried to portray these peculiar and dynamic ranges of events in a film, it would be difficult. We did not have long to wait! ****

“A Wrinkle In Time” is an adventure I knew I would love. I embraced it wholly and am glad three novels succeed it. There is an element that is science fictive but I call this youth fantasy, with a complexity appealing to grown-ups that is probably aimed at us. I had no inkling about premise nor characters thus this adventure was entirely new; the way I love stories. There is surreal exploration, discovery, and strong emotions. The easiest description is that the Murrys are special and as it goes in fantasy, hold a pivotal role in their universe. We spotlight all of them but sympathy follows elder sister, Meg.

She is a square peg at school, unlike popular brothers Dennys & Sandy. She underperforms but not for lack of intellect. She is a mathematics whiz and her parents are notable scientists. Their Dad’s government work is secret, they haven’t been permitted to know where he is, and fear trouble when contact halts. Her five year-old brother Charles is an eloquent genius, with extrasensory perception too revved up for him to hide. He introduces Meg and a similarly special school chum to a trio of ladies, who scarcely bother to conceal that they aren’t of Earth. They know Mr. Murry needs help and only these three children are in a position to deliver it.

Madeline L’Engle’s creation is thought-provoking, memorable, and could only be born of the most outstanding imagination I’ve ever seen. The planets the rescue party traverse such as a two-dimensional one, the biological make-up of the ladies and other parties they meet, the sights.... are unparalleled and must already comprise a film! Learning about a dark, unidentified threat to their galaxy and that their Dad’s captivity plays a part, is overwhelming. Madeleine deserves every literary award in existence.

Wow! I never imagine to read this book for the first time when I’m in my 40s. For years I let the book get lost in my chubby TBR that keeps growing at each day. Probably it stuck with piles of books and I wouldn’t remember to read it if Ted Lasso wouldn’t give this book to Roy Kent! If a book can heal one of the grumpiest fictional characters’ soul, it may surely help me, too. At least that’s what I thought before I started.

Overall: I loved the classic theme: three children’s teaming up for fighting against evil darkness threatening the universe.

I liked how 13 years old Meg portrayed and little, enigmatic brother Charles. As their fellow schoolmate Calvin joins them with the guidance of their weird neighbors with weirder names Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, Mrs. Witch, two children’s search for missing father turns into a visit to fifth dimension to confront with the universal threat!

Yeap, I enjoyed it a lot and I’m so happy to skip the movie adaptations! I wish I read it sooner but better late than never!

Here are my favorite quotes:

“Life, with its rules, its obligations, and its freedoms, is like a sonnet: You're given the form, but you have to write the sonnet yourself. - Mrs. Whatsit”

“We can't take any credit for our talents. It's how we use them that counts.”

“The only way to cope with something deadly serious is to try to treat it a little lightly “

“A book, too, can be a star, “explosive material, capable of stirring up fresh life endlessly,” a living fire to lighten the darkness, leading out into the expanding universe.”

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 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.

I started reading "A Wrinkle In Time" when I was 8 or 10. I say started because I never finished it. I can't remember exactly why, but I think it kind of scared the crap out of me. Now, 15 or 17 years later, I've read it again (this time the whole thing) and there's really nothing scary at all about it. It's possible that, as a kid, I was somehow relating this book to the terribly scary Disney movie "Something Wicked This Way Comes". Again, I don't know why.

Whatever the reason for my fears, the book is not spectacular. Maybe I can't see it now being older and not reading through the eyes of a child, but I can't understand how it won the John Newberry Medal. The witches were plastic and seemed to serve little purpose; the bad guy, a concept embodied in a shadow, had no motivation (if you want to read about true darkness for the sake of darkness/nothing for the sake of nothing, pick up Michael Ende's "The Neverending Story"); and the father, who seems to have no backbone and no sense of decency when it comes to saving his son. It has been said that the father character is an excellent tool in showing children that parents do not always have the answers, that they are, in fact, fallible and (God forbid) imperfect. But it's so much more than that. He comes across as weak, helpless, foolish, and even heartless at times. If you want to write a story where a child finds out that his/her parents aren't perfect, you don't have to make the parental figure a cold, bumbling idiot. Unless that's what you're going for. And I certainly don't think that L'Engle was. But all that aside, why would you even want to tell that story? Part of the beauty of being a child is you get to hold onto the illusion that mom and dad are Superman. Why ruin that? Granted, some kids live in terrible families, but there are better ways to write about those scenarios. This is not it.

I wanted to give this book 2 stars but decided that, because of my jaded, critical age I cannot judge too harshly. Plus, I did like the savant character of Charles Wallace. He was cute. As was the love that Meg and him shared. Calvin, on the other hand, was a complete throwaway character.

If I had kids, would I push this book on them? No. If they picked it off my bookshelf and started reading it, I wouldn't stop them. But I'm not about to recommend it to anyone young or old. Unless it's too ask that person to help me understand what the big deal is.

“The truth is, I’m not a fan of science fiction, and my math and physics gene has always been weak. But there’s plenty in the book for those of us predisposed toward the humanities as well.”
- Introduction by  Anna Quindlen

Hmm… Ms. Quindlen’s introduction to this book is—on the whole—not bad, but the above passage traveled deeply up my nose. The implication seems to be that sci-fi is generally lacking in humanities, when in fact sci-fi, at its best, is one of the most humane genres of fiction. A further implication (or my further inference) is that this book is “sci-fi for people who don’t like sci-fi”. If you don’t like sci-fi, it is quite alright, no need to struggle so hard to like some of it!

Ah! Enough with the grumpy intro, this is a delightful book after all. A Wrinkle in Time is generally considered a classic sci-fi book and often appears in “all-time great sci-fi” list, though “science fantasy” seems to be a more appropriate description given the many fantastical elements with no real science behind them. The narrative is mostly seen through the eyes of Meg Merry, a rather temperamental thirteen-year-old girl who has trouble fitting in at school. Her father, a scientist working for the government disappeared some years ago while on a secret assignment. Meg lives with her mother (also a scientist), her twin brothers and the youngest brother, Charles Wallace Murry, a genius generally mistaken for mentally handicapped as he prefers not to speak to most people.


A Wrinkle in Time is basically about Meg and Charles’ quest to find and rescue their father from wherever he is. They are aided by three weird old ladies, Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which, who are possibly extraterrestrial, or perhaps celestial. This involves interstellar travel by “Tessering”, a word derived from the geometrical term tesseract, folding the fabric of space and time to jump across light years; a little like hyperspace travel or taking shortcuts through wormholes. En route they come across many strange beings, including the three old ladies in their true forms, eventually they wind up on a bizarre and dreadful planet Camazotz, where conformity is king, and they have to confront “IT”, to rescue their father.

I kind of regret not having read A Wrinkle in Time in my early teens, I would have gotten the most out of it then. This book was written specifically for children, in a style that they will find accessible and enjoyable. Reading it as an adult I felt a little alienated from it, always feeling conscious that I am too far outside the target demographic. I don’t think this is a book “for all ages”, and rightly so, that is what children’s books are for. No point spoiling the book by making some subtle adult references that go over the children’s heads.

Having said that, I would be dishonest if I rated the book at five stars when I was not able to get the most out of it. The star rating is merely a reflection of my enjoyment of the book, not the book’s actual worth. For me, the planet Camazotz is the most interesting invention in this book, a rather surreal dystopian nightmarish landscape. The three “old ladies” are interesting characters but the children and their parents are drawn in rather broad strokes and I could not relate to them (though I suppose young readers will like them better than I do). The climax and the ending feel a bit rushed and not as exciting as I anticipated. I do like how  Madeleine L’Engle has woven in the theme of individuality, though, the main characters are all a little unusual in some ways but they have to learn to treasure their uniqueness rather than feel frustrated at being outside the norm. I also appreciate that the book nicely communicates to children that things are often not what they seem. There is often beauty behind surface ugliness and vice versa.

I would definitely recommend A Wrinkle in Time to children; that is a no brainer. If you have kids, give them a copy! As for my adult GR friends, I would recommend it if you don’t mind reading an unabashedly children’s book, certainly it would be great to read along with your children.

Notes:
• For me, the main impetus to read this book now is the forthcoming  new film adaptation. The trailer looks pretty good.
n  n

• Check out this hilarious (yet educational) “Thug Notes” video review.


• Coming back to the idea of “sci-fi for people who don’t like sci-fi”, what if you do like sci-fi? It depends on what kind of sci-fi you like. If your idea of good sci-fi is in the vein of Clarke /Asimov /Heinlein /PKD /Herbert, I don’t think A Wrinkle in Time would be quite the thing for you. It is more akin to C.S. Lewis’  Out of the Silent Planet, it even has some religious undertone, though less overt.

Quotes:
“We don’t travel at the speed of anything,” Mrs. Whatsit explained earnestly. “We tesser. Or you might say, we wrinkle.”

“We are all happy because we are all alike. Differences create problems.”

“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.”

“Matter and energy are the same thing, that size is an illusion, and that time is a material substance. We can know this, but it’s far more than we can understand with our puny little brains.”


Mrs. Whatsit by mheuston

How could this book never make my radar before now?!! If it were not for the upcoming movie, I do not think I would have sought the book out. It is unbelievable that such a profound piece of literature was never brought to my attention, especially when I was younger.

n  A Wrinkle in Timen is a simple and beautiful story of love, faith and strength woven into a tale of science and fantasy. There is no doubt that Madeleine L'Engle was deserving of receiving the Newberry Medal in 1963. Even by today's standards, it is phenomenal to have a school-aged girl as the primary character. Meg Murry's resilience and determination are truly commendable. She is a true warrior willing to protect her family and the life world she knows.

If you are in need of a story of unconditional love and joy, then consider reading or rereading this book. You will not be disappointed.

This post is part of the 2016 Classics Challenge.

WHEN I Discovered This Classic
It's a children's classic that I've been aware of since joining the book community. It's super popular in the US, but not so much in the UK. Last year, Puffin got in touch to offer me a bunch of newly redesigned and published Puffin Classics. I couldn't say no and requested A Wrinkle in Time.

WHY I Chose to Read It
A Wrinkle in Time is not only a highly-regarded classic (it won the 1963 Newbery Medal), but a much-beloved classic. I was excited to finally pick it up.

WHAT Makes It A Classic
It's a novel that is seen to be for 9 to 12-year-olds and yet tackles highly complex themes. Good vs. evil – illustrated in the story as light vs. dark – and conformity vs. freedom are woven into the plot. It's scientific and philosophical, and some say religious.

Jean Fulton wrote: "L'Engle's fiction for young readers is considered important partly because she was among the first to focus directly on the deep, delicate issues that young people must face, such as death, social conformity, and truth."

"A straight line is not the shortest distance between two points."

WHAT I Thought of This Classic
I was intrigued, particularly by the concepts of wrinkling time and tessering; folding the fabric of space and time. Meg, Charles and Calvin are promised that they'll travel from one area of space to another and arrive back home five minutes before they left. As for the characters, I adored 13-year-old Margaret "Meg" Murray and her younger brother, 5-year-old Charles Wallace, who is both a genius and telepathic. They are the key to saving their father, a scientist studying tesseract, who is being kept on the planet Camazotz.

A Wrinkle in Time is one of the few children's science fiction classics I've read. It's impressive, challenging and ambitious. As my experience of science fiction is limited to dystopia and post-apocalyptic – and so therefore much easier concepts to grasp – I just about got my head around the science. But I appreciate that it was explained. I attended an event about writing children's science fiction a few years ago and a comment was made that it's easier to write for children because there's less to explain. I'm sure Madeleine L'Engle wouldn't agree. Rather than simply "travelling through time", the reader becomes more invested in how this might happen and what could go wrong.

Even so, A Wrinkle in Time was often a little too bizarre for me, as someone who generally reads contemporary fiction. I was hoping that I'd get into the story much more than I did. But I thoroughly enjoyed the personal journey that the children went on and it's one I'd happily give another shot.

“The only way to cope with something deadly serious is to try to treat it a little lightly.” 

WILL It Stay A Classic
I'm sure it'll continue to be popular within in the US, but it may be a little too peculiar to be reintroduced to the UK – but time will tell as a new adaptation is currently being made!

“They are very young. And on their earth, as they call it, they never communicate with other planets. They revolve about all alone in space."
"Oh," the thin beast said. "Aren't they lonely?”

WHO I’d Recommend It To
People who love science fiction. People who love stories about complex and challenging themes.

"We can't take any credit for our talents. It's how we use them that counts."

I also reviewed this book over on Pretty Books.

It was four-star stuff but the ending ruined it a bit - the part where Meg defeats IT by love. Why do people keep feeding this love-conquers-all nonsense to their children? Harry Potter, Doctor Who and now this. Love doesn't conquer anything, you need guns. In fact, I agree with Sherlock Holmes on this one - love is a serious disadvantage and sentiment is a chemical weakness found in losing side.

I expected to really like this book. Its won several awards, and over the years I've always heard generally good things about it.

So what happened?

Truthfully, it's hard to pinpoint exactly. To explain in broad strokes, I just never connected with the story. There seemed to be little, if any, internal logic to the events that happen. There is no reason why the children are burdened with such a delicate "life or death" task that they could easily screw up. There's no reason why they are "helped" until the very end, where they are suddenly supposed to be able to solve some hokey battle of wits to survive and rescue someone.

The characters are almost as unlikable as the thin plot. Meg, the oldest child, complains incessantly and is scared the whole time. Her little brother, Charles Wallace, is interesting because of his strange ability to feel what someone's thinking, but it's never explained why he is like this. He seems way too precocious for his age, even for someone with his ability. Calvin, the random kid thrown into the story for seemingly no reason at all, has zero personality and exists solely to hold Meg's hand every time she's scared (which is all the time) and to boost her fragile ego with a few compliments.

Like a lot of young adult fiction, A Wrinkle in Time falls into the trap of pitting an absolute "good" versus an absolute "evil." However, even this cosmic battle of good and evil is poorly defined. Examples of people who are fighting the "good" fight, according to the story, are Jesus, Buddah, and Gandhi. The "bad" is represented by a dark cloud and an extra-dimensional being called "It" who controls an entire planet of people like some 1950's cartoon version of a brainwashing socialistic dictatorship. I found it strange that the most evil thing that entire galaxies are fighting against does not desire chaos, power, or bloodshed, but a passive mind control through which its victims sacrifice individuality for equality. Wow, that's...so...evil? It's like reading Red Scare propaganda from the 1950's.

L'Engle kills the tone of this story by peppering the narrative with strange, out-of-place declarations of Christian belief. For a story that seems largely secular, the odd Bible quotes and religious one-sidedness felt out of place. In a world where an unseen God can murder all of humanity with a flood and wind up on the "good" list, while an egalitarian dictator who asserts its will without killing anyone is on the "evil" list, sign me up for the latter.

I could never get into this story. There were okay bits here and there, but nothing cohesive enough to matter. At least it was refreshing to read a YA book where the parents aren't dead. Most of the time it seems a kid can't have any fun in literature unless their parents have kicked the bucket.


Maybe I would have enjoyed this book more as a child, but as an adult who has read a lot of fiction, this felt like it was slapped together without and real meaning or direction.

Supposedly this is an award-winning children's book. It's considered a classic. And since I'd never read it, and it had all of those wonderful things going for it, I selected it for our next lunchtime read.

And I. Hated. This. Book.

The story is about three children. The first is Meg, who is a cranky, bitchy, rebellious, horrible middle school girl. She spends the entire book demanding attention, throwing temper tantrums, and clinging to people. She's supposed to be mildly 'gifted', but we never see ANYTHING more of that in the book, so it's just ridiculous. There's not one good thing about this child, and I hated her.

Then there's her little brother Charles Wallace, who is four or five years old but acts 38. It's WRONG. He's got some sort of brainy superpower that is never fully revealed to the reader, we're just supposed to believe he's 'special' and that when he's concentrating, something is happening (that never manifests to the reader). It's just STUPID.

And last there's Calvin, who just kind of shows up out of the blue several chapters into the book, and is the only actually gifted person in the bunch - but all he can do is be more eloquent than the siblings. So much for THAT gift. He's supposedly vaguely acquainted with Meg from school (he's a few years ahead of her), and based on that, they can hug and hold hands and we're supposed to think the blossomless 'relationship' between them is natural. It is NOT - it's too pat, too quick, and makes no sense, based on her 'ugliness' and crabbiness, alone.

If that weren't enough, the gov't sends the sibling's father into time/space and the family is left for two years to think he just disappeared on a business trip. The gov't would have a better story than that, hello. Just *SHODDY* writing.

The kids meet three 'women' (who are actually stars, or angels, or... we're never sure). They can go to any planet but they can't help the children in situations the author decides are taboo for no reason. They can give gifts, but they can't tell you what you need to do, or give advice, and they can barely even talk... It's just... WRONG! The whole book was a mess. It made no sense. It was preposterous and illogical and no amount of shoddily thrown in verses is going to change that.

When we finally ((FINALLY)) get to the crux of the plot, we find out that there's a disembodied brain trying to destroy planets with 'darkness' and 'evil' (both vaguely referenced as 'cold' and 'horrible'), and that to defeat it, all you need is LUVVVV. You're KIDDING. All of that slop just to get to THAT?!

Read something else. ANYTHING else. It was horrible.