Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

This thread is for discussion of our April 2017 New School Group Read selection, A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle.

Feel free to post and discuss spoilers in this thread.

I finished reading this book this past week. Having never read it as a child I did enjoy the book but I wish I had read the book as my younger self. I think the story, through a child's eyes, would have been more profound for me. There are just some books that really should have been read as a child and to me, this is one of them. Three stars from me.

Love this book. Looking forward to discussing it.

Did anyone else see the news back in 2015 about the three deleted pages?

Just finished, and while I can see how a kid would love it, it doesn't really hold up as an adult for me.


I'd remembered the good versus evil plot line, and her rescuing her dad and having to go back for her brother, but I'd completely forgotten the dystopian plot line and the Christian undertones!

Michele wrote: "Love this book. Looking forward to discussing it.

Did anyone else see the news back in 2015 about the three deleted pages?"

Huh. Well, that rather solidifies my thoughts that this was at least partially influenced by Cold War politics. But she's not the standard Cold War era author. She's as much anti-Red Scare as she is anti-Russia. Glad that was left out, originally, though. I think that would have felt a little too dated by now.

Melanti wrote: "Glad that was left out, originally, though. I think that would have felt a little too dated by now. "

"Well, then, what about countries like -- like ours?" Meg asked. "Ones that aren't under dictatorships? Democracies?"

Mr. Murray sighed. He picked Meg up in his arms, very carefully, saying, "I think we'll carry you back to the edge of the forest before we light the fire. You'll be a little safer there." Then he answered her question, "It's an equally logical outcome of too much prosperity. Or you could put it that it's the result of too strong a desire for security."

In other words, people turn to dictators when they are scared.
I think it is still relevant.

Huh- dang. Owned and read this as a kid and liked it so much I passed it on to a friend (as I STILL do with books today) and have never re-read it since. I'll bet there was a lot that went over my head, based on the above quote! --Jen from Quebec :0)

Well, but that's preceded by a couple of paragraphs of WWII and Cold War era totalitarian dictators - it's that which would seem dated.

Most of what she meant in that excerpt she already said in the book already - and she said it without being overtly political. Just my preferences, but I tend to prefer books that talk about politics without seeming to talk about politics.

I like the part where they briefly visit the two-dimensional planet. I wonder if L'Engle had read Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions!

What did people think of the Mrs Whatsit, Mrs Who, and Mrs Which?

Melanti wrote: "...I'd completely forgotten the dystopian plot line and the Christian undertones! ..."

Oddly enough, I still don't really see any Christian undertones to it. When the kids start listing people who are fighting the darkness, for example, they do list Jesus but also philosophers, artists, scientists, and so on. Likewise, Mrs Who's quotes come from all over the spectrum -- poets, philosophers, playwrights, novelists, as well as theologians.

The Mrs. W's are implied to be angels and there's a few things towards the end.

The dad, for instance, says something about all things who love God have to work together according to God's purpose, and that they were called to that purpose by God, etc. There were a few more instances too.

The flowers on that moon were implied to be singing hymns.

And yes, lots of stuff gets quoted from, but with the exception of the Tempest quote, most all the paragraph-long quotes I noticed were hymns and bible passages.

I came across this, regarding the Christian themes in the book...

"In her writings, L'Engle often alludes to Biblical themes and probes the nature of a spiritual force governing the universe.

She says the book for her 'was basically my rebuttal to the German theologians,' whose view of the universe was 'narrow' and whose God was 'punitive.'

'I was simply trying to write about an open, loving, universe created with a beneficent purpose,' says L'Engle, who calls herself a 'cradle Episcopalian.'"

http://www.csmonitor.com/1993/0204/04...

Melanti wrote: "The Mrs. W's are implied to be angels and there's a few things towards the end."

Actually no, they used to be stars, didn't they?

Sarah wrote: "'I was simply trying to write about an open, loving, universe created with a beneficent purpose,' says L'Engle"

Yes, I can definitely see that theme in the book. However, a benevolent universe doesn't require Christianity. (In fact, one could argue that the two are in many ways rather diametrically opposed lol)

I was irritated by the writing style and, finally, disliked the book, perhaps for all the wrong reasons.
I felt that the precocious children are portrayed radically wrong, that the narrative voice was patronizing, and the characters not really drawn out at all. The plot didn't make overmuch sense for me too.
Good job it's short, is all I can say.

Nente wrote: I felt that the precocious children are portrayed radically wrong"

Nente, I'm curious, could you elaborate on that a little bit?

Michele wrote: "Love this book. Looking forward to discussing it.

Did anyone else see the news back in 2015 about the three deleted pages?"

No, but the first time I read it, those would have still been in there.

Nente wrote: "I was irritated by the writing style and, finally, disliked the book, perhaps for all the wrong reasons.
I felt that the precocious children are portrayed radically wrong, that the narrative voice ..."
As I child I loved this book, but as an adult I don't remember being annoyed by the precocious children as much as by the story, plot and a few other things. I had thought of rereading her The Arm of the Starfish, which is the only other one of her books I read growing up, but I suspect I'll be sorely disappointed.

Michele wrote: "Sarah wrote: "'I was simply trying to write about an open, loving, universe created with a beneficent purpose,' says L'Engle"

Yes, I can definitely see that theme in the book. However, a benevolen..."

Even so, it sounds as though L'Engle had Christianity on the mind when she wrote this book. :)

Michele wrote: "Yes, I can definitely see that theme in the book. However, a benevolent universe doesn't require Christianity. (In fact, one could argue that the two are in many ways rather diametrically opposed lol"

However, the author did intend this, based on her life and beliefs. Have you read any of her biographical material?

The argument that a benevolent universe is diametrically opposed to Christianity may fit with what the media portrays and possibly some of your own personal experience. However, while racist, homophobic, war-mongering, racist, hellfire & damnation "Christians" make catching headlines and riveting news stories, they are just one nasty facet of the world's largest religion which, like EVERY philosophy or religion has a variety of types in it, including hypocrites. In the US, they are equally divided between liberal and conservative politics, and in churches that keep politics out of the pulpit, you'll see people from both sides in the same congregation. Plus, you see every race involved, etc.

Michele wrote: "Actually no, they used to be stars, didn't they?"

Yes, they said they were formerly stars, but they're also referred to as angels and messengers of god a couple of times.

A precocious child is still a child. Charles Wallace is an adult mind inside the round-cheeked kid (a horrible analogy, given what happens in the book, but I don't have another at this time of night).

Example. Can you see a most forward-developed four-year-old make a remark like Charles makes in the first chapter, about their mother being not merely pretty but beautiful, from which follows that she must have been awful at Meg's age? This is a kind of observation that has nothing to do with brains, IQ, etc. It's a thoroughly adult idea, based on much-embellished experience and sympathetic gossip.

Meg might seem more realistic, but one thing I know is that children like her, with supposedly very high mathematical abilities and bad social skills, find the mathematics a positive refuge and gladly devour whatever math problems they can get. Meg seems to be as reluctant about maths as everything else.

Karin wrote: "However, the author did intend this, based on her life and beliefs. Have you read any of her biographical material? "

A bit. I've read one of her Crosswicks Journals -- The Summer of the Great-Grandmother -- and thought it was lovely.

Nente wrote: "A precocious child is still a child. Charles Wallace is an adult mind inside the round-cheeked kid (a horrible analogy, given what happens in the book, but I don't have another at this time of nigh..."

The only thing that makes Charles Wallace make sense is that he is implied to be telepathic and the next step up the evolutionary chain. If he's listening to adult minds all day long, and not 100% 4 yr old boy, I can let it slide.

But, yeah, he does seem to be an adult trapped in a kid's body quite often.

I'm sorry to seem a hater here... really wanted to like it, so upset :(

Nente wrote: "Meg might seem more realistic, but one thing I know is that children like her, with supposedly very high mathematical abilities and bad social skills, find the mathematics a positive refuge and gladly devour whatever math problems they can get. Meg seems to be as reluctant about maths as everything else."

I wonder if that could be a reflection of the fact that girls aren't "supposed to be" good at math -- that was a common view at the time the book was written and persists even today. Maybe Meg was conflicted about her mathematical ability, since it sets her apart from other girls, makes her different?

Michele wrote: "Nente wrote: "Meg might seem more realistic, but one thing I know is that children like her, with supposedly very high mathematical abilities and bad social skills, find the mathematics a positive ..."

As I read, I couldn't help but think Meg must have been kind of an unconventional protagonist for the time the book was published...in the depiction of a girl gifted at math and science but also perhaps in being a female lead for a science fiction book? Of course, I'm not well read in either books published in the 1960s or science fiction, so who knows...

Nente wrote: "I'm sorry to seem a hater here... really wanted to like it, so upset :("

Sorry, I didn't think you were a hater!

I was carrying my own baggage--I read so much stuff about how nasty Christians are in the news. I edited that many times to get rid of stuff I shouldn't have said. Sorry.

Nente wrote: "I'm sorry to seem a hater here... really wanted to like it, so upset :("

I didn't really like it either, so you aren't the only one!

Michele wrote: "Karin wrote: "However, the author did intend this, based on her life and beliefs. Have you read any of her biographical material? "

A bit. I've read one of her Crosswicks Journals -- [book:The Sum..."

Yes, that's the one I read. She wasn't super religious, but there was that element. I have never thought of her books as being Christian, though, but I may have missed something.

Nente wrote: "A precocious child is still a child. Charles Wallace is an adult mind inside the round-cheeked kid (a horrible analogy, given what happens in the book, but I don't have another at this time of nigh..."

Yes, I think you are correct! I'd forgotten that line. I've met a few who sound like little adults, but they are not likely to say that.

I enjoyed this book when I was a child and I think I enjoyed it even more in my recent reread. As a child, I read it because I liked science fiction and it was the sci fi theme that mainly interested me. But reading it again as a children's book, it was the theme of good and evil that I particularly liked. And as always, rereading the books of my youth has an irresistible nostalgic appeal.

Susan wrote: "I enjoyed this book when I was a child and I think I enjoyed it even more in my recent reread. As a child, I read it because I liked science fiction and it was the sci fi theme that mainly interest..."

I agree-as a child I loved the sci-fi part of it.

Susan wrote: "I enjoyed this book when I was a child and I think I enjoyed it even more in my recent reread. As a child, I read it because I liked science fiction and it was the sci fi theme that mainly interest..."

I haven't reread many of my childhood favorites. I am a little afraid they'll end up not having stood the test of time!

Sarah wrote: "As I read, I couldn't help but think Meg must have been kind of an unconventional protagonist for the time the book was published...in the depiction of a girl gifted at math and science but also perhaps in being a female lead for a science fiction book...."

Not entirely unknown, but not especially common, from what I can remember. I think it got more common towards the end of the 60s? Not entirely sure about it. I'm not all that knowledgeable on fantasy/sci-fi history either.

One thing that made me sad this time is that despite her being good at math, etc, it wasn't that or anything scholarly which saved the day - it was her emotions.


Karin wrote: "I was carrying my own baggage"

Well, keep in mind it's always extremists of all sorts that make it into the news. Moderates aren't particularly newsworthy, since they tend to do moderate things.

Moderates aren't particularly newsworthy, since they tend to do moderate things.

Heh. So true :) G. K. Chesterton once said this:

It is the one great weakness of journalism as a picture of our modern existence, that it must be a picture made up entirely of exceptions. We announce on flaring posters that a man has fallen off a scaffolding. We do not announce on flaring posters that a man has not fallen off a scaffolding. Yet this latter fact is fundamentally more exciting, as indicating that that moving tower of terror and mystery, a man, is still abroad upon the earth. That the man has not fallen off a scaffolding is really more sensational; and it is also some thousand times more common. But journalism cannot reasonably be expected thus to insist upon the permanent miracles. Busy editors cannot be expected to put on their posters, "Mr. Wilkinson Still Safe," or "Mr. Jones, of Worthing, Not Dead Yet." They cannot announce the happiness of mankind at all. They cannot describe all the forks that are not stolen, or all the marriages that are not judiciously dissolved. Hence the complex picture they give of life is of necessity fallacious; they can only represent what is unusual. However democratic they may be, they are only concerned with the minority.

Nente wrote: "I'm sorry to seem a hater here... really wanted to like it, so upset :("

You don't seem like a hater at all :)

Melanti wrote: "Well, keep in mind it's always extremists of all sorts that make it into the news. Moderates aren't particularly newsworthy, since they tend to do moderate things

."
So true!

Michele, I love the Chesterton quote! Perhaps there's no quote from Chesterton I wouldn't love =)))

I'll never forget how the ending impacted me as a reader. Prior to reading Wrinkle in Time, I had mostly read masculine adventure stories like Tarzan of the Apes. I thought that every adventure ended with the good guy violently defeating the bad guy. I had no idea that an adventure, especially one about good vs. evil, could end with a nonviolent victory. It was eye-opening.

I've read this a few times and either never really picked up on the Christian overtones or assumed it was an artifact of its time and ignored it.

I agree with others: the kids aren't written very believably, but part of what made this interesting to me was that it read like an adult book about kids. That's something I think the YA genre has lost and it's nice to see it here. I didn't enjoy my re-read enough to continue with the series (it's a little too bizarre for me, and I always get this series mixed up with The Phantom Tollbooth so it's an extra bizarre mash-up in my head), but reading this was pleasant enough.

Phil wrote: I had no idea that an adventure, especially one about good vs. evil, could end with a nonviolent victory. It was eye-opening."

Yes, that's one of the things I like about it too. An alternative to the zero-sum game.

Esse wrote: " I always get this series mixed up with The Phantom Tollbooth"

That's funny -- I love The Phantom Tollbooth as well but the two seem *very* different to me. TPM is more about playing with language; AWIT is more about larger ethical/moral growth. Although I suppose learning how not to be bored is also growth!

Michele - Thanks for the link, I did not know about the deleted pages! That's interesting. I think the book is better without, although I do love the line, "Our country has been greatest when it has been most insecure."

Actually no, they used to be stars, didn't they?"

Yes, they used to be stars, and when they gave their lives to fight the darkness, they became angels. Sometimes in poetry, stars are equated with angels, so there's that too. :)

I liked Meg and Calvin (especially Calvin, as I can really relate to him) but Charles is simply not believable. I can accept that he is highly intelligent, even telepathic, but it doesn't make sense for him to think like an adult when he doesn't have that kind of life experience yet.

I see a lot of people saying they don't see the Christian overtones, and that puzzles me, because it's quite overt in talking about God and angels. I have some quotes with page numbers in my review, if anyone wants to take a second look at the relevant passages. Religion is clearly not important in the book, but it does have a basis of Christian beliefs. I know a lot of people who don't care for religion but do believe in God, so I don't think that's unusual.

Kaylee, yes I think it's obvious the author is Christian, but I didn't feel it forced on readers at all.

I find it a bit sad that mathematics is limited to "numbers" here. Mathematics deals with every and any kind of abstraction: the numbers are simply the first and easiest, that's why arithmetic has so many practical applications even for people don't have anything to do with science. But in fact, mathematical ability and the ability to quickly calculate the square root of seven are very slightly related, if at all. Exceptional mathematical ability at young age shows in seeing unexpected connections and deriving unforeseen conclusions; more in geometry and logic, in fact, than in arithmetic.
I personally saw nothing of that here, though of course we didn't get any of the tasks Meg or Calvin were solving.

Kaylee wrote: "I can accept that he is highly intelligent, even telepathic, but it doesn't make sense for him to think like an adult when he doesn't have that kind of life experience yet...."

Unless his telepathy lets him live those experiences vicariously through the adults near him thinking about them. (I'm just making stuff up to try to get his personality to make some sort of sense.)


Nente wrote: "I find it a bit sad that mathematics is limited to "numbers" here. Mathematics deals with every and any kind of abstraction: the numbers are simply the first and easiest, that's why arithmetic has so many practical applications even for people don't have anything to do with science. ..."

True, but I think that Le Guin's point with that wasn't really about math itself, it was more about thinking for yourself and rather than tamely going along with rote learning and doing things exactly how someone in authority wants you to do them.

The math itself really doesn't have much to do with anything in the book.

I've finished reading the book. I thought it was a very good story for younger readers but overall too juvenile for my taste. I agree that the Charles Wallace character didn't seem very realistic- his character needed some tweaks. I thought the best part was the depiction of life on Kamezot (don't know the spelling, I did the audio) and the evils of a totalitarian system such as in Orwell's 1984 or in Stalinist Russia or present day North Korea.

Nente wrote: "Kaylee, yes I think it's obvious the author is Christian, but I didn't feel it forced on readers at all.

I find it a bit sad that mathematics is limited to "numbers" here. Mathematics deals with e..."

I agree, and I appreciated that.

Yeah. I like math, and would have liked the story more if we had seen Meg noticing patterns and doing some problem solving, not just reciting numbers. I guess the author didn't think it was important, instead focusing on her emotions, especially the impatience and anger, and Meg learning to deal with them. I got that her coming of age was central to the story, but there was definitely room to expand on her character beyond that one facet.

I don't know, it felt to me like we didn't get a chance to get to know any of the characters well enough. Most of the focus was on what was happening around the characters, and not enough on the characters themselves.

I hadn't read this as a child, and kind of wish I did. I feel that I would have enjoyed it more. I liked the concept of introducing sci-fi concepts into a kid's world, and liked to think I would have enjoyed that a lot when I was younger. Reading it as an adult, I found the characters rather flat, and wasn't a fan of the inclusion of biblical references. I also thought that the ending was too abrupt and anti-climactic!

Nente wrote: "Kaylee, yes I think it's obvious the author is Christian, but I didn't feel it forced on readers at all.

I find it a bit sad that mathematics is limited to "numbers" here. Mathematics deals with e..."

Not at all--as a child I had no idea this was supposed to be a Christian novel.