Children's Books discussion
Fiction Club
>
July and August 2022 -- Madeleine L'Engle's Time Quintet
Mod
Mod
And I wonder if the first sentence of A Wrinkle in Time being "it was a dark and stormy night" has kind of always turned me off a bit (since this is considered a really "bad" beginning sentence).
Mod
Mod
Which movie did you see? The more recent one turned the white family into a biracial family, which I did not appreciate. Charles Wallace was not adopted in the novel, to my recollection.
Mod
Which movie did you see? The more recent one turned the white family i..."
I did not think so as he certainly does not appear to be adopted in the second book.
I saw the more recent movie. It was alright but making the family bi-racial was not necessary in my opinion.
Mod
Which movie did you see? The more recent one turned the white family i..."
I am often a bit grumpy when characters are redone in movies or plays as ethnic minorities. The recent Wrinkle in Time movie is not that much of a problem (although as mentioned before, I do not think it is necessary) but I really hate it when one of Shakespeare's British history plays has that happen to it.
Mod
I looked at pictures of the graphic novel A Wrinkle in Time: The Graphic Novel and didn't care for it much. I thought niece #1 might enjoy it but the reviews weren't very good. Niece does like Hope Larson though so she may have read it. I know I read the series in elementary school but don't remember it at all. I wasn't that into it and haven't seen the movie. I don't mind color blind casting but if it's a period drama, it has to either be color blind or make sense for the characters and their world and not a half hearted attempt at a more diverse world. In a contemporary story I don't see why the actors have to be one particular race or ethnicity over another but I do think if a character has a distinctive look, then the actor should fit the look.
Mod
Now I know and appreciate that Madeleine L'Engle won the Newbery Award for A Wrinkle in Time in 1963 and that for many of my Goodreads Friends A Wrinkle in Time equally seems to be a personal favourite. But well for me, having read A Wrinkle in Time after previously encountering A Wind in the Door (the first sequel of L’Engle’s Time Quintet series), sorry, but I in particular find Meg and Charles Wallace Murray, as well as their mutual friend Calvin O’Keefe much more positively rendered by Madeleine L’Engle and as such also much more personable, much more approachable for and to me emotionally in A Wind in the Door, and that this has certainly and in my humble opinion also not really all that surprisingly somewhat limited my personal reading pleasure with regard to A Wrinkle in Time.
For indeed while I generally from page one on of A Wind in the Door did totally enjoy my reading time with Meg, Charles Wallace and Calvin, the same has unfortunately not all that much been the case with those three characters as they are made to appear by Madeleine L'Engle in A Wrinkle in Time, with for example Meg Murray shown as annoying, whiny, and believing that her issues are somehow much more weighty and severe than EVERYONE ELSE’S. Yes, Meg’s father is missing, but she has a loving and supportive family, and honestly, how much she, how much Meg constantly focusses everything on herself and only on herself (at least for much of A Wrinkle in Time) it sure does not make her into a so called kindred spirit for me. And Charles Wallace Murry, with his ridiculous for a four year old’s smugness and inherent arrogance (and even though Charles Wallace has definitely matured by the end of A Wrinkle in Time and has also in my humble opinion understood his own faults and that self assurance can easily lead people astray) just kind of leaves me rather annoyed.
So no, I just do not really like Meg Murry, Charles Wallace Murry and Calvin O’Keefe with his feeling ashamed of his mother because she s not some kind of fashion plate enough as characters in and of themselves for me to consider Madeleine L’Engle’s A Wrinkls in Time with more than three stars (for even though there is a lot of change and maturation encountered in A Wrinkle in Time, for me personally, in particular Charles Wallace Murry’s self satisfied arrogant demeanour and that this gets both him and his companions into a very dangerous and perilous scenario, it sure does drive in particular my inner child a bit batty.
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
I looked at the pictures on Open Library and I agree that they are not really all that aesthetically pleasant. Am thus only going to consider the Wrinkle in Time graphic novel if I have extra time.
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
The Bible itself only refers to three angelic beings by their personal name: Michael, Gabriel, and Satan (fallen angel).
Otherwise, angels (which means "messenger") are referred to by a number of different terms, including "sons of God," "the holy ones," "watcher," "stars," and several others.
Michael is also called, "archangel," "chief prince," and "great prince."
Although all of the holy angels no doubt have personal names, their names have not been revealed in the Bible.
Satan is also referred to by 3 other names in the Bible: "Devil," "Belial," and "Beelzebub." He also has several titles, including "Abaddon/Apollyon," "the prince of this world," "the god of this age," "the evil one," and others. Satan was the "anointed cherub" before his fall, but his name or title as anointed cherub was probably "Day-star, son of the morning" (translated as "Lucifer" in the Latin Vulgate).
"Nephilim" in Hebrew means "giants." Numbers 13:33 states that the giants are the descendants of Anak.
David killed the giant Goliath, a descendant of Rapha, apparently also a giant.
2 Samuel 21:15-22, David and others fought and killed 4 more giants, all descendants of Rapha: Ish-bi-Benob, Saph, Lahmi-the brother of Goliath, and an unnamed giant with 6 fingers.
The Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6: 1-4 were simply known as "mighty men of old, men of renown."
So a few of the Nephilim were referred to by their personal names.
Any other names that L'Engle uses for angels and demons she either made up, or borrowed from extra-biblical sources.
Mod
She might have gotten them from cabbalstic sources.
Mod
Yes and definitely, I must admit that I have found A Wind in the Door (the second instalment of Madeleine L'Engle's Time Quintet series) quite a bit more readable and as such also much more readily approachable on an emotional and inner child level than the first book, than A Wrinkle in Time, and mostly so because in my humble opinion, two of the main characters of A Wind in the Door, since both Meg and her younger brother Charles Wallace Murry feel much less annoyingly and problematically depicted by L'Engle in A Wind in the Door than how they present themselves and act in A Wrinkle in Time (and Calvin O'Keefe as well to a point, since in A Wind in the Door Calvin no longer seems all nasty regarding his mother because of her supposedly being physically ugly, which really does majorly bother me in A Wrinkle in Time).
For Charles Wallace in particular with regard to A Wind in the Door, even with him still being shown by Madeleine L'Engle as a total genius and an intellectual prodigy, he fortunately also demonstrates none of the grating and cringeworthy smugness and haughtiness that is pretty constantly being emanated by him in A Wrinkle in Time. And well, this arrogance and swagger certainly does make Charles Wallace not only rather unsympathetic as a character for and to me in A Wrinkle in Time but also renders me as a reader not all that engaged with him or even remotely interested in him, whereas the considerably less self-centred and lacking in annoying hubris Charles Wallace of A Wind in the Door, I do really and absolutely enjoy as a person (and right from his first utterances in A Wind in the Door) and thus majorly also feel for Charles Wallace regarding the horrid bullying he is experiencing at school and of course am also totally textually engaged when his older sister Meg and her friend Calvin O'Keefe travel inside of Charles Wallace's ailing body to save him from a toxic disease caused by the cosmic creation destroying echthroi (biblical, universal, straddling time and space enemies).
And while Charles Wallace's sister Meg in A Wind in the Door definitely needs to learn that love is all encompassing and not just meant for a select few individuals (like for example her immediate family), that Meg Murry needs to appreciate and to love the entire universe (and even unsympathetic or seemingly unsympathetic individuals like school principal Mr. Jenkins), the Meg from A Wind in the Door is still for me much much more likeable than she is in A Wrinkle in Time (because she and right from the onset of A Wind in the Door is pretty open to receiving and feeling love and is not like how Meg Murry is depicted by Madeleine L'Engle in A Wrinkle in Time, someone with a large universal chip on her shoulders and rather against everything and rather constantly complaining even though she has so many positives in her life, like a supportive and totally non dysfunctional family).
However, while my inner child totally loves A Wind in the Door, my adult self does have a few points of reading contention with regard to parts of Madeleine L'Engle's storyline, with her featured contents and thematics. For one, how seemingly quickly in A Wind in the Door Meg learns to totally accept and internalise universal love and equally how easily Meg Murry is able to differentiate between the fake Mr. Jenkinses, save the real one and then travel with Calvin into Charles Wallace to save him does feel a trifle too facile, too fast and as such also a bit too easy. And for two, and considerably more of a problem (at least for my adult self), yes, I do have to wonder a bit that Madeleine L'Engle makes everything bad and horrible occurring in A Wind in the Door (including the bullying Charles Wallace is experiencing and his illness) somehow be the fault of universal evil, of the etchroi, since for me, diseases just happen and that honestly, having children read in A Wind in the Door that Charles Wallace's mitochonditris is seemingly the result of evil entities, this certainly kind of rubs me the wrong proverbial way a bit (as does the idea of Charles Wallace's bullying also being caused by some esotherical malice, since frankly this kind of sounds rather like making excuses and somewhat like an the Devil made me do it attitude).
Mod
So yes, when I read A Swiftly Tilting Planet (which is the third instalment of Madeleine L'Engle's Time Quintet series) late last night and early this morning, I not only sped through L'Engle's presented text with lightning speed (at least for me), I also did find (and continue to find) the basic plotline of A Swiftly Tilting Planet in and of itself wonderfully engaging and entertaining, with fifteen year old Charles Wallace Murry travelling through time astride the flying unicorn Gaudior in order to alter certain and particular aspects of the past and to thereby save Planet Earth from a nuclear war being threatened by a crazed South American dictator, and with a now married to Calvin O'Keefe and pregnant with their first child Meg being perhaps rather physically rather passive but still accompanying her brother in spirit via kything (and that part of the reason why I do enjoy the basic premise of A Swiftly Tilting Planet so much is that it is one of the very few time travelling middle grade novels I have encountered where going back in time to make the past different is actually depicted as something not only possible but also as required and necessary, that Madeleine L'Engle clearly describes the present in A Swiftly Tilting Planet as being dangerously tainted and deliberately put on a wrong path by cosmic evil, by the etchroi and thus desperately needing an adjustment that can in fact only occur by specifically altering the past).
But while as a story, A Swiftly Tilting Planet has been really and much enjoyable (and in particular for my time travel novels loving inner child), as an adult reader, I have unfortunately also found some rather problematic textual problems with Madeleine L'Engle's narrative which prevent me from considering more than three stars for A Swiftly Tilting Planet.
For one, I do find it rather strange and disconcerting that when the father (when Dr. Murry) at the beginning of A Swiftly Tilting Planet gets the official phone call from the Pentagon that the world is close to a nuclear holocaust, he and everyone gathered to celebrate Thanksgiving at the Murry house just seem to react with no emotions, and simply seem to continue with their Thanksgiving dinner (as come on, in the face of a global nuclear war, emotionality and a bit of depicted fear and dread would be much more realistic). For two, that time travelling (and unlike in A Wrinkle in Time) is suddenly as easy and as uncomplicated as Charles Wallace Murry riding his magical unicorn jumping into the wind, this does feel at best a bit of a textual let-down for me and as though Madeleine L’Engle is kind of running out of steam. And for three, and probably the main reason why the rating for A Swiftly Tilting Planet can for me be no higher than three stars is that I really do not at all understand why it takes a genius like Charles Wallace Murry such an incredibly long time to figure out the links between the similar sounding first names throughout the generations of Branzillos (as these are pretty ridiculously obvious and that for much of A Swiftly Tilting Planet none of the Murrays, not even Charles Wallace notices his, sorry, but this really does make me shake my head).
Mod
Mod
And of course, there are also those who want to ban Many Waters because it is a Bible story retelling, with some of the most vehement voices being that Noah is depicted as not perfect but as someone who is stubborn and has family issues with his father (same with Noah’s sons, and yes I kind of enjoy that in Many Waters the women have important roles and often are more positive than the men).
Mod
Manybooks wrote: "Does anyone know if there has ever been criticism by Native Americans and First Nations of A Swiftly Tilting Planet? For when I was reading the episodes where Charles Wallace travelled..."Not that I've heard but the books are so old and not on the school reading lists that I've seen. They probably wouldn't have complained back then.
Mod
A Wrinkle in Time has been repeatedly challenged.
Mod
Do like the fact so far that both Noah's wife and other women play a much more active role than in the Bible and that Noah is stubborn and not without faults.
Mod
Mod
Yes. Genesis 4:16: So Cain went out from the Lord's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
Mod
Yes. Genesis 4:16: So Cain w..."
I thought so.
Mod
Mod
So Sandy and Dennys are identical twin boys and they are also the middle children of Madeleine L'Engle's Murry family in her Time Quintet series (coming in between older sister Meg and younger brother Charles Wallace). And yes, in A Wrinkle in Time, A Wind in the Door and A Swiftly Tilting Planet (as well as in An Acceptable Time where the twins in fact do not appear at all), Sandy and Dennys basically appear to function mainly as kind of family place holders and do not really play any major and significant textual roles at all (which I personally do find kind of annoying and frustrating, but because Sandy and Dennys Murry are rather representing standard American childhood and teenagerhood, they also do not really fit in with either their parents or their two siblings, and in fact, to tell the truth, Sandy and Dennys feel to and for me more like they should actually be members of Madeleine L'Engle's Austins than the Murrys, and which might well also be why I kind of do tend to prefer the twins as characters in and of themselves, since I am definitely much more enamoured of L'Engle's Austin Family novels than of her novels featuring and presenting the Murrys).
So Sandy and Dennys are identical twin boys and they are also the middle children of Madeleine L'Engle's Murry family in her Time Quintet series (coming in between older sister Meg and younger brother Charles Wallace). And yes, in A Wrinkle in Time, A Wind in the Door and A Swiftly Tilting Planet (as well as in An Acceptable Time where the twins in fact do not appear at all), Sandy and Dennys basically appear to function mainly as kind of family place holders and do not really play any major and significant textual roles at all (which I personally do find kind of annoying and frustrating, but because Sandy and Dennys Murry are rather representing standard American childhood and teenagerhood, they also do not really fit in with either their parents or their two siblings, and in fact, to tell the truth, Sandy and Dennys feel to and for me more like they should actually be members of Madeleine L'Engle's Austins than the Murrys, and which might well also be why I kind of do tend to prefer the twins as characters in and of themselves, since I am definitely much more enamoured of L'Engle's Austin Family novels than of her novels featuring and presenting the Murrys).
Furthermore and with regard to descriptiveness, the ancient world of Many Waters with its, with Madeleine L'Engle's deserts, oases, unicorns, mammoths, griffons and human beings similar to us but also not quite the same (especially with regard to physical appearances and age), this might in Many Waters at first glance feel really and totally different from today. However and sadly, the evils and the problems that (if you know your Bible) have precipitated the Great Flood as being necessary (or as supposedly being necessary) definitely and obviously also are still mirrored by our modern world, they still reflect today, as old and established customs are flouted and denigrated, that even Noah himself is constantly bitterly quarrelling with his father Lamech and that many young women are wedding the Nephilim, are producing babies with Biblical fallen angel types.
And while the two main protagonists of Many Waters, while stranded in the Old Testament Noah and the Flood story Sandy and Dennys Murry become compassionate participants in pre-flood events, helping where they can, including with the construction of the Ark, and that Sandy and Denny also manage to reconcile Noah and Lamech before Lamech's death, the twins are equally always more than aware of the fact that they are not supposed to in any manner actually change the course of the story itself, and that thus, warning others regarding the coming waters and rains would for example not be allowed, and that if Noah's daughter Yalith is not supposed to be, is not meant to be on the Ark, then this would have to simply be accepted as being the word of God, of El. So indeed, while Sandy and Dennys Murry during the course of Many Waters do have major issues with Yalith's potential fate in particular, they also have faith that she will actually not come to any real harm (and that yes, this faith is finally rewarded in so far as Dennys and Sandy are shown that Yalith is to be taken up to El directly and will thus of course not be threatened with and by drowning during the Flood).
But very much painfully and poignantly, Sandy and Dennys Murry also must realise in Many Waters that El's, that God's experiment of the Great Flood (and only allowing Noah, his three sons and their respective wives to survive the deluge on the Ark) has indeed rather failed in the long run, since the negative aspects of human nature remain the same today and are as bad if not even actually worse than during the time of Noah, which does give Many Waters a rather poignant and saddening feel and scope, as does the twins pointing out (after they are themselves safely back at home) that they, that Sandy and Dennys will always be feeling a bit homesick and missing in particular Noah, Japheth, their respective wives and of course Yalith.
And finally, the Old Testament story of Noah and the Great Flood also and bien sûr takes place before The Tower of Babel, and thus, in Many Waters Madeleine L'Engle's universal Old Language (albeit of course English since Many Waters is penned in English) is spare, direct and without ANY modern vernacular and colloquialisms, with her descriptions, with the brilliance of the singing stars (and no light and noise pollution) lending a mythic timelessness to the setting, but also definitely showing a universally poignant, delightful and heartbreaking, heartwarming family tale, textually wonderful, both sweet and painful, and for me (and even though Many Waters does feel quite different from the rest of the Murry Family stories, being my absolute favourite of Madeleine L'Engle's Time Quintet, solidly five stars, and yes, those five stars remain even though I do think that Many Waters could definitely do with a glossary explaining the Biblical allusions and names).
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Have found all four Polly O'Keefe novels together in a wonderful omnibus, Madeleine l'Engle: The Polly O'Keefe Quartet: The Arm of the Starfish / Dragons in the Waters / A House Like a Lotus / An Acceptable Time, which contains not only all four novels complete and not abridged but also talks and essays penned by Madeleine L'Engle.
Mod
So first and foremost, with Madeleine L'Engle's The Arm of the Starfish (which is considered to be L'Engle's first instalment in her four story Polly O'Keefe Quartet, with Polly or Poly O'Keefe being the daughter of Meg Murry and Calvin O'Keefe of Time Quartet fame, but sadly with The Arm of the Starfish also and most definitely being much too international thriller and espionage oriented for my reading tastes and enjoyment), I guess I am rather majorly annoyed that there is no textual explanation whatsoever from L'Engle as to how and why chief protagonist of The Arm of the Starfish, how Adam Eddington has migrated from her, from Madeleine L'Engle's Austin Family series (where Eddington is one of Vicky Austin's suitors in A Ring of Endless Light and then also appears as her fiancé in Troubling a Star) to the Polly O'Keefe Quartet, with my frustration starting on page one of The Arm of the Starfish and continuing pretty much unabated until the very end. For in my opinion, some information about Adam Eddington's experiences in A Ring of Endless Light in particular and how he and Vicky Austin were connecting over dolphins, if this were transferred by Madeleine L'Engle to The Arm of the Starfish as a back story (or looking towards the future) it would definitely for me make The Arm of the Starfish and Eddington's presence in both series more believable and less frustrating (although yes, I also cannot really guess if The Arm of the Starfish takes place before or after the events of A Ring of Endless Light and that I am with Adam Eddington equally kind of considering him rather similar to Zachary Gray considering how he, how Adam seems to rather string both Vicky Austin and also Polly O'Keefe along so to speak, and that femme fatale Kali Cutter in The Arm of the Starfish obviously has no problems at all getting Adam Eddington to become romantically interested in her and doing her and her father's nefarious and dangerous bidding, so that for me Adam Eddington is or at least is staring to become rather as much of a pretty negative player as Kali Cutter is and is thus not just some poor and unsuspecting naive little boy being taken advantage of by evil and calculating lowlives).
And yes, I have definitely not really enjoyed The Arm of the Starfish all that much with regard to reading joy and pleasure (even though I must rather grudgingly admit that Madeleine L'Engle's featured text for The Arm of the Starfish is stylistically speaking nicely descriptive and certainly reads quickly and flowingly). Because aside from my (above mentioned and analysed issues) regarding Adam Eddington's unexplained presence in both the O'Keefe and the Austin Family series and me simply not (ever) being truly all that textually into the themes of mystery, politics, and cloak and dagger shenanigans (kidnappings, secret meetings, demands of espionage) which are the main features of The Arm of the Starfish I do tend to find in particular Polly (Poly) O'Keefe unworldly, gullible and for a 12-year-old much too naive and childish to be in many way really believable (and especially so because Polly O'Keefe in The Arm of the Starfish also does not appear to be depicted by Madeleine L'Engle has having any type of flaw, which just makes "oh so perfect" little Polly as a character not only rather boring and weak but even kind of deserving of being tricked, kidnapped etc. etc., that I most definitely do find reading about supposedly faultless characters in works of fiction not at all entertaining, and not to mention that I just do not really understand how some readers actually and favourably compare Polly O'Keefe to Vicky Austin).
Finally, I also just find the entire beginning of The Arm of the Starfish pretty much unbelievable with regard to logical reality and plausibility. Because honestly, if Adam Eddington is supposed to be working for Dr. Calvin O’Keefe for the summer on an isolated island off the coast of Portugal at barely seventeen years of age, why would Madeleine L’Engle depict both Adam’s parents and the O’Keefes allowing him, allowing Adam to travel to that island completely by himself (as come on, with all of the controversy surrounding the starfish limb regeneration and that many individuals, including those with nefarious motives are very much interested in Calvin O’Keefe’s research, well, a teenager like Adam Eddington travelling by himself is so obviously overly dangerous and silly that for me, The Arm of the Starfish in my humble opinion, starts rather obviously ridiculously and beggaring belief).
Mod
Mod
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/9...
Mod
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/9..."
Thanks, this looks good.
Mod
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/9..."
Not sure if I agree with An Acceptable Time coming before The Moon by Night because in The Moon by Night Zachary is definitely much younger than in An Acceptable Time.
Mod
Mod
Dragons in the Waters is the second of Madeleine L'Engle's Polly O'Keefe novels and just like the first novel, just like with The Arm of the Starfish, Dragons in the Waters is both a mystery and equally does not in fact feature the O'Keefes as main protagonists (for in The Arm of the Starfish, Adam Eddington is the main protagonist and in Dragons in the Waters it is Simon Bolivar Grenier, and with the O'Keefes in both novels playing in my humble opinion at best only quasi supportive roles and narrative tools).
So in Dragons in the Waters, main protagonist, thirteen year old Simon Bolivar Grenier lives with his aging Aunt Leonis, who took him in after the death of his parents, and at the start of Dragons in the Waters, Simon embarks upon a journey with Forsyth Phair, a supposedly long lost cousin (but who in fact turns out not to be related to Simon at all). Now Phair has just purchased a valuable portrait of South American hero and revolutionary Simon Bolivar from Aunt Leonis, and in order to donate this portrait to a museum, Forsyth Phair and Simon Bolivar Grenier must travel to Venezuela aboard a freighter ship called the Orion. But albeit the other passengers aboard the Orion (and including the O’Keefes) are all seemingly pleasant and personable, Simon begins to feel majorly uneasy almost immediately, as Cousin Forsyth is very cold and distant toward him, and Polly and Charles O'Keefe (brother and sister) both caution Simon against trusting his cousin. And by the time the Orion finally reaches port, someone will have tried to kill Simon, and Cousin Forsyth himself will be dead, will have been murdered. Therefore and basically, Dragons in the Waters is meant to be a typical whodunnit kind of story, with Madeleine L'Engle's text kind of reminding me rather annoyingly of a Nancy Drew or a Hardy Boys mystery, a story where a group of diverse characters are thrown together in some random, often exotic location and the reader (along with the amateur sleuth(s) and in Dragons in the Waters this naturally means protagonist Simon Grenier) must help solve the mystery and discover the murderer or murderers. And well, since I have never really enjoyed reading those types of mysteries anyhow and am also not really all the talented at solving them, sorry, but Dragons in the Waters is just not at all my cup of reading tea, and as such, I have found Dragons in the Waters draggingly tedious and a frustrating reading chore instead of a pleasure.
Also and furthermore, Madeleine L'Engle adding all kinds of thematic issues to the main mystery storyline of Dragons in the Waters, like Simon's own Bolivar Family lineage, Polly O'Keefe's obsession with St. George and dragons, Charles O'Keefe being able to explore through his dreams, Dr. Calvin O'Keefe wanting to clear Dragonlake of poison etc. etc., this actually does not make the featured murder mystery of Dragons in the Waters more layered and nuanced (as some reviewers seem keen to claim), no, the multiple threads really do absolutely nothing for me as a reader except to provide distraction and annoyance and to the point that I indeed almost felt like not continuing on with Dragons in the Waters. And finally but importantly, considering that like with the first Polly O'Keefe novel (with The Arm of the Starfish), I once again have found the character of Polly O'Keefe cardboard thin and with not really any personality at all in Dragons in the Waters except that she, that Polly obviously (and very much negatively) just loves to boast about herself and her family and about how oh so very special each and every member supposedly is (which is also something that Polly annoyingly shares with her brother Charles, as he also acts mostly smug and arrogant throughout Dragons in the Waters), no, I truly have not found any part of Dragons in the Waters either engaging or entertaining (and to the point that I frankly do consider my two star rating for Dragons in the Waters rather generous on my part, since honestly, Madeleine L'Engle's featured story really tends to make me personally cringe and to also be very happy that I will hopefully not have to ever consider rereading Dragons in the Waters).
Mod
Honestly and truly, to say that I am rather majorly conflicted with regard to Madeleine L'Engle's 1984 A House Like a Lotus is certainly and definitely a bit of a massive understatement. For while from the three (of the four in total) Polly O'Keefe novels I have read to date, I have indeed enjoyed A House Like a Lotus the most thus far (and that for me novels one and two of the Polly O'Keefe books, that both The Arm of the Starfish and Dragons in the Water do indeed and absolutely rank far far behind A House Like a Lotus with regard to personal reading pleasure) there are also in my humble opinion a number of potential issues with Madeleine L'Engle's featured text, with the way A House Like a Lotus unfolds, and that some of the thematics and contents of A House Like a Lotus do make me kind of shake my head and growl with frustration and annoyance (and actually more than just a trifle).
And first and foremost (and kind of rather textually tainting everything for me to an extent with regard to A House Like a Lotus if I am to be brutally and fully honest), considering that I totally do not at all like the character of Zachary Gray, that I indeed tend to find it majorly cringeworthy how often and in multiple series Madeleine L'Engle has him, has Zachary appear, and yes, that his presence in both The Moon by Night and A Ring of Endless Light has not only rather ruined both novels a bit for me but has also made me totally annoyed and frustrated with Vicky Austin (and her constantly linking up with Zachary Gary, making excuses for him and obviously also seriously enjoying Zachary Gray's company), to have Zachary appear in A House like a Lotus and to have him act pretty well in the same manner towards Polly O'Keefe (and with her, with Polly being similarly taken with and fascinated by Zachary Gray as Vicky Austin had been), yes, this almost does make me want to scream and it has also totally and hugely lessened reading joy and pleasure (and not to mention that Zachary Gary also seemingly ends up as a main protagonist in the last of the Polly O'Keefe novels, in An Acceptable Time, and yes, that this most definitely makes me not look all that much forward to reading An Acceptable Time).
Furthermore, with regard to the "betrayal" of Polly O'Keefe by Max in A House Like a Lotus, sorry, but after having read A House Like a Lotus (and even though Max and Ursula are clearly meant to be represented as Lesbians by Madeleine L'Engle) I really DO NOT consider what is being textually described as a case of Max trying to sexually seduce Polly. And while I can certainly understand and commiserate with Polly O'Keefe being rather frightened by Max's drunken strangeness, the fact that there is not (in my opinion) any textual hint of sexual impropriety shown in A House Like a Lotus (by Max towards Polly), this certainly makes both Polly feeling "betrayed" by Max and everyone rather considering Max's Lesbianism as almost some kind of a disease uncomfortably homophobic (and yes, even for 1984).
And while in A House Like a Lotus, Polly O'Keefe finally as protagonist and first person narrator begins to feel (to my reading self) like she is a real person, like a real teenager and not cardboard thin and on the surface (and like Polly ALWAYS appears in both The Arm of the Starfish and in Dragons in the Waters), this pretty much all encompassing personality change and that Madeleine L'Engle has Polly O'Keefe in A House like a Lotus bear very strong resemblances and similarities to in particular Vicky Austin, while this has definitely been very much personally appreciated and has made A House Like a Lotus readable, realistic and a lovely coming of age story in many ways, sorry, but the character, the personality differences between the Polly O'Keefe of The Arm of the Starfish and Dragons in the Water to what Polly is like and how she thinks, feels and acts in A House Like a Lotus, they are so profoundly changed and altered that for me it also and rather frustratingly feels as though Madeleine L'Engle has textually created an entirely new, a totally different Polly O'Keefe for A House Like a Lotus (and that there is thus also no real continuance from the first two O'Keefe Family novels to A House Like a Lotus and in particular with regard to Polly O'Keefe).
Finally, and perhaps I am being just a bit overly critical here, I do find it a bit strange and problematic that in A House Like a Lotus, Madeleine L'Engle seems to consider it textually acceptable for Polly O'Keefe, for a teenager, to travel alone to Greece and then to have to explore Athens on her own as well because her aunt and her uncle have somehow been delayed and are in the USA and not able to pick her up at the Athens airport. For honestly, I was expecting at the very least a bit of criticism by l'Engle within the pages of A House Like a Lotus, as I personally do not think that Polly O'Keefe is old enough and mature enough to be traipsing around Athens on her own, and I guess that her meeting up with and being courted by Zachary Gary kind of shows this (but well, that Uncle Sandy and Aunt Rhea are not at the Athens airport to meet Polly, this does seem to be rather universally accepted by Madeleine L'Engle in A House Like a Lotus, and emotionally speaking, this really manages to bother me quite a bit).
Mod
Mod
Mod
The idea that science and religion can coexist may seem less controversial today, in an era where the Pope has publicly stated that scientific concepts like evolution and climate change are not at odds with Christianity. But in the decades following the book’s release, many U.S. Christians believed there was a conflict between contemporary scientific findings and the Bible’s vision of the world, particularly as astronomers and physicists learned more about the cosmos.
A Wrinkle in Time also sparked religious controversies because of the type of characters it included. Three of the main characters—Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which—are at once spiritual, angelic but also a bit witchy. This led some to claim that the book encouraged witchcraft, or heretically conflated Christianity with the occult. One scene in particular—which depicts Jesus, Gandhi, Einstein, and the Buddha standing together against the forces of evil—offended Christians who thought L’Engle was equating these four figures.
Children's Books
Books mentioned in this topic
An Acceptable Time (other topics)Christian Mythmakers: C.S. Lewis, Madeleine L'Engle, J.R.R. Tolkien, George MacDonald, G.K. Chesterton & Others (other topics)
Christian Mythmakers: C.S. Lewis, Madeleine L'Engle, J.R.R. Tolkien, George MacDonald, G.K. Chesterton & Others (other topics)
Christian Mythmakers: C.S. Lewis, Madeleine L'Engle, J.R.R. Tolkien, George MacDonald, G.K. Chesterton & Others (other topics)
One Earth, One People: The Mythopoeic Fantasy Series of Ursula K. Le Guin, Lloyd Alexander, Madeleine L'Engle, Orson Scott Card (other topics)
More...
A Wrinkle in Time
A Wind in the Door
A Swiftly Tilting Planet
Many Waters
An Acceptable Time
Will also be adding the O'Keefe Family series, as it does include characters from the Time Quintet and that An Acceptable Time is considered part of both series.
The Arm of the Starfish
Dragons in the Waters
A House Like a Lotus
An Acceptable Time