Bookish Thoughts: A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle

It was a dark and stormy night. ~ Opening of A Wrinkle in Time 

A Wrinkle in Time (Time Quintet #1) by Madeleine L'Engle

Yearling Books, 1962

Science Fiction (Children's); 211 pgs

Goodreads Summary:

It was a dark and stormy night; Meg Murry, her small brother Charles Wallace, and her mother had come down to the kitchen for a midnight snack when they were upset by the arrival of a most disturbing stranger.

"Wild nights are my glory," the unearthly stranger told them. "I just got caught in a downdraft and blown off course. Let me be on my way. Speaking of way, by the way, there is such a thing as a tesseract".

Meg's father had been experimenting with this fifth dimension of time travel when he mysteriously disappeared. Now the time has come for Meg, her friend Calvin, and Charles Wallace to rescue him. But can they outwit the forces of evil they will encounter on their heart-stopping journey through space?

A Wrinkle in Time is one of my husband’s favorite books from his childhood. He has two copies of the book, and he will not part with either one. I can’t blame him as I have a hard time letting go of my favorite books too. I was in elementary school when I first read it (and that was a very long time ago). I confess I do not really remember it. I remember The Wind in the Door more. That one was a favorite. I mostly wanted to reread A Wrinkle in Time because of the movie based on the book.

I kind of wish I was reading the novel to my daughter instead of just to myself (I can always go back and read it to her, of course) because it seems like the perfect story for someone her age. The concepts of good and evil, believing in oneself, of loss and discovery, and of dealing with one’s emotions, including anger and hope are all presented in a way a school-aged child can easily grasp. There are scary moments, but not overly so, and the characters, especially the three Mrs. are bigger than life. There’s magic and monsters; and Meg, Calvin and Charles Wallace are very easy to relate to and cheer on. A Wrinkle in Time is a combination of funny, charming and thoughtful. I admit to being surprised at how obvious the religious overtones were, however. I don’t remember that at all about the series.

All in all though, I was a bit let down by the novel, but I think it had more to do with my own expectations of books as an adult versus those meant for a much younger crowd. I kept hoping for more . . . something. I am having trouble putting my thoughts into words, I am afraid. Still, this is a book I think my daughter would enjoy very much.

I had heard beforehand that the movie was quite a bit different from the book. My entire family enjoyed the film. There were the expected changes, in part to fit a larger and more modern audience. The movie is beautiful from a cinematic perspective, from the sets to the costumes to the CGI. It was very well done. I thought it followed the overall story of the movie well enough—up to a point. Some of the characters come across differently, particularly the mother and the father of Meg. Calvin’s backstory. Even Charles Wallace’s backstory. The movie has a few holes. But that may just be my perspective having recently read the book (when don’t I feel this way about a movie based on a book I have read?). And while I enjoyed it, this isn’t a movie that stands out for me or makes my “watch again and again” list (only if my daughter makes me).

To learn more about Madeleine L'Engle and her work, please visit the author's website. 

---

© 2018, Musings of a Bookish Kitty. All Rights Reserved. If you're reading this on a site other than Musings of a Bookish Kitty or Wendy's feed, be aware that this post has been stolen and is used without permission.

Bookish Thoughts: Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (Banned Book Week)

A squat grey building of only thirty-four stories. ~Opening of Brave New World

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, narrated by Michael York

Harper Perennial, 1932

Science Fiction; 268 pgs
Source: I own copies of this book in paperback and audiobook format

Goodreads Summary: 

Far in the future, the World Controllers have created the ideal society. Through clever use of genetic engineering, brainwashing and recreational sex and drugs, all its members are happy consumers. Bernard Marx seems alone harbouring an ill-defined longing to break free. A visit to one of the few remaining Savage Reservations, where the old, imperfect life still continues, may be the cure for his distress...

Huxley's ingenious fantasy of the future sheds a blazing light on the present and is considered to be his most enduring masterpiece.

This was assigned reading in one of my university courses, and it was the only book I was required in my entire school career (middle school, high school, and college included) that I was unable to finish. Somehow, I got a passing grade on the test. Years later, I would try again, thinking perhaps the timing just wasn't right. I did not get too far then either. The descriptions of the "perfect" Utopian society in the novel boring me to tears. I decided to give the audiobook a try this time around, hoping I would have better luck, and also determined to finish it this time.

Michael York's narration did appeal to me more than my own inner voice. Perhaps it was the English accent. Still, it was not enough to pull me into the book completely the way I hoped. I must admit I understood exactly what Bernard Marx, the initial protagonist, felt for much of the first half of the novel. In a society created of perfect conformity, including the people thanks to Eugenics and brainwashing, there was bound to be someone who wouldn't quite fit in. And that is Bernard Marx. I was just as bored of the society he lived in as he was.

Halfway through the book, I thought maybe things would pick up. Bernard and Lenina traveled to the Savage Reservations, encountering something--or, rather, someone--unexpected. The perfect society the World Controllers have created is suddenly tested when an outsider attempts to fit in.

Some of my thoughts as I read the novel: 

• Who is the main character? Seriously. It seemed to be one person for the first half of the book and then the second half of the book it was another person. The first one fell off the face of the earth before the end.
• I was bored. That's probably my biggest complaint. Maybe because so many books and movies today have been influenced by Brave New World, and so it has lost some of its originality in my eyes.
• I never really became invested in the characters or world Huxley created. The so-called Utopia was cold and impersonal. It was far from perfect despite what was believed. Eugenics has more disadvantages than advantages. Which, of course, was part of Huxley's point, I'm sure.
• There were two scenes in particular I appreciated in the novel. The first being when John Savage makes his appearance in the community and a pretty despicable character gets what is coming to him. The other was when John Savage and the Director meet for the first time and engage in a relatively philosophical conversation that I think really points to the message of the book. 

I wish I had liked this book more. I appreciated the satire woven throughout the novel; from the mass production of people, programming them in varying intellectual abilities depending on the role they will play in society, the soma pills to escape reality and repress emotions, the avoidance of family connections to the the sexual play encouraged among children and religion in the worshiping of Ford. I would even go so far as to say Huxley satires happiness--or rather the way people seek it out and expect it.

It's interesting how relevant this book is today as it was then. While some of the language used might be a bit dated, not much else in this novel is. Think about how technologically driven we are and how much on the rise instant gratification has become, for example. Looking at today's society, it is easy to see how, in some respects, we are constantly expecting to be entertained, sometimes at the cost of education, logic and common sense.

There was a definite message in the novel about the stunting of creativity living in a society like the one the World Controllers have put together. Where people do not think much for themselves and are supposed to avoid strong feelings--or feeling much at all other than happiness. How much of it is a false happiness though? Marx and Helmholtz, in particular suggest that it is.

And what of religion? This book has come under attack for supporting atheism, which I have to say I didn't notice as I listened to the novel. Huxley does draw religion into the novel, suggested that people need to be mindful and think for themselves. It is too easy to fall into step and stop thinking for oneself where religion is concerned. This comes out even more so in the way the people in Huxley's Utopia live their lives.

While I did not enjoy reading Brave New World, finding it a chore to get through, I do see the value in it--and why it is a Classic today. Looking over my review, I see I got more out of it than I realized!

Reasons Challenged and Banned: Insensitivity, offensive language, racism, sexually explicit, drug use, and atheism

Have you read Brave New World? What did you think?

---

© 2017, Wendy Runyon of Musings of a Bookish Kitty. All Rights Reserved. If you're reading this on a site other than Musings of a Bookish Kitty or Wendy's feed, be aware that this post has been stolen and is used without permission.

Bookish Thoughts: The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood

We slept in what had once been the gymnasium. ~ Opening of The Handmaid's Tale

The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood

Anchor Books, 1986

Fiction; 311 pgs

Goodreads Summary: 

Offred is a Handmaid in the Republic of Gilead. She may leave the home of the Commander and his wife once a day to walk to food markets whose signs are now pictures instead of words because women are no longer allowed to read. She must lie on her back once a month and pray that the Commander makes her pregnant, because in an age of declining births, Offred and the other Handmaids are valued only if their ovaries are viable. Offred can remember the years before, when she lived and made love with her husband, Luke; when she played with and protected her daughter; when she had a job, money of her own, and access to knowledge. But all of that is gone now...

What a beautiful and sad book. The Handmaid's Tale is my second Atwood novel, and I liked it even better than The Blind Assassin. While I had been planning to read The Handmaid's Tale for some time now, the timing seemed fortuitous, given the current political climate in the U.S. I would like to believe that how quickly the government fell in the book version of the U.S. could not happen to us today. And yet, there are some eerie similarities that definitely give one pause. While I do not see a society like the one described in the The Handmaid's Tale becoming our reality--not exactly, anyway, it is food for thought. The Handmaid's Tale is certainly a cautionary tale, one deserving of its modern classic status.

Offred is not too young or too old to remember what life had been life before the current authorities came into power. She once worked and had a relatively nice life, living with her husband and young daughter. All of that changed seemingly rather quickly, however, when a more totalitarian theocracy slipped in to take over without too much protest or fight. Those leading the charge played on the fears of the society, wanting to "clean up" the amoral direction the society had seemingly taken. Suddenly, women were striped of their occupations and rights, no longer able to hold property or have bank accounts. They could not work outside the home. Eventually, they were no longer allowed to read, even just signs. In fact, a woman's value was, in many cases, determined based on her fertility. Women who couldn't have children, tried to take others' children.

Everyone has a role and place in the Republic of Gilead based on class and gender. Anyone who does not fall in line is either sent out to the colonies or killed, their bodies sometimes put on display for all to see--as a reminder. Offred is a handmaid, dressed in red. Handmaids play a special role in society and are both respected on one hand and looked down upon as well. They are the mistresses to the powerful with the job of reproducing and providing a baby for the elite, high up officials and their wives, many of who can no longer have children.

In Atwood's novel, fertility is a problem due to a toxic environment, something that has been proven by science to be true in the more polluted areas of our own world. The role of women also plays a large part in the novel. Are they victims to be protected? Are they the cause of their own misfortune (i.e. rape)? In today's society, a woman is judged by how short her skirt is or how much alcohol she drinks. When raped or assaulted, many would point to those things as the cause. In the Handmaid's Tale, it is that very view that helps perpetuate the stripping of rights of women. Our own Congress, in committees made up mostly of men, want control over women's bodies and their individual choices. They think they know better. In Gilead, the men would agree.

The bodies hanging on the wall reflect the lack of tolerance and acceptance of those who do not fall in line or fit in with the current regime's strictures and views. They are a message to everyone else the importance of following the rules: don't stand out, and maintain the status quo.

Offred documents her story by sharing her past and present. She remembers her life before, the freedoms and the family she once had, and the life she has now, careful of what she says and does, knowing anyone could be watching and listening. Reading is forbidden and you never know who you can trust.

Atwood's choice of narrator, a woman named Offred, who attempts to tell her story with as little emotion as possible, proves to be quite powerful. Offred certainly isn't unfeeling, but there is a matter-of-fact-ness in the telling that adds to the weight of the novel. 

This book has been targeted as anti-religious, but, like many others who actually read the book, I did not get that impression at all. Yes, those in charge in Gilead use the Bible to excuse their laws and behaviors, but this can be seen throughout history in one form or another. Religion used as a weapon. Those in power often use and manipulate religion, Christian or otherwise, to control the people. We see religion used by extremists today to excuse their actions all too often. While the party in power in The Handmaid's Tale is religious and has set strict laws in the name of religion--it is more symbolic than anything. Substitute someone like Hitler, and you could easily have a similar situation.

How easily human rights and freedoms can be stripped away in the name of protection and high morals! Just whose morals and who we are being protected from is the real question. The Handmaid's Tale is, indeed, a cautionary tale, one that resonates all too well today. Perhaps not in the same form or in the exact structure, but in just enough spots. Is anyone listening?

You can learn more about Margaret Atwood and her books on the author's website. You can also find her on Twitter and Facebook.

---

© 2017, Wendy Runyon of Musings of a Bookish Kitty. All Rights Reserved. If you're reading this on a site other than Musings of a Bookish Kitty or Wendy's feed, be aware that this post has been stolen and is used without permission.

The Classics Club - Exploring the Classics

For awhile now I have contemplated joining the Classics Club, going back and forth about whether or not I want to make the commitment to read 50+ classic novels in 5 years. I periodically make a list of possible classics I would like to read, consider joining, and then talk myself out of it. It averages out to 10 books a year.  Is it really a commitment I want to make? Truth is, I need to focus on my backlog of review books. Still, the idea of getting back to reading the classics has been tempting me for quite a while now.  After talking it over with both Eustacia (Inside the Mind of a Bibliophile) and Debbie (Friday Friends), both of whom expressed their encouragement and support, I am going to take the plunge.

From the Classics Club FAQ page: 

Is this just another challenge? I don’t want to limit myself to a strict fifty titles, or plan ahead five years. There is so much to read. The idea is to create living lists. It’s assumed these lists will adapt to our exposure to literature. The point isn’t to challenge people to read by a strict list — but to create for ourselves a habit and a curiosity about literature. The idea is to grow together — to learn from one another and literature. It’s great if our lists reflect that growth throughout the event — changing and adapting as we become exposed to more literature, insight and feedback. So absolutely — switch up the titles on your list after you post it, at any time during the duration of your challenge.

When I mentioned on Twitter that I worried about violating my "no challenges for 2017" rule, Marcelle of Lesser-Known Gems kindly pointed out that "the Classics Club is not a literary challenge. It's a life style choice." Semantics maybe. But I'll take it. Besides, there are plenty more books not on my "official" list that qualify as classics I want to read, which makes this more of a perpetual project than a time limited one (even though the club requires we give a deadline up front). Joining the Classics Club fits into where I plan to go with my reading anyway. A good mix of the old and the new.

As I began putting together my list, I realized how many classic children's novels are out there I want to read, and what about classic speculative fiction in general, perhaps looking into some of the books or authors that helped shape the various sub-genres in that category over the years? And I just love crime fiction. I could probably read Agatha Christie novels for the next five years and nothing else (It's very tempting, actually)! Too often genre fiction is snubbed, seen as beneath "true" literature. I couldn't disagree with that assessment more. While some books may age more gracefully than others with the changing of times, genre books have helped shape culture and society over the years, not to mention future books within-and outside--their given genre as well. The definition of what constitutes a classic is quite broad for the purposes of the club, fortunately, and well it should be given the amount of literature out there, our diverse cultures and world, not to mention what we are exposed to.

With each title added, I felt my growing excitement. I admit I left off some of the more hefty and ambitious novels I would like to tackle at some point. I didn't want to intimidate myself right out of the gate. It doesn't mean I won't get to novels like Bleak House by Charles Dickens or The Silmarillion by J.R.R. Tolkien someday. Just not likely right away. I am looking forward to exploring more of the classics and being a part of the Classics Club. My goal is to read at least 50 classics by February 1, 2022.

Poetry

1. Annie Allen by Gwendolyn Brooks

2. Thomas and Beulah by Rita Dove

Children's Novels
3. Pippi Longstocking by Astrid Lindgren
4. Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle
5. Matilda by Roald Dahl
6. The Neverending Story by Michael Ende
7. The Little White Horse by Elizabeth Goudge
8. A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
9. Anne of Green Gables by L.M. Montgomery
10. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by Betty Smith

Crime Fiction

11. The Postman Always Rings Twice by James M. Cain
12. The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler
13. Murder at the Vicarage by Agatha Christie
14. The Mysterious Affair at Styles by Agatha Christie
15. The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins
16. A Study in Scarlet by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
17. The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco
18. Strangers on a Train by Patricia Highsmith
19. An Unsuitable Job for a Woman by PD James
20. Beast in View by Margaret Millar

Speculative Fiction (Fantasy/Science Fiction/Horror)

21. Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency by Douglas Adams
22. Foundation (#1) by Isaac Asimov
23. The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood (my review)
24. Something Wicked This Way Comes by Ray Bradbury
25. Kindred by Octavia Butler
26. Neuromancer by William Gibson
27. Dune by Frank Herbert
28. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
29. The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson
30. The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. LeGuin
31. Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
32. Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson
33. Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
34. The Time Machine by H.G. Wells

Other

35. The House of Spirits by Isabel Allende

36. Love and Freindship and Other Youthful Writings by Jane Austen 

37. Mansfield Park by Jane Austen

38. Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen 

39. The Tenant of Wildfell Hall by Anne Bronte

40. The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck 

41. Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier

42. Silence by Shusaku Endo

43. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy by John le Carre

44. The Go-Between by L.P. Hartley

45. Arabella by Georgette Heyer

46. Norwegian Wood by Haruki Murakami

47. The Ways of White Folks by Langston Hughes

48. The Scarlet Pimpernel by Emmuska Orczy

49. War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy

50. Les Misérables by Victor Hugo

Have you read any of these? What did you think? 
Are there any classics you have been wanting to read, but haven't yet gotten to?

---

© 2016, Wendy Runyon of Musings of a Bookish Kitty. All Rights Reserved. If you're reading this on a site other than Musings of a Bookish Kitty or Wendy's feed, be aware that this post has been stolen and is used without permission.