Madeleine L'Engle is one of my favorite authors. She's most well-known for penning the Newbery Award winning novel, A Wrinkle in Time, which just so happens to be my favorite work of fiction. L'Engle wrote a lot of YA novels, but she also wrote several novels for adults, some books for younger readers, as well as some non-fiction and autobiography. The Crosswick Journals contain some of the most interesting Spiritual reading I've ever encountered. I definitely don't agree with L'Engle on every theological view she ever had, but when she got it right, she got it right.
It seems that anyone who has heard of L'Engle automatically starts thinking about A Wrinkle in Time, which is only natural, since I do the same thing. I think it's sad, however, that a lot of people who have read (or at least heard of) A Wrinkle in Time haven't read anything else by her. There are three other books in the Time Quartet series (A Wind in the Door, A Swiftly Tilting Planet, and Many Waters) that are incredible.
Another YA series she wrote often crossed over into the Time Quartet, even though it was centered around another family. More precisely, it was centered around another character--Vicky Austin. The majority of the Austin Family books are told in first person from her perspective. The most widely-known book featuring Vicky Austin is A Ring of Endless Light (which was a Newbery Honor Book, just sayin').
While A Wrinkle in Time (and the other books in the series) dealt with time travel and other science fiction/fantasy themes, most of what happened in the lives of the Austins was much more realistic. Even without the fantastical elements, L'Engle managed to weave together a series of stories about a remarkable character within a remarkable family.
Vicky Austin (who, incidently, spells Vicky the right way--the way my mama does) didn't have to travel halfway across the universe to experience adventure (though she did travel across the country in The Moon By Night). She experienced all the struggles of growing up--sibling rivalry, first lust and/or love, grief, death, finding one's own faiths and beliefs. While the socially awkward sci fi nerd in me has to love Meg Murray just a little bit more than any other fictional character, I have to say that I'm impressed (and insanely jealous) at how genuine and believable of a character Vicky Austin is. L'Engle had a way of honestly expressing herself through her characters that made them live.
The other members of the Austin family were also believable and interesting. What I also appreciated was how different characters (like Canon Tallis, Adam Eddington, and the darkly intriguing Zachary Gray--read L'Engle books if you want to know more about them) would appear in stories about the Murray family and in stories about the Austin Family. It's like when you're talking to a friend and suddenly that friend mentions another one of your friends, and you didn't even realize those two people knew each other.
If you've never read anything by Madeleine L'Engle, or if you have only read the obligatory A Wrinkle in Time, I strongly recommend the Austin Family books (starting, oddly enough, with Meet the Austins). And while you're at it, make sure you've read the rest of the Time Quartet. They're pretty much amazing.
Showing posts with label A Wrinkle in Time. Show all posts
Showing posts with label A Wrinkle in Time. Show all posts
Friday, July 8, 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Film Adapations of Books
I saw The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader for the second time today. I hadn't seen it since the day it came out in theaters. I only saw it today because they were showing it for free at the local theater as part of their free "Summer Kid's Movie Series" program, which is an ingenious way the local movie theater can make a lot of money by selling overpriced popcorn and soda. I felt silly coming to a "kids' movie" without any kids, and since kidnapping is still illegal, I tagged along with the family I nanny for...on my day off.
Now, I've already written a blog about my thoughts on the third Narnia movie, and I really don't want to go into it again. But the movie made me think about how some film adaptations of books are really well done, and how some of them really stink.
Some people confuse me for one of those people who expect film adaptations to be almost identical to the book. This just isn't the case. I took a class called Lit and Film in college, which was one of the most interesting classes I've ever had. And I agree with what the professor said--that a good film adaptation is one that properly captures the essence of a book. That doesn't mean a good film adaptation has to cover every intricate detail of a book in exactly the same way the book handled it. Sometimes things have to be changed for time (a 500 page book doesn't always fit well into a 90 minute movie) or because what works in print might not work well on screen. I know some people who like to nitpick over minor details that don't change the basic themes of the story. I'm not one of those people.
I am, however, one of those people who will get upset if I think a film did a bad job of translating a book on screen--particularly if I LOVED the book. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader wasn't horrible, but I do have some major problems with it because I think the filmmakers missed the point of the book (FYI, I LOVED the book).
There are a lot of film adaptations that I really don't like because I feel that the filmmakers didn't really grasp the main themes of the books they were trying to adapt. At the top of this list is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the third one). Not only did the filmmakers try to cram the theme of "time" into the movie, when the book really didn't have that overarching theme, but they left out all sorts of important themes and details that made the story understandable. If I hadn't read the book and were just relying on the film, I'd have no idea what was going on. And this was a common complaint I heard from people who hadn't read the book. They didn't understand the movie.
A Wrinkle in Time is another film adaptation that leaves a lot to be desired. It was a made for tv movie, but that doesn't give it the right to suck as much as it did. The movie got several small details wrong--which might have been redeemable if they had been done well. But almost nothing about this movie was done well. The vast majority of the actors were miscast (so even the good actors like Alfre Woodard gave dreadful performances). The writing was choppy and incoherent. It makes me a little angry because A Wrinkle in Time is my favorite book, but the film version made it look dreadful. So all of those people who like to see the movie first to see if they might like the book are now under the impression that it's a dreadful book. If you're one of these people, I urge you to go read the book. I promise it is SO much better than the movie. I'm hoping that eventually someone picks up the whole Time Quartet series and does some major motion pictures that don't stink. I do have to say, the music wasn't bad. And the kid they got to play Charles Wallace was cute. And Mrs Who was actually pretty likable. Other than that...meh. I've also heard that the Disney made-for-tv version of A Ring of Endless Light (another Madeleine L'Engle book) was also dreadful. Maybe I'll see it for myself one day.
I don't want to spend much more time griping about film adaptations I don't like, but here is a list of others that really bother me (I still might watch these movies from time to time, as I often still watch A Wrinkle in Time, if only because I like to relive parts of the story when I don't have time to read the book):
Tuck Everlasting
The Black Cauldron
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the 2005 movie version--which was not redeemable even with Zooey Deschanel as Trillian AND Alan Rickman as Marvin. The cheesy 1980 BBC version, however, is epic!)
Twilight
First Knight
The Little Mermaid (Okay, I like the songs. And Sebastian. But Disney turned the self-sacrificing (and unnamed) Hans Christian Anderson protagonist into a selfish spoiled brat named Ariel)
Eragon
The Flight of Dragons (based off the book The Dragon and the George)
There are a lot of film adaptations of books that I really don't like, but there are probably a lot more that I do like. The Princess Bride is my favorite film, and it's one of my favorite books. I think one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of both the film and the book is that William Goldman wrote both of them (the book and the screenplay). Not every detail was the same. There were lots of omissions and changes in the film version, but the film was a hilarious and touching story that paid true homage to the book.
Some of the film adaptations I like are very different from the books, but they're still enjoyable AND they retain the basic thematic essences of the books. Pollyanna is one of these. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (in case you're confused, I mean the Gene Wilder one) is another. I do like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the Johnny Depp version), and it IS closer to the book thanthe Gene Wilder version "Willy Wonka," but I don't like it as much. The Neverending Story is another film I love that doesn't follow the book very well, and it makes me sad that they tried to make it more like the book by making an absolutely horrendous sequel. And another sequel--which thankfully, I have not seen.
Here's a list of film adaptations I really like:
Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park: The Lost World
October Sky (based on a memior originally published as Rocket Boys--it's an anagram)
All of the Harry Potter films except for Prisoner of Azkaban (I just can't forgive it)
Ramona and Beezus (I would love to see more Ramona movies!)
The Hobbit (the Rankin Bass cartoon version, since the live action one hasn't come out yet)
The Return of the King (again, the Rankin Bass version)
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (the Peter Jackson ones)
The Bridge to Terebithia (both the 80s version and the more recent version of this)
Winnie the Pooh (even after Disney mutilated A. A. Milne, I still like it)
The Phantom Tollbooth
2001: A Space Odyssey (the book was written at the same time as the film, but I think it still counts)
The BBC versions of The Chronicles of Narnia (they only did up to the Silver Chair...which makes me sad)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
A Christmas Carol (while almost any version--including Mickey's Christmas Carol and Scrooged--is likable, my favorite version is the Patrick Stewart one)
10 Things I Hate About You (based on Taming of the Shrew. True story.)
Alice in Wonderland (again, pretty much any version of this would do--including the Johnny Depp version which was very unlike the original Lewis Caroll story. I like what they did with it)
Anne of Green Gables/Anne of Avonlea
Hook (which was based off Peter Pan, which was a book)
Matilda
Holes
The Little Prince
The Secret of NIMH (Based on the book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH--they changed a lot, but the movie was still amazing!)
The Face on the Milk Carton (made for tv and really cheesy, but it's not too bad)
The Jungle Book
I'm sure I could name more, but...that would take longer than I want to spend on typing a blog.
There are rare occurrences when I actually prefer the film version of a story to the book. The Wizard of Oz is one of these. Perhaps if I had read the book before seeing the Judy Garland/Ray Bolger rainbow-riffic classic movie from 1939 (the same year my daddy was born--which makes me extra sentimental about it), I might feel differently. But I tried to read the book as a grown up. I found it dreadful and unimaginative. I get that it was a political commentary and all that, but that didn't increase my enjoyment of it. I much preferred the musical film version.
Another musical movie I preferred to the book was Phantom of the Opera. The book wasn't the worst thing I've ever read, but it couldn't compete with the haunting genius of Andrew Lloyd Weber.
I also preferred the happy ending Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame to Victor Hugo's classic where everybody dies (hopefully didn't ruin that for you). The incredible songs, again, didn't hurt either.
I have to admit I also liked the 90's version of The Three Musketeers way better than the book. Rebecca De Mornay. Keifer Sutherland. Chris O'Donnell. Tim Curry. Oliver Platt. Oh, and Charlie Sheen LONG BEFORE he went crazy. Ah, what a great flick! I had a cassette tape of the song "All For Love." Yep. I was awesome.
Right now I'm anxiously awaiting a couple of film adaptations. I've read that they're probably going to do "Magician's Nephew" (Chronicles of Narnia) before "Silver Chair" (and that "MN" isn't coming out until 2014). So I'm not holding my breath for those. I wouldn't be surprised if they got dumped. Which is sad. But after seeing what they did with "Dawn Treader," I'm not sure I want them messing with Puddleglum.
But I'm getting a little excited (along with a lot of people) about The Hunger Games, which is set to come out in March of next year. I'm thinking that The Hunger Games is the new Harry Potter, at least in terms of waiting for the next movie to come out. Oh...and I'm waiting for the final HP movie, too...but it will be here VERY soon!
Other books I'd love to see made into good major motion pictures are:
A Wrinkle in Time and the other books in the Time Quartet (as I said before)
A Ring of Endless Light and the other Austin Family books by Madeleine L'Engle (actually starting with Meet the Austins)
The Chronicles of Prydain (The Black Cauldron was based on the first two books, but it fell sadly, sadly short. I would love to see the whole series done in epic live action LOTR style.)
The Bunnicula Series
The Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis
Again, there are probably others, but this blog is long enough.
How about you? Are there film adaptations you LOVE? Are there film adaptations you HATE? Are there movies you like better than the books? Are there any books/series you would LOVE to see made into movies?
Now, I've already written a blog about my thoughts on the third Narnia movie, and I really don't want to go into it again. But the movie made me think about how some film adaptations of books are really well done, and how some of them really stink.
Some people confuse me for one of those people who expect film adaptations to be almost identical to the book. This just isn't the case. I took a class called Lit and Film in college, which was one of the most interesting classes I've ever had. And I agree with what the professor said--that a good film adaptation is one that properly captures the essence of a book. That doesn't mean a good film adaptation has to cover every intricate detail of a book in exactly the same way the book handled it. Sometimes things have to be changed for time (a 500 page book doesn't always fit well into a 90 minute movie) or because what works in print might not work well on screen. I know some people who like to nitpick over minor details that don't change the basic themes of the story. I'm not one of those people.
I am, however, one of those people who will get upset if I think a film did a bad job of translating a book on screen--particularly if I LOVED the book. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader wasn't horrible, but I do have some major problems with it because I think the filmmakers missed the point of the book (FYI, I LOVED the book).
There are a lot of film adaptations that I really don't like because I feel that the filmmakers didn't really grasp the main themes of the books they were trying to adapt. At the top of this list is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the third one). Not only did the filmmakers try to cram the theme of "time" into the movie, when the book really didn't have that overarching theme, but they left out all sorts of important themes and details that made the story understandable. If I hadn't read the book and were just relying on the film, I'd have no idea what was going on. And this was a common complaint I heard from people who hadn't read the book. They didn't understand the movie.
A Wrinkle in Time is another film adaptation that leaves a lot to be desired. It was a made for tv movie, but that doesn't give it the right to suck as much as it did. The movie got several small details wrong--which might have been redeemable if they had been done well. But almost nothing about this movie was done well. The vast majority of the actors were miscast (so even the good actors like Alfre Woodard gave dreadful performances). The writing was choppy and incoherent. It makes me a little angry because A Wrinkle in Time is my favorite book, but the film version made it look dreadful. So all of those people who like to see the movie first to see if they might like the book are now under the impression that it's a dreadful book. If you're one of these people, I urge you to go read the book. I promise it is SO much better than the movie. I'm hoping that eventually someone picks up the whole Time Quartet series and does some major motion pictures that don't stink. I do have to say, the music wasn't bad. And the kid they got to play Charles Wallace was cute. And Mrs Who was actually pretty likable. Other than that...meh. I've also heard that the Disney made-for-tv version of A Ring of Endless Light (another Madeleine L'Engle book) was also dreadful. Maybe I'll see it for myself one day.
I don't want to spend much more time griping about film adaptations I don't like, but here is a list of others that really bother me (I still might watch these movies from time to time, as I often still watch A Wrinkle in Time, if only because I like to relive parts of the story when I don't have time to read the book):
Tuck Everlasting
The Black Cauldron
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the 2005 movie version--which was not redeemable even with Zooey Deschanel as Trillian AND Alan Rickman as Marvin. The cheesy 1980 BBC version, however, is epic!)
Twilight
First Knight
The Little Mermaid (Okay, I like the songs. And Sebastian. But Disney turned the self-sacrificing (and unnamed) Hans Christian Anderson protagonist into a selfish spoiled brat named Ariel)
Eragon
The Flight of Dragons (based off the book The Dragon and the George)
There are a lot of film adaptations of books that I really don't like, but there are probably a lot more that I do like. The Princess Bride is my favorite film, and it's one of my favorite books. I think one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of both the film and the book is that William Goldman wrote both of them (the book and the screenplay). Not every detail was the same. There were lots of omissions and changes in the film version, but the film was a hilarious and touching story that paid true homage to the book.
Some of the film adaptations I like are very different from the books, but they're still enjoyable AND they retain the basic thematic essences of the books. Pollyanna is one of these. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (in case you're confused, I mean the Gene Wilder one) is another. I do like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the Johnny Depp version), and it IS closer to the book than
Here's a list of film adaptations I really like:
Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park: The Lost World
October Sky (based on a memior originally published as Rocket Boys--it's an anagram)
All of the Harry Potter films except for Prisoner of Azkaban (I just can't forgive it)
Ramona and Beezus (I would love to see more Ramona movies!)
The Hobbit (the Rankin Bass cartoon version, since the live action one hasn't come out yet)
The Return of the King (again, the Rankin Bass version)
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (the Peter Jackson ones)
The Bridge to Terebithia (both the 80s version and the more recent version of this)
Winnie the Pooh (even after Disney mutilated A. A. Milne, I still like it)
The Phantom Tollbooth
2001: A Space Odyssey (the book was written at the same time as the film, but I think it still counts)
The BBC versions of The Chronicles of Narnia (they only did up to the Silver Chair...which makes me sad)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
A Christmas Carol (while almost any version--including Mickey's Christmas Carol and Scrooged--is likable, my favorite version is the Patrick Stewart one)
10 Things I Hate About You (based on Taming of the Shrew. True story.)
Alice in Wonderland (again, pretty much any version of this would do--including the Johnny Depp version which was very unlike the original Lewis Caroll story. I like what they did with it)
Anne of Green Gables/Anne of Avonlea
Hook (which was based off Peter Pan, which was a book)
Matilda
Holes
The Little Prince
The Secret of NIMH (Based on the book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH--they changed a lot, but the movie was still amazing!)
The Face on the Milk Carton (made for tv and really cheesy, but it's not too bad)
The Jungle Book
I'm sure I could name more, but...that would take longer than I want to spend on typing a blog.
There are rare occurrences when I actually prefer the film version of a story to the book. The Wizard of Oz is one of these. Perhaps if I had read the book before seeing the Judy Garland/Ray Bolger rainbow-riffic classic movie from 1939 (the same year my daddy was born--which makes me extra sentimental about it), I might feel differently. But I tried to read the book as a grown up. I found it dreadful and unimaginative. I get that it was a political commentary and all that, but that didn't increase my enjoyment of it. I much preferred the musical film version.
Another musical movie I preferred to the book was Phantom of the Opera. The book wasn't the worst thing I've ever read, but it couldn't compete with the haunting genius of Andrew Lloyd Weber.
I also preferred the happy ending Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame to Victor Hugo's classic where everybody dies (hopefully didn't ruin that for you). The incredible songs, again, didn't hurt either.
I have to admit I also liked the 90's version of The Three Musketeers way better than the book. Rebecca De Mornay. Keifer Sutherland. Chris O'Donnell. Tim Curry. Oliver Platt. Oh, and Charlie Sheen LONG BEFORE he went crazy. Ah, what a great flick! I had a cassette tape of the song "All For Love." Yep. I was awesome.
Right now I'm anxiously awaiting a couple of film adaptations. I've read that they're probably going to do "Magician's Nephew" (Chronicles of Narnia) before "Silver Chair" (and that "MN" isn't coming out until 2014). So I'm not holding my breath for those. I wouldn't be surprised if they got dumped. Which is sad. But after seeing what they did with "Dawn Treader," I'm not sure I want them messing with Puddleglum.
But I'm getting a little excited (along with a lot of people) about The Hunger Games, which is set to come out in March of next year. I'm thinking that The Hunger Games is the new Harry Potter, at least in terms of waiting for the next movie to come out. Oh...and I'm waiting for the final HP movie, too...but it will be here VERY soon!
Other books I'd love to see made into good major motion pictures are:
A Wrinkle in Time and the other books in the Time Quartet (as I said before)
A Ring of Endless Light and the other Austin Family books by Madeleine L'Engle (actually starting with Meet the Austins)
The Chronicles of Prydain (The Black Cauldron was based on the first two books, but it fell sadly, sadly short. I would love to see the whole series done in epic live action LOTR style.)
The Bunnicula Series
The Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis
Again, there are probably others, but this blog is long enough.
How about you? Are there film adaptations you LOVE? Are there film adaptations you HATE? Are there movies you like better than the books? Are there any books/series you would LOVE to see made into movies?
Friday, April 15, 2011
Fiction Friday: My Favorite Fictional Character Of All Time Ever
I had planned on blogging something about The Hunger Games today, but I've decided not to do so at this point. Apparently, I've been living under a rock for the past few years and did not realize that such literary awesomeness existed. Now that I've joined the rest of the cool readers and discovered this amazing book series, I'm anxiously (very anxiously) awaiting the next book in the series to be available at the library. With that being said, 1) all the cool readers have already read all three books and have already posted their thoughts/feelings about said three books 2) I'd like to have read the whole series before writing anything about it. So right now, I'm just going to say that the first book in the series, The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, absolutely blew my mind. I can't wait to read what happens, but I'm going to have to wait, so I guess that technically, I CAN wait.
Moving on now.
I've had the same favorite fictional character since I was in elementary school. Her name is Meg Murray, and if you haven't been introduced to her, then you're missing out on something amazing. The first appearance of this extraordinary person can be found in my favorite fictional book, A Wrinkle in Time by one of my favorite authors (I can't decide if I like her or C. S. Lewis better--all right, we'll call it a draw!), Madeleine L'Engle.
A little side note here, just so everyone is aware. If you've seen the movie/miniseries of A Wrinkle in Time that Disney put out a few years ago, please don't judge a book by its movie. While I acknowledge that a lot of time and effort went into that movie, I have to say that it basically stunk. I have it on dvd because my father bought it for me one Christmas, and I'll watch it occasionally because I like the music and because I want to relive parts of the story without taking the time to reread the book (although it would only take a few hours). But please, if you have seen the movie and think it's horrible (because, well, it is), don't let that fool you. The book is simply amazing.
Okay, moving on again.
What exactly is it that makes Meg Murray so extraordinary? I think it's the fact that she isn't all that extraordinary. In fact, she would consider herself less than even ordinary. When Madeleine L'Engle first introduced Meg, she was a plain, self-conscious, unpopular, angry fourteen-year-old girl. She had above-average intelligence (especially in math and science), but didn't do well in school. Almost everyone misunderstood her, and she even misunderstood herself.
Basically, she was me (except I'm not that good in math and I actually did well in school--except for the math).
Meg also had a little brother who didn't speak very much outside the home. People picked on him and on Meg for having a strange younger brother. I have to say that I could also relate to this pretty well, having a younger brother with high-functioning autism. Today, autism is fairly well-known. The diagnosis of autism is getting scarily common, but back in the mid-to-late 80's when my brother received his diagnosis, it was still a disorder that many people had never even heard of. So people would ask me all the time what was wrong with my brother, and I had to try to explain it because no one knew what autism was. And while I don't think a lot people actually picked on me because of my brother, I think I thought they were picking on me because I was a defensive, angry, overly-protective-of-my-little-brother kid--a lot like Meg Murray.
As I said in an earlier blog, there are many different reasons why people relate to characters. Sometimes I don't understand why a character acts or thinks certain ways, and I find their behavior intriguing. With Meg, it's not like that. I do find her behavior intriguing, but that's because I understand her very well and think I would do things in the same ways.
Meg is called to do things that she thinks are beyond her capability to do. She doesn't do them without first throwing some literal tantrums, which I have been known to do even in adulthood. All of her emotions are on the surface, especially the negative ones.
But then she accepts her tasks with grace, she does what she has been given to do, and she succeeds.
The most interesting thing about Meg's accomplishments is that she didn't have to change in order to do them. She did have to change her attitude, but she herself didn't have to change. The guides on her journey told her to keep her faults, even to stay angry. This was something that I didn't fully grasp until I was probably almost an adult.
For years I didn't like who I was. While I was NEVER a conformist, I know there were so many parts of myself I didn't like and wanted to change. I wasn't as pretty or popular as I wanted to be. I wasn't a people person. I wasn't a natural leader. And I used to think that I was basically useless because I had all these things I didn't like about myself. I didn't think God could ever use someone like me.
I haven't really changed that much (I mean, I do consider myself pretty, but that's the vanity talking). I'm still shy. I'm still not a natural leader. In fact, sometimes it's still a struggle to leave the apartment in the morning--because I know I'll have to deal with people. But Meg is still with me. I still see the person who was scared and angry, hurting and flawed.
Madeleine L'Engle weaved a powerful story through Meg. Meg's flaws didn't change; God used her anyway. My current "life verse" from the Bible (that's always subject to change as stages in life are subject to change) is 1 Corinthians 1:27. "For God has chosen the foolish things of this world to shame the wise; God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the strong." L'Engle used this verse in the story to encourage Meg. It also encourages me.
I'm not strong. I'm not wise. I'm nothing more than a weak fool that God has chosen to use anyway. A lot of people say we're supposed to believe in ourselves. I can't believe in myself. There's not much there to believe in. My worth is in Christ; my hope is in the Lord. That's what I believe in. When I look at Meg, I see someone who shines like the stars because of who she is in Jesus, even if L'Engle doesn't come right out and say Meg is a Christian. It's implied.
In other stories in the series (and even in other stories L'Engle wrote that aren't directly connected to the "Time Quartet"), we see Meg grow and change. She gets married and has kids of her own. She still has some insecurities, but there's so much she accomplishes, so many people she helps. And she started out as an awkward, self-conscious nobody.
God is in the business of using the weak and the foolish. There's hope for all of us yet.
Moving on now.
I've had the same favorite fictional character since I was in elementary school. Her name is Meg Murray, and if you haven't been introduced to her, then you're missing out on something amazing. The first appearance of this extraordinary person can be found in my favorite fictional book, A Wrinkle in Time by one of my favorite authors (I can't decide if I like her or C. S. Lewis better--all right, we'll call it a draw!), Madeleine L'Engle.
A little side note here, just so everyone is aware. If you've seen the movie/miniseries of A Wrinkle in Time that Disney put out a few years ago, please don't judge a book by its movie. While I acknowledge that a lot of time and effort went into that movie, I have to say that it basically stunk. I have it on dvd because my father bought it for me one Christmas, and I'll watch it occasionally because I like the music and because I want to relive parts of the story without taking the time to reread the book (although it would only take a few hours). But please, if you have seen the movie and think it's horrible (because, well, it is), don't let that fool you. The book is simply amazing.
Okay, moving on again.
What exactly is it that makes Meg Murray so extraordinary? I think it's the fact that she isn't all that extraordinary. In fact, she would consider herself less than even ordinary. When Madeleine L'Engle first introduced Meg, she was a plain, self-conscious, unpopular, angry fourteen-year-old girl. She had above-average intelligence (especially in math and science), but didn't do well in school. Almost everyone misunderstood her, and she even misunderstood herself.
Basically, she was me (except I'm not that good in math and I actually did well in school--except for the math).
Meg also had a little brother who didn't speak very much outside the home. People picked on him and on Meg for having a strange younger brother. I have to say that I could also relate to this pretty well, having a younger brother with high-functioning autism. Today, autism is fairly well-known. The diagnosis of autism is getting scarily common, but back in the mid-to-late 80's when my brother received his diagnosis, it was still a disorder that many people had never even heard of. So people would ask me all the time what was wrong with my brother, and I had to try to explain it because no one knew what autism was. And while I don't think a lot people actually picked on me because of my brother, I think I thought they were picking on me because I was a defensive, angry, overly-protective-of-my-little-brother kid--a lot like Meg Murray.
As I said in an earlier blog, there are many different reasons why people relate to characters. Sometimes I don't understand why a character acts or thinks certain ways, and I find their behavior intriguing. With Meg, it's not like that. I do find her behavior intriguing, but that's because I understand her very well and think I would do things in the same ways.
Meg is called to do things that she thinks are beyond her capability to do. She doesn't do them without first throwing some literal tantrums, which I have been known to do even in adulthood. All of her emotions are on the surface, especially the negative ones.
But then she accepts her tasks with grace, she does what she has been given to do, and she succeeds.
The most interesting thing about Meg's accomplishments is that she didn't have to change in order to do them. She did have to change her attitude, but she herself didn't have to change. The guides on her journey told her to keep her faults, even to stay angry. This was something that I didn't fully grasp until I was probably almost an adult.
For years I didn't like who I was. While I was NEVER a conformist, I know there were so many parts of myself I didn't like and wanted to change. I wasn't as pretty or popular as I wanted to be. I wasn't a people person. I wasn't a natural leader. And I used to think that I was basically useless because I had all these things I didn't like about myself. I didn't think God could ever use someone like me.
I haven't really changed that much (I mean, I do consider myself pretty, but that's the vanity talking). I'm still shy. I'm still not a natural leader. In fact, sometimes it's still a struggle to leave the apartment in the morning--because I know I'll have to deal with people. But Meg is still with me. I still see the person who was scared and angry, hurting and flawed.
Madeleine L'Engle weaved a powerful story through Meg. Meg's flaws didn't change; God used her anyway. My current "life verse" from the Bible (that's always subject to change as stages in life are subject to change) is 1 Corinthians 1:27. "For God has chosen the foolish things of this world to shame the wise; God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the strong." L'Engle used this verse in the story to encourage Meg. It also encourages me.
I'm not strong. I'm not wise. I'm nothing more than a weak fool that God has chosen to use anyway. A lot of people say we're supposed to believe in ourselves. I can't believe in myself. There's not much there to believe in. My worth is in Christ; my hope is in the Lord. That's what I believe in. When I look at Meg, I see someone who shines like the stars because of who she is in Jesus, even if L'Engle doesn't come right out and say Meg is a Christian. It's implied.
In other stories in the series (and even in other stories L'Engle wrote that aren't directly connected to the "Time Quartet"), we see Meg grow and change. She gets married and has kids of her own. She still has some insecurities, but there's so much she accomplishes, so many people she helps. And she started out as an awkward, self-conscious nobody.
God is in the business of using the weak and the foolish. There's hope for all of us yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)