A New 'Wrinkle in Time': never-before-seen passage sheds light on author's political philosophy
Books
A New Wrinkle in Time
Madeleine LEngles A Wrinkle in Time has sold 14 million copies since its publication in 1962. Now, a never-before-seen passage cut from an early draft is shedding surprising light on the authors political philosophy
By Jennifer Maloney
Updated April 16, 2015 10:45 p.m. ET
68 COMMENTS
Madeleine LEngle, the author of A Wrinkle in Time, resisted labels. Her books werent for children, she said. They were for people. Devoted to religious study, she bristled when called a Christian writer. And though some of her books had political themes, she wasnt known to write overtly about politics. That is, until her granddaughter, Charlotte Jones Voiklis, came across an unknown three-page passage that was cut before publication.
The passage, which Ms. Voiklis shared with The Wall Street Journal so it could be published for the first time, sheds new light on one of the most beloved and best-selling young-adult books in American literature. Published in 1962, A Wrinkle in Time has sold 14 million copies and inspired a TV-movie adaptation, a graphic novel, and an opera. Meg Murry, the novels strong-willed misfit heroine, has been a role model for generations of children, especially girls. Now, Jennifer Lee, the co-writer and co-director of the Oscar-winning animated film, Frozen, is writing a film adaptation for Disney.
<snip>
In it, Meg has just made a narrow escape from Camazotz. As Megs father massages her limbs, which are frozen from a jarring trip through space and time, she asks: But Father, how did the Black Thinghow did it capture Camazotz? Her father proceeds to lay out the political philosophy behind the book in much starker terms than are apparent in the final version.
He says that yes, totalitarianism can lead to this kind of evil. (The author calls out examples by name, including Hitler, Mussolini and Khrushchev.) But it can also happen in a democracy that places too much value on security, Mr. Murry says. Security is a most seductive thing, he tells his daughter. Ive come to the conclusion that its the greatest evil there is.
<snip>
The WSJ article isn't paywalled, and includes a short video discussion.
The new passage is at http://graphics.wsj.com/documents/doc-cloud-embedder/?sidebar=1#1881486-a-wrinkle-in-time-excerpt
or as pdf at https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1881486/a-wrinkle-in-time-excerpt.pdf
kairos12
(12,875 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)though it were some big insight into the book?
"hey proles; the liberal l'engle agrees with conservatives: security is bad for y'all."
"This sick longing for security is a dangerous thing...as insidious as the strontium 90 from our nuclear explosions...."
http://graphics.wsj.com/documents/doc-cloud-embedder/?sidebar=1#1881486-a-wrinkle-in-time-excerpt
that's a bit incoherent...
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)The Security State is can be a creature of either the nominal left or the nominal right.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)"security" is an insidious word with a meaning that oozes.
"security state" has connotations different from "social security" for example.
Depending on what side of the aisle you're on.
The problem is, that if you're into "homeland security" and "security from being hurt" you wind up in a police state. The government has to have broad, far-reaching powers to make sure that all threats are countered. In reducing risks, they reduce liberties.
If you're into economic security, you also wind up with a government with broad, far-reaching powers to make sure that all economic threats are countered and that equality is fairly well ensured. Make too much? Don't report everything? Parts of the economy aren't functioning "properly", however inefficient, backwards, or just immature? In reducing risks, they reduce liberties.
It's not by accident these are the two poles that tend to have "political spectra" built around them. Are you an economic liberal or conservative? A social conservative or liberal? Both or neither?
To ensure a thorough-going economic security, though, a state usually has to have a fairly strong central security apparatus. One could argue (wrongly, I think) that the USSR started off with economic security as its goal and required increasing state security both for monitoring and trying to ensure economic equality as well as to fight back against those who really didn't want that level of economic flattening, esp. during really difficult economic times.
The truly restrictive state is one that can abide neither lapse in "security" for its people. The extreme at the other end is libertarianism. The anarchic state insists on absolute freedom in both regards (and tends to quickly lapse into a security state).
People that want an extreme typically only want extremes for as long as the extremes are unattainable and their views are, therefore, nothing more than a pull or tug in those directions. Some people like the extremes because they figure it gives their group power, and they're really into bullying, or because they can't accept that the historical pattern isn't just a possibility but an entailment.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)while the police state is being built up further, both at home and abroad.
they aren't coterminous. in either direction.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Edited to add--
This is a classic example of a psychological phenomenon called "priming." I guess it kind of shows where my head is at these days that I would leap to that specific meaning of the word "security."
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)whichever, that the wsj was who printed it is telling in itself
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Thanks for sharing this here.
The only one of hers I've read is called A Ring of Endless Light. About a girl and her dying grandfather. Very memorable & beautifully written.