EVERYONE Has Read This but Me - The Catch-Up Book Club discussion
This topic is about
A Wrinkle in Time
CLASSICS READS
>
A Wrinkle in Time - *SPOILERS*
date
newest »
newest »
As an adult, this book was a 3 Star for me. I remember it being a 5 Star as a child. But it was cool reading Astrophysics for People in a Hurry AFTER reading this, since a multiverse is not out of the question!
I read this book for the first time last year. It's one of those books that a lot of people my age would have read in their youth. I had not realized that it is part of a series, although the series doesn't really build on each book. There are a couple of other books in the series that I liked more. It was interesting, though. Overall, I liked the book, but didn't love it. So, I don't plan to re-read it this year. I am excited to watch the new movie, however. It looks like it has been updated, and could be pretty fun. Happy reading everyone!
I've never read this and am looking forward to it.
I'm de devil's advocate. I didn't like it at all and I didn't realize it was a children's book until I read the comments about it. It was simple, but not in a way children can understand it (English is my second language so I thank simplicity), but simple as no further description of the objects. I didn't expect detail description, just not so "smoke in the air". Maybe it's me that doesn't feel right on the way of writing that was common long ago, less descriptive or more "wordy" (like Dickens, who was paid by word or Dostoievski, who wrote installments that lasted forever)
I enjoyed this book for the most part.But I thought the end came a little suddenly. Meg just has to remember that she loves Charles Wallace and they are all able to return home safe and sound.
At the same time, I realize this is a children's book. And was written at a time when children's books seemed to always have a moral of the story. So the unmistakable moral at the end - Love conquers all - wasn't muddied up with too much story.
I'm really looking forward to the movie now though.
I heard about this book all the time growing up so I finally read it last year, and I also didn’t really like it. Maybe I was expecting too much from a children’s book. It also had too strong of a religious undertone for me. I did enjoy its subject matter of interdimensional travel though, and those three magical ladies were a riot.
I agree with Jefferson, I didn’t realize it was such a religious book and it wasn’t my cup of tea.
Jefferson wrote: "I heard about this book all the time growing up so I finally read it last year, and I also didn’t really like it. Maybe I was expecting too much from a children’s book. It also had too strong of a ..."I couldn't find the religious undertone everyone talks about, just the love conquers all. I expected it to be a heavy brick of moral speech but instead was a mix of "science" (that's the part that bothers me most) and morality (it doesn't get to religion to me)
I also didn't see the interdimensional/ multiverse aspect of the book. It seemed an interplanetary travel just like Little Prince (which I also didn't like, neither as a kid or a grown up).
In summary, it didn't feel religious or scientific related to me, just a fantasy book with fairies and weird worlds or planets.
I loved this when young, about 1973, it lead to me loving SF and also fables (satires?) likeAnimal Farm. I love the mom who cooked stew in her lab but also was intelligent and respected, not just a housewife. I loved that Calvin was so worthy of Meg's crush, and that, omg, he liked her back!
I love the knock against suburbia with the families that conformed, except for the poor child who didn't have good ball-handling skills. It fit right in with the fact that The Monkees were popular then, and I liked the song "Pleasant Valley Sunday."
And when I was young, the scene where Meg has to talk to It was terrifying, chilling.
Definitely not hard SF, but science-y enough to intrigue. I don't see the religion at all (though I do recall it in later books, which made me stop reading them). Definitely some philosophy, which was most interesting to me as a pre-teen child.And I should add that the first time I encountered this book was when our teacher read it aloud to us over the space of a couple of weeks... which was good, as I had time to think about it as we went along, instead of getting hooked and reading straight through as I always do and have done.
I've had occasion to re-read it several times over the years and it isn't as wonderful to an adult after too many times. I'm not sure I'll reread it this time,.. my memory seems to be sufficient.
Sarah, I agree with you. I also found it fun reading this book after Astrophysics for People in a Hurry. I think it really added to my funSarah wrote: "As an adult, this book was a 3 Star for me. I remember it being a 5 Star as a child. But it was cool reading Astrophysics for People in a Hurry AFTER reading this, since a multiverse is not out of ..."
I read this mostly because my little sister wanted to see the movie, and it looked interesting. I wanted to like it. I knew it was a classic and the movie looked really nifty.Long story short, I really didn't like this.
So here's the long of it. ;)
There weren't so much religious undertones as there were oddly disjointed religious comments kind of shoehorned in to random places. The first one threw me off so much that I actually marked the pages in the book when I came across them. There were five and they all felt really out of place.
The first was when Mrs. Whatsit translated the song of the creatures on the planet they first visited. It was about giving glory unto the lord.
The second was when they talked about fighters of the Dark, and the first person they guessed was Jesus.
Later in the book Mr. Murray made the comment "all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose."
Towards the end the kids guessed that the three Mrs. were Guardian Angels, or Messengers of God.
Lastly, Mrs. Who recited a passage to Meg all about God in the chapter The Foolish and the Weak.
I don't have an issue with a book that has a religious message if it fits in the story. I don't generally seek them out, but if it makes sense then I'm cool with it. But these random parts just stuck out like sore thumbs and felt weird.
I had one other passage that I marked because it got under my skin so badly. Aunt Beast went on and on about not understanding what Meg meant when she used words like see, dark, light, opaque. They don't have eyes. They do not see. And then later Aunt Beast uses the phrase "I can see that you wish..." It seems like a minor thing, but when you make a big deal about a species not knowing what it means to see, they should not then use the word in a phrase.
Aside from that, the story was disjointed and the dialogue was clunky. The children's reactions to things were either underwhelming for crazy scenarios, or overreactions to comparatively simple things. I didn't understand at all what purpose the twins served in the story. All their existence accomplished was making it seem like their mother loved Charles Wallace and Meg more than her other two children. She didn't really have any connection with them at all and they were just outsiders to the rest of their family. Why bother writing them in at all? The movie didn't even include them.
This is the first book in a REALLY long time that I gave two stars.
I wanted to like it, but I couldn't. I found the characters flat, the story quite boring, I thought some things came form left field and the story, in the end, goes nowhere as interesting as what "astrophysics for children" pretends to be. I never read it as a child (I grew up in a French speaking household, and it isn't quite as known in French speaking areas than in the USA I guess), so I wonder how I would have find it as a child.
There are interesting concepts, and I can recognize the fact that the book was published a long time ago, so it was quite unique for the time. But nowadays, there are so many better children books published, including in science-fiction.
My sister told me the author had to send the manuscript many, many times before someone accepted to publish it, and I don't have any difficulties believing it.
Anyway, great for you if you liked it, but I thought it was, unfortunately, a mess. I also wonder how many people considering this "a masterpiece" are reading it with the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia?
Sarah wrote: "As an adult, this book was a 3 Star for me. I remember it being a 5 Star as a child."Very well put. I enjoyed it more as a child but still liked it as an adult. I didn't find the religious references too annoying but I hadn't remembered reading them as a child. For whatever reason, the scene with the turkey dinner was one that I remembered vividly from my childhood read, as well as the explanation of "tessering."
It's hard to believe that this book was written when JFK was still President, and the Beatles hadn't come to America yet.
Definitely 5 star for me.It was very action packed
It's always interesting to me to see reactions from people reading this for the first time as adults.I've read it three times for sure that I can remember.
Once in junior high, once in high school and once a few years ago (putting me in the early/mid twenties)
I loved it when I first read it. I identify with Meg in a lot of ways, so her character really resonated with me then. She was probably the first book character to do so for me.
Maybe that's why I still enjoyed it the second and third times I read it.
Maybe its because I've always been fairly religious (cradle Catholic here), but to me the religious themes in this were never as apparent as the religious overtones of say, The Chronicles of Narnia. I didn't even catch most of them at all the first time I read it. Maybe it would have been different if I read it for the first time as a adult.
For me, this is a book that always seems to say something I need to hear at the time I read it. The first time, I was a preteen girl who struggled with being smarter than my classmates, but not pretty and not popular. Meg helped me realize that being me was more than enough and that there was nothing wrong with being smart. High school me, who never had luck with the boys, was encouraged by Calvin who liked Meg for who she was - it gave me hope that someday I'd find *my* Calvin. Twenty-something me liked the reminder on the importance of family- since love for her father is so much a driving force behind Meg's actions in the book while still giving me hope about finding "the one" who would love me for me. Maybe that's kind of silly, but its the truth of this book for me.
Sarah, I don't think any bit of what you said is the least bit silly. You've made me want to reread this yet again.The only thing I want to say is that I never noticed any religious references in Narnia, either. But a few months ago I very much enjoyed Lewis' The Screwtape Letters, and I'm currently in the middle of Perelandra, so I'm learning how very important the questions of Christianity were to Lewis. And, I'm thinking, to other writers of quality children's Literature of the early to mid 20th century.
Just started reading A Wrinkle in Time because I want to see the movie! 😂 I'm enjoying it so far but, from what I've heard, I'm wondering how it became so well known - even so far as to become a "classic." Was there nothing else being written like this at the time?
Rachel wrote: "I'm enjoying it so far but, from what I've heard, I'm wondering how it became so well known - even so far as to become a "classic." Was there nothing else being written like this at the time?"I know children's lit, and I can name you other science fantasy books with philosophical underpinnings, but I would still argue that Wrinkle in Time is unique.
*Meg seemed more mature than other protagonists-especially female protagonists. Her affection for Calvin seemed like a natural growth of her character, and not a paste-on done by the author.
*The Sci Fi elements are more conceptual than you often get with kids' lit. It's a lot more than, "Look! A robot!"
*The concepts about good and evil are more subtle and nuanced than you typically get in kids' lit. L'Engle trusted her readers and didn't talk down to them.
*The prose is unusually tactile. There is a lot of non-visual sensory description. This is one of the few books that I remember through feeling rather than through seeing.
*The religious elements are moderate, even liberal. Other Christian fiction tends to be dogmatic and use the terrors of damnation to drive the plot. L'Engle was a liberal Episcopelian, and she focuses more on the importance of love and the absence of love.
Cheryl wrote: "Sarah, I don't think any bit of what you said is the least bit silly. You've made me want to reread this yet again.The only thing I want to say is that I never noticed any religious references in..."
Thanks, Cheryl.
Feeling as emotionally connected to this book as I do, it can be kind of hard to talk about it.
With Narnia, its not so much references as over arching themes. I always thought that they were not as clear earlier in the series, but they are very obvious by the end. But maybe I saw them more easily because I expected them to be there? Not sure.
I really enjoyed The Screwtape Letters. I read it ages ago and have been wanting to reread now that I'm an adult. See if I catch things I missed as an early teen. I *think* I read CS Lewis' Space Trilogy at one point, but cannot remember for sure. Its on my TBR either way.
Phil wrote: "Rachel wrote: "I'm enjoying it so far but, from what I've heard, I'm wondering how it became so well known - even so far as to become a "classic." Was there nothing else being written like this at ..."
^^^^What Phil said.
Thank you Phil. Brilliant.
Phil wrote: "Rachel wrote: "I'm enjoying it so far but, from what I've heard, I'm wondering how it became so well known - even so far as to become a "classic." Was there nothing else being written like this at ..."Phil has a great response!
I just finished this last night (my first time as an adult, I previously had read it with my class in elementary school), and it definitely was a different experience. I remember as a kid, I was confused by the vocab but was inspired by Charles Wallace to open the dictionary to pick new words. I think the idea of children being smart and "heroes" to rescue the father/fight IT was really thrilling to me, especially because Meg (and even genius Charles Wallace) were flawed and very much children.
But man, I totally forgot how evocative the descriptions were. This was really a book that taught me to use my senses through words - I remember my teacher asking us to illustrate the characters (especially Aunt Beast!)
Cat, I agree with you that the descriptions engage your senses. This is one of the reasons I still love the book as an adult. It's a quick read but the movie playing in my head goes on for a much longer time.
This is my first book with the group. I was excited to find that I had a copy in my classroom library and was able to join the read as I am on a long wait list for the other two books.I am about a third of the way through at this point. So far, I really enjoyed the first two Chapters - the tone is lovely and the characters endearing , especially Charlies Wallace. However, my attention started to wane in Chapter 3 and 4. For some reason that I can't quite put my finger on, it almost feels to me as if there are chunks of text missing - like the story jumped forward too quickly once Calvin was introduced. Also, I am having a hard time believing in the Mrs. Whatsit and Which and Who (especially after Mrs. Whatsit's transformation into a magical/mythical flying creature).... I will pick the book up again this afternoon and see if the story comes back together for me. If nothing else, I am very curious what happened to the father.
Cheryl wrote: "Thank you Phil. Brilliant."Agree 100%. Nice analysis Phil.
I'll agree that this doesn't work as well for adults as it would for those it was written for, but even though it's not my favorite book, it moved me to buy a copy for my sister's kids and plan an outing for this weekend to see the movie.I read the non-movie version from my library, but when I bought the copy for my sister's kids, it's the more recent version and it includes a few extras. One of those is a short note from the author saying it was nearly impossible to get the book published because publishers didn't believe it was appropriate for kids - too nuanced, too "hard."
She'd been reading it to her kids, though, as she wrote it, and they loved it (that must be wonderful as a writer - to have your audience handy...) In any event, it obviously got published, but I do think it says a lot about how kids' books have changed. While this seems very...basic.. to me, it's clearly a stepping-stone toward the more involved children's lit/YA we have these days.
I actually wondered if the religious references were installed simply to please a publisher. They seemed off to me, like they weren't part of the book. Narnia and others have very clear theological overtones, but this is simply a moral story (ike many others.) When mention of Jesus or God came up the few times it did, it simply didn't fit.
For instance, when Charles (the father) points out (in the Absolute Zero chapter) that he is simply a flawed human and Calvin was right about us all being sent here for a purpose, that all fits. But then there's this strange sentence "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." That felt very clunky to me - it didn't need to be there, it didn't fit, it just thuds where other dialogue sings.
And it's followed immediately by Meg yelling about the black thing and the Mrs. Beast chapter. So that just feels strange to me, and it made me wonder if these overtly religious add-ons were simply to please a publisher.
Ella wrote: "it's clearly a stepping-stone toward the more involved children's lit/YA we have these days."I think children's science fiction has gotten a lot dumber since this book came out. For example, The Hunger Games is a brains-free popcorn book that falls apart when you think about it for a minute. I'm interested to know which children's books you think are more challenging than Wrinkle in Time.
Ella wrote: "I actually wondered if the religious references were installed simply to please a publisher."
No, it was all L'Engle. The religious element was a huge risk from a publishing standpoint. Wrinkle in Time has been frequently challenged or banned since its publication, sometimes for being too religious, and more often for being too liberal.
I love that L'Engle named one of her characters after John Calvin.
Omg, thank you Phil for supporting my opinion of Hunger Games!
Phil wrote: "Ella wrote: "it's clearly a stepping-stone toward the more involved children's lit/YA we have these days."I think children's science fiction has gotten a lot dumber since this book came out. For ..."
Cheryl wrote: "Omg, thank you Phil for supporting my opinion of Hunger Games!"
That's why I never read the books and had no interest in the movies. Its so ridiculous.
Phil wrote: "Ella wrote: "it's clearly a stepping-stone toward the more involved children's lit/YA we have these days."I think children's science fiction has gotten a lot dumber since this book came out. For ..."
Most of today's YA lit is dumb, as it was Sweet Valley series in my teen years. But I keep disagreeing about how challenging A wrinkle in time was.Maybe is childhood background, growing up in a different culture or having experienced different story telling and children's icons that make me, as an adult, unable to understand the visions and sensory experiences and feel it's an incomplete book.
When immagery is so complex and conceptual it loses power with me, as happened with Lovecraft's story The Dunwick horror.
During my childhood what I had access to was a collection called El barco de vapor, and the books were classified in colours depending your age and reading level. But what I've noticed is that lit in Spanish is more inclined to realism than fantasy, so you have some magical elements and absurds that you love as a kid, but no paralell worlds inside a wardrobe or your other family behind a door. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just what you grew up into and could account for the difference in appreciation.
When I read this, I realized I didn't read (or don't remember) a lot of kids books when I was a kid. The first book that made a big impact on me was The Catcher in the Rye, and I'm not sure what the imagined audience was for that one. I read it when I was nine or ten, and it made me feel so good to know someone else could understand my disappointment with the adult world I saw around me. So I'm not sure if I read a ton of YA (or what it would have been called.) I remember the Little House series long before Catcher in the Rye and all of the Hardy Boys, the Little Women series, Judy Blume and some Nancy Drew...I guess my idea of YA more currently comes from books like The Book Thief - which I think is a wonderful book no matter your age, some John Green (which I can't appreciate much, but I still think it's better than stuff I forgot from childhood.) I read a book this year called "Green" that was quite good, and I read The Hate U Give with this group... I guess my thought is that children's literature didn't have any gray areas when I was a child. There was good/bad and mysteries/love affairs. These days there are books on all of the actual issues (George - for middle grade children about transexual issues and kids) tons of books about race and gay parents/gay kids, books about violence and coping (Dear Martin is a current book that doesn't look down on kids while being clearly written for them) It does all depend on what you read and when you read it, I guess. As for the Hunger Games, I had no interest in reading them, and I didn't read Harry Potter either, so I can't opine.
I feel like the book started out great, but lost interest about half way through. To me the book just seemed to go on and on. We listened to it as a family and my son is the only one who enjoyed it.
I really wish I had read this as a child - or when I was in a more childlike frame of mind. I definitely would have connected with the character of Meg as a child, and Calvin reminds me of my first boyfriend. I think the parts with the mind control and the pulsing brain would have been very exciting the first time I encountered them. When I read about the red robotic eyes, I thought, oh how 1960's. Then I realized that this was from the 1960's, so OK then.I don't think I've ever met a 5 year old with the language skills of Charles Wallace, so that was off-putting to me. I haven't read reviews of the film, but I would imagine that the right child actor might make it seem more believable.
We really should give a lot of credit to this series for being among the first (I think) to give young children such challenging sci-fi adventures. I didn't read sci-fi as a child, or even as an adult, but I've seen a lot of sci-fi and supernatural TV shows and movies with brave children traveling in space, fighting evil, and saving the world. Without a Meg, there might never have been a Buffy.
I agree with others that the religious phrases felt very clunky and didn't flow with the rest of the book. I don't have a problem with the presence of religion in this book. After all, if the book's universe includes a huge evil force, it seems fitting that there might also be a huge positive force. I think it would have been more natural to see them pray to God, than to make sanctimonious and rather impersonal statements (...to them that love God...), If the language was less biblical and more natural to the characters, it wouldn't have felt so forced or jarring. I think it also felt strange because we are so accustomed to a split between science and religion. To me, Star Wars was religious too, but the language was more unique to the story. At one point I was rooting Meg on saying, May the Force be with you.
All throughout the book I got flashes of other stories, some that came first, and other's later. The love conquers all ending reminded me of the simplicity of Dorothy's "there's no place like home" and of the advice Dumbledore gave Harry Potter before his last fight with Voldemort. I also had flashes of Star Wars, Neverending Story, and Contact.
I am so glad that I'm not alone in my feelings about this book! A Wrinkle in Time is such a beloved classic that I thought my tepid response would be unusual. Maybe if I had read it as a kid...?I agree with what many of you have said about the incorporation of religion into the novel. It absolutely does feel strained and clunky. I don't object to the religious component per se, and I think combining religion and science is interesting and unusual, but it didn't really work here. Any religious references felt disconnected and preachy rather than integrated and meaningful.
My bigger problem, though, was that everything felt so flat. I didn't find anything about the story believable or relatable. When I picture Charles Wallace, he looks like a middle-aged midget, not a chubby kindergartner - couldn't he have had an advanced vocabulary and special connection to the universe and still maintained something believably childlike? And what was the point of Calvin other than to show that even awkward braces- and glasses-wearing preteen girls can attract popular boys (/show that popular boys may not have picture-perfect home lives)? He didn't contribute anything meaningful to the adventure, and his protectiveness of and attraction to Meg just materialized out of nowhere. And MEG. I complain about this in my review of the book, but whyyy is uninterrupted anger and hostility so popular in female leads? It is so unlikable. I mean, sure, be angry that your father is missing. Be angry that the town gossips are reveling in it. Be angry that so much evil exists. But have another feeling sometime ever.
The plot didn't work for me either. Everything happens so quickly and feels like more tell than show. I wish the kids had more agency. Mrs. Whatsit, Who, and Which set them on a path, IT and Mr. Murry mostly determine what happens to them on Camazotz, and Aunt Beast and Co. restore them when they're weak. Meg only "chooses" to save Charles Wallace when the girls reject Mr. Murry, Calvin, and Aunt Beast as options. Not inspiring.
The concept of the book was intriguing, but I didn't appreciate the execution.
Read my review (which is less rant-y) here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Although I am not as putout by the religious references as everyone else seems to have been, I did find varies chunks of the book uninteresting and going on too long. Though it is a rather short book, parts of it remind me of papers I have written when I am trying to complete 12 pages and only have 8 pages worth of ideas. But I did actually enjoy and find Charles Wallace believable but also supernatural, as others did not. I definitely agree with you guys about wondering how I would've felt about it reading it as a child. Obviously my 26 year old self has a very different opinion than I would've when I was 10 or 12. But I did like that she creates a unique world and it's a journey for the readers.
This was my favorite book as a child, its the book that turned me into the voracious reader I am today. As a child it was a 5 star book but as an adult its a 2 star book. I was bored and confused. I can't fathom why I loved this book so much as a kid. I still like for sentimental reasons but I doubt I'll ever read it again.
I largely agree with reviews of Jacinta, Kyra, and Erin. I did not read it as a child, so I did not have any nostalgic connection. An enjoyable read. It reminded me of the Wizard of Oz. I had read about others' reactions to the explicitly Christian content. That such content was included did not bother me so much as the way it seemed to be just dropped in out of context and in an unartful way compared to the richness of Christian allegory found in C.S. Lewis or the subtlety of Tolkien. It seemed forced and an imposition and intrusion of the writer's values rather than an expression of values through character or plot.
For a short book, there was much too much repetition of descriptions that did not advance the plot, as Kyra noted.
I appreciated the innocence and fantasy and desire to incorporate a moral, but it seemed forced.
I enjoyed the description of environments, of the alienation Meg felt to her peers, the relationship with Charles Wallace, and the resistance of Meg to IT being the resistance to submission to conformity and uncritical thinking, and of course to the centrality of love as the moral core and goal for humanity.
Being Australian I’d never heard of it until I came onto this forum at the end of last year so I thought I’d see what the “cool” American kids had been reading.Yeahhhh...nah didn’t like it. Gave it 2⭐️. And that was being nice. Still feel like going back and changing it to 1⭐️. Found it to be over simplistic (the recommended age group was 8-13 but I’d say more like 7-9 tops) and it ended abruptly. I read a lot of so called Middle school/YA books (they’re all I’d read for over 25 years while I had the kids at home until last year because I’d read all the kids books as they were growing up and still read a lot of them when I can but not many American ones) and this one just isn’t up to the quality of many others especially from the UK and Australia. Old and new. It’s no Harry Potter that’s for sure. Now that’s a book for 8-13 year olds.
But as with everything the love of a book is relative. The world would be boring if we all liked the same thing.
Jacqueline wrote: "Being Australian I’d never heard of it until I came onto this forum at the end of last year so I thought I’d see what the “cool” American kids had been reading.Yeahhhh...nah didn’t like it. Gave ..."
Off topic Aussie question:
I worked in NSW for a few months in 1999, and a lot of kids were reading short story collections by some Aussie writer. All the stories were humorous and absurd, with some sci fi mixed it. Any guesses on the author's name? I can't remember.
Debbie wrote: "I feel like the book started out great, but lost interest about half way through. To me the book just seemed to go on and on. We listened to it as a family and my son is the only one who enjoyed it."Same here! BIG disappointment. The first chapter was so lovely, and I totally fell in love with the description and portrayal of those wonderful children. But then...?
Since many of you mentioned the religious undertones (that I also found weird), there is another thing that to me (as a non-American) is very strange, and that is the Patriotic undertone. Like, seriously, what's with the constitution and the Declaration of Independence?
Anne-Kathrin wrote: "Like, seriously, what's with the constitution and the Declaration of Independence?"Yes, it's pretty nationalistic to stick that into the book, but it makes some sense. Both documents contain strong statements of idealism, and Wrinkle in Time is an idealistic book.
Hey Phil My guess would be Andy Griffiths, Morris Gleitzman or Paul Jennings. These three are the usual culprits for those kinds of books. And the kids love them. My particular favourites are the Bum books by Andy Griffiths. The Day My Bum Went Psycho, Zombie Bums from Uranus, and Bumageddon from the 90s. They are all in my bathroom beside the toilet for a bit of light reading actually. He writes the very popular Treehouse series now with Terry Denton. The latest one won an award at the Australian book awards the other night.
Jacqueline wrote: "Hey Phil My guess would be Andy Griffiths, Morris Gleitzman or Paul Jennings. These three are the usual culprits for those kinds of books. And the kids love them. My particular favourites are the..."
Yes! Paul Jennings is the one. Thanks!
I love the “Round the Twist” TV series that they made from Paul Jennings books. Yeah all three of those guys write really fun books for kids. Australia has a lot of very talented kids writers actually. Probably why I have so much trouble getting into Wrinkle in Time. The quality of the work I (and my kids) grew up with is much better.
My parents read this to my sister and me at bedtime in elementary school; we loved it. I read the whole series again when I was a teen and still loved it, and listened to the audiobook last year and still loved it. I sort of feel like I'm in the minority, but for me, it stood the test of time. The large number of intelligent female characters and all the cool physics is a big draw. I felt like it was more spiritual than religious, though I understand how it might seem overly religious to some. I empathized a lot with Meg, and I've known preternaturally brilliant kids like Charles Wallace, so I didn't have a problem with him. Ms. Beast is one of my favorite sci-fi characters ever, I love how she was so tactile and opened Meg up to the wonders of senses other than sight. Calvin is one of my favorite supporting characters, and he has more to do in later books. I like how Meg has to learn to deal constructively with her anger, how Charles Wallace has to learn humility, and the evil monster brain was pretty chilling. I thought L'Engle brought up some important stuff about the dangers of conformity. Kids on a fantastic journey to rescue their dad appealed to me as a kid, and I still enjoy it now. I'm sorry I missed the movie when it was out.
I finally read it, was waiting for Literature Connections Sourcebook: A Wrinkle in Time and Related Readings. And I do have comments to add (to the ones I did above).The related readings are probably more helpful to a children's discussion group than they were to me, but I did enjoy them anyway.
I know there are lots of reasons that adults today can't appreciate this, and that many young readers won't, either. But it is written with grace and wit, and is a fast, dramatic read, and it does explore some interesting Big Ideas. I feared that it wouldn't be a good re-read for me, but I let my inner child join in, and we had a lot of fun.
Btw, though this time the Christian message seems pretty heavy, I didn't even notice it the first few times I read it, when I was a child & young teen. Back then I understood Jesus to be just one of many thinkers, (the bit where he was mentioned along with Gandhi, Euclid, etc.), and I understood the "He" to be a generic higher being that could be disregarded, and I focused on the ideas of Love and Freedom and Courage.
I particularly was taken by the idea that form is irrelevant. Whether one wears piles of scarves and boots, or has trouble materializing beyond a shimmer, or is a furry and blind Aunt Beast, or looks like a kindly gentleman but happens to have red eyes doesn't matter. What matters is what one actually *is* inside.
I was also taken by the idea of a father who, despite all his talents, courage, & love, could *not* solve all the family's problems. The children not only needed to rescue him, but they also basically needed to do the job that, in most traditional storybooks, would have been his to do.
Anne-Kathrin wrote: "and that is the Patriotic undertone. Like, seriously, what's with the constitution and the Declaration of Independence?"."I didn't even think about that when I was reading it. I don't know if they still do, but children would memorize and recite at least parts of the constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg address, and so on in school. So it made sense to me that when trying to fight It's control, they would just grab onto whatever they knew to distract them from it - reciting those things was something they were used to but still had to think about without any meter that could fall into It's pattern. They were American children and it was an American thing to do. Probably not so much anymore, but back then definitely.
I'm with a lot of other people here in that I never read this as a child. I'm not sure why, my parents owned it and I distinctly remember the picture on the cover, but I never read it.
I did not think the religious pieces were out of place, but I am a religious person so maybe that helped it seem more natural to me. Yeah they name Christ as someone who fought the dark/It/the evil, but then they went on to name others as well who were non-religious, which was pretty liberal of L'Engle. The religious aspects/themes are definitely done better by authors like C. S. Lewis and Tolkien, but this felt like it was going for the same sort of feel. It worked for me, either way.
I did think a lot of the writing clunky though, and there were definitely times where I had to make sure I hadn't skipped a page because it felt like I had somehow missed the connections between Thought A and Thought B in some places. I found this particularly odd because some of the writing was so smooth, and then there would be this clunky chunk that would make me think, "what? What just happened?"
And especially at the end it did feel very sudden and unfinished. I had to remind myself that the original quest was merely to rescue Meg and Charles' father, which they accomplished. That was it, the main goal, though then they had to rescue Charles Wallace (what a mouthful of a name!) as well.
Like someone else said above, I loved the message of non-conformity and individuality as strengths. And I liked that Meg had to learn how to turn her faults/weaknesses into strengths.
Cheryl wrote: "I particularly was taken by the idea that form is irrelevant. Whether one wears piles of scarves and boots, or has trouble materializing beyond a shimmer, or is a furry and blind Aunt Beast, or looks like a kindly gentleman but happens to have red eyes doesn't matter. What matters is what one actually *is* inside.I was also taken by the idea of a father who, despite all his talents, courage, & love, could *not* solve all the family's problems. The children not only needed to rescue him, but they also basically needed to do the job that, in most traditional storybooks, would have been his to do"
I love how you worded this! I agree completely and I found this to be some of the best aspects of the book. Thank you for verbalizing these thoughts so well.
:blush: thank you kindly
EVERYONE Has Read This but Me - The Catch-Up...
Books mentioned in this topic
Literature Connections Sourcebook: A Wrinkle in Time and Related Readings (other topics)The Hunger Games (other topics)
The Screwtape Letters (other topics)
The Screwtape Letters (other topics)
Perelandra (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Paul Jennings (other topics)John Calvin (other topics)
Madeleine L'Engle (other topics)
This discussion will be FULL OF SPOILERS. If you have not read the book yet and don't want to ruin the ending, hop on over to the spoiler-free discussion HERE .
Happy reading!
Kasey