A Wrinkle in Time

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. ♡

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%

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.

I don't think A Wrinkle in Time is a bad book, but it's definitely not for me. Maybe I would've liked it as a kid? I can certainly see why someone would—it instigates curiosity and questioning, and it encourages self-thinking, which I believe is very important—, but I don't know. Maybe. At the moment, for me, it's cute and slightly interesting at best, and at worst it's just annoying. What is it with all the Christian references?! I don't know. Maybe I'm just bothered because I expected one thing and got something entirely different.

The science fiction nerd I became owes so much to this book. Philosophical implications of physics tweaks, strong awkward heroine who finds comfort in math, political analogies, and fantastical but completely believable worlds. Young adult or not, this is everything science fiction should strive to be

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!

Why ask me? This book is a classic that goes beyond all internet reviews. School librarians and teachers will forever be recommending this book, and with good reason. If you're going to read it as an adult, don't expect too much, but kids will remember it forever. I just read it to my children and we went to see the movie. It's a cerebral, magical, wonder-filled book that is great for children from 8-12. I highly recommend it for reading aloud or reading solo. The kids loved it. It's imaginative and adventurous, with plenty of laughs and cries. The thing I liked most about it was reading a children's book that quotes Shakespeare, Dante, Goethe, and Cervantes in their original languages. That's the kind of book I want to read to my kids.

If it's so great, then why only three stars? Honestly it's a little hard to read. This book was notoriously rejected over sixty times by publishers who thought it was too hard for kids to read, and I might agree with them. I read it aloud, and I often had to stop and re-read awkward sentences. Also there's the structure of the story itself: the movie is getting a lot of heat for this but trust me, the problems are there in the book. The story is just not that strong, but honestly the story doesn't seem to be the point. The point seems to be the relationships between the family members, the cool worlds they visit and Meg's arc, which is good despite the weaknesses of the plot as a whole. Meg still grows up quite a bit over the course of the story and solves the final problem, but I'm too much of a bitter adult to really get it.

On the other hand, the kids loved it, so why not read it to them?

Light read in the manor of Pratchett. Old children should enjoy it.

I found the book just engaging enough to finish. It's a straight forward book which requires a heavy amount of suspension of disbelief. I believe that young readers will enjoy it and it might speak to them in a more meaningful way than to a young adult or more mature reader.

Enjoyable but forgettable. I had a vague memory of a single scene that I recognized halfway through, otherwise no recollection of plot or characters since reading this as a kid. I think it's one of those things you had to have loved as a child (doesn't hold up against adult science fiction, leaves too much unexplained, etc). Also, nothing makes me speed read quicker than angsty teenager outbursts.

Maybe I should have read this when I was younger, and I may have gotten more from it. For some reason, I could not focus on this book. The writing style was a little too formal for a children's book (IMO) and I found it to be kind of a drag. Sure, the themes of light overcoming darkness and love being all you need may have won it the Newbery, but I'd MUCH rather spend my time reading a Narnia book than this. Not sure if Madeleine L'Engle gets better the further into the series you go, but for now I'll move on to better things.

This was one of my favorite books in elementary school. In anticipation of the movie, I decided to re-read it. As an adult, the book unfortunately doesn't translate well. I can definitely see why I related to the character of Meg, but the other characters felt one-dimensional. The plot jumped around a lot, and the ending was abrupt. That said, I think that it's a great book for kids.

This book was not what I expected. It was dark and introspective with gleams of light throughout. The book delves into thoughts and ideas that are deeper than I expected from a children's book. Whereas The Chronicles of Narnia make bring theological ideas into story, A Wrinkle in Time painted a picture of the power of the reality of love in our world that can be so dark and cruel and unforgiving.

Things I liked:
- Equality and sameness are not the same.
- The diction of being loved for who we are before we've done anything for that love.
- A fantastic story in an alternate world and universe.

My Dad & Mom read this series to me when I was younger and I recently re-read them. I enjoyed the stories very much. They are so strange and unique and I've never read a book quite like it. Everyone should at least read this first book, I'd bet you'll want to read the rest as well. Overall just a great story, good characters and a thrilling plot.

I decided to re-read some L'Engle because someone whose opinion I admire was recently talking about how disappointed she was when she re-read them as an adult...

As a kid/teen I adored this book and would have given it 6 stars if that was possible. As an adult, I am more aware of its faults but still loved it. I still adore Meg (in this book... I'll leave the debate about adult!Meg for if I ever review The Arm of the Starfish) and this time around I found myself really really enjoying Mrs Murry. I'm intrigued by her story and wish there was more. I still think Meg&Calvin are one of my favourite literary couples (up there with Anne&Gilbert) and I'm still ambivalent about Charles Wallace.