What do you think?
Rate this book
Listening for Madeleine: A Portrait of Madeleine L'Engle in Many Voices
Writer. Matriarch. Mentor. Friend. Icon.Madeleine L'Engle is perhaps best recognized as the author of A Wrinkle in Time, the enduring milestone work of fantasy fiction that won the 1963 John Newbery Medal for excellence in children's literature and has enthralled millions of readers for the past fifty years. But to those who knew her well, L'Engle was much more a larger-than-life persona, an inspiring mentor, a strong-willed matriarch, a spiritual guide, and a rare friend. In Listening for Madeleine, the renowned literary historian and biographer Leonard S. Marcus reveals Madeleine L'Engle in all her complexity, through a series of incisive interviews with the people who knew her most intimately. Vivid reminiscences of family members, colleagues, and friends create a kaleidoscope of keen insights and snapshop moments that help readers to understand the many sides of this singularly fascinating woman.
Unknown Binding
First published November 13, 2012
13 people are currently reading
500 people want to read
About the author
Leonard S. Marcus
72 books69 followersLeonard S. Marcus is one of the world's leading writers about children's books and their illustrations. His many books include The Wand in the Word: Conversations with Writers of Fantasy; Funny Business: Conversations with Writers of Comedy; Dear Genius; and others. His essays, interviews, and reviews appear in the New York Times Book Review, among other publications. Leonard S. Marcus lives in Brooklyn.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews
January 5, 2013
I devoured this book in one long sitting while sick with strep throat, but admit that while I give it a 4 star rating it's not a book for everybody. If someone wants a good introduction to L'engle, they can really find it through reading her books, both fiction and non-fiction. It was through reading and rereading her that I felt such a close "relationship" and fascination with her. In 2004, the New Yorker published a sort of tell-all style of artist profile on her. While many fans felt that it tarnished her saintly reputation, I felt that it just made her more human and likable. This oral history is a sort of combination of continuation of the New Yorker profile meets a case for sainthood. One walks away understanding her a little bit better, and despite the very few sour notes, realizing that she was an amazing and charismatic woman who has had a powerful and profound influence on so many people. This is a great book for her fans and a sort of hagiography that I feel is pretty successful, but I consider it more of a fascinating appendix to her body of work than anything else.
August 19, 2022
Sorry, but Listening for Madeleine: A Portrait of Madeleine L'Engle in Many Voices (from 2012) has been really and truly a generally massively annoyingly distracting, frustrating and also ridiculously tedious reading experience for me.
Sure, editor, interviewer and compiler Leonard S. Marcus' biographical introduction for Listening for Madeleine: A Portrait of Madeleine L'Engle in Many Voices is in fact delightful and wonderful, as it is engagingly penned, and I also much appreciate that Marcus presents Madeleine L'Engle's biography without any annoying authorial interferences, just showing us the facts of L'Engle's life so to speak and with Leonard S. Marcus most fortunately never pontificating and adding his own takes and interpretations (so that the introduction for Listening for Madeleine: A Portrait of Madeleine L'Engle in Many Voices most definitely rates as solidly five stars for me).
However, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING post that great introduction I have textually pretty much totally and utterly despised reading, a rather strong and harsh assessment and reaction perhaps, but one by which I do totally stand. For indeed and sadly, the simply huge collection of very short interviews that are the main textual body and focus of Listening for Madeleine: A Portrait of Madeleine L'Engle in Many Voices, they are just too short, too distracting and too repetitive for my reading tastes and needs (with me often losing focus since there is in my opinion no real and forward moving narrative with Listening for Madeleine: A Portrait of Madeleine L'Engle in Many Voices, but simply a lot of often contradictory and also annoyingly overused biographical and cultural bits and pieces, and that NO, most of these "voices" I did not at all enjoy reading or even encountering, and with the problematic, repetitive and frustrating texts also totally drowning out anything regarding Madeleine L'Engle that might be interesting and worthwhile textually pursuing).
And therefore, except for the introduction, I totally do feel that Leonard S. Marcus has majorly and utterly missed the proverbial boat with regard to Listening for Madeleine: A Portrait of Madeleine L'Engle in Many Voices and to such an extent that Listening for Madeleine: A Portrait of Madeleine L'Engle in Many Voices can and will only be a rather low and grudging two star rating for me (and that I cannot really recommend a book where only the introduction is in my opinion sufficiently readable and interesting).
Sure, editor, interviewer and compiler Leonard S. Marcus' biographical introduction for Listening for Madeleine: A Portrait of Madeleine L'Engle in Many Voices is in fact delightful and wonderful, as it is engagingly penned, and I also much appreciate that Marcus presents Madeleine L'Engle's biography without any annoying authorial interferences, just showing us the facts of L'Engle's life so to speak and with Leonard S. Marcus most fortunately never pontificating and adding his own takes and interpretations (so that the introduction for Listening for Madeleine: A Portrait of Madeleine L'Engle in Many Voices most definitely rates as solidly five stars for me).
However, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING post that great introduction I have textually pretty much totally and utterly despised reading, a rather strong and harsh assessment and reaction perhaps, but one by which I do totally stand. For indeed and sadly, the simply huge collection of very short interviews that are the main textual body and focus of Listening for Madeleine: A Portrait of Madeleine L'Engle in Many Voices, they are just too short, too distracting and too repetitive for my reading tastes and needs (with me often losing focus since there is in my opinion no real and forward moving narrative with Listening for Madeleine: A Portrait of Madeleine L'Engle in Many Voices, but simply a lot of often contradictory and also annoyingly overused biographical and cultural bits and pieces, and that NO, most of these "voices" I did not at all enjoy reading or even encountering, and with the problematic, repetitive and frustrating texts also totally drowning out anything regarding Madeleine L'Engle that might be interesting and worthwhile textually pursuing).
And therefore, except for the introduction, I totally do feel that Leonard S. Marcus has majorly and utterly missed the proverbial boat with regard to Listening for Madeleine: A Portrait of Madeleine L'Engle in Many Voices and to such an extent that Listening for Madeleine: A Portrait of Madeleine L'Engle in Many Voices can and will only be a rather low and grudging two star rating for me (and that I cannot really recommend a book where only the introduction is in my opinion sufficiently readable and interesting).
July 11, 2013
This collection of interviews with people who knew Madeleine L'Engle in various capacities (ranging from her daughter, her editors, her colleagues at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, and friends all the way down to someone who exchanged a few unsatisfactory words with her while getting her copy of A Wrinkle in Time signed) got a little repetitive. One reads of certain details again and again: her tallness, her dangly jewelry, her charismatic manner. Various biographical details are also mentioned multiple times by interviewees. So while parts of it I found interesting, I could never have managed to read it straight through. Perhaps I'm just not a big enough fan of L'Engle's to take so much of her all at once. Ironically the contribution from the woman who got her book signed was one of the more interesting pieces, as she had some rather sharp things to say about L'Engle's books, especially her portrayals of gay people, with which I found myself agreeing. Likewise, I found Betsy Hearne's reminiscence about her tangential encounter with L'Engle interesting. She interviewed her and tried and failed to get a satisfactory answer to a question about how such a complex and rich thinker as L'Engle could have made many of her characters completely good or bad -- indeed, there's virtually no moral ambiguity to be found in her books. Another more cheerful highlight was reading L'Engle's daughter's account of an unpublished manuscript that was read aloud to her as a child:
"The working title was "Brigitta," and it was a boarding school story, a light and sunny story, and I loved it. She made several copies, and my friends and I would all take parts and read it aloud together."
Wouldn't it be nice if this book could see the light of day sometime.
Marcus' introduction is excellent, expect perhaps in that it raises an expectation that the rest of the content of the book will be just as interesting and well written, when in actuality it's quite mixed. I can't help thinking he would have done better to have spent a few more years with this project and turned it into a biography, but perhaps he too found large doses of Madeleine a little too intense for comfort.
"The working title was "Brigitta," and it was a boarding school story, a light and sunny story, and I loved it. She made several copies, and my friends and I would all take parts and read it aloud together."
Wouldn't it be nice if this book could see the light of day sometime.
Marcus' introduction is excellent, expect perhaps in that it raises an expectation that the rest of the content of the book will be just as interesting and well written, when in actuality it's quite mixed. I can't help thinking he would have done better to have spent a few more years with this project and turned it into a biography, but perhaps he too found large doses of Madeleine a little too intense for comfort.
March 2, 2013
Reason #985 that I'm glad I'm not famous: I don't want the story of my life to be told by a motley crew of acquaintances and close friends, some of whom only met me once. I read this collection of memories of L'Engle because I was a rabid L'Engle fan as a kid, and I still have a soft spot for her in my heart, even though I have little patience for her children's books (yes, Madeleine, some of them are children's books despite your protestations) as an adult. There are many things I found interesting in this collection, but I'll limit myself to a couple of them:
1. L'Engle's memoirs are perhaps her greatest works of fiction, and her fiction is in some cases a thinly veiled description of her life. A couple words of advice to those who meet L'Engle's children: Do not tell Josephine that you feel like you know her because you read The Crosswicks Journals. Many of the events described in the Journals never happened. Also, do not discuss Meet the Austins with L'Engle's adopted daughter Maria. That story, which is in large part about how adopted daughter Maggie (L'Engle at least had the decency to change a few letters in her daughter's name) turns the Austins' idyllic life upside-down, hits a little too close to home, as does the fact that Maria's fictional counterpart was conveniently adopted at the end of the first book in the Austin series. No such luck for real-life Maria.
2. A critical profile of L'Engle that appeared in The New Yorker magazine in 2004, "The Storyteller," figured prominently in this book. The thing I find so ironic about the profile is that while L'Engle's relatives do exactly what L'Engle did to them, i.e., cause very intimate details of L'Engle's life to be revealed in print, her relatives also appear to have justified their revelations in a way that would have made L'Engle proud: they did so, you see, because they believe that hagiography is such a dangerous thing. Wow. It wasn't because turnabout is fair play? Apparently the gift of storytelling didn't die with L'Engle.
1. L'Engle's memoirs are perhaps her greatest works of fiction, and her fiction is in some cases a thinly veiled description of her life. A couple words of advice to those who meet L'Engle's children: Do not tell Josephine that you feel like you know her because you read The Crosswicks Journals. Many of the events described in the Journals never happened. Also, do not discuss Meet the Austins with L'Engle's adopted daughter Maria. That story, which is in large part about how adopted daughter Maggie (L'Engle at least had the decency to change a few letters in her daughter's name) turns the Austins' idyllic life upside-down, hits a little too close to home, as does the fact that Maria's fictional counterpart was conveniently adopted at the end of the first book in the Austin series. No such luck for real-life Maria.
2. A critical profile of L'Engle that appeared in The New Yorker magazine in 2004, "The Storyteller," figured prominently in this book. The thing I find so ironic about the profile is that while L'Engle's relatives do exactly what L'Engle did to them, i.e., cause very intimate details of L'Engle's life to be revealed in print, her relatives also appear to have justified their revelations in a way that would have made L'Engle proud: they did so, you see, because they believe that hagiography is such a dangerous thing. Wow. It wasn't because turnabout is fair play? Apparently the gift of storytelling didn't die with L'Engle.
June 21, 2013
Madeleine L'Engle has been a lifelong hero to me. I can't underestimate the influence she's had on my thinking and expression. Or perhaps, as I thought when I was younger, I already had these thoughts and was attracted to her as a kindred spirit. Before her death there was a semi-expose published in The New Yorker, discussing her "reinterpretations" and sometimes downright invention of life events (as she wrote about them in her books) as well as how her mothering skills could have used some improvement. Like her other fans my age, I'm too old to be phased or even surprised by this. She had the rough, rebellious, contradictory pull towards both solitude and deep friendship. She was greeter-with-open-arms on one end and door-closer at the other. She had the complications of great artists and great thinkers, and while the pain we cause each other is never anything to be dismissive about, I appreciate the person who is the subject of this book even better than I do the idealized Madeleine.
The book contains many of the voices that contributed to that New Yorker story as well as dozens of others. Together you get a full, complicated - but certainly in no way mean-spirited - portrait of a remarkable human being.
The book contains many of the voices that contributed to that New Yorker story as well as dozens of others. Together you get a full, complicated - but certainly in no way mean-spirited - portrait of a remarkable human being.
January 11, 2013
This book was so strange. It's a collection of interviews of people who knew Madeleine L'Engle at various points in her life. I came away from it discomfited- feeling like I'd been to a party where everyone was talking behind her back. It just felt unclean somehow- and not because the gossip is bad or damning, because on the whole it's quite positive.
January 14, 2013
Like many of Madeleine L'Engle's fans, I became hooked on her as a middle-schooler; my favorite title was "The Young Unicorns" (1968), a young adult novel. As I grew older I delved into her nonfiction (I still have notebooks filled with quotes from "A Circle of Quiet" [1972] and other musings) and stories for adults. Over the years, my interest began to wane. I watched the TV version of "A Wrinkle in Time" (2003) and reread the first three books of the Time Quartet, but they were so preachy and cryptic--especially the second, "A Wind in the Door" (1973)--as to be nearly incomprehensible. I found her characters, especially the Austin, Murry and O'Keefe families, wonderfully idealistic when I was young but extremely unrealistic as I aged (everyone, even the children, is either brilliant, super-talented, or world-famous at something?). But L'Engle still intrigued me, and when I saw this on the new book display I picked it up. Rather than a straightforward biography, editor Marcus interviews numerous people who knew L'Engle, ranging from family members and relatives, editors, publishers, and publicists to the owner of her favorite restaurant. Their reminiscences are arranged by topic (childhood, writing career, and role as a mother, mentor, friend, and icon). Not surprisingly, there are a number of discrepancies (one mentions how kind she was and the next describes her as stern). But the overall picture of this legend is surprisingly cohesive. The only false notes, I felt, were in the final section, "Icon," where several people relate one encounter apiece with L'Engle and their reactions and two comment negatively on her writing style. I would have thought better of Marcus, to include "I met a celebrity" type discussions; and, this is a biography, not a literary critique or writing analysis, and those remarks seemed out of place. The other caveat is that Cynthia Zarin's 2004 "New Yorker" profile, which is referred to repeatedly throughout the book, should at least have been given a full citation (if not reprinted) early on. (I read it online.) But, overall, this is an excellent study of an influential, impressive author.
July 19, 2013
It's been disheartening to re-read my childhood idol Madeleine L'Engle, because now I find her books didactic, with impossibly mature characters and contrived plots bent to accommodate L'Engle's religious sensibility. I still love the world she created in both A WRINKLE IN TIME and MEET THE AUSTINS, but I can't love them as unreservedly as I did when I was eleven. So in a weird way, this non-hagiographical look at L'Engle helped restore my love for her—though in a new and more balanced way. This is not a biography, but rather a collection of impressions of L'Engle written by friends, editors—including my own editor, Stephen Roxburgh—family, and fans. Her family and some others agree—Madeleine was trying to create through her writing the world she wanted to live in, and if that meant idealizing and romanticizing things, then so be it. Though she didn't see it that way. It's almost as if she created a persona for herself and then started to inhabit it, to believe in it as real, even if it meant alienating her children at times, or being in denial about the ultimately fatal alcoholism of both her father and son, or her husband's infidelities.
It was interesting to see that Stephen also thought her work was too didactic; and that others agree that her characters were implausible.
But that's not what I brought away from this book in the end. Someone in this book says that Madeleine was not an either/or type of thinker; she was a both/and type. That's the way to view her as well, I think. She was a complex person who, like all of us, had flaws and fatal blindnesses right alongside her gifts and transformative vision. Her books aren't perfect either, but I can still love them even as I am deeply aware of their limitations. It's both/and.
It was interesting to see that Stephen also thought her work was too didactic; and that others agree that her characters were implausible.
But that's not what I brought away from this book in the end. Someone in this book says that Madeleine was not an either/or type of thinker; she was a both/and type. That's the way to view her as well, I think. She was a complex person who, like all of us, had flaws and fatal blindnesses right alongside her gifts and transformative vision. Her books aren't perfect either, but I can still love them even as I am deeply aware of their limitations. It's both/and.
August 1, 2013
Well. I finished it. Despite my distaste for the format. I really cannot stand changing points of view.
Why did I finish it? I don't really know. I wanted it to be good. I wanted it to get better.
But I didn't like the book at all. Some of the people interviewed met L'Engle ONCE. How does that merit a place in this book?
All of the interviewees agreed that L'Engle was warm and adopted various people, very spiritual and very disciplined when it came to writing.
Overall, I was disappointed. I don't think I know about L'Engle now any more than I did before I read the book. I don't know why certain people were chosen to be interviewed and included in the book. Did Marcus put out a wide casting call? Did all of these interviewees just want to see their name in print?
I did want to reread A Wrinkle in Time until the last sixty pages or so. Then I just wanted it to be over. I do think I need to reread her children's books (Yes, Madeleine, they are children's books, simple plot, stock characters, etc). I do not care to read her "non-fiction" or memoirs. I will track down that New Yorker article, mentioned so much. Apparently Marcus lacked the funds to pay royalties to print the article.
Article: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004...
Why did I finish it? I don't really know. I wanted it to be good. I wanted it to get better.
But I didn't like the book at all. Some of the people interviewed met L'Engle ONCE. How does that merit a place in this book?
All of the interviewees agreed that L'Engle was warm and adopted various people, very spiritual and very disciplined when it came to writing.
Overall, I was disappointed. I don't think I know about L'Engle now any more than I did before I read the book. I don't know why certain people were chosen to be interviewed and included in the book. Did Marcus put out a wide casting call? Did all of these interviewees just want to see their name in print?
I did want to reread A Wrinkle in Time until the last sixty pages or so. Then I just wanted it to be over. I do think I need to reread her children's books (Yes, Madeleine, they are children's books, simple plot, stock characters, etc). I do not care to read her "non-fiction" or memoirs. I will track down that New Yorker article, mentioned so much. Apparently Marcus lacked the funds to pay royalties to print the article.
Article: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004...
December 27, 2015
Would recommend: Yes, but I think it's only for the Crazy Fans out there
I snatched this book off the New Nonfiction shelf at my library, having never even heard of it before I saw it there. Then, as I opened it, I had a moment of apprehension: did I really want to read other people's interviews about Madeleine, when it was her writing that I loved? But then I realized that the first section was basically the opinions of her fan club in the publishing world. I tore through 150 pages in one go. It was really interesting to read why others loved or didn't love Madeleine, and it makes me question how I view authors I have particular affinity to. Reading unflattering things about her made me distinctly uncomfortable, as though I couldn't bring myself to view Madeleine in any other way than on a pedestal. I'm still pondering that. I might have to get this book when it comes out in paperback, though, just to round out my collection.
I snatched this book off the New Nonfiction shelf at my library, having never even heard of it before I saw it there. Then, as I opened it, I had a moment of apprehension: did I really want to read other people's interviews about Madeleine, when it was her writing that I loved? But then I realized that the first section was basically the opinions of her fan club in the publishing world. I tore through 150 pages in one go. It was really interesting to read why others loved or didn't love Madeleine, and it makes me question how I view authors I have particular affinity to. Reading unflattering things about her made me distinctly uncomfortable, as though I couldn't bring myself to view Madeleine in any other way than on a pedestal. I'm still pondering that. I might have to get this book when it comes out in paperback, though, just to round out my collection.
Read
February 24, 2023I adore Madeleine L'Engle and was very excited about this book, believing it to be a biography. Instead, the editor has interviewed several people in L'Engle's life and placed them in categories like "matriarch" "writer" etc. While a few interviews were interesting, I really wish he would have gone the next step and written a biography using these voices. And many reference a 2004 New Yorker article on L'Engle without the book including anything extensive on that prior so readers know what it's about.
Again, I love Madeleine and believe there's great material here, but was just very disappointed in the formatting and organization of this book.
Again, I love Madeleine and believe there's great material here, but was just very disappointed in the formatting and organization of this book.
July 15, 2013
If you love Madeleine L'Engle, you'll enjoy this book about her life, written by family, friends and colleagues. Some wonderful insights in here. I thought it went very long, and I skipped some of the comments by Madeleine's spiritual (church) friends, but overall, it was fascinating, especially the parts by her family members and close friends. It was interesting that so many people considered her a "close" friend. Apparently she had a gift of making everyone feel special. Such a talented woman. A fun read.
January 12, 2013
I enjoyed this book, though it was not always heart-warming to read about an admired author's quirks and imperiousness. She was a complicated person, with a rich artistic and spiritual life, and it's clearly not easy to keep all that together with family life/public persona/etc. Glad I read it, though, and it's pointed me to another memoir by her friends that I think I shall also have to read. And to go look through my library to see if I still have my Madeleine L'Engle collection.
August 9, 2014
There were some interesting insights, but too many of the interviews were redundant. And the ending left a bitter taste in my mouth. I did appreciate learning about L'Engle's process and background, but didn't need the details of how nice she was explained by every person in the first half of the book.
February 10, 2018
This was kind of spotty. Some of the chapters felt more like gossip or rambling and could have been left out. Because it took me so long to finish this, I don't have an overall sense of the portrait it paints.
January 4, 2013
My response to the book (not quite a review, but a response) is here:
http://laurelsnyder.com/?p=1842
http://laurelsnyder.com/?p=1842
August 1, 2013
Bought this on a whim and would do it again! Just loved this one. Must read in conjunction with the New Yorker profile.
June 12, 2022
didn't like it
January 29, 2025
This book was fascinating. I've never read a biography where each chapter is an interview with a different person. And each chapter really is another voice speaking about Madeleine: who she was to them, how she impacted them, what her life was. I wonder how comfortable Madeleine would feel about a biography being formatted in this way; I asked myself how I would feel if a biography about me were written in this form and was quite discomfited by the thought.
But the book does paint a multifaceted picture of Madeleine, which was the point (and which was, I thought, probably not the point of that controversial 2004 New Yorker profile of her. Whether or not the details were true is none of my business; the way it was written felt like disrespect towards another human being. But that's neither here nor there). She's not presented to you as a saint, a pioneer, an angel. Neither is she presented to you as the 2004 profile does. She's simply show, through the eyes of these people, as Madeleine -- that is, the person she was to them, and the person each of them knew.
Madeleine L'Engle is someone who has deeply shaped my identity as a writer and my understanding of compassion and tenderness as central to Christian living. She, along with Brian Doyle and Frederick Buechner, is a writer whom I respect, and whose stories I respect because of the heart behind them. So I deeply appreciated the honesty of these contributors, and I loved seeing her from all these different angles. Some of them argue that she's by no means a perfect person. But all of them show in their witness to her life that she was someone with a richness of soul and generosity of heart that did overflow. And I think you can see through these different accounts that God did use her as a powerful instrument of grace. She made mistakes and she made beautiful choices, and the kind of legacy she left is hard to describe, I think, without it sounding contradictory.
Nevertheless, this was a fascinating book to read. Marcus's questions are curious but not over-probing; he is respectful and sensitive to each person's comfort level and allows them a lot of space to develop their own themes. Biographies are, I think, a great way to exercise that mental muscle of understanding nuance, which can get so easily neglected.... I know I neglect it without realising! I don't have to agree with all of Madeleine's theology or political views or decisions to love her as a person (of the little I know of who she was, never having met her) and as a writer who not only deeply shaped my imagination as a child, but who still continues to deeply shape my imagination in adulthood. The way she wrote, the way she understood our role as sub-creators, and the way she loved people have left a significant impression on my own life and understanding.
But the book does paint a multifaceted picture of Madeleine, which was the point (and which was, I thought, probably not the point of that controversial 2004 New Yorker profile of her. Whether or not the details were true is none of my business; the way it was written felt like disrespect towards another human being. But that's neither here nor there). She's not presented to you as a saint, a pioneer, an angel. Neither is she presented to you as the 2004 profile does. She's simply show, through the eyes of these people, as Madeleine -- that is, the person she was to them, and the person each of them knew.
Madeleine L'Engle is someone who has deeply shaped my identity as a writer and my understanding of compassion and tenderness as central to Christian living. She, along with Brian Doyle and Frederick Buechner, is a writer whom I respect, and whose stories I respect because of the heart behind them. So I deeply appreciated the honesty of these contributors, and I loved seeing her from all these different angles. Some of them argue that she's by no means a perfect person. But all of them show in their witness to her life that she was someone with a richness of soul and generosity of heart that did overflow. And I think you can see through these different accounts that God did use her as a powerful instrument of grace. She made mistakes and she made beautiful choices, and the kind of legacy she left is hard to describe, I think, without it sounding contradictory.
Nevertheless, this was a fascinating book to read. Marcus's questions are curious but not over-probing; he is respectful and sensitive to each person's comfort level and allows them a lot of space to develop their own themes. Biographies are, I think, a great way to exercise that mental muscle of understanding nuance, which can get so easily neglected.... I know I neglect it without realising! I don't have to agree with all of Madeleine's theology or political views or decisions to love her as a person (of the little I know of who she was, never having met her) and as a writer who not only deeply shaped my imagination as a child, but who still continues to deeply shape my imagination in adulthood. The way she wrote, the way she understood our role as sub-creators, and the way she loved people have left a significant impression on my own life and understanding.
January 2, 2017
This is a strange book, an assortment of essays about the author of one of my childhood favorites, A Wrinkle in Time. I think I was expecting more of a biographical feel after having read it, but many of the essays were quite boring to me and I didn't know who most of the essayists were. I thoroughly enjoyed the introduction, though.
A few excerpts:
She is among the most quotable of writers. She could be acutely perceptive on the subject of human vulnerability. In a circle of quiet, a book in which she also cataloged the joys of country living and family togetherness, she wondered aloud: but where, after we have made a great decision to leave the security of childhood and move on into the vastness of maturity, does anybody ever feel completely at home?
She declared with tongue firmly in cheek: it was not until I was nearly 40 that I discovered that higher math is easier than lower math. Arguing in a circle of quiet for the paradoxically liberating power of strict adherence to demanding literary forms such as the sonnet, she observed: the amoeba has a minimum of structure, but I doubt it has much fun. Art forms work, to her, no different in this regard from the structure of domestic life, and in particular family and marriage, the latter of which she so deftly analogized as a two part invention.
The Phantom tollbooth's resemblance to a wrinkle in time was also striking. Milo – like Meg – is a bored, unhappy, misunderstood preteen who struggles with school work, with fitting in, and ultimately with the meaning of life. Feeling stifled in a world run largely by and for the benefit of grownups, Milo and meg make their way to different worlds and undertake a relic quests that would seem to be well beyond their powers to complete, and complete them anyway. They return from their adventures emotionally strengthened, more knowing about the moral and intellectual challenges that growing up entails, and more at home with themselves. Since the time of their initial publication, three generations of young people have found the reading of these two books to be mind expanding, life-changing experiences.
My books are not bad books to die with. What I mean is that when I read a book, if it makes me feel more alive, then it's a good book to die with. That is why certain books last.
Her memoir about her dying mother: the summer of the great grandmother
A circle of quiet
A few excerpts:
She is among the most quotable of writers. She could be acutely perceptive on the subject of human vulnerability. In a circle of quiet, a book in which she also cataloged the joys of country living and family togetherness, she wondered aloud: but where, after we have made a great decision to leave the security of childhood and move on into the vastness of maturity, does anybody ever feel completely at home?
She declared with tongue firmly in cheek: it was not until I was nearly 40 that I discovered that higher math is easier than lower math. Arguing in a circle of quiet for the paradoxically liberating power of strict adherence to demanding literary forms such as the sonnet, she observed: the amoeba has a minimum of structure, but I doubt it has much fun. Art forms work, to her, no different in this regard from the structure of domestic life, and in particular family and marriage, the latter of which she so deftly analogized as a two part invention.
The Phantom tollbooth's resemblance to a wrinkle in time was also striking. Milo – like Meg – is a bored, unhappy, misunderstood preteen who struggles with school work, with fitting in, and ultimately with the meaning of life. Feeling stifled in a world run largely by and for the benefit of grownups, Milo and meg make their way to different worlds and undertake a relic quests that would seem to be well beyond their powers to complete, and complete them anyway. They return from their adventures emotionally strengthened, more knowing about the moral and intellectual challenges that growing up entails, and more at home with themselves. Since the time of their initial publication, three generations of young people have found the reading of these two books to be mind expanding, life-changing experiences.
My books are not bad books to die with. What I mean is that when I read a book, if it makes me feel more alive, then it's a good book to die with. That is why certain books last.
Her memoir about her dying mother: the summer of the great grandmother
A circle of quiet
March 29, 2018
Ever since I read the Crosswicks Journals in the early 80's, Madeleine L'Engle has been a favorite of mine . While I enjoyed her novels, I was most affected by her non-fiction writing and really felt that I knew her. Her musings on family, faith and life were thoughtful and insightful.
This book, Listening for Madeleine, explores L'Engle in a fascinating way, as more than 50 family members, colleagues and friends describe the woman they knew. Warm, loving, generous, wise -- she was all these things. But as for those journals --? As historian Leonard Marcus writes: "then and with regard to any number of other emotionally charged personal matters, L'Engle seems simply to have told the story she needed to tell, without concern for the facts." This does not distress me, but it is interesting. Perhaps we all do that to some extent -- bending our memories to tell the story we have to tell.
I would have appreciated more interviews with family members, and perhaps a few less of the very brief comments that form the final portion of the book. But all-in-all this is a fascinating and illuminating book. Now it's time to retrieve all those Madeleine L'Engle books and start rereading!
This book, Listening for Madeleine, explores L'Engle in a fascinating way, as more than 50 family members, colleagues and friends describe the woman they knew. Warm, loving, generous, wise -- she was all these things. But as for those journals --? As historian Leonard Marcus writes: "then and with regard to any number of other emotionally charged personal matters, L'Engle seems simply to have told the story she needed to tell, without concern for the facts." This does not distress me, but it is interesting. Perhaps we all do that to some extent -- bending our memories to tell the story we have to tell.
I would have appreciated more interviews with family members, and perhaps a few less of the very brief comments that form the final portion of the book. But all-in-all this is a fascinating and illuminating book. Now it's time to retrieve all those Madeleine L'Engle books and start rereading!
December 2, 2018
Listening for Madeleine is a collection of interviews with persons who knew Madeleine L'Engle thematically arranged: Madeleine In the Making, Writer, Matriarch, Mentor, Friend, Icon. L'Engle emerges as an enormously self-confident, privileged woman. She was deeply engaged in Christian spiritual exploration, an excellent speaker with a demanding book tour schedule, strongly opinionated, and eager to befriend and mentor the young. Towards the end of the book we also hear from those less inclined to adulate her. I found these interviews particularly insightful. L'Engle was such a powerful presence that you can feel her through the pages of the book--she practically leaps out from them. Any fan of L'Engle's will appreciate the breadth of these points of view.
August 10, 2018
Bit of a spoiler here...
...I was heartbroken to read how of much L'Engle needed to "make-up" of her life. Apparently, her marriage was hard and Hugh Franklin was an alcoholic and jerk. Her father was an alcoholic, and her son died as a result of being an alcoholic. I wanted to believe all that she wrote - ah well...
...I was heartbroken to read how of much L'Engle needed to "make-up" of her life. Apparently, her marriage was hard and Hugh Franklin was an alcoholic and jerk. Her father was an alcoholic, and her son died as a result of being an alcoholic. I wanted to believe all that she wrote - ah well...
October 8, 2019
I am interested in Madeleine L'Engle, a complicated and interesting person so it was great fun to hear from all the people who knew her best. However, they are tidbits and I would have liked a more comprehensive and cohesive portrait.
March 14, 2020
I really liked the variety of voices the author collected in this book. Madeleine L'Engle has been one of my favorite authors since I was 10, as she was for so many others. This gave me a new understanding of who she was and how that impacted her stories.
January 10, 2020
Turns out that I'd rather read Madeleine's words rather than others' words about her.
January 9, 2023
A compilation of interviews with people who knew her intimately.
April 9, 2022
Fascinating to learn more about Madeleine L'Engle from editors, friends, and others, after having spent two years reading and discussing her books with the wonderful Zoom book club started by Ellen Myrick. And many thanks to Ellen for arranging for Leonard Marcus to join us for the discussion, which was fabulous. It really added to what we’ve already talked about, particularly to this book, adding Leonard's insights into what made L'Engle who she was.
August 13, 2016
Why publish a book like this and not write a real biography? It's an assortment of recollections about ML'E in the format of interviews of those who knew her. Is this a cop-out by the author, or did he try to write a biography based on these interviews but failed, did he or his editors decide the task was beyond him?
Now if the recollections themselves had been scintillating or controversial, or covered wildly divergent territory, then that would have justified leaving them as interviews. But they weren't. The questions often weren't particularly tailored to the interviewee and/or Marcus didn't ask follow-ups to intriguing remarks. Most of the interviewees received the same set of questions (and every one began with "How did you meet ML'E?"). So the collection felt both repetitive/redundant and irritatingly contradictory:
-She had a good grasp of science/she didn't understand science at all;
-She was a wise, philosophical thinker/she couldn't think philosophically and she had a simplistically dualistic worldview;
-She was a loving mother/she was a cold and neglectful mother;
-She was warm and generous/she was severe and imperious ....
Yes, ML'E was complicated and had different facets of her personality, but who doesn't? Don't all biographers of living or recently-living subjects collect many interviews, and don't the interviewees have often contradictory characterizations of a subject and her motivations? I hardly think Madeleine L'Engle was more complex person than LBJ!! Robert Caro handles far more information than Leonard Marcus took on. A skilled biographer is capable of integrating all the interviews and analyzing the overlaps and disparities, writing something that synthesizes all of it (and editing out what doesn't matter! - that's important, too), creating a comprehensive portrait.
An index would have been useful to future biographers.
Now if the recollections themselves had been scintillating or controversial, or covered wildly divergent territory, then that would have justified leaving them as interviews. But they weren't. The questions often weren't particularly tailored to the interviewee and/or Marcus didn't ask follow-ups to intriguing remarks. Most of the interviewees received the same set of questions (and every one began with "How did you meet ML'E?"). So the collection felt both repetitive/redundant and irritatingly contradictory:
-She had a good grasp of science/she didn't understand science at all;
-She was a wise, philosophical thinker/she couldn't think philosophically and she had a simplistically dualistic worldview;
-She was a loving mother/she was a cold and neglectful mother;
-She was warm and generous/she was severe and imperious ....
Yes, ML'E was complicated and had different facets of her personality, but who doesn't? Don't all biographers of living or recently-living subjects collect many interviews, and don't the interviewees have often contradictory characterizations of a subject and her motivations? I hardly think Madeleine L'Engle was more complex person than LBJ!! Robert Caro handles far more information than Leonard Marcus took on. A skilled biographer is capable of integrating all the interviews and analyzing the overlaps and disparities, writing something that synthesizes all of it (and editing out what doesn't matter! - that's important, too), creating a comprehensive portrait.
An index would have been useful to future biographers.
October 4, 2014
Leonard Marcus weaves a tapestry portrait of Madeleine L'Engle with his compilation of interviews concerning the late author of children's literature and spiritual writings. Having read many of her novels and her more non-fiction books, I found it interesting to discover another side of the author through the eyes of family, colleagues, friends, and a variety of acquaintances. L'Engle was a gifted writer, an open-hearted mentor and friend to other writers and fans, and a woman with strong faith in God. She was also imaginative and theatrical to the point of creating a persona for herself in writing that was more of an ideal than a real self-reflection. The final interview is with the author of an article that appeared in New Yorker magazine in the early 2000's. Other interviewees in the book referred to the story because it raised controversy by attempting to paint a less ideal picture of L'Engle. It was a fitting way of concluding the book though, because the author was very sympathetic with L'Engle as a person and appreciative of her as an author. She simply felt she had to speak truths about L'Engle that had not been revealed before in order to add a depth of understanding about her.
I really enjoyed the book both because Madeleine L'Engle is a favourite of mine and because the structure of the book (a collection of interviews), though at times a bit repetitive, allowed the author to present a very rounded portrait of the author.
I really enjoyed the book both because Madeleine L'Engle is a favourite of mine and because the structure of the book (a collection of interviews), though at times a bit repetitive, allowed the author to present a very rounded portrait of the author.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews