I've been giving this book a lot of thought lately, because I was really and truly disappointed in it. There are several reasons for this:
1. Factual errors. The author frequent misspells character's names, confuses words (e.g. "kodiak" for "zodiac"), and gets particulars from the books wrong (e.g. the quote's in Vicky's Grandfather's house). I was reading the revised version, too. These are things that should have been fixed with even the smallest amount of editorial care.
2. There was no criticism. Yes, I know Chase tells you in the beginning that the book isn't critical, that it's more of "an appreciation." However, you can delve into some of the ideas that Madeleine L'Engle presents without being "mean"--giving them an honest exploration is a compliment. Which brings me to my next point...
3. This book was written like a poor term paper. It seemed, quite often, like Chase had a bunch of "neat quotes" that she wanted to put in the book. So, she'd write a paragraph setting up the quote, a paragraph after to explain the quote, and then move on. It's the kind of writing you see in papers where you don't really have a point to make, you just want to point out, "hey, you! Look at this cool thing I found!" There needed to be a greater message surrounding the examination of L'Engle's work.
4. The author had a personal relationship with Madeleine, but this is very rarely explored. I'm not looking for juicy gossip, but she presents Madeleine as a saint, rather than a human being, which seems false and contradictory to Madeleine L'Engle's philosophy about human beings.
I read this book because I wanted an analysis of one my favorite authors, but instead I got a sort of "fan non-fiction" which doesn't do justice to either the books or the author herself.