A Wrinkle in Time

Review ebook A Wrinkle in Time

First, understand that I am editing this review after several outraged responses. I knew that “Wrinkle” was considered to be a classic, but I was unaware that it was considered a Beloved Classic Beyond Criticism. I read this in grade school and just REread it aloud, to my daughter. I didn’t have a clear memory of it, though I remember that I loved the way it started. Now I realize why I forgot so much of it. I STILL love the first 3 chapters, and dislike the rest. But since some of you found (an First, understand that I am editing this review after several outraged responses. I knew that “Wrinkle” was considered to be a classic, but I was unaware that it was considered a Beloved Classic Beyond Criticism. I read this in grade school and just REread it aloud, to my daughter. I didn’t have a clear memory of it, though I remember that I loved the way it started. Now I realize why I forgot so much of it. I STILL love the first 3 chapters, and dislike the rest. But since some of you found (and WILL find, I’m sure) my review to be judgmental, harsh and undiplomatic (a review IS a critique, right?) to the point of insulting, I thought I’d do a little research, look over the book again, think about it some more. So I’ve edited this review. But I find I just can’t retract my statements. They are my opinion, that’s all, and I haven’t changed my mind. I can only try to be open minded, be honest, and try to explain my thoughts & feelings more clearly. Otherwise, I’d be a simpering fake.

Like C.S. Lewis books (especially the last of his Chronicles of Narnia, The Last Battle), A Wrinkle In Time has strong, (heavy-handed, I think), overtones of Christian doctrine. I’m not anti-spiritual, but I have a personal discomfort with this kind of religious doctrine. (You many not, and that’s fine.) But more than that issue, the book is an odd combination of intelligent hard science, interesting quantum science that is brushed over, and quotes from the bible. At least there are a few respectful mentions of other spiritual leaders from other cultures, and moral messages from classic literature and philosophers. I understand this combination garnered criticism from both religious fundamentalists as well as atheists and secular society. L’Engle has earned my respect for taking on the difficult and controversial marriage of science and religion. She has also earned my criticism for raising this issue and then failing to really grapple with it. It’s treated lightly, as though it’s a natural thing that should be easy to accept, in spite of the many holes and inconsistencies in her story. I wouldn’t even mind, except that this book takes itself SO seriously! It’s easy to imagine that a school teacher might use this book to demonstrate that Evolutionist Theory and Creationism can be combined, but I find science and religion to have a disjointed and uneasy coexistence in this book. One is always dropped abruptly for the other. Or at least, it seems so to me.

Ok. Now that I have tackled that big one, let’s move on. I found the characters rather flat, (the genius child, the misfit girl, the beautiful, genius, scientist mother who nonetheless stays home and cooks stew in bunsen burners while her husband has adventures). The story itself is made up of vague scenarios of conflict of the psyche and spirit, with the entire Universe at stake. L’Engle’s metaphors are obvious and their manifestations flat. [SPOILER ALERT] There is a quest to fight a “Darkness” (oooh!) that wants to rid us all of individuality & free will. There are 3 beings who used to be stars before they died in the fight with the “Darkness” and became something beyond our comprehension. They can appear in any form to us, so that we have some way of processing their existence. They are, in fact, so beyond anything knowable that I can’t feel much for them or say much about them, except that they make a convenient plot device for transporting the characters throughout the Universe and the story. Anyway, the “Darkness” takes over a planet which turns into a kind of sci-fi beehive, with brainwashed automatons. I found the planet to be delightfully creepy and would have liked to know more about it, (even if it seems suspiciously like a thinly veiled anti-communist warning message.) So guess what’s doing the brainwashing? – a giant, evil, disembodied brain, called IT, who is personally responsible for spreading the Darkness across the Universe. Really? A brain? Doesn’t anyone else find this simplistic and cliche? The main character defeats this brain by gushing love. I am quite sure that many, many readers were moved to tears by Meg’s gushing, but I do not happen to be that kind of person. Before Meg realizes that she has the power to gush love, the crusaders tesser through time and space (no explanation of how the father can do this) to a fascinating planet with very interesting aliens who can’t see, but have other senses. I’d have loved to know more about their society and these mysterious other senses, but again, these ideas aren’t very developed.

These are the things in this book, and in L’Engle’s writing that I love: As I mentioned, I love her courage in at least attempting a controversial issue like mixing science and spirituality. I love that this book has the heart to recognize love as the greatest power, and that it has the wisdom to recognize fear as one of the biggest weapons. I love that individuality prevails, and the romantic in me approves of the loving, whole family. I love that she has enough respect for children that she included difficult vocabulary and a few difficult concepts. Many children are far more capable of handling complex ideas than we give them credit for, especially if we expose them to these things early on. I love that L’Engle doesn’t underestimate them in this way, at least initially, on the surface. Since my biggest problems with this book all involve my finding it simplistic, naive, and certain parts of it cliche & obvious, I wonder if I need to remind myself that it’s meant for children. Perhaps children should be idealistic, or even naive, in the way that this book is. But then I wonder if that is another way of underestimating them. ESPECIALLY since I felt exactly the same way when I read this book as a child!

Wind In The Willows makes me feel closer to God, or a creative power (though there’s some gushing in there too, at the end.) The Jungle Book explores social constructs and morals, more deeply and naturally, for me. A Sound Of Thunder blew my mind, in grade school, with its “butterfly effect” theory of the power and responsibility of each individual. All of these are childrens’ books, though they span generations, and time and space, more gracefully than tessering did for me. I could name so many more.

But, if A Wrinkle In Time opened your mind to new ideas, (instead of making you feel frustrated by light treatment of them), made you question some latent prejudice, (instead of feeling bored by obvious metaphors), lifted your spirits & made you cheer for bookish outcasts, (instead of feeling that no one is that one-dimensional) or cry for the love of a big sister & little brother, (instead of cringing when a version of “I love you Charles Wallace” appears 19 times in 2 pages), then it is a wonderful book. For you. …more