One of these days, I will finally realize that I am in fact an adult, and will stop wanting to recapture an alternate childhood. Even if Hollywood insists on flashy (re)adaptions of every children's book in existence. Damn you!



The easiest and most natural thing to do when faced with failure, is to pinpoint a culprit. Preferably someone other than one's own self, so I choose my country's school system. If you go by its compulsory reading list, it's clear that a heavily depressed child/teenager is what it takes to ace Literature class.

The reading list boasts of such lovely stories like :
- baby is eaten by eagles
- magic sheep to witness last will of suicidal shepherd
- mythical star gets its heart broken by uncaring princess
- materialistic peasant climbs over everyone and everything to get a bit of land
- OR, my personal favorite: French boy breaks innocent Indian girl's heart - if only because the lack of any tragic deaths.



So trust me when I tell you that I'm positively green with envy, when others get a frigging space-fairy-tale to analyze. Not only does it boast of an interesting title (A Wrinkle in Time), but its author also parades around with an absolutely fabulous (pen?)name (Madeleine L'Engle). Add to that a story that manages to coast by with minimal religious references. Meaning... if noone explicitly mentions God or Jesus, I can convince myself that things have nothing to do with them.

What I'm saying is that I should've positively ADORED this book! So feeling nothing but boredom and irritation, understandably put me in quite a foul mood.

It started out well enough with the heroine being bullied for being different, but before I could even grasp the entirety of Meg's woes, she gets a huge pile of insta-love thrown her way, space-travel, a villain whose endgame never gets explained... all wrapped in a slew of utterly confusing events, peppered with as many weird characters as 200 pages can hold.

Score: 1/5 stars

I was initially holding out some hope that some pretty visuals would at least endear the movie to me, but I lasted less than 10 minutes. In its defense, I was on a plane, where my attention span is even lower than usual.

5 Stars for A Wrinkle in Time (audiobook) by Madeleine L’Engle read by Hope Davis.

I found this book on a list a while back and I added it. I recognized the title but I didn’t know anything about the book. So I gave it a try. The story is wonderful, it seems to be in the tradition of Alice in Wonderland. It hits that sweet spot of YA story that adults can really appreciate. In this edition the author and others talk about how hard it was to get this book published and how the publishers couldn’t figure out how to categorize it. I think the problem of how to categorize it is over now. It just belongs on the list that I found it on, that was a list of best books of all time.

Doing a two-day buddy read with the magical Melanie! I’m so excited to dive into this book!

3.5*
What a fun weird little story!

This was one of my very favorite books as a child. Loved it so much.

The story takes about 100 pages of tedious, banal dialogue, to get to the point where you are told that this is a battle against Evil, and all you need is love. But everything is so oversimplified, so sketchy--everything is reduced to big words, like IT, and evil. This IT, also called the Dark Thing, is striving to create a communist-type society where everyone conforms, down to the little children who bounce their balls in uniform rhythms and who live in cutter-box houses.

I liked Meg in the beginning, she was a believable character, filled with her own problems, and I really wanted for things to work out for her. But when she went on her journey, and especially since she got to that dreadful communist planet, she got hysterical. She did not “say” anything for half of the book--she yelled, gasped, screamed, cried, etc. She got ticked off at everyone for everything.

Then there might have been an indication that Charles Wallace was going to be a player, but he fizzled. There are constant references to him being special, but we never find out what was so special about him, besides putting a 30 year old into a 4 year old body and calling it “genius”. There was all this build-up for the confrontation between him and IT, but nothing happened. He looked at the guy, let him in, and became filled with ideas from Lenin himself.

Then there are worlds. These characters traveled to a planet that was described in three lines with beautiful flowers and a tall mountain. Then another planet is not described at all except to say that it was a winter wonderland type of a place. The residence of the Happy Medium was another planet where they were conveniently in a cave, and final stop was in a planet that was probably like Earth, except all we know about it is that it had rows of houses and tall buildings. There you have it--traveled all through the known Universe and have nothing to show for it. No imagination to describe and develop a world.

Then there are bizarre references to god/s that come out of nowhere, or in the oddest places, and disappear into nowhere. Characters are underdeveloped; scenes are not finished; worlds are left to themselves; theme is the fear of religious right of the communist left.

It's a caricature of evil, done perhaps in the belief that kids won't get it otherwise. There's not much in terms of a plot, the worlds described are paper-thin, and it shows no historical understanding, no 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

So... this story actually begins with "It was a dark and stormy night". Awesome!

I love everything about this book ─ I love that the dialogue is old-fashioned, having been written in 1960 by a woman who was born in 1918; I love that biblical scripture was woven seamlessly throughout a story that relied upon quantum mechanics as it relates to time travel; I love that it deals with good versus evil and explains it as light versus dark in a simplistic fashion that makes it clear to children; I love the quirky characters; and, finally, I love the Murry's struggle against conformity. In an unrelated comment, it made me want to name a child after Charles Wallace, Meg's five-year-old child prodigy genius little brother ─ his comments on everything were precious. ;)



I also appreciated the pearls of wisdom that were dropped here and there...

n  "Though we travel together, we travel alone."n

n  "But, of course, we can't take any credit for our talents, it's how we use them that counts."n

n  "There will no longer be so many pleasant things to look at if responsible people do not do tsomething about the unpleasant ones."n

n  "Sometimes we can't know what spiritual damage it [evil] leaves even when physical recovery tis complete."n

There is a reason this book received a Newbery Medal, Sequoyah Book Award and Lewis Carroll Shelf Award. It's that good.

This one is weird and interesting, and incredibly creative. I love how unique L'Engle's mind is and that it was her children than pushed her to get it published. However, no matter how many times I have read it over the years, I can't quite fall in love with it.

I recognize its value as a classic shaping of minds and in literacy in general.

It is always just a solid 3 stars for me.

Reread this, one of the great children's classics of all time, via books on tape on the road through the American west this early fall, with L'Engle herself, RIP, reading it! A real treat to hear her voice with her own magic words. A book she tells us almost didn't make it to print because the publishing industry couldn't figure how to categorize it… they thought it was too deep for kids, etc. Great book, must read.

Lately I’ve started reading books without realising they have religious content or connotations until half way through. This book is one of them.

The start was very promising and then I felt it went downhill. It also felt rushed to me and didn’t all come together or make enough sense.

This very rarely happens to me but I believe I will enjoy the movie more than the book. I don't have much luck with classics and this novel is a perfect example. It didn't live up to the hype for me.
This science-fiction fantasy novel follows a 13 yr old girl, Meg Murry, on a journey through time and space with her younger brother, Charles Wallace Murry, and their new friend, Calvin O'Keefe, to rescue her father from the evil that holds him prisoner on another planet.
I have mixed emotions as I read this classic novel. I had to constantly remind myself that this was categorized as children's literature and that it was published in the 1960's. Perhaps I would have enjoyed it more if I read it when I was a child.

First, understand that I am editing this review after several outraged responses. I knew that "Wrinkle" was considered to be a classic, but I was unaware that it was considered a Beloved Classic Beyond Criticism. I read this in grade school and just REread it aloud, to my daughter. I didn't have a clear memory of it, though I remember that I loved the way it started. Now I realize why I forgot so much of it. I STILL love the first 3 chapters, and dislike the rest. But since some of you found (and WILL find, I'm sure) my review to be judgmental, harsh and undiplomatic (a review IS a critique, right?) to the point of insulting, I thought I'd do a little research, look over the book again, think about it some more. So I've edited this review. But I find I just can't retract my statements. They are my opinion, that's all, and I haven't changed my mind. I can only try to be open minded, be honest, and try to explain my thoughts & feelings more clearly. Otherwise, I'd be a simpering fake.

Like C.S. Lewis books (especially the last of his Chronicles of Narnia, The Last Battle), A Wrinkle In Time has strong, (heavy-handed, I think), overtones of Christian doctrine. I'm not anti-spiritual, but I have a personal discomfort with this kind of religious doctrine. (You many not, and that's fine.) But more than that issue, the book is an odd combination of intelligent hard science, interesting quantum science that is brushed over, and quotes from the bible. At least there are a few respectful mentions of other spiritual leaders from other cultures, and moral messages from classic literature and philosophers. I understand this combination garnered criticism from both religious fundamentalists as well as atheists and secular society. L'Engle has earned my respect for taking on the difficult and controversial marriage of science and religion. She has also earned my criticism for raising this issue and then failing to really grapple with it. It's treated lightly, as though it's a natural thing that should be easy to accept, in spite of the many holes and inconsistencies in her story. I wouldn't even mind, except that this book takes itself SO seriously! It's easy to imagine that a school teacher might use this book to demonstrate that Evolutionist Theory and Creationism can be combined, but I find science and religion to have a disjointed and uneasy coexistence in this book. One is always dropped abruptly for the other. Or at least, it seems so to me.

Ok. Now that I have tackled that big one, let's move on. I found the characters rather flat, (the genius child, the misfit girl, the beautiful, genius, scientist mother who nonetheless stays home and cooks stew in bunsen burners while her husband has adventures). The story itself is made up of vague scenarios of conflict of the psyche and spirit, with the entire Universe at stake. L'Engle's metaphors are obvious and their manifestations flat. [SPOILER ALERT] There is a quest to fight a "Darkness" (oooh!) that wants to rid us all of individuality & free will. There are 3 beings who used to be stars before they died in the fight with the "Darkness" and became something beyond our comprehension. They can appear in any form to us, so that we have some way of processing their existence. They are, in fact, so beyond anything knowable that I can't feel much for them or say much about them, except that they make a convenient plot device for transporting the characters throughout the Universe and the story. Anyway, the "Darkness" takes over a planet which turns into a kind of sci-fi beehive, with brainwashed automatons. I found the planet to be delightfully creepy and would have liked to know more about it, (even if it seems suspiciously like a thinly veiled anti-communist warning message.) So guess what's doing the brainwashing? - a giant, evil, disembodied brain, called IT, who is personally responsible for spreading the Darkness across the Universe. Really? A brain? Doesn't anyone else find this simplistic and cliche? The main character defeats this brain by gushing love. I am quite sure that many, many readers were moved to tears by Meg's gushing, but I do not happen to be that kind of person. Before Meg realizes that she has the power to gush love, the crusaders tesser through time and space (no explanation of how the father can do this) to a fascinating planet with very interesting aliens who can't see, but have other senses. I'd have loved to know more about their society and these mysterious other senses, but again, these ideas aren't very developed.

These are the things in this book, and in L'Engle's writing that I love: As I mentioned, I love her courage in at least attempting a controversial issue like mixing science and spirituality. I love that this book has the heart to recognize love as the greatest power, and that it has the wisdom to recognize fear as one of the biggest weapons. I love that individuality prevails, and the romantic in me approves of the loving, whole family. I love that she has enough respect for children that she included difficult vocabulary and a few difficult concepts. Many children are far more capable of handling complex ideas than we give them credit for, especially if we expose them to these things early on. I love that L'Engle doesn't underestimate them in this way, at least initially, on the surface. Since my biggest problems with this book all involve my finding it simplistic, naive, and certain parts of it cliche & obvious, I wonder if I need to remind myself that it's meant for children. Perhaps children should be idealistic, or even naive, in the way that this book is. But then I wonder if that is another way of underestimating them. ESPECIALLY since I felt exactly the same way when I read this book as a child!

Wind In The Willows makes me feel closer to God, or a creative power (though there's some gushing in there too, at the end.) The Jungle Book explores social constructs and morals, more deeply and naturally, for me. A Sound Of Thunder blew my mind, in grade school, with its "butterfly effect" theory of the power and responsibility of each individual. All of these are childrens' books, though they span generations, and time and space, more gracefully than tessering did for me. I could name so many more.

But, if A Wrinkle In Time opened your mind to new ideas, (instead of making you feel frustrated by light treatment of them), made you question some latent prejudice, (instead of feeling bored by obvious metaphors), lifted your spirits & made you cheer for bookish outcasts, (instead of feeling that no one is that one-dimensional) or cry for the love of a big sister & little brother, (instead of cringing when a version of "I love you Charles Wallace" appears 19 times in 2 pages), then it is a wonderful book. For you.