Sign in with Facebook
Michael's Reviews > A Wrinkle in Time
A Wrinkle in Time (A Wrinkle in Time Quintet, #1)
by
by
[Later note: Had discussion with author about this book and why it means so much to so many people—specifically women. Also read excellent NYTimes piece about the fiftieth anniversary.
Some books are powerful for their readers because of their context; in this case, the utter lack in popular kid's literature of 1962 of characters like Meg—real girls, who cared about atypical subjects like math, who were unashamed to be other than pink-wearing cheerleaders. To find a powerful role model in a novel must be a wonderful thing, especially for bookish girls. And maybe it makes sense that as a boy in the seventies, I missed that entirely.
Still, rereading as an adult, I found it unbearably heavy-handed. Hence the two star rating: It was okay.]
One of those overrated books the response to which defies explanation. Clunky, heavy-handed, and as obvious in its way as The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I was only ever able to force myself through this as an adult (having been turned off of it by a filmstrip I saw in school), and no doubt this is the sort of novel--like the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs--that must be first loved as a younger reader. Ugh.
Some books are powerful for their readers because of their context; in this case, the utter lack in popular kid's literature of 1962 of characters like Meg—real girls, who cared about atypical subjects like math, who were unashamed to be other than pink-wearing cheerleaders. To find a powerful role model in a novel must be a wonderful thing, especially for bookish girls. And maybe it makes sense that as a boy in the seventies, I missed that entirely.
Still, rereading as an adult, I found it unbearably heavy-handed. Hence the two star rating: It was okay.]
One of those overrated books the response to which defies explanation. Clunky, heavy-handed, and as obvious in its way as The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I was only ever able to force myself through this as an adult (having been turned off of it by a filmstrip I saw in school), and no doubt this is the sort of novel--like the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs--that must be first loved as a younger reader. Ugh.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
A Wrinkle in Time.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
May 1, 2004
–
Finished Reading
May 29, 2007
– Shelved
May 29, 2007
– Shelved as:
childrens-lit
May 29, 2007
– Shelved as:
sf-fantasy-horror
August 12, 2007
– Shelved as:
classics
August 12, 2007
– Shelved as:
bullshit
Comments Showing 1-20 of 20 (20 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Malbadeen
(new)
-
added it
Mar 19, 2009 08:10AM
YES!
reply
|
flag
I came to read other two star reviews of this book besides my own. In general, the reasons for people giving this book two stars are similar. But, I have to say that in my opinion, C.S. Lewis' work is entirely different than this, entirely.
I actually secretly believe that the only reason L'Engle didn't have the twins go along on the "adventure" is to avoid comparisons to the Pevensie children. Mission: not accomplished.
Strange; I didn't enjoy it too; I've already put it down twice and am just dragging on to read it because its recommended.I expected a writing style like Norton Juster's, but this one was really incomparable..
I just saw the stage version of this and wondered why the book was ever popular. I went online to see if anyone else found it to be heavy-handed, simplistic and cliched. Really, the play felt like a sci-fi b-movie. Glad to see I'm not alone. I really like my "love conquers evil" stories to have more depth and texture than this one did. Maybe it's all about when you read it, but as an adult, looking through my children's eyes, I still don't see the resonance of this story.
I haven't tried to read it again as and adult. I gave it four stars based on how much I enjoyed it as a kid. I have seen the film adaptation since then, with my own kids. It's still a great story, but I am not in a hurry to pick up the book again.
I loved it as a kid and enjoy your insight as to why it was popular with us girls back then. Even as an adult I can reread it and get the same feelings about a spiritual world that is beyond my comprehension but very real.
Well, I don't think so. The book's imaginative plot captivated me. Maybe you're right, though, you have to love it as a child, like I do.
It is heavy-handed and obvious, but it's a children's book: I don't believe that demographic (some, not all) could internalize it otherwise. I remember reading and loving it when I was 11. Doubtful it could elicit the same response now. Kids (again, allowing for what I perceive to be the general "kid" population, not all of them) aren't necessarily attuned to perceive subtlety.
I read it for the first time this year, as an adult. I actually really liked it, but I also love The Chronicles of Narnia, so that's saying a lot about me. (And I didn't read Narnia until High school).
I've become a lot more cynical than the 11-year-old me that read this for the first time, and I also get that no book will appeal to everyone (although it's hard to imagine someone not being impressed with how well she describes various dimensions, even those we can't perceive, in words anyone can understand). But L'Engle herself said it best: "If have something I want to say that is too difficult for adults to swallow, then I will write it in a book for children." Children aren't as uncomfortable as adults are when straight-up balls-to-the-wall love saves the day.
In order to truly appreciate the imagination of this book you should read it first as a child. Grown ups have seen too much of the real world and don't have the mind to appreciate it. Children can get easily scared and that is what really pulls in the readers. It's the thrill of an adventure and children love the sensation of that.
Yeah it was weird. I got through half of it just because people always talked about it throughout my childhood. But its not my style. Maybe Ill get through the whole book one day..
Exactly. OMG is this a heavy handed book. And full of things that don't make sense at all, like a 5 year old child speaking as if he were an adult. Nothing wrong about him having "special powers", but he is not believable as a character. Meg is more believable, ok. The science bits are non existent. WHAT is Mrs. Murry doing in her lab? Absolutely nothing. Angels... bah. Christian Theology for children.
Reading comments on this review lo these many years later and sort of feel the need to expand on a couple of things. First, I have nothing against The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; I love Narnia and that book made me weep as a kid. Meant a lot of me. But it is pretty obvious Christian allegory to an adult reader. Which is how I was responding to L'Engle's novel now: as an adult reader. The power of the novel is irrefutable, but it never held that power for me. What a pity! But I remain glad it does so much for so many others—like all the best literature.
I have to agree with you, Michael. Although I gave it one extra star in recognition of its influence upon others. Good for them, but I found it disappointing. A great new novelette is "Danny and the Dreamweaver". Very imaginative, humorous, and edifying.
I read this when I was 13 for school. I hated it with a passion! It was a disjointed book. Reading it now I still dislike it. Too propagandist.
I'm with you. I *think* I loved this when I was a kid, but as an adult in 2020...no. The writing seems clunky. The story seems limited and limiting and nothing more than a crude vehicle to say that good triumphs over evil through love.The detail in the events seems utterly lacking to the point where I said "huh" after each strange and non-sensical turn of events. Sure, it's fantasy, but I want to try to ground this in some human reality, and for me, it wasn't there at all.
