I remember in Animorphs Book 2 when KA actually broke the fourth wall to say "It was a dark and stormy night. Sorry, I always wanted to write that." I remember thinking that was extremely bizarre even at age 10.
@@angryfanfromthepast9549 Sorta. I get that that's the in-universe explanation, but the "sorry, I always wanted to write that" always felt like KA reaching through the story.
I remember watching the sideshow rendition of the story and recognizing the artwork from that sideshow. It was intensive. It was far more entertaining than what Disney put out years ago.
I've read the book a couple times throughout my life, and was happy to revisit it just shortly before the newer movie adaptation came out. It was a different experience, as a much older person, and I appreciated being able to understand nuances that I didn't ever get before. At a younger age I found the idiosyncrasies of how they travel to be a more compelling mystery, but my more recent read left me with the feeling that the method of travel gets a lot of emphasis that doesn't really connect to the important part of the story; the allegory explored on the world of Camazotz. The new movie, although a little disappointing, did come up with a clever innovation that made tesseract-travel relevant to the overall story by connecting Meg's difficulty with Tessering to her self-worth, which helps connect thematically with the story as a whole. That contribution from the movie helped me appreciate the book a little better. As a kid I remember the Tesser sequences being fairly long and unfathomable, but this time around they were surprisingly brief. The allegory story on Camazotz felt more hard-science fiction and "Star Trek" in a way that I never would have thought was the case at a younger age. I was more shocked than in the past at how rushed the ending is, but the book got to it's point quickly, and there was no need to drag out the resolution after Meg figures out how to fight IT. I like your interpretation of the story as being about "fantasy" children who travel to a form of our own, mundane world, that's an interesting spin on perceiving the book. Nice review, thank you for sharing that perspective.
0:26 - ANN-tuh-knee. Didn't take long to find the first mispronunciation. :-) ADD: 7:00 - *Anglican*, not "Angelican". (I'm almost surprised you got "Episcopalian" right. ;-) ) OK, but in all seriousness, while I do like to poke gentle fun at little things like mispronunciations, this piece, on the whole, was beautifully written. Thank you.
Never read to book and haven't seen the recent movie it's based on, but I have say the description of Charles remimds me of Calvin from Clavin & Hobbes. A very young kid with a superior vocabulary, except Calvin isn't afraid to talk down to his peers and use his fifty cent words.
Wrinkle in time is an almost confoundingly beautiful book, and feels christian to me in the same way Flannery O'Connor's short stories do- largely in that they're characterized by moments of grace, and the possibility thereof. They're totally unlike Lewis in that respect- Lewis never feels transcendental to me, even in the creation scenes in The Magician's Nephew or the apocalypse in The Last Battle. L'Engle is, constantly and casually- and as such, there aren't really any human villains in her world, as the possibility of grace exists in each person, to turn towards or turn away from. That bible quote almost makes me weep, though- it points to a God who is not making a clockwork universe, clattering away, nor one who is an accountant, calculating your good or evil on a giant spreadsheet, but one who is simply more than we can understand, one who is of such a nature that the hierarchies we hold on to become meaningless or inverted- but that the nature of this God is still understandable, because there is again a core of grace, and of love. Meg's strengths are her weaknesses, and when she finds in her heart love for It it is not just a Kirkian paradox but a profound disproof of the world as defined by conformity, by emptiness and consumerism. I always found Meg deeply relatable, not just because of her self loathing, but because of her sense that she didn't know what she was doing in the world, and I appreciate that her journey is not to find a purpose in life- her life goes on a long, valuable time after the first book- but to understand how to find meaning in the face of despair.
The timing for this video is uncanny -- I just finished listening to the audiobook version of A Wrinkle in Time a few days ago. I think what you said about the opening has some truth to it, and I think that's probably part of why I had some trouble getting into it. More specifically, the version I listened had some preamble with a foreword that I think built the book up with some pomp and circumstance that actually did it a disservice. It probably didn't help that the book had also occupied a place in my head as one of those great sci-fi books I always needed to read someday. "A dark and stormy night" certainly caught me off guard when I heard it in Wrinkle, and I think it gave me a slight unease or off-kilter sensation throughout the story. I think it's because I kept thinking about a "usual" story approach when accepting it for it's wonkiness really is the best. It's surreal, almost dream-like with how it moves from moment to moment, and with how odd its characters are. And yet it feels satisfying by the end. I think I really got some perspective on the Christian elements as though, after getting to the end hearing about how there were attempts to ban it in some places, that some Christians thought it twisted some elements of their religion -- or that some people thought it was too religious, and thus intrusive. I think knowing that helped me mentally settle with realizing it was someone putting their own spin on some ideas. I feel reminded of SFDebris' review of the original, animated Ghost in the Shell movie, where he mentioned that the film wasn't "style over substance", but rather that "the style *is* the substance". It would be easy to write off Wrinkle's writing as amateur, when it's probably more apt to say that it's a story more concerned with it's heart and message than anything else.
I always interpreted Charles Wallace as some kind of super- or extra-human person. The worldbuilding of the book doesn't necessarily clearly explain this, but I interpreted him this way by how he's written and his special relationship with Mrs. Whatsit, especially. Great point about "It was a dark and stormy night" at the end.
I need to re-read this book. When I was in fourth grade, my teacher read it to our class, but I barely remember anything past the third chapter. I wasn't interested in it and, frankly, was bored. Perhaps, 20 years later, I should revisit it.
One thing I love about this channel is how it challenges conventional understanding of literature and storytelling, and makes a case for works that choose to go and do their own thing. And really, even within its full passage, I think the "It was a dark and stormy night" bit works just fine. It's long, sure, but it's setting the mood! Never underestimate the power of mood. To be honest, this book sounds like it's right up my alley. I'm kinda regretting not checking it out during all the opportunities I had in middle school.
I was never a fan of A Wrinkle In Time, though the cover always intrigued me. It always just came off as something a drunk Christian aunt who overvalued her imaginative & storytelling abilities would tell. Like sure, on surface level they seem unique, but really it was just redressed confused nonsense.
same. i remember reading it for the first time as a kid, and just being annoyed the whole time. picked it back up every five years or so, and i never really proved kid wrong in her assessment. i like the idea of it, i like the imagery, but i really disliked how it all came together and the experience of reading it.
I remember in Animorphs Book 2 when KA actually broke the fourth wall to say "It was a dark and stormy night. Sorry, I always wanted to write that." I remember thinking that was extremely bizarre even at age 10.
At least it sorta makes in-universe sense, seeing how it's Rachel writing down the events of the story.
@@flamerunnerreviews1163facts
She didn't break the fourth wall, Rachel said that.
@@angryfanfromthepast9549 Sorta. I get that that's the in-universe explanation, but the "sorry, I always wanted to write that" always felt like KA reaching through the story.
Larry: "Do you say the night was humid? Or do you say the night was moist? That's writing."
Mama: "The night was sultry."
My favorite story as a child
Madeleine was so punk rock. She struck me as the kind of Christian who made other Christians uncomfortable.
I remember watching the sideshow rendition of the story and recognizing the artwork from that sideshow. It was intensive. It was far more entertaining than what Disney put out years ago.
This is probably my favorite book of all time. I’m 100% serious.
It affected my spirituality
This review definitely didn't make me cry and blow my nose or anything. >_>;;;;
Aww, Many Waters was my favorite as a kid too.
I've read the book a couple times throughout my life, and was happy to revisit it just shortly before the newer movie adaptation came out. It was a different experience, as a much older person, and I appreciated being able to understand nuances that I didn't ever get before. At a younger age I found the idiosyncrasies of how they travel to be a more compelling mystery, but my more recent read left me with the feeling that the method of travel gets a lot of emphasis that doesn't really connect to the important part of the story; the allegory explored on the world of Camazotz. The new movie, although a little disappointing, did come up with a clever innovation that made tesseract-travel relevant to the overall story by connecting Meg's difficulty with Tessering to her self-worth, which helps connect thematically with the story as a whole. That contribution from the movie helped me appreciate the book a little better. As a kid I remember the Tesser sequences being fairly long and unfathomable, but this time around they were surprisingly brief. The allegory story on Camazotz felt more hard-science fiction and "Star Trek" in a way that I never would have thought was the case at a younger age. I was more shocked than in the past at how rushed the ending is, but the book got to it's point quickly, and there was no need to drag out the resolution after Meg figures out how to fight IT.
I like your interpretation of the story as being about "fantasy" children who travel to a form of our own, mundane world, that's an interesting spin on perceiving the book. Nice review, thank you for sharing that perspective.
0:26 - ANN-tuh-knee. Didn't take long to find the first mispronunciation. :-)
ADD: 7:00 - *Anglican*, not "Angelican". (I'm almost surprised you got "Episcopalian" right. ;-) )
OK, but in all seriousness, while I do like to poke gentle fun at little things like mispronunciations, this piece, on the whole, was beautifully written. Thank you.
Never read to book and haven't seen the recent movie it's based on, but I have say the description of Charles remimds me of Calvin from Clavin & Hobbes. A very young kid with a superior vocabulary, except Calvin isn't afraid to talk down to his peers and use his fifty cent words.
Wrinkle in time is an almost confoundingly beautiful book, and feels christian to me in the same way Flannery O'Connor's short stories do- largely in that they're characterized by moments of grace, and the possibility thereof. They're totally unlike Lewis in that respect- Lewis never feels transcendental to me, even in the creation scenes in The Magician's Nephew or the apocalypse in The Last Battle. L'Engle is, constantly and casually- and as such, there aren't really any human villains in her world, as the possibility of grace exists in each person, to turn towards or turn away from.
That bible quote almost makes me weep, though- it points to a God who is not making a clockwork universe, clattering away, nor one who is an accountant, calculating your good or evil on a giant spreadsheet, but one who is simply more than we can understand, one who is of such a nature that the hierarchies we hold on to become meaningless or inverted- but that the nature of this God is still understandable, because there is again a core of grace, and of love. Meg's strengths are her weaknesses, and when she finds in her heart love for It it is not just a Kirkian paradox but a profound disproof of the world as defined by conformity, by emptiness and consumerism. I always found Meg deeply relatable, not just because of her self loathing, but because of her sense that she didn't know what she was doing in the world, and I appreciate that her journey is not to find a purpose in life- her life goes on a long, valuable time after the first book- but to understand how to find meaning in the face of despair.
Amazing
The timing for this video is uncanny -- I just finished listening to the audiobook version of A Wrinkle in Time a few days ago. I think what you said about the opening has some truth to it, and I think that's probably part of why I had some trouble getting into it. More specifically, the version I listened had some preamble with a foreword that I think built the book up with some pomp and circumstance that actually did it a disservice. It probably didn't help that the book had also occupied a place in my head as one of those great sci-fi books I always needed to read someday.
"A dark and stormy night" certainly caught me off guard when I heard it in Wrinkle, and I think it gave me a slight unease or off-kilter sensation throughout the story. I think it's because I kept thinking about a "usual" story approach when accepting it for it's wonkiness really is the best. It's surreal, almost dream-like with how it moves from moment to moment, and with how odd its characters are. And yet it feels satisfying by the end.
I think I really got some perspective on the Christian elements as though, after getting to the end hearing about how there were attempts to ban it in some places, that some Christians thought it twisted some elements of their religion -- or that some people thought it was too religious, and thus intrusive. I think knowing that helped me mentally settle with realizing it was someone putting their own spin on some ideas.
I feel reminded of SFDebris' review of the original, animated Ghost in the Shell movie, where he mentioned that the film wasn't "style over substance", but rather that "the style *is* the substance". It would be easy to write off Wrinkle's writing as amateur, when it's probably more apt to say that it's a story more concerned with it's heart and message than anything else.
I always interpreted Charles Wallace as some kind of super- or extra-human person. The worldbuilding of the book doesn't necessarily clearly explain this, but I interpreted him this way by how he's written and his special relationship with Mrs. Whatsit, especially.
Great point about "It was a dark and stormy night" at the end.
What a lovely video. Thank you.
glib side comment: Ursula Le Guin invented Pikachu in A Wind in the Door
Thank you, this was cool.
I need to re-read this book. When I was in fourth grade, my teacher read it to our class, but I barely remember anything past the third chapter. I wasn't interested in it and, frankly, was bored. Perhaps, 20 years later, I should revisit it.
I feel like Disney doesn’t want to show the true bad guy of the story in their movie because it would look too much like them 😂
*sigh* Yes, some children speak like that. I did, and I knew others that did, and since becoming an adult, I've met other children that do.
One thing I love about this channel is how it challenges conventional understanding of literature and storytelling, and makes a case for works that choose to go and do their own thing. And really, even within its full passage, I think the "It was a dark and stormy night" bit works just fine. It's long, sure, but it's setting the mood! Never underestimate the power of mood.
To be honest, this book sounds like it's right up my alley. I'm kinda regretting not checking it out during all the opportunities I had in middle school.
C.S. Lewis was Anglican, not Angelican.
7:02 I think you mean *Anglican*, not "Angelican".
I was never a fan of A Wrinkle In Time, though the cover always intrigued me. It always just came off as something a drunk Christian aunt who overvalued her imaginative & storytelling abilities would tell. Like sure, on surface level they seem unique, but really it was just redressed confused nonsense.
To be honest, I always found this book somewhat insufferable. I don't know why.
same. i remember reading it for the first time as a kid, and just being annoyed the whole time. picked it back up every five years or so, and i never really proved kid wrong in her assessment. i like the idea of it, i like the imagery, but i really disliked how it all came together and the experience of reading it.