A Wrinkle in Time

A Wrinkle in Time

It was a dark and stormy night; Meg Murry, her small brother Charles Wallace, and her mother had come down to the kitchen for a midnight snack when they were upset by the arrival of a most disturbing stranger. "Wild nights are my glory," the unearthly stranger told them. "I just got caught in a downdraft and blown off course. Let me be on my way. Speaking of way, by the wa...

DownloadRead Online
Title:A Wrinkle in Time
Author:Madeleine L'Engle
Rating:
Edition Language:English

A Wrinkle in Time Reviews

  • Sara

    the book that first inspired me to tentatively pick up my pencil and my marbled black-and-white composition notebook (remember those?) and write (in 4th grade). the influence l'engle herself and her work have had on my life cannot be understated. i met her many many years later, during college, when she was well into her 80s, but she was exactly as i pictured her-- spirited, engaging, challenging. when i (very nervously and shyly) told her that she gave me my first inspiration to write, she look

    the book that first inspired me to tentatively pick up my pencil and my marbled black-and-white composition notebook (remember those?) and write (in 4th grade). the influence l'engle herself and her work have had on my life cannot be understated. i met her many many years later, during college, when she was well into her 80s, but she was exactly as i pictured her-- spirited, engaging, challenging. when i (very nervously and shyly) told her that she gave me my first inspiration to write, she looked me in the eyes and, with a genuineness in her tone i can't describe, thanked me. i gave her my book to be autographed. she signed in it an handed it back to me. as i walked away, i read her inscription, which said, with love and a flourish, "ananda!" i admit it-- i had to look it up to find out what it meant and when i did, my respect for her grew even deeper (i won't get into the entire background of the word/name here, you can google it yourself). "ananda" means bliss or joy. it was so perfect, i nearly cried.

    an amazing book and an amazing woman.

  • Madeleine

    I have one general, self-imposed rule about reviewing on this site: I write about the books I've read in the order I've finished them. By that logic, I should be cobbling together my reaction to

    right now but I am so taken by this childhood staple that there's no room in my brain for anything other than uncontrollable glee over this book that another Madeleine has given to the world.

    I never read this book as a kid. I didn't read it as a teenager or a college student. I read it for the fi

    I have one general, self-imposed rule about reviewing on this site: I write about the books I've read in the order I've finished them. By that logic, I should be cobbling together my reaction to

    right now but I am so taken by this childhood staple that there's no room in my brain for anything other than uncontrollable glee over this book that another Madeleine has given to the world.

    I never read this book as a kid. I didn't read it as a teenager or a college student. I read it for the first time with 30 coming at me like a crazed stalker who won't let a pesky thing like a restraining order stand in the way. And that did concern me, especially after half-heartedly slogging through the first four books comprising the Narnia Chronicles a few years ago before taking an indefinite break from tackling what should have been another enthusiastically remembered staple of a young reader's diet. I was afraid that I'd completely missed out on enjoying

    , a novel that I have heard praised up and down by so many people as the prime example of how

    children's literature can be.

    So I read it like I read as a wee lass who didn't realize that she was poised at the very beginning of what would become a lifelong pursuit of books fueled by an insatiable need to keep reading. I read well past my bedtime with one tiny light illuminating the path to somewhere magically transportive, knowing full well that the bookworm gratification far outweighed the inevitability of being a zombie all morning. I read it when I should have been doing something else as dictated by responsibility. I read to be told a story and to consider ideas I'd never come across in the world beyond two covers, sure, but mostly I read to give myself up to a writer's lush landscape, to lose myself in someone else's words. I read it to let my imagination run free through a universe I fervently and fruitlessly wished to be a part of.

    And my adult self was just as enchanted as my inner child was. Sure,

    has its faults but I honestly couldn't tell you what they are because I was so thoroughly entertained, so taken with these characters I couldn't believe I could relate to in a way that was far less remote and removed than I expected (which is to say, at all) that all the things my nitpicky, pretentious post-English-major self would usually hone in on paled in comparison to the sheer enjoyment of the rush of letting a book completely suck me into its world to the point where the real world could have collapsed around me and I wouldn't've either cared or noticed because I was so wrapped up in this story.

    On one hand, yeah, I do feel a little cheated that so much of what I needed to hear as a kid has lived within these pages all this time and I could have had such imperatives by my side to ease the pains of childhood's harsh but necessary learning experiences had I just shown even a fraction of some interest in this book. Among them: One's parents are not infallible. Weaknesses can become strengths -- nay, tools integral to besting some truly harrowing obstacles -- in the right circumstances. That sometimes you have to face down scary or unpleasant truths, and you're not excused from looking away or backing down just because the task ahead is either scary or unpleasant. It's better to embrace your individuality and not compromise yourself, no matter how uncomfortable you are in your own skin, than to mindlessly submit to the herd mentality and easy conformity. Just because something appears strange doesn't make it bad -- or all that strange at its core, after all. What things are is infinitely more important than what they look like.

    But conversely? This book drenched my ordinary existence with fantasy's magic for a few days, and I'm sure it'll stick with me in the days to come. My first encounter with this book wasn't a foggily but fondly recalled childhood memory that's destined to be tarnished by the darkening cynicism of the years upon revisits from my older self. I got to experience the breathless wonder of a kid discovering an instant favorite for that very first time as an oasis of sheer escapist rapture in the face of a few intense work days and the humdrum nature of routine adulthood. And it proved to me that I don't always have to be such a goddamn snob about kid lit because when it's good, it is extraordinary. (And, really, let's be honest: Younger Me wasn't exactly the sharpest crayon in the tool shed, so who's to say I would have picked up on the more subtle elements that made this such a delightful read, anyway?)

    Despite my natural inclination toward hyperbole, I am not exaggerating when I say I'm a little better for having read this book, one that I initially arrived at out of dubious curiosity and left in a state of giddy, childlike awe. And maybe a few tears.

  • Elyse

    Am I the first living 64 year old who had never read this book- until now - March, 2017.

    that is?

    Random Thoughts ....

    .....I was surprised to discover this story was about a little GIRL --not a WIZARD.

    .....I was more surprised that Meg, 13 years old, had three other siblings... two twin brothers, Sandy and Dennys, and a younger brother, Charles Wallace Murray, who is a child prodigy.....with parents who were scientist. THERE IS A REAL FAMILY -WITH REAL PEOPLE in this book! NOT SURE WHY THIS SUR

    Am I the first living 64 year old who had never read this book- until now - March, 2017.

    that is?

    Random Thoughts ....

    .....I was surprised to discover this story was about a little GIRL --not a WIZARD.

    .....I was more surprised that Meg, 13 years old, had three other siblings... two twin brothers, Sandy and Dennys, and a younger brother, Charles Wallace Murray, who is a child prodigy.....with parents who were scientist. THERE IS A REAL FAMILY -WITH REAL PEOPLE in this book! NOT SURE WHY THIS SURPRISED ME!

    .....I'm thinking "HOT DAMN, I might like this story".... and my daughters might have.... but as far as I know .... they missed reading this one too.

    Heck, the first page was 'great' - the first sentence was 'classic-great': "It was a dark and stormy night".

    What child doesn't perk up to hear a story with those first words?

    So....I continue reading 'remembering' that not long ago 'ELLIE' praised this book SO HIGHLY ....as her FAVORITE children's book ( she and I both have passion for the Velveteen Rabbit)....that I KNEW I HAD TO FINALLY READ IT. I bought a used copy at my recycle bookstore for a dollar. THANK YOU ELLIE!!!!! :) whew...I'm glad I didn't miss this gem!!! I loved the characteristics of the kids and adults....each unique in their own ways.

    .....What creative names for characters: Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Witch.... 'charming supernatural neighbors'. .....as well as the lovely Aunt Beast.

    The three *W* women escort Meg, Charles, and another boy, Calvin O'Keefe. from Meg's school --through the universe by means of SCI FI UNIVERSE TRANSPORTATION-- "tesseract" - A fifth dimensional phenomenon-- ET hasn't phoned home yet.....on a mission to rescue Meg and Charles father. Meg, and the Mrs. W's all agree that the mysterious disappearance of the father is very strange and has something to do with the term "tesseract". After all he is a scientist and was working on a project before his disappearance.

    The Trio W-women and children travel through the universe and visit different planets - a utopian world- with creatures disguised as humans. First they bump into evil... then they are taken to a woman to look through a crystal ball. The children are learning that there is both evil and good in the world. They see much darkness through that crystal ball down here on planet earth. They also see that artist's, and philosophers, and religious folks are fighting against the evil.

    AT THIS POINT IF I WERE A CHILD - I WOULD HAVE QUESTIONS --

    THE CHILD ME WOULD ASK: "well, my daddy died--[I was 4]. I'd want to know if he left me because he got tired of all the fighting on earth--and since I've always wondered since the day he died -- not knowing what the hell that meant -- if he was coming back soon --- and could I go on the mission with Meg and bring my daddy back home too?" This book might have scared me as a child -- I would have needed a tender adult reading it with me.

    ON WITH THIS STORY:

    They soon travel to a planet called Camazotz.... where they find Meg's father: trapped!

    The planet is being controlled by an evil brain and with powerful telepathic abilities- called "IT".

    This story begins to gets MORE SCARY..... I would have been on the edge of my seat. Note: I don't read much science fiction - but the children are threatened by the possibility of their minds being controlled through a telepathic takeover.

    Whew..... laughing ....I was exhausted by the end.....OF COURSE IT HAS A HAPPY ENDING....

    I HATE that felt like crying in this children's book! I hate all you people who told me it's a must read .....because for this girl it WAS!!!!!! I LOVED IT!!! - you mean people!!!

    I love believing there is GOOD in the world .. so why am I sad?

    A special appreciation to the Goodreads community-- I might never have read this book without all the the LOVE & EXPRESSION for this children's classic! Thank you!

  • RandomAnthony

    So 41 of my goodreads friends have read

    , but I never picked up the book until these past few weeks. I’m not sure how this novel and I slipped past each other in my youth. I’m guessing that since the main character was a girl I wasn’t that interested in middle school and when I grew older the science fiction elements didn’t appear strong enough to snag my interest. Oh well. Last weekend I bought

    at a Borders near the Seattle airport. I wanted the novel to get m

    So 41 of my goodreads friends have read

    , but I never picked up the book until these past few weeks. I’m not sure how this novel and I slipped past each other in my youth. I’m guessing that since the main character was a girl I wasn’t that interested in middle school and when I grew older the science fiction elements didn’t appear strong enough to snag my interest. Oh well. Last weekend I bought

    at a Borders near the Seattle airport. I wanted the novel to get me through the grueling twelve hour journey (whoo, flight delays and pre-dawn connecting flights!) home, and I thank Ms. L’Engle for the perfect story for early hour near-hallucinatory reading in the middle of the Minneapolis International promenade.

    What makes this book so good? First off,

    works under the assumption that kids are smart enough either to grasp the nuances of some fairly deep physics or, if they don’t get every detail, they’ll flow with the storyline anyway. One woman I know said, “I didn’t understand all the science when I was a kid but I still loved it.” That makes sense to me. Hell, I didn’t understand all the science now, and I’m (supposedly) a grown-up. L’Engle doesn’t just say, “And then they traveled time.”

    I wonder if so many kids, especially girls, liked this novel because they felt L’Engle

    them as intelligent readers.

    Second,

    frames Meg’s personality as multi-faceted and more complex than just about any I’ve encountered in YA literature. In fact, reading this novel I couldn’t help but consider her a template on which some more modern coming-of-age characters (think Harry Potter) were modeled. She’s brave but doubts her own strength in an tangible, authentic manner. And her relationship with Calvin is sweet without getting all

    .

    Third, the evil in this novel is damn scary and the darkness pure and substantial. We’re talking elemental, unadulterated evil that manifests itself in the fear and conformity of those who break down in its presence. And the characters’ encounters with this evil feel real. The climatic scenes are perhaps slightly too swift but the nuances of the battle fit well with a remarkably philosophical (and Christian, but in a positive way) resolution of good and evil’s conflict.

    If my friends’ reviews are any indication a lot of smart girls who turned into strong, intelligent women grew up under the spell of

    . I feel like I know them a little better after reading this novel, and I can see them all, around age ten, turning the book’s pages in their rooms, feeling their own strength and potential. And that’s damn cool, really, don’t you think, a whole generation of girls reading

    ? Maybe little girls across America are googling “tesseract” as we speak…

  • Zoë

    3.5/5

  • Hailey (HaileyinBookland)

    3.5*

    What a fun weird little story!

  • Michael

    [Later note: Had discussion with author about this book and why it means so much to so many people—specifically women. Also read excellent NYTimes piece about the fiftieth anniversary.

    Some books are powerful for their readers because of their context; in this case, the utter lack in popular kid's literature of 1962 of characters like Meg—real girls, who cared about atypical subjects like math, who were unashamed to be other than pink-wearing cheerleaders. To find a powerful role model in a nove

    [Later note: Had discussion with author about this book and why it means so much to so many people—specifically women. Also read excellent NYTimes piece about the fiftieth anniversary.

    Some books are powerful for their readers because of their context; in this case, the utter lack in popular kid's literature of 1962 of characters like Meg—real girls, who cared about atypical subjects like math, who were unashamed to be other than pink-wearing cheerleaders. To find a powerful role model in a novel must be a wonderful thing, especially for bookish girls. And maybe it makes sense that as a boy in the seventies, I missed that entirely.

    Still, rereading as an adult, I found it unbearably heavy-handed. Hence the two star rating: It was okay.]

    One of those overrated books the response to which defies explanation. Clunky, heavy-handed, and as obvious in its way as

    . I was only ever able to force myself through this as an adult (having been turned off of it by a filmstrip I saw in school), and no doubt this is the sort of novel--like the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs--that must be first loved as a younger reader. Ugh.

  • Paige

    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.

  • Hannah Greendale

    Thirteen-year-old Meg Murry’s house is visited, on a “

    ” by a mysterious stranger named Mrs. Whatsit who says, “Speaking of ways, by the way, there is such a thing as a tesseract.”

    refers to confidential scientific work Meg’s father conducted for the government before he went missing several years prior. On the following day, Meg accompanies her little brother to Mrs. Whatsit’s house and finds herself unexpectedly swept away on an intergalactic adventure with hope o

    Thirteen-year-old Meg Murry’s house is visited, on a “

    ” by a mysterious stranger named Mrs. Whatsit who says, “Speaking of ways, by the way, there is such a thing as a tesseract.”

    refers to confidential scientific work Meg’s father conducted for the government before he went missing several years prior. On the following day, Meg accompanies her little brother to Mrs. Whatsit’s house and finds herself unexpectedly swept away on an intergalactic adventure with hope of being reunited with her father.

    Reaching for

    lends itself to high expectations. L’Engle’s book won the Newbery Medal in 1963, has been adapted to film more than once, and is heralded by many – young and old alike – as a longstanding favorite. But, as a first-time reader diving in with expectations fanned by the flames of so much praise, disappointment, it seems, was inevitable.

    To be fair, several aspects of L’Engle’s distinguished novel are pleasing. It opens with atmospheric writing that later gives way to fanciful descriptions. In a commendably daring act, L’Engle puts forth a female protagonist at a time – and in a genre – where female protagonists were not readily accepted. Better still, young Meg is awkward and unattractive. Her looks having been traded for smarts – particularly in mathematics (an intelligence that likely trickles down from her scientist father

    ).

    It’s easy to discern the value in L’Engle’s efforts to introduce young readers to complex scientific theories. Yes, she makes them easy to understand, but she also avoids the mistake of thinking too little of her young audience, holding firm in her belief that the fluidity of a child’s imagination allows them to grasp concepts that would baffle most adults. Above all else, the fundamental messages of

    are lovely: light must battle dark to keep it at bay; moments of sorrow are what sweeten happiness; individuality and free will are priceless; and love is power.

    But . . .

    Meg is an irritating protagonist. She’s prone to fits and over-reacting. When she’s not shrieking or screaming, she’s confused or complaining. The decision to go on an adventure isn’t Meg’s. It’s her younger brother, Charles Wallace, that declares they will depart, and Meg is merely whisked along, screaming and clutching to Calvin O’Keefe (one of the most popular boys in school) along the way. As empowered female protagonists go, Meg doesn’t show her true colors until the end of the book.

    With all due respect to Ms. L’Engle, her religious convictions saturate the story. Despite exploring scientific theories and naming several artists and scientists, L’Engle’s religion remains front and center throughout the book. The result is a title that seems better suited for a categorization in Christian fiction.

    Any doubt of this is dashed away by L’Engle’s proclamation during her Newbery Medal acceptance speech that, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth . . . The extraordinary, the marvelous thing about [the book of] Genesis is not how unscientific it is, but how amazingly accurate it is.” Is it a mark against

    that Christian themes pervade the book? Certainly not! But is there any indication going in that a religious doctrine dictates this children’s book? None whatsoever.

    Finally, as plot pacing goes,

    leaves much to be desired. Halfway through the book, little has happened. The second half is slightly less uneventful, but the final chapters feel rushed and the neat-and-tidy conclusion is far too convenient.

    Though it’s easy to appreciate the bold strides L’Engle took as an author and the merit of her contribution to children’s literature,

    ’s appeal seems to have gotten lost in the folds of time.

  • PurplyCookie

    The story takes about 100 pages of tedious, banal dialogue, to get to the point where you are told that this is a battle against Evil, and all you need is love. But everything is so oversimplified, so sketchy--everything is reduced to big words, like IT, and evil. This IT, also called the Dark Thing, is striving to create a communist-type society where everyone conforms, down to the little children who bounce their balls in uniform rhythms and who live in cutter-box houses.

    I liked Meg in the be

    The story takes about 100 pages of tedious, banal dialogue, to get to the point where you are told that this is a battle against Evil, and all you need is love. But everything is so oversimplified, so sketchy--everything is reduced to big words, like IT, and evil. This IT, also called the Dark Thing, is striving to create a communist-type society where everyone conforms, down to the little children who bounce their balls in uniform rhythms and who live in cutter-box houses.

    I liked Meg in the beginning, she was a believable character, filled with her own problems, and I really wanted for things to work out for her. But when she went on her journey, and especially since she got to that dreadful communist planet, she got hysterical. She did not “say” anything for half of the book--she yelled, gasped, screamed, cried, etc. She got ticked off at everyone for everything.

    Then there might have been an indication that Charles Wallace was going to be a player, but he fizzled. There are constant references to him being special, but we never find out what was so special about him, besides putting a 30 year old into a 4 year old body and calling it “genius”. There was all this build-up for the confrontation between him and IT, but nothing happened. He looked at the guy, let him in, and became filled with ideas from Lenin himself.

    Then there are worlds. These characters traveled to a planet that was described in three lines with beautiful flowers and a tall mountain. Then another planet is not described at all except to say that it was a winter wonderland type of a place. The residence of the Happy Medium was another planet where they were conveniently in a cave, and final stop was in a planet that was probably like Earth, except all we know about it is that it had rows of houses and tall buildings. There you have it--traveled all through the known Universe and have nothing to show for it. No imagination to describe and develop a world.

    Then there are bizarre references to god/s that come out of nowhere, or in the oddest places, and disappear into nowhere. Characters are underdeveloped; scenes are not finished; worlds are left to themselves; theme is the fear of religious right of the communist left.

    It's a caricature of evil, done perhaps in the belief that kids won't get it otherwise. There's not much in terms of a plot, the worlds described are paper-thin, and it shows no historical understanding, no outside knowledge.

    More of Purplycookie’s Reviews @:

    A Wrinkle in Time (Time #1)

    Madeleine L'Engle

    Purplycookie

WISE BOOK is in no way intended to support illegal activity. Use it at your risk. We uses Search API to find books/manuals but doesn´t host any files. All document files are the property of their respective owners. Please respect the publisher and the author for their copyrighted creations. If you find documents that should not be here please report them


©2018 WISE BOOK - All rights reserved.