Scan barcode
A review by historybowler
A Wrinkle in Time: The Graphic Novel by Madeleine L'Engle
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.