Scan barcode
glecharles's review against another edition
adventurous
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.5
I didn't read the original novel until I was an adult, shortly before I saw the movie, which I liked better but can't remember why. Larson's adaptation is solid, but still didn't make me like the original story nor any of its main characters.
jesssicawho's review against another edition
adventurous
hopeful
inspiring
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
The dialogue is dated but the artist did an imaginative job of bringing sci fi concepts to life.
shadowmage196's review against another edition
adventurous
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
votesforwomen's review against another edition
5.0
Love this. Captured the spirit of the original perfectly whilst making it fresh. <3
b0hemian_graham's review against another edition
4.0
the actual novel is better, but not a bad adaptation. would have liked more colour
marieintheraw's review against another edition
3.0
I'm not sure I'd have been a big fan of A Wrinkle in Time the regular book. Hm.
historybowler's review against another edition
3.0
I know now that I should have read the source material before reading the graphic novel adaptation. I have tried to read the original novel before, but I just couldn't do it. I thought this might be my gateway to this series. I have liked Hope Larson's books in the past, so it seemed like a natural fit. All of this prelude is trying to give context to my review.
I feel like at times, the selected art style doesn't feel right. For example, if you have a villain with red eyes, why not depict that? Sure, that does go against the blue/black art style, but that would just make the red really pop out. I also felt at times that the story would jump from point to point and leave me as well as Meg utterly confused (although this could be my fault entirely since I have read the source material). I can't quite explain this feeling but it feels like modernizing the story in this way makes it feel more dated.
On the positive side, the three main characters do feel strongly developed. I can see why a lot of readers empathize with and love Meg because she feels so real. She is allowed to be stubborn and bratty but also sympathetic and wise because real kids can be this juxtaposition of feelings. You can feel the pain that Calvin has from his home life and why he would be attracted to Meg's family. Arguably the weakest character is Charles Wallace, but that is for two reasons. The first one is that he is supposed to be an enigma that Meg and Calvin can't figure out. The second one is that we really only get half of the book with the real Charles Wallace. Despite this, I think the reader understands a lot of who Charles Wallace is, despite the air of mystery that surrounds him.
To end this longwinded review, while I appreciate the attempt to make it into a graphic novel, I don't think it was that successful. However, I think what makes the story so great is still apparent in this version.
I feel like at times, the selected art style doesn't feel right. For example, if you have a villain with red eyes, why not depict that? Sure, that does go against the blue/black art style, but that would just make the red really pop out. I also felt at times that the story would jump from point to point and leave me as well as Meg utterly confused (although this could be my fault entirely since I have read the source material). I can't quite explain this feeling but it feels like modernizing the story in this way makes it feel more dated.
On the positive side, the three main characters do feel strongly developed. I can see why a lot of readers empathize with and love Meg because she feels so real. She is allowed to be stubborn and bratty but also sympathetic and wise because real kids can be this juxtaposition of feelings. You can feel the pain that Calvin has from his home life and why he would be attracted to Meg's family. Arguably the weakest character is Charles Wallace, but that is for two reasons. The first one is that he is supposed to be an enigma that Meg and Calvin can't figure out. The second one is that we really only get half of the book with the real Charles Wallace. Despite this, I think the reader understands a lot of who Charles Wallace is, despite the air of mystery that surrounds him.
To end this longwinded review, while I appreciate the attempt to make it into a graphic novel, I don't think it was that successful. However, I think what makes the story so great is still apparent in this version.
geekwayne's review against another edition
3.0
My online book club is reading this novel for the month of February, and since I've read the book before, I thought I would read the graphic novel version.
It's a pretty decent adaptation. The art could use a bit more color, in my opinion. Everything is in a 2-tone ink style, and it would have been a bit nicer with some more color, or even some color accents.
The characters and dialogue stay true to the original source. The book is always better, and that is true here too.
It's a pretty decent adaptation. The art could use a bit more color, in my opinion. Everything is in a 2-tone ink style, and it would have been a bit nicer with some more color, or even some color accents.
The characters and dialogue stay true to the original source. The book is always better, and that is true here too.