Here we go, time to discuss A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle! For many of you, this was a reread of a childhood book. For others, it was your first time delving into L’Engle’s worlds; but we’ve all heard the title over the years, and it’s been a bastion of Science Fiction since the sixties.
Science fiction has often been used as a way to explore “otherness” as a theme. Alien beings and distant worlds offer us a way to think about different cultures we are aware of, but don’t feel familiar or comfortable with. L’Engle explicitly uses this “other” to examine belief systems, morals, and family relationships, and the new movie seems to bring an aspect of race and culture that other adaptations didn’t include. Does this method work? Can you think of other books, movies, or TV shows that portray the “other” well?
In the five decades since publication, Wrinkle has been inspirational for authors, directors, and other artists. This great article from the Smithsonian talks about its influence. Leonard Marcus, author of the L’Engle biography Listening for Madeleine, says Wrinkle “set the stage for the reception of Harry Potter in this country.” Previously, he says, science fiction and fantasy were suitable for high-end British authors like C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien in Britain but in the States were relegated to pulp magazines and drugstore paperbacks.
Has Wrinkle withstood the test of time? How would the story be different in this century?
Take on these questions and other topics below. Try to respond directly to others’ comments as you can, and refer to the numbered topics below to help people continue the conversations together.
Later today we’re going to start up some questions in our Facebook group, Cannonball Read Book Chat, and we’ll continue posting over there today and into tomorrow. Feel free to comment any time!
From above:
- Do you think A Wrinkle in Time portrays the “other” well? What other books, movies, or TV shows also attempt to do this?
- Has Wrinkle withstood the test of time? How would the story be different in this century?
And other questions:
- Meg experiences various types of love throughout her adventure. How does her understanding of love develop over the course of the novel?
- 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; and Meg and Calvin are initially terrified by the citizens controlled by IT on Camazotz. How does this help create empathy for Meg, Calvin and Charles Wallace on their quest?
- Meg is a flawed person. Does her character feel well-developed in this story? Do you admire Meg? Why or why not?
- Are you planning to see the movie?
6) I’m starting with the easiest one, heck yes I plan to see the movie! Not in the theater, because that doesn’t fit my life, but definitely once it comes to streaming. I am looking forward to the movie immensely even though I don’t particularly like the book.
I totally agree, I wasn’t blown away by the book but I’m really excited for the movie as it’s own thing
I’m looking forward to seeing the movie even though I didn’t read the book. The visuals look beautiful, the representation is so important, it features Best Chris, and I’m really looking forward to talking about the story with all of my book reader friends.
I didn’t manage to re-read the book because the library didn’t have any available copies. That said, I do plan to see the movie. Based mostly on memories and a brief skim of the book in a local bookstore, I think that the book is good as an introduction or gateway to science fiction and fantasy, as well as both genres’ capacities for social commentary. The thing is though, it was almost cringe-worthy reading as a much more experienced reader. My best memory of A Wrinkle in Time is actually of a performance by a local children’s theatre troop when I was about 12. As such, I have great hope for the film, since I think the story and characters might actually be more widely enjoyed as a performance, as opposed to a read.
2. I hadn’t read Wrinkle before but even if I’d read it as a kid it would have been 30 years old. Reading it now it didn’t feel dated, nothing really set up the time period which I think helped, and I think it’s themes are universal in any decade. That said I did feel like it was definitely a kids book and I could see myself being disappointed as an adult if I had read it as a tween. I could see my nephews really liking it though
It makes me feel old to realise that more time has passed between the time I first read Wrinkle and today (~30 years) than between the time I first read it and its publication (~25 years). Reading it in the mid-80s, I remember being aware that it was set in the past, but that didn’t really penetrate my consciousness in any real way. Rereading it today, certain things definitely stand out as dated: some of the language, the children on Camazotz bouncing balls and skipping rope, certain gender attitudes, the lack of helicopter parenting. I can see this being a bit alienating to certain young people reading it today, but then it just becomes like any classic fiction–you recognise that it is from a different era and make allowances. The themes are universal enough and strong enough to overcome the dated elements.
It looks like the movie has a contemporary setting. It’ll be interesting to see what changes they make to update it.
4. 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; and Meg and Calvin are initially terrified by the citizens controlled by IT on Camazotz. How does this help create empathy for Meg, Calvin and Charles Wallace on their quest?
I’m a sucker for fantasy quest stories about loners who must save us. I loved this book as a kid who was fairly alienated at school for being too smart, but kinda weird and into reading outside of class. I never got into fights and wasn’t as off putting as Charles though. I think we empathize with their characters because they have to band together to conquer their fears and forced to interact with things beyond themselves.
“Charles Wallace unsettles most people…” I am one of those people. Even though I only read the graphic novel version 4-6 years ago, Charles Wallace and the discomfort I felt about him is my strongest memory about reading this book. I do remember not understanding why this story is a classic and having to push myself to finish the graphic novel. I am baffled that it is now a major motion picture.
I do plan on seeing the movie, unfortunately, in support of my work bff who wants to make a girl’s night/group event out of it. Oprah and Reese Witherspoon, in addition to my feelings about the book, deterred me from wanting to watch this flick. I’m hoping to be pleasantly surprised.
Plenty of movies are adapted from books. I think Ava has updated enough that it’ll be it’s own thing.
Returning to this story as an adult, the most striking thing for me has been realizing what a *small* story it is. As a girl, it was relatable in a very important way, and it felt big on the inside. But it’s really a very scaled down kind of story, even if it Meg, et al. are on a large adventure.
Of course I related to Meg. At the time I read it, my parents were split (though, in the late 80s that was unremarkable), with my father gone for long swaths of time. I didn’t stick out quite as much as Meg, but I could relate to feeling like I was a bit lost for my place in the world. Funny hair, thick glasses? It me! Just waiting for some gawky boy like Calvin to come along and fall in love with all my misfit genius. ;)
I didn’t reread before book club, because I feel like I read it a million times as a kid, but now I wish I had! I am surprised to see people saying that they didn’t like it and/or it hasn’t aged well. Now I’m kind of afraid to revisit it.
I remember being surprised by Meg’s anger as a kid – I was used to happy, strong heroines, and the way Meg wants to lash out at the world felt very tantalizing to young me. Did I totally make that up? Does she just come across as a cranky brat if you read it as an adult?
I really liked Meg as a kid, and I liked her a lot more on rereading. She is a strong female character, and though she has some “bratty” qualities, it feels very true to what a real-life girl would be like. As an adult, I think L’Engle did a pretty good job of writing a Meg who would stand the test of time, and I think she actually comes off as much more realistic in a contemporary sense than she did when the book first came out.
I grew up in the 60s–70s and was very much a good girl; never complained, always did as I was told, and never, ever got in trouble, so Meg complimented the inner me who wanted to break out and be more troublesome, and have adventures.
Since I was brought up going to Christian church, I understood the allusions as a kid, and it didn’t bother me because that was the default (white, middle-class, patriarchal) for children in the US at the time. Re-reading now, I still picked up on the Christian moral aspects, but mostly considered them to just be reasonable moral positioning, which no one could be too mad about in a book aimed at middle-schoolers.
I first read A Wrinkle in Time during a Read-a-thon back in 2012 and from my review then, I really liked it. Having just revisited the book, this time in audio, I actually liked it a bit less, possibly because I didn’t devour the whole story in just a few hours, but took longer over getting through the book.
Charles Wallace is a little bit too “other” and while I seem to have not had any objections to him on my first read, I found him a little bit too precocious and off-putting this time around. The scene where Meg eventually saves him is excellent, though.
I think Calvin’s introduction and obvious infatuation with Meg is a bit sudden – I think that could have been given a lot more build-up. Generally, the story-telling is quite sparse, and the book transitions from one scene/place to another very fast. There could have been quite a bit more elaboration in a lot of the story.
Meg’s prickliness doesn’t bother me. With the situation we find her in, it’s rather understandable that she’s a bit stand-offish, feeling like an outsider, worrying about her mother, questioning the long absence of her father. If she’d been mild-mannered and meek and constantly pleasant, that would have felt a lot more wrong.
On revisiting the book, both the strong religious overtones and the very obvious anti-Communist propaganda bothered me. I was speaking to my best friend, who read the book as a girl and never connected with it very much. She grew up in a Christian family, going to Church every Sunday, and still found the “God” bits overly preachy. As someone living in a socialist country, having Communism portrayed as “the ultimate evil” felt really uncomfortable to me. It was a portrayal very much lacking in nuance, understandable due to the political climate when the book was written, but heavy-handed nevertheless.
Based on the trailers, I think the movie looks spectacular. The visuals are great, the cast looks extremely promising. I think having Meg and her brothers (not sure if the twins are going to be in the film or not) be bi-racial is a good update and since the book includes very few details that dates it, having the story set in a more modern setting isn’t going to cause massive problems. I hope to be able to see it in the cinema, but now that I have a baby, I’m forced to entirely rely on Oslo Cinema’s offers of baby-friendly screenings.
My sixth grade teacher read this to our class in the early sixties…I realize now that the book was quite new at the time. Upon listening to the book at 65 years old I am surprised that the story is so short. As a kid it seemed so long as I anxiously awaited Mrs. VanLandingham reading us a piece after recess.
As an observant conservative Jew, I was a little uncomfortable with the religious references; however, G-d could have been my G-d, Jesus, Buddha, Allah,etc. I just knew it was Christian which can be alienating to me. I don’t remember that as a child.
It’s funny that the reason I felt like an outcast was because I was Jewish in a small town in the south, Meg was an outcast for other reasons but I related to her.
This time through I definitely felt the Soviet power and Camezotz seemed like distorted Camelot which fits into the timeline and JFK’s assaination.
I am conflicted about seeing the movie….they usually do such a poor job. But, since the book is short and straightforward perhaps it will translate.
The movie is very beautiful, but it does have its differences from the book. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts if you do see it. I enjoyed it and so did my daughters.