Wow. So utterly profound and beautiful. A book with a message that will stay with me forever... To choose love over fear and to remember that I am loved. That love is the greatest gift of all. That it has the power to save me and deliver me from darkness.


...At the end, even Meg.

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.

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 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!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry to disappoint you guys, but I did not think this was a great book. I realize I'm just now reading a book you've all loved for years, so I feel bad knocking something that's such a classic in children's literature. But honestly, it was a drag to read, and I'll tell you why. The characters are all either boring (Meg, Calvin) or unbelievable (Charles Wallace). The non-Earth settings are fully disconnected from each other and simply parodies of our world. The pacing is painful, with conversations that drag on and on while the characters discuss the obvious. I rarely found the writing clever or charming, but I did enjoy the plentiful quotations of other works (maybe because it was a break from L'Engle's writing), and I liked the part where Mrs. Whatsit sprained her dignity. If you want clever, read Snicket; if you want human, read Rowling; if you want epic, read Tolkien; if you want mind-bending, read Verne; if you want funny, read White or Cleary. I was looking for these things here but couldn't find them.

I am often asked how I came to write A Wrinkle in Time. Even with all the hindsight of which I am capable I can't quite explain it. It was during a time of transition...

I was on a cosmological jag at that time, partly, I suppose because it satisfied my longing for God better than books of theology. The influence of those books on Wrinkle is obvious. I was also quite consciously writing my own affirmation of a universe which is created by a power of love.

...the book was rejected by publisher after publisher [on the grounds that it wasn't classifiable] ...But this book I'm sure of.

--Madeleine L'Engle, A Circle of Quiet (pages 217-8)

"But why me?" asked Madeleine. "Do I have to do it?"

"You must," said Mrs Whatsit. "Your world is in grave danger. Very, very grave danger. You have to warn them."

"But I don't know how!" exclaimed Madeleine angrily. "What is this danger? How am I going to explain it? It's impossible!"

"Certum est quia impossibile est," said Mrs Who. "It is certain, because it is impossible. Latin. Tertullian."

"Wwe wwill hhelp yyou," interrupted Mrs Which. "Iff onlyy yyou ddidn't iinsist on uusing wwords..."

"You see!" said Madeleine. "You tell me I have to write a book, and you don't even know what words are! You're horrible! I hate you!" Tears filled her eyes.

"Now, now," murmured Mrs Whatsit. "It's much better than you think. The words are all there inside you already, you just have to find them. If you don't mind, my dear, I will just take a little look through your memory."

Suddenly, Madeleine had the strangest feeling. All the books she had ever read were lined up inside her mind like a huge library. And there was Mrs Whatsit, moving through the shelves with her, pulling down a book here and a book there...

"You see?" asked Mrs Whatsit after a time. "That was quite easy, wasn't it? I'm sure Out of the Silent Planet will be useful, and of course That Hideous Strength. Good old C.S. Lewis! And Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker. We want that lovely dance of the stars, don't we? Then we'll take Charles Wallace out of Odd John, and I think some Robert Heinlein and just a little bit of Plato, and now all you have to do is put them together!"

A moment later, Madeleine found herself sitting in front of her typewriter. The words poured out of her, as she covered sheet after sheet. More quickly than she would have believed possible, she found there was a thick manuscript on the desk. Dazed and astonished, she picked it up and began to read through what she had written.

"But it's terrible!" she said, in bitter disappointment. "So sloppily constructed! Such a lack of feeling for the English language! And it doesn't even make sense! None of it sticks together!"

"Goddag, yxskaft," agreed Mrs Who. "Hello, ax-handle. Swedish. Saying indicating lack of coherence."

"You must have faith," said Mrs Whatsit serenely. "You may think it's terrible, but millions of children will love this book. They won't worry about the words. They will see the truth behind them."

"On ne voit bien qu’avec le cœur. L’essentiel est invisible pour les yeux," said Mrs Who. "You only see truly with the heart. What is important is invisible to the eyes. French. Saint-Exupéry."

"It won't work," muttered Madeleine. "I'll send it to the publisher if you like, but they'll just reject it. They'll say it's silly."

"Then send it to another publisher," said Mrs Whatsit. "And another, and another, until you succeed. Listen, Madeleine. The foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called, but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty. Now do you understand?"

"No," said Madeleine uncertainly; but she found that her fingers, all by themselves, had taken an envelope, put the manuscript into it, and addressed it to a publishing house in the city.

"Ggood ggirl," said Mrs Which. "Nnow wwe hhave tto ggo. BBut wwe'll bbe bback."

I don't like time travel books much. I also thought reading science fiction often becomes a chore after some pages. I definitely didn't read the good ones. I realized it after reading A Wrinkle in Time.

4.5 stars!!

“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.”

This was my favorite book as a child, in fact I devoured the entire quintet throughout my tween awkward years. I remembered I had loved the book, but aside from a few random details, I found I barely remembered what happened. In fact, I read it so long ago, this was my copy:



Okay, so I’m not THAT old, my mom just bought a lot of books from the local used book store. I read too fast for her to keep up with me, normally it was just library books growing up. Anyways, I digress.

A Wrinkle in Time is about a young girl named Meg, she’s very awkward, has many faults (according to herself) and feels like an outcast. The only people she really finds a comfort with are her scientist mother, and her odd brother Charles Wallace. Meg’s father had also gone missing about two years ago, and while the town suspects he ran off with another woman, Meg and her family know this not to be true.

On a stormy evening, Meg and Charles Wallace receive a visitor, the peculiar Mrs. Whatsit. From there, Meg and Charles Wallace, along with a boy named Calvin, get whisked away in a journey to rescue their father. But they must travel through time and space to do so, and face a terrifying darkness to get him back.

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

First off, I have to say, with the few exceptions this book really stands the test of time. It’s not dated at all, and except for the mention of a typewriter, this book could take place during any decade. It’s so rare to read a book written in the 1960’s that’s like that, so a solid kudos to the author.

One thing I’ve always loved about the story is Meg, and the idea that she’s not a perfect heroine, and that’s what makes her the hero of the story. It portrays that even though we have faults, sometimes our faults can be our advantage, and that fitting in with everyone else isn’t always the best thing for a society. I love that we have an “ordinary” heroine, who is expected to do extraordinary things, even though she’s not the smartest of the bunch.

It’s a bit obvious, being when this book is written, there are some subtext about the dangers of communism. The evil IT and how it makes everyone and everything the same, or else. I think with this subtext, it also portrays how important it is to be an individual and to make up one's own mind. In a way, this book is very relevant even present day. To fight against what’s wrong and not succumb to forces who want their definition of perfection.

Once I was able to put my mind to it, I was able to devour this book in a matter of hours. It’s a very fast read and one I believe all ages can and will enjoy.

“Like and equal are not the same thing at all.”


Follow me on ♥ Facebook ♥ Blog ♥ Instagram ♥ Twitter ♥

Unlike some other reviewers I didn't think this book went downhill after the first three chapters.

I liked the first two chapters very much, but for a few chapters after that some of the writing felt a bit clumsy and I was starting to lose interest.

But the final half of the book was genuinely thrilling and I found it very hard when I had to put the book down!

I also very much enjoyed the portrayal of the children (in particular Meg) as flawed and often socially awkward human beings. In this regard this book reminded me of the early Harry Potter books (I've only read the early ones) and also in the way the children find their own strength.

I'm curious about what happens to Megan, Charles Wallace and Calvin, so will almost certainly carry on with this series.

Extra note: My edition also carries an afterword by L'Engle's granddaughter Charlotte Jones Voikis, which I found very helpful in understanding who L'Engle was as both a writer and a person.

n  n    n  n

https://wordpress.com/view/carolshess...

I reread this for the Classics for Beginners group read via the Audible audiobook narrated by Hope Davis. The audio format was a good idea. I was able to do other things and still experience the story again as an adult. While it definitely feels of the time period it was written, it didn't feel that dated to me. I will divide my comments into sections because that seems like a good approach for this book.

Characters

The characterization is in my opinion the focus of this novel. The main characters include Meg Murry, her younger brother Charles Wallace, Calvin O'Keefe, a slightly older boy that goes to Meg's school, and the mysterious Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which. Secondary characters include Meg's mother and father and brothers, and the various beings that they encounter on their journey.

Meg's characterization is complicated. At times she is unlikable because she tends to be moody and somewhat whiny. This is understandable, to a great degree, considering how her father disappeared and she misses him, and also her awkwardness as a person. Meg is brilliant when it comes to mathematics, but her social abilities are lacking.

Calvin is a character that balances Meg in very good ways. Calvin is a young man of words and communication. His ability to get along with everyone is crucial on their journey. He is able to understand people and talk to them on their level. And he's a very humane person. He takes the time to understand that brilliant people often don't bother with.

Charles Wallace is a special young boy. His intelligence is off the charts, frankly eerie. This never explained. However, his unique persona is at the crux of this novel. The great evil that they encounter happily tries to exploit his specialness for its own purpose.

Mrs. Whatsit, Who and Which are strange ladies that Charles Wallace and Meg become acquainted with, and help them on their journey to find their father. They seem like eccentric women but they are so much more. The relationship that Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin develops with them is one of loving support.

Meg's mother Katherine was not in this book very much. I wish we had seen her viewpoint more, but that wasn't the goal of the author. Meg's father Alexander plays a bigger role, but he is more ancillary compared to the three kids. He is their motivation and he's the catalyst for the story. The two twins Sandy and Dennys are used more as a contrast to Meg and Charles Wallace, because they are the relentlessly normal offspring in the family.

The evil beings in this novel are nebulous, not really explained, but definitely threatening. I think there are some very philosophical aspects that go alone with the concept of evil in this story that will attempt to delve into shortly.

There's another character that I can't get into without spoiling this review, so I will just say that Meg encounters a being who becomes a bit of an analogue for her mother and father. She connects to this being and gets a necessary sense of acceptance and caring that she hasn't experienced for some time due to the situation of her father being gone, her mother also being a scientist and having three other brothers with which she has to share attention.

Plot/Storyline:

This is a science fiction novel with a healthy dose of philosophy and a debatable aspect of religion/spirituality. That last part would depend on a person's viewpoint on the subject. Meg and Charles Wallace are essentially on a journey to find their father, and Calvin comes along for the ride. They travel to other worlds using the concept of tessering. This is something that Meg's mother and father stumbled across, but the Mrs. W know a lot more about doing right. Because this book is written for a younger audience (late tweens to teens), the danger that the kids encounter is there but it's not illustrated in detail. Nevertheless, you get the idea how dire the situation is for the kids.

Themes/Philosophy:

"A Wrinkle in Time" is a novel about family, sacrifice, relationships, and the concepts of good versus evil. I will attempt to explain what I got out of the novel, probably imperfectly.

Being intelligent is a valued commodity. I think that L'Engle seems to want to say that being smart in and of itself brings along with it some challenges and doesn't protect a person from its consequences or solve all the problems that they might have to deal with in their lives. I believe this is well-illustrated through the struggles of Meg, Charles Wallace, and her mom and dad. Dad might be brilliant, but his brilliance alone cannot save Charles Wallace. Mom might be a brilliant microbiologist, but it doesn't mean she is any less lonely or doesn't struggle with being the sole caregiver to a young family of four children. Meg might be a math genius, but it doesn't make her excel in school or get along better with others. On the other hand, Calvin is a well-balanced person who is intelligent in his way, but also has emotional intelligence and is gifted with needed communication skills.

Meg shows how we must conquer our fears and do what needs doing in spite of them. Sometimes we go into situations knowing we are out of our depth, but this is inevitable. We have to just be present and do what needs doing, and if we're blessed that's enough. Meg also illustrates how we can strike out in our pain at others because of our suffering. With maturity comes the understanding that we all have struggles, and hurting others because we're in pain never achieves what we desire. She learns to temper her fears and frustrations and to focus on the goals and objective. I think that's a very good lesson for people of all ages.

Charles Wallace shows the cost of arrogance. He thought that because he was crazy intelligent and very unique, that would be all he needed to conquer the enemy, but it only got him into a worse situation. Arrogance can definitely write checks that we can't cash.

The concepts of spirituality are present in this novel. Many times, characters quote Bible verses. The true nature of some of the character makes me think of celestial and demonic beings. The theme of self-sacrifice, agape love, and sacrificial love is at the heart of Christian ethos. I don't think anyone could deny that these definitely point to the Christian faith of the author L'Engle. However, she doesn't force a telescopic view of the world through Christian theology on the reader. She cites and includes some philosophic concepts that more orthodox-thinking Christians would have a hard time with. She doesn't put Christians on a higher level in society than non-Christians who have also made important contributions. Also, science is a big part of this novel. On a personal level, I didn't find a belief in scientific concepts incongruous with spiritual belief, but this is not the case with fundamentalist Christian believers. For that reason, they would not like this book. Also, narrow thinking Christians won't like the idea that the Mrs. seem like kindly old witches.

Some Shortcomings of This Novel:

I would still give this five stars because I still love this book and it's also from nostalgia of when I read it many years ago. Meg's temper tantrums could be problematic. Also, there is a scene where Charles Wallace is very violent towards his sister that might be upsetting to some readers. The conclusion is a bit too abrupt for my tastes, quite honestly. I've found that to be the case with many books I've read lately. I said earlier in this book that it doesn't feel that dated. I'm sort of wrong in the sense that the concepts of family are very traditional. Meg feels like she can't go on without having her father's presence (as though he is a lodestar for his family). That in itself is not a bad thing, but modern readers who didn't grow up with this sort of family probably wouldn't connect to this. Also, when they go to Camazotz, it feels like "Leave it to Beaver" on steroids. Very traditional, 1950s sort of view of life. There is no allusion whatsoever to multiculturalism or the concept that all families don't look the same. I did like how L'Engle makes a point that this sort of societal design is sterile and kills any kind of ingenuity or joy of living.

Is This Science Fiction?:

That's a question that will inevitably come up for a reader. I think it definitely is science fiction. Google defines science fiction as: "fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets." Under this definition, it would be difficult to argue against this being a science fiction novel. A huge aspect of this novel is the concept of physics and using it to navigate through 'wrinkles' in time. Also, the book involves traveling to other planets and exploring what life on those planets would be like. Also how advanced science technologies would change life as we know it. The thing that might trip up some readers is the equally strong aspect of philosophy to this story. I don't think these two things are mutually exclusive. In fact, they can go hand in hand. Good versus evil is at the root of most good fiction. And this is played out endlessly in everyday life. Sometimes, it's subtle. Many of us can argue that we don't meet truly evil people, but when you do encounter evil, you always know it deep in your gut. If you haven't read this book, you should decide for yourself and let me know what you think of it as a science fiction book.

I would recommend this book to readers who haven't had a chance to explore this book. I liked the audiobook version. Hope Davis is a good narrator, and she acquits herself well in styling each character. Many years after my first reading, it's still one of my favorites.

A Wrinkle in Time begins in a deceptively normal way: on a night with wind-tossed trees and a howling rain storm. From there, award-winning author Madeleine L'Engle takes readers literally to the stars and beyond in this extraordinary coming-of-age fantasy novel.

I first read about the adventures of Meg, Charles Wallace and Calvin when I was eleven or twelve years old. It was during my early bookworm phase, when I was still learning there were genres that I enjoyed more than others.

I was swept up in the adventure part of this story- facing down the shadows and 'It' in my subconscious mind and heart. I remember thinking the Aunt Beast portion of the story was boring and being disappointed Meg's father was a real man with flaws rather than a superhero who could solve all of her problems.

Looking back on that interpretation now, I see my own burgeoning psychological development and the belief that my parents were some kind of godlike beings- something that most if not all children pass through at some point or another. When did you discover that your parents were real and fallible, just like you?

However, listening to the audiobook as a fully grown adult with a daughter of my own, I was struck by Meg's strength and bravery. It takes a great deal of inner resolve to face down society's expectations and the numbing experience of living soullessly every day, following someone else's school or work schedule and agenda. (A real life version of the pulsing, all-encompassing brain of L'Engle's fantasy world.)

How many days have I awoken only to race off to the hamster wheel of the work week- toiling away so the highly-paid minds of the CEOs could rest easy, knowing that the company was producing product (whatever industry that may be) and providing value for the shareholders? More than I'd care to admit, before I discovered the safe haven of the librarian's world.

In my own effort to find my calling, I was reminded of Meg's struggles to survive her encounter with It, not just survive but decide how her body and mind should function. In some ways, the modern work experience feels like someone else dictates how many breaths you should take per minute or what rhythm your heart should beat.

I had the good fortune of listening to an audiobook that has L'Engle speaking a brief introduction and then an afterword read by one of L'Engle's granddaughters.

The granddaughter (I'm embarrassed I don't remember her name) shared the details and struggles of L'Engle's life- including the rejection of her manuscript by numerous publishing houses and the shade some readers threw her way for their own interpretations of her story. Some claimed the book was too overtly Christian while others thought it promoted witchcraft. Her granddaughter said L'Engle was baffled by the hate mail.

Curious how a reader's lens of perception shapes the experience you have with a book. As I mentioned earlier, as a child I thought this book was a grand adventure. As an adult, I see it as a metaphor for living in the modern world.

I'm keen to have my own reluctant reader try this book and share what she thinks about it.

Recommended for everyone but especially those who find themselves a beat or two out of step with the proverbial Its of the modern world. This book reminds you that you're not alone.