A Wrinkle in Time
Ratings890
Average rating3.8
Good and interesting...reminds me a bit of P.K. Dick–short on story, dialogue and character, long on interesting details and fantastic ideas.
This whole book honestly changed my life in 5th grade and prompted my mind o think differently about things. I totally recommend it!
I wish I had read this as a kid, but I never did. In fact, I somehow managed to not hear much about it but the title. I think the title was the problem, actually. My mind focused on the “wrinkle” part and for some reason I imagined an old woman's wrinkled face. I remember hearing other kids say they liked it in childhood, but nobody had ever said any more about it. I finally read this book in the last couple years after finally reading about the author and figuring out that it wasn't really about an old woman, and it was beautiful. I wish I'd read it sooner!
An enjoyable book that took me back to my childhood. The main character, Meg, catastrophizes and is not at all patient. Meg's adventure with her brother and friend, Charles Wallace and Calvin, to Camazotz helps her grow as a person. She learns that being different is good because love can only exist between people who are unique.
I first read this book somewhere between second and fourth grade. My mom gave me the paperback copy from her classroom library (her days of teaching school ended before I was born). I was excited to read the book again (about 40 years later) and discuss it with my Great Books book club today.
What a great discussion it was! I was a little surprised at the depth we were able to go, and that discussion certainly improved my view of the book.
I think it's important to take a step back and think about a book and the time it was released. When “A Wrinkle in Time“ was published in 1962, it was revolutionary for young adult fiction. Young girls were rarely encouraged to be different and to furthermore celebrate their otherness and certainly were not encouraged to use their anger or exploit their faults. In addition, most Science Fiction writers were men, which probably explains why it took so long for L'Engle to find a publisher for the book. Even in the ‘80s, we did not have the plethora of fantasy and science fiction books that kids today do. In fact, one thing that the members of the book club mentioned was that most of our young adult reading was from the Victorian era!
First, I want focus on some of my favorite things about this book.
I love that the book starts off with “it was a dark and stormy night” and sets a tone of uncertainty, a feeling of not being safe, and letting the reader know that Meg's day at school was rather bad. This is a great way to draw the reader in and explore the backstory of several of our main characters. We also learned that Meg's father is missing and some of the small town folks, including the very inappropriate principal, feel it's totally cool to scold Meg for not accepting that her father may have left the family. This would've been a pretty hairy topic in the early 60s; in the vast majority of books aimed at kids during that time, a parent was not around because they were dead.
As we move through the story, character development and worldbuilding are pretty solid. The Ray Bradbury-esque description of the sameness of Camazotzians to the comforting tentacles of the Aunt Beast on Ixchel were outstanding.
The late 1950s/early 1960s were a time that many Americans were still struggling to assimilate into the melting pot. At the same time, there was a backlash against Communism any threat of being forced to be all the same. Quite an interesting dichotomy that I think comes out in this book whether intentional or not.
There was also a huge interest in science and space full of so many unknowns. It's key that Meg has a working scientist mother, which was unusual.
What's also striking in this book are the themes of adapting when you can't see (Mr. Murray and Mrs. Who's glasses) or communicating with creatures or people that don't speak the same language or live in a very different world. Although self-reliance is important in this book, there's also an emphasis on working with friends and family when challenges arise. While themes like this are common in today's YA literature, I would say they were ground-breaking at the time the book was released.
Now onto what I didn't like.
Sometimes the language felt too simple, especially given some of the quotes or ideas presented.
Meg was super annoying at times (you know it's bad when Aunt Beast won't hug you) and I suppose L'Engle wanted to present a teenager struggling with large and difficult situations, but I didn't find myself rooting for her as I think I was supposed to!
“Love conquers all” saves the day - I wish some other method of saving Charles Wallace could have been the answer.
If I weren't to consider this book in historical context, I find it's not as excellent a book and likely wouldn't win a Newbery metal today. However, I don't think that's necessarily fair. Would there be a Harry Potter or the oodles of other YA fiction so popular today without AWIT to pave the way?
At the end of the day, I still think this book is worthwhile for 4th to 6th graders to read because it does spark the imagination and has valuable themes. I hope that my 10 and 12-year-old step kids will end up reading the book at some point and let me know what they think.
Discussion Questions another group member put together:
1. Madeleine L'Engle had trouble finding a publisher for this book. No one knew who the book was for and didn't know how to market it. L'Engle said, “It's for people don't people read book?” Who do you think the book is for? How would you categorize it?
2. What are your thoughts on L'Engle's writing style? Were you at all surprised by the way in which science is depicted and discussed in the book? What do you make of “It was a dark and stormy night,” as the opening line of the book?
3. “A Wrinkle in Time” was written from 1950-1960 and published in 1962. What were some parallels of the global and domestic stage at the time that are reflected in the novel? Do you find any of these parallels relevant today?
4. Sight is a recurring theme in the novel. What do you think L'Engle is trying to say regarding vision/blindness literal and metaphorical? What did you make of the juxtaposition of Mr. Murray needing special glasses to see his children vs Aunt Beast and the species that do not have a sense of sight as we do?
5. “A Wrinkle in Time” is often found on banned books lists. Why do you think the book is banned?
6. A major theme of the novel good vs evil. Do you see this as a religious parable or social commentary? Did you find this message complex or oversimplified?
7. L'Engle references quite a few classic pieces of literature and the Bible, often through Mrs. Who, Mrs. Whatsit, and Mrs. Which. Do you think these three characters were inspired by Biblical or literary characters?
8. L'Engle also touches on feelings of alienation. Meg worries that her father has abandoned the family; Charles Wallace unsettles most people due to his odd personality and preternatural maturity. Fear of the “other” is seen through Meg and Calvin as they are initially terrified by the citizens controlled by IT on Camazotz. If the novel were written today, how do you think these feelings would be addressed in modern terminology?
9. Meg is a flawed person. Does her character feel well-developed in this story? Do you admire Meg? Why or why not?
10. What are your thoughts on Charles Wallace? Did your impression of him change from the beginning to the end of the novel?
LINKS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIFmuIsjGME
https://youtu.be/LxhW3-vXDsk?si=8lQFPVJxjXPTt-fW
https://youtu.be/D0AjelTAcMk?si=Me-7ZNWkTlF1QdEf
It's a 3.5/5. It has been weird reading books for children and instead of them being quick reads i find myself getting bored by the over explanation. I would've liked it at 12 probably, but it's not as complex plot-wise as the other things i was reading at that age.
It does have a good message which is the reason for the higher rating, accentuating the importance of not giving in to mass thinking is crucial, it just doesn't feel like a complete book and not much was explained about the universe we were immersed in.
I much preferred the first chapters before the journey starts.
I enjoyed rereading this book as I hadn't since childhood. As well as that I don't normally read science fiction or fantasy one of the things I appreciate so much about this book is how connected the children are to their emotions, which I think powers children when they read the book. Meg is able to save Charles only because she was able to figure out what she had inside of her already, which was her love, though this may seem simple, I think it is a really good story for young children to hear.
Idk man. This is such a classic children's book and I've heard so much good things about it, but honestly it fell a little flat for me. I think I would've appreciated it a lot more if I had read it for the first time as a child instead of an adult almost in my mid-30s though.
It isn't so much that it was childish - in fact, I think this book was shockingly mature in a lot of its elements. In fact, I felt like it had some themes that were almost a bit too politically charged for a children's book imo. It was very disparaging over a society that is driven by unison and equality, and to my jaded adult brain it feels a bit too much like anti-communism, perhaps appropriate given that the book was first published in the early 60s at the height of such tensions. I'm personally no supporter of communism, but at the same time I feel like because the book is aimed at children, it has to necessarily simplify communism into something digestible and therefore kinda paints any society where everyone is encouraged to blend together into a homogenous whole as somehow evil and unnatural. This simplification is dangerous imo and can become problematic when viewing other cultures in the world outside of America and maybe Europe.
I was also a little creeped out by this puppy love between 14 year old Calvin and I think 12 year old Meg. It's probably more normal back when it was first published, but then the expressions of this puppy love seems a bit over the top for this modern age: Calvin kept putting his arm around Meg's waist, telling her not to stop wearing her glasses because he didn't want anyone else to see her “dream-boat eyes”, and then ending everything off with a kiss.
The pacing also felt a bit disjointed in a lot of parts. For most of the first half of the book, I couldn't really quite figure out the outline of the story aside from the fact that we're on a mission to find Meg's missing father. Then even by the end, we still have no clarity on who or what the three W's were, or what Charles Wallace was either, considering he immediately claimed Calvin as “one of us” after first meeting him, and saying that Meg was neither here nor there. All these fantasy elements were mixed in really weirdly with some science fiction as well, with some really hard astrophysics being randomly repeated here and there. I just couldn't really get a grasp on things.
Nostalgia at it's finest
I remember loving this book as a kid. Revisiting the Murrys and Aunt Beast and Camazotz as an adult was a fun adventure. Having a different perspective, I can understand why I was so drawn to this story as a child. Madeleine L'Engle didn't dumb down or skip the science. She explained it in a way that if you understood, you understood, but if you don't, you still understand enough to continue the story. Meg, Calvin and Charles Wallace are flawed, beautiful, realistic children you can relate to and I think that is such a wonderful quality. ♡
Bizarre is the only way I could describe this.
Meant for a young audience, but I highly doubt they'd even understand what's going on.
But keeping in mind how old this book is and how heavily recommended, it wasn't all that bad.
Once you get introduced to the weird characters, you get used to their wonky names. Has a sweet ending.
PS. Damn the Disney movie has a star cast!
This is one of my all-time favorite books. On this re-read, I did notice a few things I haven't before, such as just how quickly everything actually happens, which in particular makes the developing friendship between Meg and Calvin seem strange. I'm just not sure why I should believe Calvin knows Meg as well as he seems to late in the book. But I still love the hugely imaginative story Madeleine L'Engle has created, the ways she weaves science and faith together, and the power of love and fighting against the darkness.
4/5
Not my typical fare (as with the Studio Ghibli stories of which I'm reminded), but overall a good book.
Sometimes I'm a little perplexed by what some people consider a “classic”. I never actually heard of this as a younger reader, though its 1962 publication date should have put it squarely under my radar. Not until the Disney adaptation came out and the patrons in my library began requesting it did I learn of it.
It's not that it's a bad book, it touches upon the redeeming qualities that its young audience should certainly treasure. It's just that the method for touching upon these is flailing around in the manner of someone trying to find the light switch in a darkened room. On the way it brushes past some rather interesting ideas about navigating time and space, but doesn't really do much with them.
Character development is clumsy as well, it seems to me. It's a given that the heroine must mature before she can save the day, but there's no need to make her that annoying. The powerful and mysterious aliens (or angels, or whatever they are) are more patient with her than her own father, whom she is trying to save.
In the future I plan to check out the other books in the series, just to see if those interesting ideas ever took root. In the meantime...it's okay for a quick weekend read, but C.S. Lewis has nothing to worry about.
I listened to this and thought it was just terrific. What a cool, bizarre, funny, book. Looking forward to the next in the series!
P.S. The audio book had a cool autobiography about Madeleine.
I think I read this as a kid, but it was so much better this time around. The story is engaging and the choices are big and huge. I love that the superpowers these people have are invisible. What are your superpowers?
This is an incredible allegory for resisting institutionalization, compliance training, and eugenics against disabled people, especially autistic people.
Its a children's book, it's well written. I just couldn't care less about how Meg Murry is bullied at school and misses her father that disappeared during an unusual job assignment from the government.
The narrative is too focused on children I guess. Every interaction with Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs Who and Mrs. What feels like they're talking to children, which they are.
Read 1:50 / 6:04 30%
I have rated this book a 3.5 out of 5 stars and I will discuss it in more detail in my Instagram live discussion with Anthony Andrews however I did develop a soft spot for this novel which defines all categories and simple explanations. This book follows Meg, Calvin and Charles Wallace on an epic adventure to find and save Meg and Charles Wallace's father from the darkness. Along the way Meg, Cal and Charles encounter the eccentric characters of Mrs Who, Mrs Whatsit and Mrs Witch, learn how to tesser and find themselves on the planet of camazotes. While I didn't fall in love with the story as a whole as I found the adventure elements of the plot very fast, rushed and not very memorable. I really enjoyed the Mrs W characters, Meg, Charles and Calvin and I loved the meaning behind the story much more than the story itself. This book explores identity, politics, society, feminism, and familiar ties as well as much much more and I can understand which it is such a beloved classic. While I will undoubtedly forget the plot before too long, the characters of Charles, Meg, Mrs Witch, Mrs Who and Mrs Whatsit will stay with me and my younger self wishes I had met these fabulous characters in my youth!
*2.5 stars. Nostalgia-driven. Boy this lost a lot of its luster for me. But I still see glimmers of what I loved as a teen.
I absolutely hated this stupid, stupid book. It's partially my own fault for going into it knowing nothing about it other than it being immensely popular. I never would have read it if I had done a very quick Google search. Zero stars, and I think I'll be throwing the book into a fire pit the next time I go camping so I can get some sort of use out of it.