A Wrinkle in Time
discussion
Possibly the worst book I have ever read.
Why do you think this book is preaching against the dangers of communism in particular, vs. the dangers of unthinking conformity of any kind?
Doesn't Christianity, fall into 'the dangers of unthinking conformity' category? The entire message is a little hypocritical to me. Lets bend highly scientific theory so obscure that it already verges on pure philosophy to conform with my personal antiquated beliefs and sell it to impressionable children. Communism was simply the largest perceived threat to the US at the time, and to a right-wing Christian of the 1960s, this atheistic threat would be an inescapable fear. But it is a fear that is dealt with much better by other authors. I only really mentioned Communism anyway as "The Faith of Our Fathers" shares the same two topics.
I suppose it was okay. It's not the worst book I've ever read (Frankenstein is. Gosh, I loathed that book). I found A Wrinkle in Time somewhat boring and monotonous, but I can see why some children would enjoy it. I wouldn't recommend it to them though. Your review was more enjoyable to read than the book :)
Lenjibenj wrote: "Doesn't Christianity, fall into 'the dangers of unthinking conformity' category? The entire message is a little hypocritical to me. Lets bend highly scientific theory so obscure that it already ver..."But what makes you think this book has anything to do with Christianity? I never got that impression from it at all.
If anything, I could more understand the interpretation of this book as anti-Christian/anti-organized-religion (with its anti-conformity message).
And where do you specifically see the references to Christianity vs. ANY organized religion in its references?
I won't lie. I've read another L'Engle book (adult fiction, and written much later) which DOES delve into religion and philosophy in its plot. So I imagine she's not averse to tackling the subject.
I just don't understand the points causing you to despise the book, I guess because I never perceived them to begin with.
Maybe you're a sci fi purist? This was actually a sci fi book I enjoyed as a child (the only one I remember liking).
I liked The Martian Chronicles as well, and I know a lot of fans ridicule the idea of Bradbury as a sci fi writer.
You would get a kick out of the "90 Second Newbury" video of Wrinkle In Time. It's a hoot, takes only 90 seconds to watch and allows you to see it from a kid's perspective (which you note that you are missing). The 90 Second Newbury is much better than the stage adaptation, and I admit I've never seen the movie. My only complaint about WIT is the endless hysteria of Meg. Meg is much calmer in the two subsequent books in this series.
Fred wrote: "You would get a kick out of the "90 Second Newbury" video of Wrinkle In Time. It's a hoot, takes only 90 seconds to watch and allows you to see it from a kid's perspective (which you note that you..."That video was pretty spot-on actually. Far superior to the book itself.
Sheila wrote: "Lenjibenj wrote: "Doesn't Christianity, fall into 'the dangers of unthinking conformity' category? The entire message is a little hypocritical to me. Lets bend highly scientific theory so obscure t..."To answer your question, I would firstly say the fact that there is an entity of pure evil, "The Black Thing", meant to represent the devil of sorts. The very concept of evil being an entity in itself rather than just a product of selfish or apathetic human behavior is inseparable from religion. The theme of love conquering evil as an almost physical thing to be given(a very "love thy neighbor" concept) and specific quotes within the text itself such as:
"We were sent here for something. 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."
They may not adhere to any one of the monotheistic franchises in particular, but based on the author's history, I would go ahead and assume it is Episcopalian.
The direct references may be few and subtle, but they are there, and inescapably change the overall message of the story. Even taking religion out of the book, the story is still uneventful, poorly written and dull. It is just bad sci-fi, and boring fantasy. Just because a book deals with a few things that fall under the science branch, that doesn't make it science-fiction as such. If that is the case, then any book with a diegesis that conforms to the laws of physics might be classified sci-fi. This is fantasy, but it isn't even enjoyable fantasy. By fitting into neither category, (not that a book should have to stick to any particular genre) it is weak in both. Maybe I am a purist, but I am always willing to sacrifice a little of the 'science' of a sci-fi story if it is replaced by a great plot or philosophy.
I loved He-Man as a child. I would have given it 5 stars. Unfortunately, I re-explored it as an adult and could not consciously allow anything above 1 star, because I know there is so many better cartoons for children out there. I believe the majority of positive posts on this board are similar in nature.
As a toddler I once sat in my stroller, eating the poo that was leaking out the side of my nappy while my mother watched on dry-reaching. At the time I thought it was the greatest thing in the world. As an adult I would not give the experience 5 stars and recommend it to others.
Well, okay.I guess a little hyperbole is always fun now and then, too..
Haha, that is true. I have read plenty of bad books but this one is the most recent in mind. There are so many great books out there that I need to read, and this one wasted time that I could have spent using absorbing something of quality. The GoodReads average rating for this book convinced me it was worth reading, leaving me unable to trust others anymore.
I actually really enjoyed the book.
message 12:
by
King Shit of Turd Mountain
(last edited Jan 05, 2015 07:10PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Grace (The Original) Gill, from your favorite list I can assume you are a teen. I am in no way holding this against you, but just know that there is an entire world of much better literature out there to be explored. Publishers market particular kinds of books at your demograph, but they are drained of any real substance. Noting that you seem to be a substantial reader, I would encourage you to delve into a few books aimed above your age. You will not regret it, and you will find it hard to go back. I in no way want to discourage you from reading, but just know that there is stuff out there that is so much more engaging, and it is not as 'sophisticated' as most adults would have you may have been led to believe (we adults like to feel good about ourselves for reading books deemed 'complex' because it makes us superior to our peers, but any book that can't be understood by a teenager is probably just not a good book).
Haha, if this was the worst book you've read, you're a lucky person!
Grace (The Original) wrote: "I actually really enjoyed the book."I also really loved the book. Both as a nine year old and later as a 25 year old, and now at 50. I gained new insights with each reading. This is very much a book that you get out of what you put into it.
message 15:
by
King Shit of Turd Mountain
(last edited Jan 05, 2015 09:43PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Haha that is true. I try not to read any book where the author's name is larger than the title and in bold sans-serif fonts, and the title itself is in a cursive font. If the book has never been published in hardcover form, and is amongst the 'general fiction' tables at a booksale, it is out. I find that usually narrows it down quite a bit, and keeps me away from possibly worse books.This one slipped through as I made the mistake of believing it might be a modern classic.
I think the anti-Communism in it is quite dated, but i loved the creepiness of the kids bouncing balls in sync, etc. And "It". And Aunt Beast, and the witches, etc (from memory, probably getting the names wrong). I think it's a good playful fantasy book to read in a more or less tongue-in-cheek way. But no book will please everyone.
message 17:
by
King Shit of Turd Mountain
(last edited Jan 05, 2015 09:42PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
I'm not against the anti-communism aspect of the story, it is probably the only part I found of any interest. But it has been done so much better by other authors. If an author believes Communism is wrong, it's a cop-out to say that it they don't agree with it because of some evil force. Children aren't stupid, give them valid reasons. You don't have to draw out your argument so it becomes the children's equivalent of 'Atlas Shrugged' to prove your point, but at least come up with a some sort of plausible reasons.I'm kind of glad I'm not living in McCarthy era US right now as I probably sound like a pinko. That's far from the truth - I just think if you are going to be critical of something, do it right, otherwise you weaken your own argument. If she hated communism, fair enough, but many another author has approached the subject more effectively.
Maybe Communism at the time felt like a mysterious evil force.
L'Engle was kind of an odd duck in that she was very religious but also very much a supporter of science and individuality. These books, too, are unusual in that they blend science and fantasy. The second book involves microbiology, the third quantum physics. I won't argue that they are ultimately fantasy, but you can't discount the science aspect. It's what makes them more substantial than the average children's fantasy.This book was my favorite as a child. I read it in fourth or fifth grade and it was my primary gateway into fantasy and SF. It also introduced me to various scientific ideas which I found fascinating (especially the alternate universes in the third book.) I loved the theme of nonconformity as I was a lot like Meg at the time. I didn't get anything about communism out of it, but by the time I read it (mid-70s) that was on the wane. I can't say if it was meant to be about that or not, but it doesn't have to be interpreted that way today.
I re-read the book a few years ago as an adult and while I didn't like it as much (perhaps that is to be expected), I still think it is a good book for young readers. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture. This book fires kids' imaginations and gets them thinking. There are things I found silly in it as an adult as well (the gospel centaurs are ridiculous) but I can overlook such details for the greater value.
Definitely Amazing!!!!!
I loved this trilogy as a child, and at the particular time I loved it, I was a child who had been brought up Catholic and was just beginning to reject religion. I didn't read L'Engel's books as being religious at the time and that's part of what I liked so much about them. (Admittedly, they could have seemed non-religious against a background of fairly pervasive Catholicism.) That said, I'd read the Narnia stuff (at least the first couple) as a younger and still devout child and thought they were awful. Mostly because they were such thinly veiled religious recycling.But anyway, yeah, I loved these books and they had a profound influence on me. That said, when I've revisited other series that utterly enchanted me as a child, the books seem quite different. I conclude that adults and children simply don't read books the same way. What moves us as a novice reader doesn't necessarily do so when we're seasoned readers.
Glauber wrote: "Haha, if this was the worst book you've read, you're a lucky person!"Ain't that the truth!
Haha, This thread was a great read. I totally agree with the original poster on everything. And I thought I was crazy for not liking this book because I've heard people say how great it was, non-stop. But it freaking sucked and I only got through the book by my sheer habit of finishing what I start, no matter how crappy it is. And to make it worse, I prematurely bought the other four books of this collection. Also, the reason I didn't give this book 1 star, is because I don't have the guts to give any book 1 star. The fact someone was able to write a book at all, is itself, 2 stars, in my mind. I would knock a 2 star to a 1 star if the book was horribly edited and written on top of everything else gone wrong (which is a bit hard to find in the book world).
I'm glad I'm not the only person who hates this book. In fact, I hate the first 3 books of the series which I've read so far. I was only trying to finish the series (don't like leaving things unfinished!). I'm quite shocked that the book won a Newbery medal. I'm even more horrified that the author was able to write so many books about these characters in the same boring style!
Lenjibenj wrote: "*** NOTE: If you do not want to read my comment (TL;DNR), please just skip straight to the other 1 star reviews and read them instead. ***This is quite possibly the worst book I have ever read, a..."
You are sooo wrong. Maybe you should change your major. I think a lit major can express themselves without using profanity.
Do not get testy. Those who dish it out must learn to take it. Voicing my opinion, same as you. Reconsider the major (wink wink(: )Happy New Year
It's a wonderful book.It may lose something from both communism and the threat of nuclear annihilation no longer being threats young people can even imagine, but they were quite real at the time. We didn't even expect to still be here by the year 2000.
I suspect you can't even imagine that I'm not engaging in hyperbole.
We experienced lesser forms of complete conformity at school, as did our parents at work; rebellion against that is part of what the hippie/flower child rebellion was all about. A Wrinkle in Time was, among other things, a lifeline to the intellectually inclined, socially awkward kid who liked books.
But on multiple rereadings, its excellence is still there. You may not have the right major.
HelloI just told this person the same thing! Great minds think alike.
message 29:
by
King Shit of Turd Mountain
(last edited Jan 06, 2015 06:47PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Madaline wrote: "Do not get testy. Those who dish it out must learn to take it. Voicing my opinion, same as you. Reconsider the major (wink wink(: )Happy New Year"
Madaline, I promise I will not get testy - you have said nothing to offend me whatsoever. Anything I write next will not be in anger, I think I am just a little addicted to playing the Devil's Advocate and I embrace a good debate.
It does amaze me that a book with an anti-conformist theme has such a large number of followers who conform to the idea that such a garbage book is of some substance.
I do agree with you about the profanity use though. It is weak for a student of literature to employ them so liberally, but at the same time it is fun to combine with hyperbole. Being offended by such profanities makes no sense to me anyway. They are just words that you are taught to be offended by, and most people don't even bother to consider why.
Words such as "n*gg*r" or "f*gg*t" are obvious exemptions, because they are directly offensive to the individuals they are intended to belittle. Writing those words as a white, straight man as pure examples I feel as though I may receive backlash as they are simply THAT offensive to their targets even without employing them in a racial / homophobic context and defending them as actually offensive words.
Words like "shit" and "fuck" however, have no context by which to make them offensive when standing alone, so it is kind of absurd to me that they are profanities. Nobody is going to say "Hey man, you can't say that my Grandmother was a shit and she was a saint" or "Don't go there buddy - I have a brother who likes to fuck". It seems a little hypocritical to me that people are so offended by the words "shit" and "fuck", and yet they are more than happy to partake in the physical acts of "shitting" and "fucking" behind closed doors.
It is a little odd to me that advocates of a book that promotes both questioning authority and non-conformity do not subscribe to the lessons taught therein. I promise in future posts to conform to the ideal that the terms "shit" and "fuck" and whatever else I said, words deemed profanities with no substantial reason as to why they offend others, and not use them in my posts. I will comply with the wishes of our Communist overlords and not question the things I have been taught as gospel that make no sense to me.
Poor use of language to express my opinion, yes - but profane? Not particularly. Did use them knowing that it might stir a few emotions? Yes. Would I have seemed like far more of a snob than I probably did had I used a series of 4 syllable words to express myself and have lost the audience I was seeking? Probably.
Anyhow, Happy New Years to you as well. And no offence meant - I just like listening to the sound of my fingers on the keyboard because it never ceases to amaze me that I can touchtype.
message 30:
by
King Shit of Turd Mountain
(last edited Jan 06, 2015 07:08PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Nichole wrote: "Haha, This thread was a great read. I totally agree with the original poster on everything. And I thought I was crazy for not liking this book because I've heard people say how great it was, non-st..."Marietta wrote: "I'm glad I'm not the only person who hates this book. In fact, I hate the first 3 books of the series which I've read so far. I was only trying to finish the series (don't like leaving things unfin..."
It gladdens me to know that I am not the only person in the world mind-controlled by the IT when it comes to their views on this book. I know what you mean when it comes to giving one star though. As someone who one day seeks to be an author himself, and knowing how hard it is to produce quality work, this will allll come back to bite me in the arse one day. And no, my story will not be a cleverly linked together series of "shits" and "fucks" as some might believe.
It is actually a story about three time/space travelling witches, some annoying kids and a a stormy cloud that is defeated by a glove. This is the true reason I don't want anybody to read 'A Wrinkle in Time'. It is too close to the plot of my own masterpiece.
Lenjibenj wrote: "Madaline wrote: "Do not get testy. Those who dish it out must learn to take it. Voicing my opinion, same as you. Reconsider the major (wink wink(: )Happy New Year"
Madaline, I promise I will..."
You are attempting to condescend to us because we don't happen to share your opinion of this particular book. We are not *conforming* to your attempted-authoritative dismissal of it as "garbage." Too bad. No one has any reason to accept your opinion in preference to our own--particularly given that you are quite a bit younger and lacking both the life experience and the depth and breadth of reading experience of some of those disagreeing with you. That doesn't mean we're right and you're wrong--but it does mean that you might do well to consider that possibility, that perhaps you have missed something others have found in it.
A Wrinkle in Time wasn't just an award winner when it was published; it has been both popular and well-regarded for decades. This means that it is, as incomprehensible as it seems to you, speaking to readers, young and old, many at least as well-educated as you, more widely read, and with more life experience.
This doesn't mean you are wrong in disliking it. We all have our own likes and dislikes, and all of us, as far as I've observed, dislike something well-regarded, popular, considered a classic.
What's ridiculous is claiming that your position is not only obviously correct, but that everyone who doesn't share it is a spineless conformist lacking in taste and judgment.
A final note: Using the words generally classed as profanity, whether or not you agree with that classification, in order to "stir emotion" in the context of a discussion of literature is cheap and lazy, and only seems bold and daring to adolescents. Four-syllable words, while often useful, are not the only alternatives. You'll find over time that the fallacy of the excluded middle doesn't fool as many people as you might hope.
Lis, I can see you are very emotionally attached to this book and I must commend you on your use of bold and italics as this is something I have not yet worked out how to achieve.Prove me wrong. What makes this book when compared to others worthy of what I would consider a misleading 4.04 Star average rating? What comment exactly is it making on the human condition? What deems this book classic literature as opposed to contemporary young-adult fiction? What exactly makes this book worthy of others to invest their precious time in it above other books? What lessons does it teach that have not already been taught better by others? What greatness exactly am I failing to see in the passages of this sacred book?
I have noticed that many of the people who have posted 5 star comments on this book seem to relate this book back to themselves somehow, making it less about the book and more about themselves. I fear sentimentality is the cause of this book being deemed more important than it is. I find the red-fear an extremely interesting subject when treated by other authors. Maybe this book is only great because no other young-adult author bothered tackling the subject. Just because someone might be the only person doing something, doesn't make it necessarily their product good.
These are only my opinions of course, but I have to be aggressive in my argument because I would hate to see some poor child waste his precious time reading this book above others (as I did) based on the hyper-inflated reviews I fell for on this website. People are entitled to hear negative reviews on a book by an author whose departed status means she will not be financially affected by bad press anyway.
Yes profanity may be cheap and lazy, but so was the prose in 'A Wrinkle in Time' and I don't see too many people complaining about that.
P.S. I know we are mortal enemies, but how did you bold and italicize?
Since there are some L'Engle fans posting here maybe someone can answer a question about the third book in the series for me. Inside the front cover of Swiftly Tilting Planet is a graphic titled "the L'Engle Family Tree" and it's rather difficult to interpret. Or I'm seriously dense. Are these her family with some references to their parallel fictional characters or is it a fictional family tree and so why name it "L'Engle"? What's up with the parenthetic notes?
message 34:
by
King Shit of Turd Mountain
(last edited Jan 06, 2015 07:46PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
If you tell me how to do bold and italics I will let you know my little secret. I'll tell you anyway. See by swearing, I know that self-important people with will react. If people react, more people will post on this discussion and more views will be had. In doing this, my discussion will be pushed to the top of the list of discussion boards. So the first discussion people will see is 'Possibly the worst book I have ever read' and this may influence them not to read the book. This will mean I have done humanity a service, and I can go to my grave in peace. I may even be the first atheist canonized one day.Conversely, if people do NOT read the book based on my discussion comments, they will be unable to give the book a 1 Star rating themselves. This will keep the average of the book over-inflated. This is a risk I did not consider until just then.
What have I done?
Fred wrote: "Since there are some L'Engle fans posting here maybe someone can answer a question about the third book in the series for me. Inside the front cover of Swiftly Tilting Planet is a graphic titled "..."Frank I think Lis can answer this question for you. I believe you might actually find her name somewhere on that family tree as she still receives a monthly royalties cheque in the mail from the L'Engle estate, hence her defensive stance on the book.
Lis, would you be so kind as to please answer Frank's question?
message 36:
by
King Shit of Turd Mountain
(last edited Jan 06, 2015 08:05PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Lenjibenj wrote: "Fred wrote: "Since there are some L'Engle fans posting here maybe someone can answer a question about the third book in the series for me. Inside the front cover of Swiftly Tilting Planet is a gra..."I'm sorry Lis, I couldn't help myself. I was just having a laugh. Looking at other books you have read you seem to have rather good taste, so it seems bizarre to me that you would also rate a book comparatively worse than others on your list.
Lenjibenj wrote: "Fred wrote: "Since there are some L'Engle fans posting here maybe someone can answer a question about the third book in the series for me. Inside the front cover of Swiftly Tilting Planet is a gra..."Cheap shot, reflecting your contempt for anyone who dares to have a different opinion.
I don't have the edition Fred (not Frank) apparently has, and if I've seen the family tree, it isn't recently. I can't answer any questions about it.
Childish snottiness isn't how intelligent adults carry on conversations.
Bolding:
< b > before the word(s) you want bolded, and < / b > after the word(s), without any spaces.
Italics:
< i > before the words you want italicized, and < / i > after, again without any spaces.
This is the simplest of html, and you can use it anywhere on Goodreads that has the note, " some html is ok."
Lenjibenj wrote: "Lenjibenj wrote: "Fred wrote: "Since there are some L'Engle fans posting here maybe someone can answer a question about the third book in the series for me. Inside the front cover of Swiftly Tilti..."You don't get to toss cheap insults for fun, AND claim to be seriously interested in the opinions of the people you are insulting and denigrating. You're not interested in my opinion; you are a legend in your own mind, and only interested in demonstrating that to the satisfaction of the only person whose opinion you do care about.
message 39:
by
King Shit of Turd Mountain
(last edited Jan 06, 2015 08:44PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
I'm sorry Lis, it was just so tempting I could not help myself. I used to get kicked out of class for similar things all the time, because I still am a child at heart (which makes it odd that I could not enjoy this book).You might be right about my ego, but after seeing the list of books you have read I am genuinely interested as to why you believe this book to be their equal. I really want you to convince me that I am wrong, and that this book deserves a place among the greats, because for some reason I am one of only few who wasn't forced to read it for school but still hates it. I want to believe that the time I felt I wasted on it were for nothing. I promise I won't make a single judgmental comment on your opinion if I disagree, but as a librarian of all professions I really need you to justify the greatness of this book without any sentimentality to me. I am a lover of books but I just cannot see it so I feel I am failing myself with this particular book.
P.S. thanks for the advise, much appreciated.
Lenjibenj wrote: "Lis, I can see you are very emotionally attached to this book and I must commend you on your use of bold and italics as this is something I have not yet worked out how to achieve.Prove me wrong. ..."
There are those who don't enjoy pizza, watching aurora boreoalis, watching newborn kittens open their eyes for the first time, attending their daughter's college graduation exercises. Too bad. Life is short and there will always be those who miss out on its joys that others experience regardless whether they are there. It is not an experience for them although they may attend the moment without having the "experience".
So when a widely acclaimed children's novel gets trounced by a disgruntled dissenter, the loss is his. Too bad. Such is life. We don't all enjoy it.
So it sort of is entirely a sentimental thing then. Maybe this is a cultural thing I will never understand being that I am an Australian who only caught the tail end of the Cold War and as such have no predisposed reasons to feel the need to embrace this story for more than it is. Perhaps I lose something in the telling by not being a member of this cultural group. If this is the case, I still believe to be considered literature as such the language should be powerful enough to have conveyed this cultural feeling of fear to me effectively, no matter what culture I was raised in. I seem to think those who are marking this book up may actually be unable to distance themselves from their own culture in order to view it a little more objectively, but nobody can be blamed for that. As such I would say that time will not be as kind to this book as those who lived during its first publications, and as such it is poor literature.
Lenjibenj wrote: "So it sort of is entirely a sentimental thing then. Maybe this is a cultural thing I will never understand being that I am an Australian who only caught the tail end of the Cold War and as such hav..."Perhaps it is you who are unable to distance yourself from your culture--or perhaps the problem is something else.
"Everyone but me is wrong and this beloved work of literature is actually garbage" is not, in fact, likeky to reflect reality. In order to be beloved by great numbers of people in multiple countries over decades, as is the case with Wrinkle, it has to actually be working, speaking meaningfully, to all those varied varied people in those different countries, over that period of time.
And that is successful art, whether or not it works for you personally. Here's the dirty little secret of all art, not just literature: Nothing works for everyone. The experience of art is unavoidably subjective; it speaks both to our ideas and our emotions and our life experiences, and those are different for every single person who has ever lived. Successful art speaks to its intended audience. Great art speaks to a far wider range of people over time--and as incomprehensible as you find it, Wrinkle has achieved that. Yes, even in Australia.
That doesn't mean you are "wrong" to not like it. If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't. It might work for you later, or it might not. (I bounced off Lewis's Space Trilogy at keast three or four times before, in my thirties, it suddenly clicked for me. I continue to appreciate Moby Dick more in theory than in practice.)
It does mean you are off base, and distictly over-supplied with ego, in declaring it to be "garbage," and believing it is somehow your job to either keep other people from "wasting their time," or trying to lower its overall rating on Goodreads.
You, like the rest of us who've read it, can review it, rate it, make your own small contribution to its overall rating and what people read about it when they are considering whether to read it. What you can't know is how that will affect their choices. I've read positive, even glowing reviews that convinced me I wouldn't want to read that book if it were the last one on Earth, and negative reviews that spurred me to get a copy immediately. Which is to say, it's not just your opinion of the book, but what you actually say, and what you identify as its strengths or weaknesses, will cause people to evaluate not only the book but your judgment.
You might want to readAn Experiment in Criticism by CS Lewis. It might be helpful, not in liking Wrinkle, which may never work for you, but in understanding why people not only like things you think they shouldn't, but why they're not really that interested in being told they shouldn't--rather than why you don't.
Lis wrote: "Lenjibenj wrote: "So it sort of is entirely a sentimental thing then. Maybe this is a cultural thing I will never understand being that I am an Australian who only caught the tail end of the Cold W..."Also, of course, I can't really type, on my phone, at this hour of the morning. Please ignore typoes. :(
Lis, I salute you. Now I'm off to check out your book list and your reviews. Finding you has made this thread worthwhile.
I haven't read this book as an adult (I'm 43), but I remember loving her books as a kid. I'm wondering, though, why people are bashing books on Goodreads all the time. Good, honest discussions of books are great, but I don't enjoy feeling like I'm being criticized for books I liked. I'm not a big fan of The Help but you don't see me telling all those people who were loving it that they shouldn't. What do I care if they like it and I didn't?
Lis, thank you for the input, I very much appreciate what you are trying to say (and I would be even more hypocritical than I already am if I were to care about typos).I will make time to read the C.S. Lewis work you mentioned, despite the fact that I deeply disagree with Lewis on a theological level. I have read "The Lion ..." etc. by him and I also gave it 1 Star, but I got it and so I didn't feel the need to post a review, and therein lies the difference. I understood that that book was not particularly of interest to me, but at the same time I could understand the fantasy appeal. This goes the same for 'On The Road' and 'Beowulf'. I appreciate your lecture on analysis, but what I am seeking is some specifics as to what makes this book great. Why is it that I can read 'Medea' or 'The Cantebury Tales' and instantly understand the diegesis, but a book much closer to my own generation I cannot feel the same for. I understand that GoodReads reviews may give cookbooks 5 Stars or children's books 5 Stars, but they fall into particular genres to meet specific needs. I feel that if 'A Wrinkle in Time' were to be classified only as Young Adult Fiction rather than classic sci-fi or literature, I would not be as passionate about this. This is not really GoodReads or its user's fault, but a fault of society that has deemed this book something MORE than Young Adult Fiction, and unfortunately that allowed it to waste my precious time.
I guess to put my point of view into context for you, I will have to (as I formally criticized others for doing) tell you how this book relates to me and why I find it of particular annoyance.
I wasted 10 years of my life because of another 1 Star book that nobody could give a decent explanation as to why there is anything of worth to it besides cultural sentiment. All I would get was 'it is just beautiful' or 'it is so poetic'. If I told you I became a soldier post 911, you can probably assume which book it is I am referring to. Again, the author died a long time ago. People are too scared to judge this book. When they do ... just look at what has happened in France this morning. Now I realize that I am on the Internet using a pseudonym and half the people on here are probably going to think this is bullshit, and based on my previous rants I probably seem quite full of it, and I accept that. My claim here is not that I am a hero, but that I wasted a decade of my life based on unchallenged views of bad literature.
So yes, I am probably a little more aggressive than others when it comes to defending my views on this book. I probably won't be winning any hearts here as attacking those who like a book is only going to force them to like it even more out of self-defence. However if I can prevent others from reading this book, I will feel I have achieved my goal.
Books can be quite powerful, and if unchecked that power can grow out of control. I doubt 'A Wrinkle in Time' fans will ever form a political party and try to take over the world any time soon, but we can't hold books and authors as sacred things to be worshiped, beyond criticism. What makes a book so powerful to the human mind that it becomes immune to criticism. At least if I rant on this forum, I might get some sensible answers from well read folks rather than any religious forum.
This book/author worship is one part of the human condition I am desperate to understand.
I have only read the graphic novel. Still not sure what I think about it
Lenjibenj wrote: "Lis, thank you for the input, I very much appreciate what you are trying to say (and I would be even more hypocritical than I already am if I were to care about typos).I will make time to read th..."
If you were pointed in your criticism of the book in an analystical manner we would be more accepting of your dismissal but you both neglect to state your reasons for disenchantment and insult us by slurring us as uncritical conformists. How do you think we would react?
Fair call. I don't really don't feel like doing a close reading on this book, so I just gave some pretty generalised reasons rather than specifics. I guess you will only get back what you put in.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Danny and the DreamWeaver (other topics)
The Book of Three (other topics)
The Borrowers (other topics)
The Carpet People (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
A Wrinkle in Time (other topics)Danny and the DreamWeaver (other topics)
The Book of Three (other topics)
The Borrowers (other topics)
The Carpet People (other topics)
More...
This is quite possibly the worst book I have ever read, and as a lit major I have had to read some shit in my time. It is with good reason that this book was turned down by 40 publishers before being printed. I would question the taste of anyone who gave this book more than 1 star to be honest, and wonder if there weren't a few dollars changing hands under the table. I first noticed this book in a list of top science fiction novels, and the name rang a bell. This is not science fiction, but fantasy / religion trying to find a place within science. If you are a science fiction fan, fantasy, or just a fan of reading in general, this is not the book for you. I made the fatal error of deciding to read "A Wrinkle in Time" due to both its short length, popularity, and after hearing of the author's belittling challenge - that adults don't like it because the (metaphysical) concepts it deals with are too complex for simple adult minds - it takes the special, open mind of a child to comprehend and appreciate her timeless art.
What it takes is someone with a short attention span, gullibility, and no requirement for a comprehensive plot or well-written characters.
Sure, the author's children may have loved it, but from what I gather they were also probably forced to sit 'A Clockwork Orange' style while listening to Episcopalian rants and biblical quotes, so this was probably a nice break for them.
Perhaps Christian mothers in the 1960s found this book as a good way of explaining popular physics concepts that threatened the validity of religion to their children, but I cannot imagine the children forced to listen to it enjoying it at all (but then again I am not from the US bible-belt). Please do not read this book, for your own sake. If you are religious, don't read it because it deals with black magic. If you are an atheist, don't read it because it will be too late before you realize it is thinly-veiled Christian propaganda. If you are agnostic, just don't read it because it is terrible and there are far better novels that deal with God/Gods and science if that is your interest. If you are an adult, don't read it because you will find it mundane, flat and ridiculous. If you are a child, don't read it because childhood years are precious and few, and you shouldn't waste them reading garbage. If you are being held hostage by ISIS and they are forcing you to read it, don't wait for that rescue team, just find a way to die.
Don't get me wrong, I am not completely against the idea of science-fiction dealing with God/Gods. If you want to read a short story that deals with an evil deity with no explained motive and Communism, then read Philip K. Dick's "The Faith of Our Fathers". If you want to waste your time and you hate literature, yourself or your children, go ahead and read "A Wrinkle in Time" - you will be a lesser person for the experience.