Um, No, just no, you did not, C-? C-? Really? Shirley, you jest! Oh wait your name isn't Shirley, its Tara, I wish it was Shirley, because then you wouldn't be Tara who insulted one of the best and most influential science fiction books ever written.
Allow me to back that statement up. First, lets look at just how daring and original this book is. Published in the 60s this is one of if not the first book of the genre to have a young female protagonist. On top of that it quite adequately empathizes with the feelings of a bright young person who doesn't fit in and and toward whom resentment is directed from their peers. Ender's Game is the only other book I have read that reaches that type of person. Not only that but this book revels in the individuality of its characters.
Rather than dictating that the kids fit into a pigeonhole it expresses that Calvin is uncomfortable with being characterized as a jock and is capable of being more than just an athlete, Meg thrives when she does things her own way, and Charles Wallace doesn't care what anybody thinks about him, he is a sport and he loves it. The idea of mindless conformity is condemned as the goal of IT, or rather the forces of evil. So, take into account that Nancy Drew, the Hardy Boys and Leave it to Beaver were en vogue when this was published and I dare you to say "meh" to this book.
The next topic I will address is sheer creativity. The author creates stunning panoramas in the mind of an imaginative reader, and the interaction between the characters is engaging. The Mrs. W's are hilarious at times. The creatures are really unique as well, not merely borrowed from some other mythology.
A Wrinkle in Time is more than just a fluff fiction book, it stimulates thought, it contains original ideas, it teaches that science and math have practical application, it encourages the expansion of the reader's vocabulary, and beyond that it manages to entertain and inspire. Madeline L'Engle wrote what children should be reading instead of pointless adventure stories with fantastic (fantastic-ridiculous, not fantastic-good) plot lines that end all happy and good conquers evil forever. Oh, and her book doesn't end with "everyone lives happily ever after" it ends with the idea that God has a purpose for us and that we need to have faith and love and then after we do our part, things will be ok.
To sum things up, only a square would call this book "somewhat entertaining". I give this book a A+ and consider it required reading for the young, and everyone else too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Paul, almost thou persuadeth me.
Your eloquence is impressive and your passion inspiring. You should consider submitting this post to the publisher of the book for the 50th anniversary edition. There is great insight in your arguments.
Nevertheless, I read this book a year and a half ago for the first time and I uh...have to side with Tara and Shirley on this one. Despite the positive reviews that I received prior to opening the book, I too thought it was overrated. I found it only mildly interesting and generally fuzzy. Sorry Paul. The book was written for children; perhaps if I had read it as a child my opinion would be different.
Um, No, just no, you did not, "square"? SQUARE? Really? Shirley, you jest! Oh wait your name isn't Shirley, its PJ (which isn't even a name, truth be told). I wish it was Shirley, because then you wouldn't be PJ who publicly insulted ME and my opinions on a Blog in which I believe we were invited to share our opinions.
Allow me to back that statement up. First, let's look at the fact that I reviewed under the pretense that any reader would understand that this was my opinion. I appreciate that you disagree with my C- grade (and all of your "eloquent" analysis to back up your opinion was fine and you're welcome to hold another opinion. This is still America and God Bless America after all). But the fact still stands that your post calls ME a "square." Though this seems the perfect opportunity to make a few pointed comments about your own backwards and uneducated opinions...I don't believe that's the purpose of this Blog. Do you?
The fact that you chose to delete your original comment and then turn it into an entire post reviewing the same book I just reviewed--in and of itself, bad form and rather insulting--isn't going to make a difference in how I personally feel about Madeleine L'Engle's book*. My opinion isn't going to change. I stand by my C-. I stand by MY OPINION that this book is not entertaining and my PERSONAL response to it was and will ever be, "MEH." And no matter how many special messages on Christianity, creativity, "be yourself", "don't be a stereotype", "read whatever crap book your dad considers required reading" you get out of it...I still didn't like it.
Paul, Tara is correct. You have overstepped your bounds. I should have called you on it earlier. Opposing opinions are welcome. Personal attacks are not. Please refrain from posting such statements in the future.
The book won a Newbery Medal, Sequoyah Book Award, and Lewis Carroll Shelf Award, and was runner-up for the Hans Christian Andersen Award. I think the educated experts stand by the A+.
By the by, it was someone's choice to take offense at being called an old-fashioned, conventional, or conservative person, like Nancy Drew, or Beaver Cleaver. Its not like I called you uneducated (synonymous with ignorant) or backward (synonym of retarded) which are the most original insults ever, I mean who hasn't heard "well you're dumb, neener, neener".
Tara, since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I also just want to say thank you for your comment, I will treasure it. That opening paragraph is pretty witty, what with the ingenious play on words and all.
Speaking of experts Paul, it appears that you merely copied and pasted your list of experts directly from the expertly written Wikipedia page for A Wrinkle in Time. For one who knows so much about intellectual property, you think you would be able to come up with some of your own. Please cite your sources in the future. Thanks.
Also, please reread this blog's charter post: The Blogspot Address. And I quote, "I invite anyone to participate as long as they keep their comments clean and constructive." and "This is your sandbox. Play nice and don’t make any messes."
I argue Fair Use, on the grounds that it is not a substantial portion of the entire article. Also, the information is easily obtained by innumerate other sources and it could be the case that my syntax is identical to the Wikipedia article merely by coincidence. After all, knowing what I know about Intellectual Property, all that really matters is the degree of risk. The potential risk in this case is negligible. No litigation will occur and if it did, no court would convict me.
Post a Comment