A Wrinkle in Time: (Newbery Medal Winner) (A Wrinkle in Time Quintet, 1)

A Wrinkle of Time is a sci-fi fantasy novel by Madeleine L'Engle. The story is in many respects similar to the type of fiction that one would expect of CS Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia, in that much religious mythology and symbolism are used. In some ways, this is more blatant, and in other ways, less blatant, than the Narnia books.

The story is about a teenage girl named Meg Murry, whose father has been missing for several years. Originally on a research mission for the US government, the brilliant scientist (both Meg's parents are brilliant scientists) vanished. While the government says that he is "serving his country", the family is worried, and most of the small town where they live has assumed the worst. Despite their worry, the family insists that the father is coming back someday.

This seems to be a point of contention between the Murrys and the rest of the town. The rest of the town wants the Murrys to see the truth, as they think it is, and they also are put off by the Meg and her behavior. You see, while all of the Murry children are quite brilliant, Meg and her youngest brother Charles Wallace, are brilliant but troubled in that their quirkiness gets them weird reactions from folks.

Into this situation come three strange older women, who look like typical, though extremely eccentric in their own right, senior citizens. But they are not. They know things no one else should. Things about the Murry family, Dr. Murry's (the vanished husband) research, and about everyone in general.

These three women, Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Which, and Mrs. Who, take Meg, Charles Wallace, and their new friend Calvin, on a trip through realms of magic and science to another world, one where there father is trapped and held captive by an insidiously evil force. This force has turned many planets toward it's ends, and while it didn't seek out Mr. Murry, it now is unwilling to release him, or anyone else, it can get in it's grasp.

The question for Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace is whether they can save Dr. Murry. For that matter, can they even save themselves? Because while their new friends in the form of the entities called Mrs. Who, Which, and Whatsit are powerful, even they have limits and such, for what they can and can't do.

I said at the beginning that this is both more, and less, blatant in it's religious imagery than the Narnia books. That is because while Lewis was writing as a (what he liked to call) "supposal" or a "what if" scenario, he largely stayed away from the actual words of the Bible. L'Engle, on the other hand, actually had the Scripture verses quoted quite often, and they seem to be words with power. Both authors stopped just shy of stating outright the biblical nature of the characters, though Lewis would quite quickly become more blatant, whereas L'Engle had the Scriptures quoted and other hints, but didn't outright state anything.

It's quite a contrast of approaches to story-telling with a theological and religious mythical framework. In the case of the Narnia books, the actions are done largely by God, and the characters,while important, are just there to perform actions until God saves the day. In L'Engle's books, or at least Wrinkle, God (through his angels obviously) still saves the day, but He and they leave the actions up to the characters to do what is necessary to save the day. I would probably liken this book to The Silver Chair, which is the most protagonist-centered and least Aslan-centered of the Narnia books.

It's interesting, because both approaches (God doing everything and the characters doing less, and the characters doing everything with God's help) are actually Scriptural in a way. In the end, God does do everything, because it is in His strength that we act, but we are supposed to take actions as well as God expects us to freely do good and avoid evil, with his help.

Don't get the wrong idea. This is not a religious book, and one can avoid the religious overtones and easily still enjoy the premise. There's a lot of fun stuff. Friendships, interplanetary travels, fighting a totalitarian menace, so on. The religious themes are there, but are not "in your face", in other words. My reason for exploring the religious concepts is that a) such philosophical stuff interests me, and b) they are there so getting that discussion out of the way is necessary. It's necessary to both understanding some of the deeper meanings of the book if one wishes to do so, and to understanding the cosmology of the series as a whole, even if one doesn't want to focus on any real-life connections to Scripture. It's like how in The Dresden Files, Christianity has a role (as do many myths), but one needn't be a believer to understand and cheer, because those books are NOT Christian fic, but understanding these myths or the Christian cosmology used by the author helps understand the books better.

Though brief, the authoress managed to give us some good characterization and sense of the cast, or the ones we spend much time with, at least. Meg is socially clumsy, self-conscious, and seems to not be bright via the school's standards. But she is, in fact, brilliant, and she is also loving, loyal, and kind, though also stubborn and prone to anger and other emotional extremes at times. These are part of who she is and not a bad thing (except the various emotional extremes bit), if they are channeled to good uses.

Charles Wallace seems to be on a different wave length than everyone else and closer to the land of the beings like the entities known as Mrs. Who, Which, and Whatsit. He is also, especially for his age, surprisingly mature, kind, and thoughtful, not to mention brave and quick on his feet. His main fault though is his pride. He is more brilliant than most people, his family included, as shown by his insights into many areas. And he knows this. While he never acts arrogant and condescending to anyone else, his knowledge of his own extraordinariness causes him to be unduly confident in his own abilities, which causes a LOT of problems.

Calvin is the most well-rounded character in that he is quite smart, though not nearly so much as the Murrys are, and very athletic for his age. He also is brave and empathetic to others, which given his very dysfunctional, and heartbreakingly so, home life is almost a small miracle. He doesn't have Charles amazing abilities, or any of the Murry's intelligence, but he has rhetorical skills, leadership qualities, is dependable, and has a strong will. He also is surprisingly insightful in ways that the uber-intelligent but quirky Murrys are not.

Mrs. Murry is sweet and kind, a good mother and a faithful wife who never gives up on her husband's return and holds the family together by her sheer force of will, personality and love. She doesn't have much of a presence, but she is impressive when we do see her. On top of all of this, she is a brilliant scientist herself who does experiments in her home laboratory while raising her children. She's pretty much super-Mom and super-scientist.

Mr. Murry I won't get into much because that is very spoilery about his appearances and what he does, who he is, so on. Suffice it to say that he is a good man whose families love and praise are realized mostly, but can never be as perfect as they have made him out to be in the years of his disappearance.

Before I close, as this review is getting rather longish, the system of a meld of science fiction and fantasy that L'Engle sets up here was impressive and fun. It's not hard sci-fi, by any means, but neither is it soft like Star Wars or Star Trek. It has some science fiction concepts and speculative ideas, but goes it's own way to engage the imagination and sense of awe of the reader, even where creative liberties occur. It's a fun and careful balance that L'Engle expertly maintained.

For such a thin volume, the authoress had a great deal of characterization, of carefully, though briefly explored, cosmology, and a fun adventure. I really did enjoy, and highly recommend, this story. I can't wait to read the future volumes in this series.

Rating: 5/5 Stars.

I am now in the middle of the first sequel to this book, going through the Time Quartet (don't understand why it isn't called the TIME QUINTET, the only logic I can come up with is AN ACCEPTABLE TIME deals with Polly and not one of the four Murry children) for the first time. A WRINKLE IN TIME is one of those books that have a sterling reputation, and a book I had been meaning to read for a long time. It was worth the wait, being one of the most memorable and unusual books I've read. For you old school gamers, perhaps Mother Brain off Metroid came from the villain here? Just a thought. The story is tightly written, very good buildup of characters, dominant themes very apparent (acceptance, curiosity, and very importantly: love), plausible resolution. All the characters are very memorable, people you would love to meet in real life. Charles Wallace is one of the most intriguing of all characters I have met in literature, and it's a shame we don't get to see more of the REAL C. W. (to those of you who have read the book you know what I mean). The images and story are so diverse, so far reaching I consumed the story rather quickly. To those of you familiar with C. S. Lewis, he said one of the purposes of literature, and primarily myth, is to give you `stabs of joy', awaken a spiritually yearning that ultimately is consummated in the character of Christ Jesus. This book is myth. I wanted to go to the land of the centaurs and bask in that glory. This story awakens a longing and a yearning for things of the supernatural. It certainly did for me. I would end it at that, but I do have some issues or problems with this book. One largely rests in the fact that the three Mrs. Ws are maintaining the illusion of haunting and witchcraft to scare away people. No angles of God would do this, as described in the book, for "a joke" (its in the passage where Meg is attempting to help Charles Wallace at Camazots). I do not object to magic in literature depending on how it is handled. But I do object to this simply because they are painted as such wonderful servants of God, and there's the whole feel to the book of goodness and holiness, and then this element which for me goes completely against everything L'Engle otherwise consistently maintains in this work. Another is the inclusion of The Happy Medium. Medium is generally associated with sorcery and evil, and wish she had chosen a better title for her than this. Yet another is the feeling of universalism that predominates a particular passage in the book where Charles Wallace is describing the heroes who have fought against the encroaching darkness. One is Jesus. Since the book plays with the time element extensively, L'Engle should have said the Jesus won the battle already, even though we must fight it. This I do not hold against L'Engle, simply because the doctrine is complex and very difficult to understand, but I do resent the inclusion of Buddha as one of the people who have fought against the darkness, which, oddly, is included a few lines down with a lists of artists. My own thoughts on universalism are clouded (no, I do not believe full-blown universalism: the one I waiver back and forth with is found in THE LAST BATTLE). But Buddhism is a false religion, and he did not fight the darkness, although he had been deceived into thinking he had. While, for me, those things I've cited above do detract from this book, the story is wonderful, and one of the most remarkable books I've read. You will be changed by this book if you allow yourself to be. It's such an unusual book. I just soaked it up. Well done, L'Engle. Another impression I have of L'Engle, and which she herself supports, she has a very large curiosity about the world. There's a definite shift from NARNIA to WRINKLE. With Lewis you feel like he's an uncle telling you this wonderful story, but he's wise. With L'Engle, you get the feeling she's just as amazed at this world that's been uncovered as you are. In an interview with L'Engle here on Amazon, she said Lewis had a lot more answers, and she had a lot more questions. Lets see what she can turn up. Mike London (P. S. Have you seen those dreadful illustrations, the cover art, to the other paperback edition? That edition has the three children standing in an egg-shaped circle with a white creature flying over. They are much to young looking for this book - I don't like the cover art at all on those. I much prefer the one with the centaur on the cover or the hardback edition).

If I had read Madeleine L’Engle’s book, A Wrinkle in Time when I was young, there’s a good chance I would have pursued a career in science. First published in 1962 before the concept of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) became a colloquialism for young women — a rallying cry, really — L’Engle’s book reads like a STEM Sisters manifesto, a how-to on being a girl and not being afraid to shine, even if it means being better than a boy in math or science. Today, a measly 12% of female bachelor students go into STEM careers, yet, I posit, that had more girls read A Wrinkle in Time as children, I’m pretty sure that number would be substantially higher. Did I mention that A Wrinkle in Time was rejected 26 times by different publishers until it was picked up by Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, because, as L’Engle has commented, it was “too different,” and she didn’t think anyone would publish it. It went on to win the distinguished Newberry Medal in 1963, http://www.ala.org/alsc/awardsgrants/bookmedia/newberymedal/newberymedal, proving that people will embrace “different” if it comes in the right package.

Given the groundbreaking nature of the story, it’s wonder the book was even published: a female protagonist, the concept of evil which wasn’t kid’s book fodder in 1962, and so much science talk, that there was no precedent for any of it. Would we have Dr. Who (first aired in November 1963) or Star Trek (first aired in 1966) without A Wrinkle in Time? Is it possible that L’Engle’s little book kickstarted the sci-fi craze that the modern-day public clings to like a free climber in Acadia National Park?

We earthlings need to stretch our imaginations beyond this little blue orb and our activities of daily living in order to experience fulfilling lives. Music, art, philosophy and books, books, books help us answer the darn eternal questions that plague us such as who am I? and where the heck am I going? L’Engle planted the sci-fi seed in a generation of kids who grew up to be Star Wars fans and believe in the power of possibility. No small feat there. Yeah, Madeleine. You go, girl. While Scientists have yet to figure out the time travel thing, you can bet that books like A Wrinkle in Time sparked the imagination like no physics class ever could.

L’Engle’s main character, Meg Murray, is a feisty firebrand of a girl who knows her way around a mathematical equation, but shrinks from the more traditional subjects that girls generally excel in. Meg’s brother, Charles Wallace, is a big genius hidden in the body of a small boy. When Meg’s dad goes missing while on a secret, scientific assignment for the government, Meg is distraught while Charles Wallace is busy gaining assistance from his secret contacts. When Mr. Murray doesn’t come back for almost a year, neighbors, teachers and friends all assume Meg’s dad ran off with another woman. Only Meg’s mom believes her husband is in danger; she works diligently in her lab — she’s a scientist, too — devising a way to bring him back.

Meg loves her father and knows that the man who taught her so much about math and science would never willingly leave his family so she and Charles Wallace and their friend, Calvin set off with Charles Wallace’s friends — Mrs Whatsit, who drapes herself in layers of colorful clothes and is the primary intermediary for the kids, Mrs Who, who speaks in only quotations, and Mrs Which, the wisest of the three and usually appearing as a shimmering light because 3-D is just too darn dense — on a quest to find Mr. Murray and bring him back. Meg and company travel the galaxy, encountering many bizarre creatures, including the inimitable Aunt Beast, all of whom assist the young travelers on their journey.

Thanks to the assistance of Mrs Whatsit, Mrs Who and Mrs Which, the crew finds Mr. Murray on the planet Chazmatazz, a dark foreboding place where independent thought is prohibited, where they are introduced to the Tesseract, a fifth-dimensional machine that allows you to jump through time, hence the wrinkle. The Tesseract is one amazing scientific advancement that the kids would love to learn more about, but with Meg’s dad being held in a bar-less prison, and Charles Wallace’s mind being taken over by It, there’s so little time to learn about all of the ramifications of time travel before they have to jump time again to make things right.

A Wrinkle in Time has all the best components of a sci-fi novel — other worlds, a special relationship rooted in earth, making it impossible to leave for good; crazy characters who, although foreign to us, endear us with their actions; a lovable, flawed protagonist possessed of true grit, heart, and purpose, and at her core, a mind for science and math — which, despite what the current elected officials of the American political system have to say, is the reason modern man has effloresced and is still thriving today in the 21st century. (Recall that the ruling elite of the 17th century imprisoned Galileo Galilei, the father of physics and modern astronomy and arguably one of the greatest thinkers of all time for being too science-y and, hence, heretical. Plus it has one of the best (read: corny) opening lines of any mystery novel although the Washington Post Style Invitational attributes it firstly to English author Paul Clifford, circa 1830. And of course, we can’t forget Snoopy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei) Just sayin’.

Want to get down with your hidden science side? Want to read a YA novel with big adult themes? Then read A Wrinkle in Time to see how it all got started and rekindle your childhood belief in worlds of possibility.

NOTE: There may be "spoilers" in this review. I read this over 40 years in grade school and remembered liking it a lot, and inspired by the upcoming Disney film trailers (which looked nothing like I remembered from the book) I reread it as an adult. It's still an excellent piece of fantasy fiction, but I'm not sure how well it has aged. It was obviously a children's "indoctrination" story about the evils of an autocratic (read Soviet cold war) society. It's not a message that is lost on today's world, but the intense paranoia of 1960s cold war era is largely a thing of the past, so it loses some of its urgency. A parallel would be Arthur Miller's "The Crucible"; it will always been seen as a "historic" play about colonial New England, but it can only be fully appreciated when you understand that it was a thinly veiled allegory of the McCarthyism that was oppressing the country at the time it was written. Its secondary message of "not fitting in is OK" is perhaps the more important message for today's young readers. To this end, three "misfit" children "saving the world" plays well.

Reading it as an adult approaching 60, I also noticed that it carries a very strong feminism message. Virtually all of the "strong" and "sympathetic" characters are female (the mother, the three "witches", Aunt Beast, the Medium), and all of the male characters are either flawed of incidental. The father is absent throughout most of the book, and when he is rescued, he is ineffectual. Charles Wallace is highly intelligent, but his arrogance causes him to imperil himself (and the others). Calvin just seems to be along for the ride and does very little to affect the outcome of the story. The other men depicted are all drones, subject to IT (an implied male entity, and the root of all evil), and have no minds of their own. This, of course, was also a major theme during the "women's lib" movement of the 1960s that comes across as somewhat labored in the 21st century. The ultimate "moral" of only love can conquer Communism (which knows no love) is "nice", if a bit trite and predictable.

If I had pre-teens would I want them to read this? Absolutely. But I think the young reader of today needs to be made aware of the sociopolitical context in which it was written (as is the case with "Animal Farm").

Here is a story aimed at a pre-teen audience. It's a fantastic story with all sorts of bizarre happenings and goings-ons. The characters and their progressive developments play central to a very humanistic motif throughout the work. However, if anything, the stories protagonist is very unlikable at times - needy, demanding, impatient and finding it hard to accept in learning that her daddy-o isn't God. Meg Murry becomes highly unlikable near the 2/3rds mark and persists in this annoying I need it now; I blame you for not making it happen' vein right up until the end of the story - I felt like Peter Griffin (Family Guy) much of the time - Why won't you just die, Meg?'

It is a mostly enjoyable story, with a few points of contention I bring forth which drop my overall rating. And sadly, true to the author's sentiment during her Newbury acceptance statement, I have grown out of my childhood's fantastical styled thinking; thusly this work was not nearly as entertaining as I recall it as a youth. I will probably have torn this apart a bit more than I'd needed to.

Potential Spoilers:

The story begins with another of the protagonists pointing out that: in the woods, in the haunted house out there, there resides Mrs. Whatsit and her friends. Hence forward, meeting Mrs. Whatsit in the midst of a bad pm thunderstorm late at night (ominous, right?), Meg Murry and her younger brother (neurologically different) Charles Wallace meet the other witches' - Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which. They also meet Calvin O'Keefe, a befreckled an old-timey speaking (think: Golly gee' and humdinger') ginger befitting of his last name. They (Meg, Charles, Calvin) soon learn of the tesseract, a fifth dimension which in lay is expressed as creating a shortcut', or a wrinkle between two points of a trip - the beginning and end - touching them together, essentially (but L'Engle finds it difficult to keep the related time / distance thing out of the conversation when the characters must talk about `tessering' - the sci-fi elements of this work really are sub-par if compared to other, more contemporary authors, but for children's sci-fi, it is passable).

The mission: to find Meg and Charles Wallace's father, a scientist whom the town gossips say ran off with another woman, but who disappeared while doing work for the government. The `witches' assist in this endeavor, as does the Happy Medium. They're also a good source for much of the stories wisdom, as Mrs. Who is constantly quoting, and always initially in the original language.

Individuality, its preciousness and uniqueness are heartily espoused throughout the work. The introduction to the work suggests that because the work was written in 1962 there are elements of revolt and repulsion against the rising tensions created by Communism's popularity as a political leaning. Once the children reach Camazotz and all of its grayness' and sameness' are described, we see the fear of the status quo, the bleakness behind the lack of variety. (1428) Yet, the author states in her Newbury Award address (included at the end) that it is science & mathematics - the truth' - which is responsible for killing off the imagination and in turn it is making us into Muffins', alike all the other muffins in the tin. (2939)

Related to this, I find interesting that while the primary notion seems to be placed upon mind control (I allude to the Man with the Red Eyes'), as IT is only a big brain and when the children arrive at Camazotz and enter the town, its inhabitants are doing everything in strictest rhythm. The only exception being the boy would wasn't bouncing the ball in time. And he was punished. Punishing indicates an effort made to change behavior, behavior isn't an issue if you're being mind-controlled, so aside from IT being the Happy Sadist' (1940), which is indeed the only real indicator that IT is evil, otherwise IT just `looks' scary - which is why I found the Beasts interesting, that they provided empathic confirmation that the Black Thing was bad - or IT is trying to talk them into giving up their responsibilities, concerns, cares and worries, pain, suffering and et cetera. The thing worth fighting for, evidently, is the happiness, joy and pleasures which would also be taken away in the one-mind world styled after Camazotz (see, back to mind control but not true mind-control, but intensive behavior modification).

More realistically, this evil, this power of darkness' (1240) is manifest not in everyone being the same, but in everyone failing to acknowledge anybody who is different. Back to the boy with the ball - his mother flatly denied his lack of dribbling skills, then stated that the whole of the neighborhood was without deficit for centuries' (1502) - the entire neighborhood heard this (because they all looked in) AND STILL persisted that there hadn't been any member of the community out of sync.

It is a fear of differences (and an inability to embrace them) that's propelling the story, it's why Meg is picked on and hate's herself, it's why Charles Wallace is called a `moron', it's why the towns folk fire up the rumor mill - because Mrs. Murry is a hot-mom, it's why the mother of the boy with the ball denies his failures and then so does that entire block on Camazotz. The major push is to embrace the differences each of us have.

I do feel the import our author gives to individuality is... a bit overrated. For all our individuality we are, at base, human. And that should draw us together much more readily than saying I'm different' proudly and then recognizing that in others. It walks divisive lines and draws you into the seven-deadly sins arena, whereas a broader we are all human' spiel may have played out a bit better for myself now. This is clearly a very Western motif being maintained, but how closely it relates to anti-communistic ideals, I wouldn't be able to say right up front, as the argument by the introducer is want to suggest. I'd personally think that L'Engle would be able to recognize that even under a Communist regime, one would still have concerns.

My last griping point, I think, is with the author, pretty ironically mentioning in admiration Erich Fromm (2964), a renowned psychologist who published much of his work during the 1940's & 50's. Fromm is mentioned for his philosophy regarding Universal language' but maybe L'Engle would have been better served to have also read Escape From Freedom' - for what the author describes on Camazotz we see according to Fromm's own philosophy isn't all that unusual - the herd mentality persists because being `different' still provokes our anxieties and there is a safety net provided by a degree of assimilation (see: 'Escape From Freedom', Fromm, pub. 1941).

To have the story end as it did, with love being that which saves the day, redeems Meg, draws the family together. It's a very heartfelt and touching close. And I do think L'Engle is correct - it does matter that much; it should matter that much.

Quotes:

`... one thing I've learned is that you don't have to understand things for them to be. (362)

`The only way to cope with something deadly serious is to try to treat it a little lightly.' - Mrs. Which (878)

`It's my worst trouble, getting fond. If I didn't get fond I could be happy all the time.' - Happy Medium (1365)

`On Camazotz we are all happy because we are all alike. Differences create problems.' (1925)