Madeleine L'engle's Time Series

[englishnerd]

I was surprised to find there was no thread on Madeleine L'engle's "Time" Series. What does everyone (or anyone) think about a Wrinkle in Time and others as Fantasy and/or Children's Lit? Also, here's a point: Check out the connections between the "Teachers" of L'engle's books and the Wise/Wizard characters of other fantasy....

Be nice, this is my very first ever thread!

[cee2lee2]

Hi Englishnerd!

L'Engle is one of my all-time fav authors. And I especially like her Time series. One of the things I like about her works is the way her faith informs and forms the stories but is not preachy. I also like the way the different series are intertwined with crossovers by some of the characters.

[englishnerd]

Thanks for posting!

I agree about the intertwining of her faith. In some camps she is described as specifically christian, while many christians reject her fiction on the basis that it is too broad and "universalist". In some of her non-fiction, her personal faith is so intertwined with the language; her fiction and faith seem so inseperable. But in her fiction, I think some of her universalist elements take away from the strength of the story. What do you think?

[Fred Baggins]

I imensly enjoy her work, I like the fact that she intertwins her faith, but one thing that gets me peeved is that when she does put her faith in it she sometimes gets the facts wrong. does anyone else feel this way?

[cee2lee2]

FredB, I'm not sure I know what you mean by getting her facts wrong about her faith. Or do you mean that her faith colours the scientific facts she uses in her stories? If you mean the second, I'm not well-versed enough in the science to know when she messes things up.

Englishnerd, the faith element in her stories has always seemed to me like a natural part of the characters. She writes them the way they are and not as a means of expressing a particular form of Christian faith. (Although I do think it is her own form of faith which informs the characters.) Those who reject her fiction as being too universalistic, are asking her to do something against her artistic nature. I think I once read where she said even she is sometimes surprised about what a character will do or say or what circumstances will happen to them. Sometimes I think we Christians become very narrow (may I say judgmental?) in what we are willing to allow others to believe or express. And we use ourselves as the model of what it is to be Christian.

[englishnerd]

good point, cee2lee2. I've heard before that she names George MacDonald as the most influential author in her life, as does C.S. Lewis. While Lewis chose to follow the more allegorical aspect of MacDonald's work, L'engle seems to have just taken the principles of story and fairy-tale and developed them to a unique level. You're right there, I think that the story and the characters take precedent over the idea of "showing off" aspects of Christianity specifically. The characters reflect the truth she sees in life and in spirituality because that is L'engle's character.

FredB...Are you talking facts of faith or facts of scientific facts?
because I'm pretty sure there's "no such thing as a tesseract" :-)

[Fred Baggins]

Well, I am talking of facts of faith, because as much as I wish it, i know there is no such thing as a tesseract.

[cee2lee2]

FredB...what "facts of faith" do you see her getting wrong?

[Fred Baggins]

Well little things like in Many Waters. Things like many animals already being extinct, when the Bible says that two of EVERY creature entered the boat. Does that seem to picky to you?
And also I was slightly offended when she overplayed the role of the Sephilim and called them the brothers of the Nephilim, when the Bible doesn't even say anything about the Sephilim. Maybe I am over reacting, after all it is just a fantisy book.

[cee2lee2]

I see what you mean. Those sort of things don't bother me, but I'm not a very careful reader anyway and I would read right past them without taking notice. Different things are annoying to different people. I think it's one of those YMMV (your mileage may vary) things.

[Fred Baggins]

lol probably. I just tend to notice those kinda things, because I don't think my dad would be to happy about them, so I cheack out the facts.

[Lief Erikson]

You know what, I really don't mind those things that she adds in. I mean, I rather doubt that the Bible tells everything there is to tell about the spiritual realm, and we know that there's science we haven't discovered yet. Besides, I look upon them as an excellent fantasy series, and I don't mind the little twists of the fantastical that she adds in to bolster her running plot. I don't mind when she adds them in as themes either. I think her whole storytelling method is very artfully done, and I really like those of her books that I've read.

Another fascinating thing about the way she does her books is the manner in which one book might be directed toward one audience and another toward a different audience. I have read some of them and my sister has read several more, and so far we have the same favorites and the same difficulties with others. However, my sister has found out that several of her friends like those difficult ones the most, and different ones interest different people.

[englishnerd]

I agree, Lief...I think you can't take quirks like that so literally, it tends toward the rejecting of fiction because it includes traditionally pagan concepts of witches, wizards, magic, greek myth, and many others, while not looking at the themes and message of the work...Many people (there's even a thread on this) reject the Chronicles of Narnia and L'engle's work, and even Tolkien's work because of this. My mom picked up "a wind in the door" as her first experience with L'engle and was very unsure about the 'kything' thing...it sounded new age and like e.s.p.. I explained the significance of it as "communication through love", and she responded to it. In a way, Lewis, L'engle, Tolkien, MacDonald, and others have redeemed the realm of the magical and enchanted world. The medium of wonder is used to create stories that reflect good qualities instead of superstion and paganism.

sorry fredB....I haven't even read Many Waters yet, so I can't comment on that.

[Lief Erikson]

I have read "Many Waters," and I think it isn't any different than the other ones. Who is to say that there weren't Sephilim, and who is to say that there weren't some species extinct by that time? Every species could easily mean every existing species, it doesn't necessarily mean species that weren't there before (and if you believe in evolution) or after.

I don't think you'll find a single instance where Madeline L'engle contradicts the Bible. All she does is elaborate on it, and take fantastical and poetic liberty.

[englishnerd]

I'm not going to say M L'E never contradicts the bible, because I haven't read enough to totally support her. I have questions about her universalist tendencies, for one. But I do think that the themes and overall messages of her books are good, and reflect an honest view of the Bible. The details...well, in the same way, you could say to someone, "The Chronicles of Narnia are all about witches, magic, and talking beasts." If that were all the books included, it would be a problem. But the themes of 'Narnia' and the Time series are more than just magic, and more than just tossing around biblical and magical figures. It's about the story, and how the story itself points people to good. things like the Sephilim and kything are a means of representing concepts she wants to show, as in the kything as a symbol for "communication through love".

[Fred Baggins]

eep...I have to contradict myself! There where sephilim. But you see, the Bible is perfect the way it is. It needs no "elaborating" or "additions". Like I said, it's perfect. Adding to the Bible is a sin. It really is! I read that somewhere in the Bible, though I don't remember where now. Adding to, taking from, or anything along those lines is a sin.

[Lief Erikson]

Oh, come on Fred Baggins. Get off the high horse . Madeline L'Engle never added or took away anything from the Bible, she simply created parallels and used the same truths in a fantasy book! No one's saying that everything Madeline L'Engle relates in her books is either possible or true, but it's the themes and story that count. Otherwise, like Englishnerd said, you can say that Narnia is a book of the devil, and so is Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (And I think if you think that, you don't belong on this board ). Not that I'm accusing you of holding those opinions, I simply think that saying Madeline L'Engle is trying to add things to the Bible is wrong. She's upholding Biblical things.

The Bible is truth, and tainting that truth by altering the Bible is changing it to a lie. Using Biblical truth in a fantasy story is incorporating truth into make-believe. That is the difference between real occultic fiction books and other things. Occultic books can introduce evil themes, and that is what makes them wrong. Biblical based books can introduce good things to fantasy, and that's what can make them more right than normal books, not less.

[galadriel]

Er... do you guys mean "seraphim"?

The provision against changing the Bible can be found in Revelation, I think. It was a warning against "false prophets" and such who would twist Biblical ideas and create religious factions based on the ideas of men rather than God.

This is a lot different than writing a book that takes a biblical story and fills in the details. Many Waters is not pretending to be the truth. It is not advocating a religion of virtual unicorns and nephilim. It is, however, preserving the moral beliefs of the Bible and interweaving them into a meaningful story.

Just as Lief said, if you're going to accuse L'Engle of being sacrilegious, you can say the same for CS Lewis or even Tolkien, who also used Christian elements for the background of a make-believe story.

In retrospect, this sounds mean and preachy. I'm not trying to be mean! I'm just trying to state my opinion. It's nothing personal.

[Lief Erikson]

Er... do you guys mean "seraphim"?

Ahhh, perhaps I do . I haven't read the books in a while, and I don't remember the precise name of that specific spirit being.


Which was your favorite of Madeline L'Engle's books?

[englishnerd]

Hey Fred B., it's cool. L'engle's elaborations are not meant to be taken as part of scripture....even though they held Christian views, Lewis, Tolkien and L'engle would all have major problems with their work being viewed as an addition to scripture. perhaps an illumination to scripture would be more correct. think of those old manuscripts of bible texts that were "illuminated" or illustrated so painstakingly by hand. The pictures and designs werent' meant to add to the scripture's meaning, but merely to add a visual dimension of beauty to the beauty of its meaning.

I think my favorite book of all is still Wrinkle, although I did love A Wind in the Door's idea of "Naming" and think it is one of the most beautiful concepts ever articulated.