kode adsense disini
Hot Best Seller

A Wrinkle in Time: The Graphic Novel

Availability: Ready to download

Late one night, three otherworldly creatures appear and sweep Meg Murry, her brother Charles Wallace, and their friend Calvin O'Keefe away on a mission to save Mr. Murry, who has gone missing while doing top-secret work for the government. They travel via tesseract — a wrinkle that transports one across space and time — to the planet Camazotz, where Mr. Murry is being held Late one night, three otherworldly creatures appear and sweep Meg Murry, her brother Charles Wallace, and their friend Calvin O'Keefe away on a mission to save Mr. Murry, who has gone missing while doing top-secret work for the government. They travel via tesseract — a wrinkle that transports one across space and time — to the planet Camazotz, where Mr. Murry is being held captive. There they discover a dark force that threatens not only Mr. Murry but the safety of the whole universe. Never before illustrated, A Wrinkle in Time is now available in a spellbinding graphic novel adaptation. Hope Larson takes the classic story to a new level with her vividly imagined interpretations of Mrs Whatsit, Mrs Who, Mrs Which, the Happy Medium, Aunt Beast, and the many other characters that readers have loved for the past fifty years. Winner of the 1963 Newbery Medal, A Wrinkle in Time is the first book in Madeleine L'Engle's Time Quintet.


Compare
kode adsense disini

Late one night, three otherworldly creatures appear and sweep Meg Murry, her brother Charles Wallace, and their friend Calvin O'Keefe away on a mission to save Mr. Murry, who has gone missing while doing top-secret work for the government. They travel via tesseract — a wrinkle that transports one across space and time — to the planet Camazotz, where Mr. Murry is being held Late one night, three otherworldly creatures appear and sweep Meg Murry, her brother Charles Wallace, and their friend Calvin O'Keefe away on a mission to save Mr. Murry, who has gone missing while doing top-secret work for the government. They travel via tesseract — a wrinkle that transports one across space and time — to the planet Camazotz, where Mr. Murry is being held captive. There they discover a dark force that threatens not only Mr. Murry but the safety of the whole universe. Never before illustrated, A Wrinkle in Time is now available in a spellbinding graphic novel adaptation. Hope Larson takes the classic story to a new level with her vividly imagined interpretations of Mrs Whatsit, Mrs Who, Mrs Which, the Happy Medium, Aunt Beast, and the many other characters that readers have loved for the past fifty years. Winner of the 1963 Newbery Medal, A Wrinkle in Time is the first book in Madeleine L'Engle's Time Quintet.

30 review for A Wrinkle in Time: The Graphic Novel

  1. 4 out of 5

    Anne

    Oh. My. Well, I can't say I enjoyed that very much, and it pretty much put me off ever re-reading the book. And I loved that book when I was a kid. Loved it! Easily, it was my favorite. I'm holding up my worn out, coverless copy as proof. But Jesus...this made me rethink why I have such fond memories of it. Was Meg always this horrible and whiny? Was Charles Wallace an obnoxious know-it-all in the book? Were all of the characters annoyingly vague and cryptic in the original? And surely the dialogu Oh. My. Well, I can't say I enjoyed that very much, and it pretty much put me off ever re-reading the book. And I loved that book when I was a kid. Loved it! Easily, it was my favorite. I'm holding up my worn out, coverless copy as proof. But Jesus...this made me rethink why I have such fond memories of it. Was Meg always this horrible and whiny? Was Charles Wallace an obnoxious know-it-all in the book? Were all of the characters annoyingly vague and cryptic in the original? And surely the dialogue was better, right? Don't answer that! The religious stuff I remember, but man...ugh. Not sure how well any of that stuff would sit with me today. Did I only like this because it has that sci-fi element that I craved, but couldn't really get at a young age, because of my weird religious upbringing? Oof. God, I'm so fuckin sad now. Either this was a horrible graphic adaptation of my favorite childhood novel, or my younger self had horrible taste in books. Ok. In all fairness to this thing, it's big. Like, the author didn't skimp on the story. It's all basically here. The dialogue was clunky, but it was all there. The art, though? It was a different story. There were some weird panels where a character would just stop in the middle of a thought and just...stare. Sometimes it made sense...ish, but there were multiple times that it was just and odd pause in the story. So odd, in fact, that I wasn't sure I was reading the panels in the correct order. And, seriously, I read enough comics that this shouldn't be a problem for me. I don't know if I'm disappointed in the story, or disappointed in the adaptation, but the bottom line is that I'm disappointed.

  2. 4 out of 5

    destiny ☠ howling libraries

    I had DNFed both the regular and graphic novel versions of this book before, but with the film coming out this year, and the book being voted in as a BOTM for Life & Lit, I figured I would give it one more chance, so I picked the graphic novel up from the library and set to it. Unfortunately, even with forcing myself to finish it, I kind of hated this book. The only reason I'm giving it 2 stars instead of 1 is because I can appreciate the fact that it was very unique for its original time of I had DNFed both the regular and graphic novel versions of this book before, but with the film coming out this year, and the book being voted in as a BOTM for Life & Lit, I figured I would give it one more chance, so I picked the graphic novel up from the library and set to it. Unfortunately, even with forcing myself to finish it, I kind of hated this book. The only reason I'm giving it 2 stars instead of 1 is because I can appreciate the fact that it was very unique for its original time of publication (the story, not the graphic novel specifically). 1. The story is boring AF and I never stood a chance of connecting with any of the characters or actively caring about why their mission existed in the first place. 2. Holy hell, why does nobody talk about how drenched in religious overtones and patriotism this book is? That's honestly, like, 90% of the subplot: religious quotes and references, and patriotic rambling. I am in no way at all bashing on religion or patriotism, so don't get me wrong! If that's something that appeals to you, by all means, you do you! But those are two tones that I genuinely strongly dislike 99% of the time, and it caught me entirely by surprise in this book because I'd never heard anyone mention it. It did not make for a good reading experience. So, at the end of the day... I dunno. If you liked the original story, sure, it's a good graphic novel to pick up - but do I recommend it to anyone who hasn't read the original book or seen the movie and enjoyed the plot? Nahhh. You can find this review and more on my blog, or you can follow me on twitter, bookstagram, or facebook!

  3. 4 out of 5

    Julie

    I was lukewarm about Madeline L'Engle's 1962 fantasy novel, A Wrinkle in Time when I originally read it, but when I saw this 2012 graphic novel recently reviewed on Goodreads, I felt a strange compulsion to have it. Wow. I kinda love it. This was a novel that adapted beautifully to illustrated storytelling, and it's the type of “tidy” graphic novel style that I like: exceptional artwork laid out in an appealing design and easy to follow narration and dialogue. It's still a weird story, and if you do I was lukewarm about Madeline L'Engle's 1962 fantasy novel, A Wrinkle in Time when I originally read it, but when I saw this 2012 graphic novel recently reviewed on Goodreads, I felt a strange compulsion to have it. Wow. I kinda love it. This was a novel that adapted beautifully to illustrated storytelling, and it's the type of “tidy” graphic novel style that I like: exceptional artwork laid out in an appealing design and easy to follow narration and dialogue. It's still a weird story, and if you don't like the fantasy genre, it probably isn't going to happen for you; if you like the original novel, you've got a winner here. Some great lines from Ms. L'Engle: one thing I've learned is that you don't have to understand things for them to be. There will no longer be so many pleasant things to look at if responsible people do not do something about the unpleasant ones. You're comparing our lives to a sonnet? A strict form, but freedom within it? Yes. You're given the form, but you have to write the sonnet yourself. What you say is completely up to you.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Teresa ☼ {semi-hiatus}

    Honestly I had no intentions of reading this book, haha. I read the original book a few years ago, and I was actaully so bored and confused with it. I could barely understand anything that happened in the original book, because I honestly feel like that book does more telling than showing. Of course... I was obviously not expecting the graphic novel to be any better bUT one of my friends had this book on her shelf, and I asked if I could borrow it. So here I am now 👏🏻 I will start by saying that Honestly I had no intentions of reading this book, haha. I read the original book a few years ago, and I was actaully so bored and confused with it. I could barely understand anything that happened in the original book, because I honestly feel like that book does more telling than showing. Of course... I was obviously not expecting the graphic novel to be any better bUT one of my friends had this book on her shelf, and I asked if I could borrow it. So here I am now 👏🏻 I will start by saying that the graphic novel is much, much better than the original book in my opinion. I feel like this version is a whole lot easier to understand, and it was so much easier for me to wrap my mind around. Also, the illustrations are so cute, I actaully love them??? This book is honestly so cute I adore it. This book isn’t getting a full five stars from me, because I still did not understand the tesserct thing. I still don’t get it. It’s honestly the most confusing conecept I’ve ever had to wrap my mind around 😂 I was honestly hoping to be able to understand the teasserct thing better in the graphic novel version, but nope. Although, I will say that the world itself and a lot of the other things that happened in this book were a lot easier to understand... much easier to understand than in the original book. I will say that I honestly don’t get the main character Meg, like please she is such a Clary Fray. I’m sorry, but she is.... (no hate to all of you Clary Fray lovers out there lmao). But Meg is extremely annoying and dramatic and I don’t think I can stand her for another second. Anyways, this book was super cute and I loved reading it. I love middle grade graphic novels, and this one is probably a new favorite. ((: You guys actually have no idea how happy reading this graphic novel made me last night. I honestly felt like a kid again while reading it :’) Calvin said, "Do you know that this is the first time I've seen you without your glasses?" "I'm blind as a bat without them. I'm near-sighted, like father." "Well, you know what, you've got dream-boat eyes," Calvin said. "Listen, you go right on wearing your glasses. I don't think I want anybody else to see what gorgeous eyes you have.”

  5. 5 out of 5

    Bionic Jean

    This is the graphic novel adaptation of A Wrinkle in Time, Madeleine L'Engle's classic fantasy from 1962, which won the Newbery award in the US and led to four sequels. It had never been published with illustrations previously, but is here adapted by Hope Larson 50 years later in 2012, for a new audience. It is an ambitious project, faithful to the original story, and attempting to cover much of its ground in very nearly 400 pages rather than present a précised version. It is difficult to ascerta This is the graphic novel adaptation of A Wrinkle in Time, Madeleine L'Engle's classic fantasy from 1962, which won the Newbery award in the US and led to four sequels. It had never been published with illustrations previously, but is here adapted by Hope Larson 50 years later in 2012, for a new audience. It is an ambitious project, faithful to the original story, and attempting to cover much of its ground in very nearly 400 pages rather than present a précised version. It is difficult to ascertain how well the original story holds up for today's teenagers. On one level the story is very much a typical coming of age story. The heroine, Meg Murry, is a nerdy, solitary girl, awkward, hesitant yet headstrong, and misunderstood by her schoolmates and teachers alike. She excels at Maths, and is bored by the confines of school life. She is the daughter of two brainboxes, has two "normal" older brothers and a very odd young brother called Charles Wallace, who is generally considered to be have something wrong with him, but is clearly different, precocious, special and super-empathic. And he knows it. For a young adult novel, it is a novel of some depth. The characters are well explored as individuals, rather than mere types. Plus there many works referenced in the novel, especially Shakespeare's "The Tempest" and the Bible. The witches also quote in Latin and other languages sometimes. But although this is a Sci-Fi story, there is only really a nod to actual science and maths. We are given to understand that some of the characters are highly talented - even prescient - in this area, but the premise on which the book is based, that of a fifth dimension, is never developed. We have little technical explanation; we are intended to use our imaginations, and fantasise. The author has said, "It's often possible to make demands of a child that couldn't be made of an adult ... a child will often understand scientific concepts that would baffle an adult. This is because he can understand with a leap of the imagination that [which] is denied the grown-up who has acquired the little knowledge that is a dangerous thing." At the beginning of the story we have the common enough themes of a misunderstood teenager, an absent parent, and a new friend being found in an unlikely character. There is a mystery attached to the disappearance of Meg's father, a prominent scientist working on something secret. In a conventional teen story, one might expect the taunt and jeers directed at Meg to have been because he is in prison, but there is nothing so prosaic here. Madeleine L'Engle's novel is to do with time travel, and the complicated mathematical concept of the tesseract. "It's frightening as well as exciting to discover that matter and energy are the same thing, that size is an illusion, and that time is a material substance." The unlikely new friend of Meg is a young adolescent boy, Calvin O'Keefe, popular enough at school, but who is clearly an unwanted child, and has a rough deal at home. The inevitable first boyfriend/girlfriend relationship is signalled from the beginning, with these two fish out of water. And the reader hopes very much that the main protagonist Meg will grow in bravery, courage and resilience from her troubled beginning. Many of the characters in the novel have jokey names. There are three witches - or are they angels - Mrs Who, Mrs Whatsit and Mrs Which (who is depicted here as a stereotypical witch in a black hat). There is a fair amount of humour with these three. Then there is the Happy Medium and Aunt Beast. But there are also the soulless automatons of the bleak Camazotz, and IT. There is an overriding menace; the threat that everything which makes us human - all our individuality, our feelings, our passion - will be stamped out. "Only a fool is not afraid" What really comes through are the strong religious beliefs of the author, who was an Episcopalian. There is a clear message of ultimate salvation for all. In her writing Madeleine L'Engle acknowledges a debt to the author George MacDonald, who had similar views on divine punishment. She said, "I cannot believe that God wants punishment to go on interminably any more than does a loving parent. The entire purpose of loving punishment is to teach, and it lasts only as long as is needed for the lesson. And the lesson is always love." A Wrinkle in Time follows the three children, as they explore space and time to rescue Meg's father, who has disappeared. They try to fight off the Black Thing, an evil dark force which is threatening Earth, and ultimately the whole universe. They encounter a Prime Coordinator, who is clearly meant to be Satan, who looks deceptively good and claims to be, "really just a kind jolly old gentleman". They are aided and abetted by what they have learned from the ancient "witches" and their special powers, but mostly by the inner resources and unique features and traits they discover within themselves. Meg learns that what she thought of as her faults can be turned into great strengths. "It made me mad, and when I'm mad I don't have room to be scared" "Maybe I don't like being different, but I don't want to be like everybody else, either." And Calvin learns, "There is nothing to fear except fear itself." It is a journey on more than one level, and has a clear moral message throughout. There is a moment of revelation for the main character, and from then on, there can only be one ending. It has highly religious undertones, as many children's fantasies do, C. S. Lewis's "Narnia" series being an obvious example. Just occasionally the story seems to become rather soft-centred, but this could be an English reader's perception of an American author, as the difference in tone between the two cultures has been noticeable before. "Good helps us, the stars help us, perhaps what you would call light helps us, love helps us. Oh, my child, I cannot explain! This is something you just have to know or not know" Aunt Beast did not come across at all convincingly to this reader. In fact the graphics for the Ixchel, a whole race of sympathetic aliens, seemed completely inappropriate. They were portrayed as merely amusing, hairy, tentacled creatures - not the sentient, empathic beings they were intended to be. So how far can a graphic novel really go in reinterpreting a written novel? Can it capture the descriptive passages? Can it do justice to vivid images or pictures which might already be in the reader's mind? And how on earth can it depict for instance, a two dimensional planet? (It made quite a brave attempt at this, actually.) The first part of Hope Larson's book succeeds very well. For the first hundred pages the action is still on Earth, and each character is drawn in an appealing appealing, cute manner. They are simple stylised cartoon figures, but tweaked very skilfully, with minor alterations such as an additional wrinkle in the forehead, or a subtle change to the line of the jaw. Each is immediately identifiable. The little brother Charles Wallace, who is perhaps a genius or savant, is depicted as a pudgy, infantile cherub with enormous eyes. Meg is portrayed as a plain girl with spectacles, Calvin as a large-eared lanky, gawky, freckle-faced lad, the three witches variously as dear little old ladies. The "extras" as it were, at school lend themselves well to this sort of treatment too. The problems start when the action leaves Earth, and Mrs. Whatsit takes Meg, Charles Wallace and Calvin flying up to the top of a mountain to watch a sunset and moonset. Are you imagining a wonderful full-colour view here? Well forget it. The entire book uses a blue and black palette - and only one shade of pale blue at that. Presumably this is carefully selected to represent the sky, or perhaps space, but it is extremely limiting. In this example, the illustrator resorted to writing "sunset" and "moonset" over each illustration. There are no details. Sometimes such a cartoon style is just too simplistic. And we become aware that perhaps this style of illustration is not going to prove an appropriate one; one with the capacity to convey the mood and emotion of such an imaginative fantasy novel. There are some worlds where this does work. The totalitarian dystopia, Camazotz, where everyone is the same, is conveyed well with this treatment. There is a sense of menace in the repeated bold, stark, images; the threat that their very uniformity presents to any individual. "Camazotz is ONE mind and that mind is IT. That's why everybody's so happy and efficient ... Why do you think people get confused and unhappy? Because they all live their own separate individual lives." But for other worlds, there are images which are intended to be mysteriously beautiful, and this does not come across very well. If not detail, then at least more subtlety of colour and line are needed for this to be experienced. On the other hand, we are conscious throughout of the characters' feelings and responses in the different situations; their little moments of reflection. And when one of the characters is hypnotically taken over by a malevolent power, their subtle transformation works exceptionally well in this bold and striking cartoon style. This is clearly a labour of love, by a talented comic-book artist who could have written another graphic novel of her own to add to the successful and award-winning ones she has already penned. Whether you think this adaptation was worth her effort is probably down to your individual taste. Personally I would have preferred this book with its poetic imagery to be reinterpreted by a different artist, in a more painterly style, with more imaginative and colourful illustrations. Or even better, to incorporate two different styles for the different sections of the book. But that would make the project even more ambitious, of course. NOTE: The other four books in the series are: A Wind in the Door A Swiftly Tilting Planet Many Waters An Acceptable Time

  6. 5 out of 5

    Teresa

    3.5 Though I can tell this was a labor of love for the adapter/artist, I’m probably not the right person for an unbiased view of an adaptation of a book I read so much as a child I probably had it memorized. I did feel a frisson of recognition at the beginning with the family’s middle-of-the night sandwiches and the emptying of Mrs. Whatsit’s galoshes. But the other scenes from the original that have stayed with me through the years—the children eerily bouncing their balls in rhythm, Aunt Beast’s 3.5 Though I can tell this was a labor of love for the adapter/artist, I’m probably not the right person for an unbiased view of an adaptation of a book I read so much as a child I probably had it memorized. I did feel a frisson of recognition at the beginning with the family’s middle-of-the night sandwiches and the emptying of Mrs. Whatsit’s galoshes. But the other scenes from the original that have stayed with me through the years—the children eerily bouncing their balls in rhythm, Aunt Beast’s tending of Meg and the push/pull danger Charles Wallace is in—didn’t have the same power for me. But then how could they. Reading this has to be different for someone who doesn’t have an emotional investment in the original book. The illustrations are okay, though I found them lacking in descriptive power at several points. I also found myself wishing for more colors than just the blue-wash and the black, at least for certain scenes. I think I reread the original book once as an adult—probably after the disaster of the 2004 TV movie I tried to watch (and, no, I won’t watch the new 2018 film). Perhaps I’ll read it once more: I still have my childhood copy. P.S. There seems to be a misprint on the dedication page (the last name of L’Engle’s father is wrong).

  7. 4 out of 5

    Raina

    Ok, so, I have this thing about adapted graphic novels. Basically, I'm pretty uncomfortable that they exist. I get that adapting Shakespeare into GNs is a great way to make the text (originally intended for theatrical performance, after all) sing. And, anyone who knows me knows that I j'adore sequential art. It's kinda my jam, as a rule. You might call me an advocate. And I LOVE Hope Larson's work. Mercury is super underrated as a YA graphic novel. And I know that this swept the GN awards. I get Ok, so, I have this thing about adapted graphic novels. Basically, I'm pretty uncomfortable that they exist. I get that adapting Shakespeare into GNs is a great way to make the text (originally intended for theatrical performance, after all) sing. And, anyone who knows me knows that I j'adore sequential art. It's kinda my jam, as a rule. You might call me an advocate. And I LOVE Hope Larson's work. Mercury is super underrated as a YA graphic novel. And I know that this swept the GN awards. I get that people like it. It IS impressive. But the thing is, it just doesn't work for me. I feel like BECAUSE this is an absolute children's classic (one I read multiple times as a kid), there's this reverence for the original. We go from plot point to plot point, and don't ever get under the skin of the characters. I appreciate the exhaustive loyalty and respect Larson pays to the original. But it feels like it was just a bad idea in the first place. Graphic novels are a medium somewhere between books and movies. There ARE graphic novels that do a great job of getting into the head of our protagonist. But usually those are nonfiction works, coming from the actual heads of actual people writing their actual stories. When it comes to fantasy, particularly adapted fantasy, particularly THIS adapted fantasy, I feel disconnected from the importance of the events depicted in the plot, when I'm not reading Meg's thoughts - only seeing images of her doing things. It's not that I struggled through reading it. It wasn't painful. It was actually kind of fun to see how her renderings matched up with my childhood memories of this story. But I got to the end and wished that so much work hadn't been spent re-telling an already classic story. WHY would you read this instead of the original? What is the point of this, other than making money off of glorified fanfic? I REALLY wish Larson had spent all the time she used working on this, working on something original. Because she's great at what she does, and I can't wait to read the next thing she writes.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Cyndi

    This graphic novel is actually better than the book, in my opinion. I liked the book, but parts of it was a bit hard to track. The visual helped immensely and the art was well done.

  9. 4 out of 5

    [Shai] The Bibliophage

    I still haven't read the classic book, A Wrinkle in Time that's why I grabbed the opportunity to read this graphic novel. The story is quiet odd for a children's book; I was expecting that it would blow my mind because I read a lot of good reviews about it. That monotonous talking about IT certainly got on my nerves. If you could see a speech bubble when I was still reading this, this is what you might read, "When will this going to end?! This is quite dull that it's just making me wants to craw I still haven't read the classic book, A Wrinkle in Time that's why I grabbed the opportunity to read this graphic novel. The story is quiet odd for a children's book; I was expecting that it would blow my mind because I read a lot of good reviews about it. That monotonous talking about IT certainly got on my nerves. If you could see a speech bubble when I was still reading this, this is what you might read, "When will this going to end?! This is quite dull that it's just making me wants to crawl in to bed and just sleep. But I have to finish this and let's see what these positive reviews are all about." My instincts were correct after all because it is really boring. Sorry, but this is really not worth reading. If you like this kind of story, then so be it; it's up to you because it's your time you're wasting.

  10. 5 out of 5

    Melina Souza

    A versão brasileira tá tão, mas tão linda, que já torna a experiência de leitura ainda mais legal. Não li o livro, apenas a graphic novel e achei a história interessante. Fiquei com vontade de saber o que acontece nos próximos volumes, mas confesso que gostaria de ler eles em quadrinhos também :)

  11. 5 out of 5

    Wandering Librarians

    I expect a lot from my novel adaptations. If something's already an awesome book, and it's being turned into something else, be that a TV show or a movie of a graphic novel, I feel it should be equally as awesome. Is that so much to ask? You have such great material to work with. How can it go wrong? Of course, sometimes it does. I love A Wrinkle in Time and have read it many times. I was excited to read the graphic novel adaptation, because it seems like such a great book to do in the graphic no I expect a lot from my novel adaptations. If something's already an awesome book, and it's being turned into something else, be that a TV show or a movie of a graphic novel, I feel it should be equally as awesome. Is that so much to ask? You have such great material to work with. How can it go wrong? Of course, sometimes it does. I love A Wrinkle in Time and have read it many times. I was excited to read the graphic novel adaptation, because it seems like such a great book to do in the graphic novel format. The novel has such beautiful imagery, it was going to look gorgeous on the page. I think Hope Larson did a great job with adapting the story. Much of the dialogue is directly from the book. This allowed the characters to remain themselves in their new form. Hope Larson nicely allowed the characters to explain themselves more to make up for the lack of background information. What did not work for me was Hope Larson's art style. It's not that I don't like her art style. I've read all her other books, and I've enjoyed them. However, her style is very simplistic. There is little color or detail in her work. Sometimes it is actually unclear what is happening in the pictures because of this. Other times she has to resort to using words where she shouldn't have to. In one scene, Mrs. Whatsit takes Meg, Charles Wallace and Calvin flying up to the top of a mountain to wait for sunset and moonset. There are two panels, one representing sunset and one moonset. On the top of each panel is written "sunset" and "moonset" otherwise it would not have been clear. In a graphic novel I feel like that shouldn't have to happen. The pictures should be able to speak for themselves. There was such fabulous potential for beauty and darkness in A Wrinkle in Time. They travel to other worlds, they see strange creatures. They see things that are amazing beautiful and incredible frightening. I didn't get anything of that from Hope Larson's illustrations. No beauty, no darkness. I really wish that this adaptation had been illustrated by someone who had a more detailed, painterly style. I wanted the beauty and the darkness. It's still a good adaptation, I just would have preferred a different visual experience. A Wrinkle in Time comes out October 2, 2012.

  12. 5 out of 5

    Ferdy

    Ugh Hated it. The story was boring, the characters were beyond insufferable, the sci-fi element was nonsensical, and it was all so utterly dull… The artwork was okay though. Meg was one of the worst MC's I've ever had the displeasure of reading, she was such a whiny, insecure, needy, pathetic, dumb, shrewish, fishwife-esque character. I loathed her. Her annoying know it all brother and the rest of her family weren't much better either. Calvin was the only sort of decent character, but the fact th Ugh Hated it. The story was boring, the characters were beyond insufferable, the sci-fi element was nonsensical, and it was all so utterly dull… The artwork was okay though. Meg was one of the worst MC's I've ever had the displeasure of reading, she was such a whiny, insecure, needy, pathetic, dumb, shrewish, fishwife-esque character. I loathed her. Her annoying know it all brother and the rest of her family weren't much better either. Calvin was the only sort of decent character, but the fact that he seemed to fancy Meg the tween Shrew made me not like him as much. I also didn't like the weird religious tones or the heavy handed moral lessons throughout, it made for rubbish reading. I won't be reading any more of the series.

  13. 4 out of 5

    Seth T.

    [This lady, who is old enough to know better, is being petty and mean.] Adaptations from literature into the comics form have it pretty rough. It's not like with movies where a charismatic star or a sublime musical score can provide lift for a work. Unless an adapter is wildly liberal in the work of adaptation, comics have exactly two things to work with: writing (provided largely by the original author) and art through which to carry forth the dialogical and narrative aspects of the work (respec [This lady, who is old enough to know better, is being petty and mean.] Adaptations from literature into the comics form have it pretty rough. It's not like with movies where a charismatic star or a sublime musical score can provide lift for a work. Unless an adapter is wildly liberal in the work of adaptation, comics have exactly two things to work with: writing (provided largely by the original author) and art through which to carry forth the dialogical and narrative aspects of the work (respectively). It's not an easy task and the very nature of the transition is positioned as a serious obstacle to the success of any adaptation. Mediocre creators produce dreadful (though sometimes hilarious) works, like Marvel's recent attempt to bring Pride & Prejudice to the medium and the recent re-interpretation of Dostoyevsky, The Grand Inquisitor . Even works backed by incredible, no-fail talents like Eric Shanower and Skottie Young can falter and produce books that are merely enjoyable. Successful transfers of literature into the comics medium are exceedingly rare. Jiro Taniguchi's adaptation of Jack London and Humayoun Ibrahim's adaptation of Jack Vance are two examples—both do a good job of pacing story for the medium and using storytelling tools unique to comics in order to bring the reader into a special experience of an already existing story. Hope Larson is immensely talented and one of my favourite comics illustrators, but unfortunately her adaptation of A Wrinkle in Time fares no better than Shanower and Young's Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Like Oz, her Wrinkle in Time boasts a number of charms and excellencies, but the whole package fails to be Completely Wonderful. I was hoping for Completely Wonderful based both on my prior experience of Larson's work and how much excitement my friends had when I said I'd be reading Wrinkle in Time—perhaps it was those hopes and expectations that dimmed my love for the book. Also: it may be fair to disclose that a book has to be particularly spectacular for me to overlook my weariness of fantasy settings.1 For the first hundred pages of Larson's adaptation, I was perhaps unreasonably excited by the prospect of there being a whole three hundred more pages to the story—and then four more original prose novels after that. I had even been prompted by my enjoyment of the adaptation to visit the library and pick up Madeleine L'Engle's original Wrinkle in Time, thinking that perhaps I would finish reading Larson's book and then read L'Engles in order to add some colour to my review. That first hundred pages all occurs in our real, tangible, and not very sci-fi or fantasy world. It was delicious and Larson's play with these characters was delightful. I thought that I would want to spend hundreds and perhaps thousands of pages with these characters. Then the world-hopping began. I'm returning L'Engle's novel to the library unread. Maybe I'll read it to my daughter someday if she likes, but I no longer feel an urgent need to revisit these characters or their adventures. While things don't immediately begin a downhill slide (and I don't even know that slide would ever be an accurate description of how my disappointments in the book took form) with the bending of timespace, that was where my easy alliance with the story began to strain. From this point onward, Larson's Wrinkle in Time experiences increasingly poor pacing until in the last ninety pages when things begin happening so abruptly that it's hard to get footing enough to buy into the motives of various characters' actions. Protagonist Meg establishes a close relationship with an alien creature after what seems like a few minutes' conversation—something that feels untrue to her character as established. Likewise, a romantic pairing springs up with barely more pretense than Thor and Jane's spontaneous romantic combustion in last year's Thor movie. Everything feels rushed and uneven and I stopped trying to guess what characters would do in the situations they experienced and simply decided I was now in it strictly to find out What Happens. And after this book's stellar beginning, this was a disappointment. [Science!] And of course, it's not all bad. Larson's art and visual characterization are superb. She constantly brings a sense of moment to the individual reactions of her characters. What initially won me over so strongly to her creative vision here (before the narrative intervened) was her depictions of the inscrutable Charles Wallace. Larson is one of those comics artists who is actually able to illustrate a range of expressions in her characters. A quick survey of the available product in the medium will highlight exactly what a great gift that is. By her treatment of the three primary child-characters before the adventure begins, I was completely wrapped up in the mystery of their everyday lives. A book of Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace just sitting around interacting with each other in the grip of thoroughly non-extraordinary circumstances would be fabulous. Maybe they could go on walks occasionally. Throw stones at abandoned beehives or something. *sigh* I'm in love with a book that doesn't exist. I'm torn on how much to recommend Hope Larson's Wrinkle in Time. On the one hand, her art is beautiful and serves only to elevate the work. On the other, issues in pacing made it difficult to remain involved in the kids' adventure. It's possible that another hundred pages of padding—of focus on characterization—could have eased some of the alacrity with which the story spins itself out. I don't envy the task of the adapter because too often even great talents like Larson cannot emerge victorious against the challenges adaptations provoke. Additional Note One question I always struggle with when approaching an adaptation is how much blame to lay at the feet of the adapter if the adaptation is not a great product. After all, what if the inadequacies are intrinsic to the original work? In the present case, it may very well be that Hope Larson has faithfully adapted A Wrinkle in Time and the issues I had with the book are present in the original as well. I suppose that's fair enough and fans of the original will probably appreciate such deep fidelity, but for my part, I prefer that adapters improve on their source. Examples here: Fight Club, Snow Falling on Cedars, and Patricia Rozema's Mansfield Park. Mansfield Park is a fairly liberal translation of Austen's novel and reframes the context of the book to make a particular political statement only hinted at broadly within Austen's original work; but better still, Rozema alters the character of Austen's protagonist in such a way that the movie is actually enjoyable—a faithful adaptation would be painful to watch. Snow Falling on Cedars is a faithful adaptation that improves its source by simply shuffling the narrative into a series of non-sequential skips through the story's timeline. This increases the film's drama and makes it a slightly more enjoyable experience than the book upon which it is based. I haven't read Palahniuk's Fight Club, but even he agrees that David Fincher improved the work and made the story his own. This is what I had hoped of Larson, regardless of whether the original had the same deficiencies. I don't hold it against her because adaptation is very difficult and adaptation that actually improves a work is more difficult by far. _____________________ Footnote 1) Even Miyuki Miyabe's Brave Story , which I loved inordinately, suffered a flagging of interest when the book's young protagonist—after two-hundred pages of stupendous-but-mundane earthbound narrative—gets whisked away to a realm of fantasy. _____________________ Review courtesy of Good Ok Bad

  14. 4 out of 5

    Neil Coulter

    It's probably not possible to quantify a distinction like "Worst Movie I've Ever Seen"--but the 2018 Wrinkle in Time is a solid contender for the title. I really wanted it to be triumphant, but it was mostly a mess. So grabbing this graphic novel adaptation at the library yesterday was partly because of a yearning to go back to the real story again. It's a hefty tome, and it covers the original novel surprisingly well--many reminders of where the movie went astray (to the detriment of the movie It's probably not possible to quantify a distinction like "Worst Movie I've Ever Seen"--but the 2018 Wrinkle in Time is a solid contender for the title. I really wanted it to be triumphant, but it was mostly a mess. So grabbing this graphic novel adaptation at the library yesterday was partly because of a yearning to go back to the real story again. It's a hefty tome, and it covers the original novel surprisingly well--many reminders of where the movie went astray (to the detriment of the movie in every instance). At first I was puzzled by the blue tone. Black and white would be cool, color would make a lot of sense for this story, but . . . blue? I can only assume that perhaps it's meant to convey the twilight/dark feeling of the story. For that concept, it works, and I grew used to it quickly. The character designs are okay (Meg is the best; other characters are fine or not quite right), but the real star of this book is L'Engle's original story, which shines brightly in this adaptation. It's a pleasant way to tour the entire novel again.

  15. 5 out of 5

    Krista Regester

    2.5 - Soooo this took me a millennium to finish. Never have I ever met a more unlikable protagonist than Meg. I just don't get the amazement around A Wrinkle in Time, and the movie this year also underwhelmed me. I liked the art and concept of a graphic novel adaptation.

  16. 4 out of 5

    cinnamon apple ™

    UGH SO GOOD IM SURPRISED IT TOOK ME THIS LONG TO FINISH IT

  17. 5 out of 5

    jess

    I loved A Wrinkle in Time as a kid, and I really like Hope Larson's work, but I did not especially enjoy this graphic novel version. The fantastic characters, planets and concepts suffer from the black, blue and white graphic treatment. I prefer the more vivid product of my imagination. I wish I had trusted my gut that this was too good to be true and skipped it, instead of reading 400 pages to end up dissatisfied and disappointed. However, I probably would not have re-read Wrinkle in Time at th I loved A Wrinkle in Time as a kid, and I really like Hope Larson's work, but I did not especially enjoy this graphic novel version. The fantastic characters, planets and concepts suffer from the black, blue and white graphic treatment. I prefer the more vivid product of my imagination. I wish I had trusted my gut that this was too good to be true and skipped it, instead of reading 400 pages to end up dissatisfied and disappointed. However, I probably would not have re-read Wrinkle in Time at this point in my life, and it was a good time for me to revisit it. The final "battle" between Meg and IT (which I remember being tense and exciting in the book, but anti-climatic in the graphic novel) reminded me of how love conquers all. Which is like, aw, Let's Hug.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Katie Paciga

    It's been 50 years since L'Engle put the landmark tale out there. A Wrinkle in Time was the first sci-fi book to win the Newberry. In it's original form, L'Engle's Meg Murray won over readers with her awkwardness and courage. Meg steals the show again in Larson's retelling. Larson uses a blue and black palette for all of her images in the graphic novel. I found myself convinced that this was in some way intentional as a representation of space and sky. I think for me the best part was that the i It's been 50 years since L'Engle put the landmark tale out there. A Wrinkle in Time was the first sci-fi book to win the Newberry. In it's original form, L'Engle's Meg Murray won over readers with her awkwardness and courage. Meg steals the show again in Larson's retelling. Larson uses a blue and black palette for all of her images in the graphic novel. I found myself convinced that this was in some way intentional as a representation of space and sky. I think for me the best part was that the images helped me visualize totally intangible/unfamiliar concepts (be they fiction or real possibilities). The most salient was that of the tesseract, whereby people fold up into nothing to travel across space and time. Meg's biggest problem is that her father has not returned from his travel through space and time. With the help of a cast of characters with special powers (who speak multiple languages) Meg and her young, weird brother, Charles Wallace, travel through space, find their father and try to bring him back. Along the way there are (predictably) hurdles. Will they get back to the world they know with their father? One of the trickiest things about graphic novels is that the reader is left to sort out navigating the ordering of the scenes on each two page spread. Students who struggle with interpreting meaning from visual images or who struggle with sequencing events into a logical order would likely struggle with this and any other graphic novel. The Professor Garfield Reading Ring (http://www.professorgarfield.org/Read...) could be used as a springboard to discuss author's craft and how framing and sequence in graphic novels impact what the reader takes from the story. The lexile and GR leveling for this rendition (i.e., graphic novel) are not available, but the interest level would be for middle school. The original version was leveled 740L and GR level W, indicating that 4th graders should be able to decode the original text independently.

  19. 4 out of 5

    Kristina Horner

    What a strange, interesting and charming little book. I had never actually read a Wrinkle in Time (I unwittingly read book 3 in the series as a child and was hopelessly confused) but I still think I managed to absorb a lot of the story from this graphic novel retelling of it. It's a bizarre tale, but the hard to visualize concepts were nice to see drawn on a page - gave you a bit more of a visual but still managed to leave a lot very vague (which I think is important for this story). I think it What a strange, interesting and charming little book. I had never actually read a Wrinkle in Time (I unwittingly read book 3 in the series as a child and was hopelessly confused) but I still think I managed to absorb a lot of the story from this graphic novel retelling of it. It's a bizarre tale, but the hard to visualize concepts were nice to see drawn on a page - gave you a bit more of a visual but still managed to leave a lot very vague (which I think is important for this story). I think it worked quite well. Overall, what a weird story though. The things we read as kids, man.

  20. 5 out of 5

    R.F. Gammon

    Love this. Captured the spirit of the original perfectly whilst making it fresh. <3

  21. 5 out of 5

    Rachel

    THIS is what generations of kids have held near and dear to their hearts? This? Seriously?! Meg is whiny and incredibly annoying. Charles Wallace is arrogant and also annoying. The lame attempts at making it religious and mention of Jesus seemed half-hearted and were EXTRA annoying. If the Murray kids weren’t so insufferable on every single page, this graphic novel would have been much more bearable. I can’t remember the last time I had to push myself so hard just to finish a book. It is also fi THIS is what generations of kids have held near and dear to their hearts? This? Seriously?! Meg is whiny and incredibly annoying. Charles Wallace is arrogant and also annoying. The lame attempts at making it religious and mention of Jesus seemed half-hearted and were EXTRA annoying. If the Murray kids weren’t so insufferable on every single page, this graphic novel would have been much more bearable. I can’t remember the last time I had to push myself so hard just to finish a book. It is also filled with one of my personal comic pet peeves- characters don’t always finish their thoughts and I just know that I’m missing major pieces of the story because there are clearly a TON of panels that didn’t make it in the final draft. This is fine when the creators alter the dialogue and descriptions enough to make the story cohesive and legible, but that either wasn’t done here or was done very haphazardly. Each chapter had numerous instances of these omissions, which, as someone who’s never read the original, meant that I had an incredibly difficult time following along. And along those lines, when it comes to the three witchy star women or whatever, such little time was spent on their introductions that I had absolutely no clue who was who by name alone and believe me, they were referenced as such plenty throughout the book. I still can’t tell you which is which (see what I did there? Ugh). Look, I do get it- It’s incredibly difficult to condense most classics for the graphic novel medium. Like films based on books, they’ll never be as good as the original source material and won’t include every single nuance and detail. Fine, I can accept this. Having said that, though, I’ve still seen it done better than this a hundred times before. Maybe even a million. The artwork here was ok, but just ok. Definitely nothing to write home about or nearly enough to save the reputation of this disaster of a comic, in my eyes. Final verdict? If you’ve never read the original, do yourself a huge favor and skip this. Perhaps, fans of the the novel will appreciate it more, but this adaptation was totally lost on me. Even my non-discerning nine year old wasn’t feeling it.

  22. 4 out of 5

    Gurveen Kaur

    A quick and warm read. The art work enhanced the experience!

  23. 5 out of 5

    Crizzle

    I went through this as slowly as possible to savor the graphic novel I have been waiting for!! The library ordered it in for me and I was ecstatic; it did not disappoint, nor for Molly. We were delighted that Meg actually looks like Molly - so fitting to me because since the first time Molly read "A Wrinkle in Time" as a second grader, I hoped she could see the striking similarities in personality that she shares with Meg. "Meg. I give you your faults.".. then the panel in which Meg opens her ha I went through this as slowly as possible to savor the graphic novel I have been waiting for!! The library ordered it in for me and I was ecstatic; it did not disappoint, nor for Molly. We were delighted that Meg actually looks like Molly - so fitting to me because since the first time Molly read "A Wrinkle in Time" as a second grader, I hoped she could see the striking similarities in personality that she shares with Meg. "Meg. I give you your faults.".. then the panel in which Meg opens her hand and seems to release "anger", "impatience", and "stubbornness". These are Molly's faults and it's so beautiful to see them finally put to noble use in Meg's quest to save her family. Of course, seeing her find courage through fear and love through hate are tear-jerking moments in the graphic novel, too. This book really does the original justice; the one qualm Molly and I have is that we wished for color, but we may be spoiled from all the beautifully colored graphic novels we've got to experience... and that lack definitely doesn't take away from the beauty of this story. At the end there are interviews with both Madeleine L'Engle and the illustrator, Hope Larson, as well as L'Engle's acceptance speech for the Newberry Award she won for the book in 1963... I love how she intertwines faith, science, and the love and truth that is the common language in great children's literature. Sighhhhhhh I'm so happy right now.

  24. 4 out of 5

    Krista

    This is beautiful. The only reason it didn’t get 5 stars is because I still prefer the novel.

  25. 5 out of 5

    BookishStitcher

    A fun adaptation of one of my favorite childhood books.

  26. 5 out of 5

    Kales

    I am so glad I revisted this story before the movie. While it was the graphic novel version, I think it was an awesome adaptation of the story. It makes me want to see the movie more which looks beautiful. Yes, this is one of those "love conquers all" "coming of age" stories. But it is a classic. It is one of the originals and you have to appreciate what it has done for children's scifi literature. It's scary and intense, and about being your own hero and growing up. There is sibling love and fam I am so glad I revisted this story before the movie. While it was the graphic novel version, I think it was an awesome adaptation of the story. It makes me want to see the movie more which looks beautiful. Yes, this is one of those "love conquers all" "coming of age" stories. But it is a classic. It is one of the originals and you have to appreciate what it has done for children's scifi literature. It's scary and intense, and about being your own hero and growing up. There is sibling love and familial love and a little bit of romance. My sole problem with this adaptation was the art -- I didn't like the monochromatic nature of it. I wish it had been in full color, it would have been vibrant and added more to the world in my opinion. Also, the drawings were a little cartoonish, and I would have enjoyed a more solid, realistic-looking interpretation (which is ironic considering the unrealistic and fantastical nature of the story). Overall, I enjoyed this book and it made me even more hyped for the movie. Conclusion: Keep

  27. 4 out of 5

    Clare Snow

    I hated this. The graphic novel adaptation was fine, I just hate the story. I never read the original and now I don't think I will. It seems I dislike award winning childrens classics I read as an adult. I feel similarly about the story of Bridge to Terabithia. Although I loved the movie adaptation. I still want to see the movie of A Wrinkle in Time. And all that religion - no thanks.

  28. 5 out of 5

    Nik

    A disappointment. I read the book for the first time pretty recently. I enjoyed it but don't have attachment to it created in childhood. I was really looking forward to reading the graphic novel; I'm discovering that I love the medium and appreciate adaptations of existing books. I hate to say it, but the art really dragged down the experience. I could get past not connecting to the style if I thought it fit the story, but most of the time I thought the characters' expressions were way off, based A disappointment. I read the book for the first time pretty recently. I enjoyed it but don't have attachment to it created in childhood. I was really looking forward to reading the graphic novel; I'm discovering that I love the medium and appreciate adaptations of existing books. I hate to say it, but the art really dragged down the experience. I could get past not connecting to the style if I thought it fit the story, but most of the time I thought the characters' expressions were way off, based on what they were saying or thinking. Another reviewer said that, at times, she wondered if she were reading the panels in the correct order. I had this experience as well; in fact, I enabled the animated, guided progression in the Kindle app. I didn't love reading it that way (the book isn't high-res and looks a little on the awful side when the software zooms in on the panels), but at least I was sure I was reading things in the right order. As another reviewer said, I'm also wondering if maybe the source material isn't as great as I thought it was. I'm not in a rush to re-read the book, but I'm kind of sad that the graphic novel adaptation has left me doubting my memory of it. It's not all bad. I love Aunt Beast.

  29. 5 out of 5

    Lindsey

    What can I say? Hope Larson's graphic novel version of A Wrinkle in Time wasn't successful for me, but I can't think of what could possibly make a graphic novel of this book successful. When I saw this was going to be a thing, I was THRILLED--A Wrinkle in Time is one of My Books (as it's lots of people's Books). I have the distinct cliched memory of staying up way past my bedtime reading the last hundred pages from my bed, terrified and thrilled and moved even as a tiny kid. It's one of those bo What can I say? Hope Larson's graphic novel version of A Wrinkle in Time wasn't successful for me, but I can't think of what could possibly make a graphic novel of this book successful. When I saw this was going to be a thing, I was THRILLED--A Wrinkle in Time is one of My Books (as it's lots of people's Books). I have the distinct cliched memory of staying up way past my bedtime reading the last hundred pages from my bed, terrified and thrilled and moved even as a tiny kid. It's one of those books whose old cover art created a tactile emotional imprint. I bought a copy in my early twenties to read aloud. When my stepson brought a library copy home at age eleven, I think I cried. The actual story of A Wrinkle in Time is crazy, okay. But the thing is that the craziness never occurred to me until I read this version. When you read the L'Engle version, your brain chugs along right beside you, crafting the energies of Mrs. Who and Whatsit and Which; you recognize the warm maternal power of Aunt Beast; you recognize Father; you imagine IT; all the characters are exactly as they should be, as L'Engle wrote them, because you're meeting them halfway in your own mind. Nothing seems bizarre or far-reaching that way. Even tessering. The story hinges on frickin' tesseracts and it's one of the most popular children's books of all time. I understand wanting to draw this book and to have this book exist. Like I said, I was stoked when I heard it was coming out. I feel bad hating on it because I can only imagine that Hope Larson wanted this book to exist because she adored the original, too. But it's a different story, drawn out. The creation of the characters is done for you, delivered on the page, and when we aren't given the opportunity to create the universe of the book ourselves, the story is completely surreal and bizarre, whereas L'Engle's book is moving and scary and warm. This version is like Charles Wallace under the control of IT--it tries to come off as familiar, but there's too much missing behind the eyes.

  30. 4 out of 5

    Sara

    This marks the first time I was ever deeply moved by a graphic novel reinterpretation of a classic novel. If I ever had any reticence about recommending this wonderful young adult sci fi adventure it was only that Madeline L'Engle's writing, as lovely as it is, is somewhat dated particularly for a generation known for communicating primarily via text and tweet. What Hope Larson has done here with her wonderful work is make a novel written in 1962 as fresh as if it just came off the press this mor This marks the first time I was ever deeply moved by a graphic novel reinterpretation of a classic novel. If I ever had any reticence about recommending this wonderful young adult sci fi adventure it was only that Madeline L'Engle's writing, as lovely as it is, is somewhat dated particularly for a generation known for communicating primarily via text and tweet. What Hope Larson has done here with her wonderful work is make a novel written in 1962 as fresh as if it just came off the press this morning. Her crisp, Spartan style of drawing is perfectly suited to a text that could come off as downright cold if it weren't for the unmistakable warmth she also manages to convey with a subtle line to the jaw or a wrinkle in the forehead. This is a perfect book for reluctant readers and really any fan of this masterpiece who wants to experience it in an entirely new yet utterly familiar feeling way.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.