The Evil Bad Brain That Didn’t Love
“It was a dark and stormy night.” (L’Engle, 3)
This cliché first line belies the
complexity of the novel, A Wrinkle in Time. Filled with beings from other planets, methods of
traveling that challenge physicists of even this age, and theories about life and freedom that
encapsulate the American thinking of centuries, this novel is a true classic. It depicts many
themes, and many interesting settings that amaze the imagination and challenge the intellect.
However, the most intriguing concept of all that A Wrinkle in Time conveys is the concept that
conformity attempts to overpower love and individuality, yet love and individuality are the sole
attributes of humanity that have the ability to overcome conformity. This concept is portrayed
through the depiction of the planet of Camazotz, and the progression of the main character’s
development before, during, and after her stay in Camazotz. Formalist critique, New Historical
critique, and Marxist critique show this theme through their individual analyses.
All three
critiques show that with individuality and love-not conformity-happiness can be achieved.
Formalist critique outlines the message that individuals believe that conformity helps
them lead easier happier lives; but in fact, conformity only decreases individuality and love, thus
reducing happiness. This critique also shows that love and individuality can help a person
overcome conformity. New Historical critique shows that the struggles that the children face on
Camazotz parallels the conflict between America and communist nations, such as the USSR in
the Cold War. This parallelism shows that conformity attempts to destroy humanity, and that
yet, individuality and love can overcome conformity. Marxist critique analyzes the effects of the
homogenous social class on Camazotz on the struggles of the children to find humanity and
individuality. The conformity of this social class threatens the humanity of the children, but
eventually individuality and love shine through to save them.
A Wrinkle in Time has a plot that has captured the attention of young children and
adolescents alike for decades. The story begins in American suburbia, with a teenage girl named
Meg, who is quite insecure with herself. She cannot fit in at school, or at home, and lacks
confidence because of it. Her father is away on a government mission, and only she and her
family retain the hope that he will return, even though he has already been away for many
months. She has two average twin brothers who fit into society, and one younger brother,
Charles Wallace, who is abnormally intelligent, although most of her town believes him to be a
dull, retarded child. One day, three old ladies that Charles Wallace has met whisk them off,
along with another boy from Meg’s school, Calvin O’Keefe, to different planets, using a method
of space/time travel referred to as a tesseract. After viewing a dark shadow that threatens to take
over the earth, the children are taken to the planet of Camazotz, where they must rescue Mr.
Murry, Meg’s and Charles Wallace’s father. The people on Camazotz are controlled by a giant
brain, IT. The children manage to save Mr. Murry, but in the process, Charles Wallace is taken
by IT. Mr. Murry tessers with Meg and Calvin to an unknown planet to save them, but
especially Meg, from IT. There, the three ladies make plans to send Meg back to Camazotz to
save Charles Wallace.
With her love for her brother, which overpowers IT’s attempts to
conform her as well, Meg manages to save Charles Wallace. This story is filled with elements of
physics, and allusions to religion, but more importantly, it shows how conformity attempts to
overpower love, but that in the end, love will destroy conformity and will allow individuality,
and thereby humanity, to exist.
Formalist critique, which analyzes a novel by the devices and diction within the novel
itself is an excellent critique to analyze this novel by. Through formalist critique, the message
that humans feel that conformity will make their lives easier, when it actually defeats their
humanity is expressed. Yet, the novel simultaneously shows that only love and individuality can
ever defeat conformity. This theme is shown through the portrayal of the planet of Camazotz as
an evil and controlled state.
From the beginning of the novel, it is evident that the main character, Meg Murry, feels
isolated and alone, due to the fact that she does not conform to society. Her peers and teachers at
school openly ridicule her for her ‘lack of abilities’ and her temper. She does poorly in school,
due to her sullen attitude, and this results in an even lower self-esteem. At this point in the
novel, L’Engle makes it clear that the main reason that Meg feels that life is unsatisfactory is that
she feels different. “ ‘I hate being an oddball.’ Meg said.” (L’Engle 12) With the insolent,
almost whiny tone that is very apparent in this statement of hers, Meg makes it clear that she
does not fit into society, and that she is upset about it. She constantly compares herself to others
over this fact as well. For example, she feels that her twin brothers have an easier time at school
and in life because they can conform.
The twins didn’t have any problems. They weren’t great students, but they
weren’t bad ones either. They were perfectly content with a succession of B’s
and an occasional A or C. They were strong and fast runners and good at games,
and when cracks were made about anybody in the Murry family, they weren’t
made about Sandy and Dennys. (L’Engle, 7)
Meg’s thoughts regarding her brothers prove that she wishes to be like them, conforming to the
average student, and completely unremarkable. She sees conformity as the ideal goal to bring
her happiness. Her tone is still bitter in this statement, as she still feels that she has it harder than
the rest of her family, because she cannot fit into society. However, Meg does not at this point
realize that her differences are what make her unique. If she did not stand apart from others, and
have an individual persona, her younger brother Charles Wallace might not be able to understand
her as well as he does. She might not have the familial attachment that she has to him, if she
were an ordinary conforming child.
She doesn’t understand yet that her natural abilities make
her unique and are what will make her happy in the end. At this point she does not realize the
connection between individuality and humanity that L’Engle is trying to portray to her readers.
However, Meg is not the only character to misguidedly feel that conformity makes life
easier on Earth.
Charles Wallace, the child prodigy of the family, and the most innately
nonconformist of all, feels the same way. He is considered by most of the town to be retarded;
yet he actually is very intelligent and capable of sensing feelings and thoughts in his family
members, but mainly Meg and his mother. At this point, he believes that he will be happier if
people keep thinking that he is beneath them intellectually. He believes that if he conforms to
their views, life would be easier for him. “ ‘I think it will be better if people go on thinking I’m
not very bright. They won’t hate me quite so much.’” (L’Engle 30) The tone here is still childlike, yet it shows his insight into human and societal fallacy. People only accept those who are
akin to them, or those who they can feel superior to. Meg faces this problem at school, and
Charles Wallace already faces this problem even through he has not attended school yet. Society
is prejudiced against him, considering him to be mentally retarded. Ironically, despite his young
age, he can recognize these faults of the human society that is composed of adults who are all far
older than him.
Calvin O’Keefe, the boy from Meg’s school who joins her and Charles Wallace
on their journey makes a similar decision about conforming to society. He acts like the average
popular student, who excels in sports, but is ordinary in every other aspect. He does not allow
his other talents, such as his exceptional abilities of communication, to show in front of most
people. “ ‘Sure, I can function on the same level as everybody else, I can hold myself down, but
it isn’t me.’” (L’Engle 44) This quotation encompasses another example of people feeling the
need to conform. Calvin chooses to forsake his own individuality, so that existence in normal
society will be easier. Yet, through his tone, it is evident that he dislikes it, and doesn’t enjoy it.
However, the truly ironic aspect about the entire situation is that individuals such as Calvin
dislike bringing themselves down to the level of society, and are thus bitter about it; and
individuals such as Meg refuse to conform, yet are still bitter. In both situations, the character or
individual does not realize that conformity is the real source of the problem, and not the solution.
In both situations, conformity reduces individuality and takes away happiness. This is a major
part of the theme of the novel. People believe that conforming will make their lives easier, and
in a way it does. However, conformity also takes away from the humanity of life, thus making
life more complicated and unhappy in the end. This is very evident as the novel progresses.
This same concept is made clear yet again in a conversation Meg has with her mother while the
children are still at home on Earth. Meg is talking to her mother about Charles Wallace, and it
becomes clear that she embraces the fact that he is different through her innate love for him.
‘Charles Wallace understands more than the rest of us, doesn’t he?’
‘Yes.’
‘Why?’
‘I suppose because he’s-well, because he’s different, Meg.’
‘Different how?’
‘I’m not quite sure. You know yourself he’s not like anybody else.’
‘No. And I wouldn’t want him to be,’ Meg said defensively. (L’Engle, 46)
This conversation proves that individuality is valued over conformity by those who love. Meg’s
defensive tone proves that her love for Charles Wallace, simply depicted by how she regards him
throughout the novel, makes her value his individuality. Love allows individuality to flourish
even though society might want people to conform. Thus, it becomes evident that there is an
innate connection between love and individuality and humanity. These three concepts are
interrelated and all contribute to human happiness.
After this point, the children travel with the aid of Mrs. Who, Mrs. Whatsit, and Mrs.
Which, the three old ladies who are friends of Charles Wallace, to the planet of Camazotz. This
name in itself is rather unique, and portrays insight to the role that this conformist planet plays in
the novel. In Mayan mythology, Camazotz was the name of a demon bat-god, who was one of
the gods of the underworld, “who killed dying men on their way to the center of the earth”.
(Benson, 7). As this quotation points out, Camazotz was responsible for killing men on their
journey to the Mayan underworld, or the center of the earth. This is similar to the situation the
children in A Wrinkle in Time face. They are traveling to their symbolic death, because societal
conformity on Earth itself is killing away their individuality, and thus their love of life and their
humanity. On Camazotz, the conformity is far more rigid than they had ever imagined possible.
Camazotz and the disembodied brain, IT, that controls everyone’s lives, attempt to kill
the last shreds of true humanity or individuality that the children possess. This is akin to
Camazotz, the bat god attempting to kill the dying men. They, the dying men and the children,
are already on their way to the underworld. For the dying men, it is literal. However, for the
children, it is very figurative.
They are walking into unknown territory, already feeling
oppressed by conformist society on their own planet. On Camazotz, IT attempts to control them.
However, the fact that they have some individuality left, allows them to keep away from IT for
the most part. Charles Wallace, however, feels the true effects of conformist society due to his
past history with conformity on Earth; by his own naiveté he becomes a victim to the power of
Camazotz. As a child, he was portrayed by society as inferior and retarded. However, he still
realizes that he has a superior intelligence. On Camazotz, when faced with the choice of whether
or not to join IT, he overestimates his intelligence. By being brought up with the idea that he had
to conform to the rest of society’s level, he felt that he could do the same thing on Camazotz,
with the same relatively positive consequences. On Earth, he could conform to the others, yet
still remain intellectually superior, and thus still feel relatively happy.
He felt that by
conforming to IT, he could easily save his father, and still maintain his individuality, and the
relative happiness that he experienced on Earth. However, the conformity that was imposed both
by himself and society upon himself on Earth led him to underestimate the power of IT’s
conformity. Again, he thought that conformity was the easy solution, and didn’t realize the
extent to which it was actually the problem. Charles Wallace thus naively decides to look into
the eyes of the man with the red eyes’ in order to understand the meaning of IT.
‘Listen,’ he said to Meg and Calvin. ‘I have to find out what he really is. You
know that. I’m going to try to hold back. I’m going to try to keep part of myself
out. You mustn’t stop me this time, Meg.’ (L’Engle, 130)
Charles Wallace thought that he could escape IT as easily as escaping earthen
conformity, which he did by returning home to his loving family after each encounter he had
with society. On Camazotz, therefore, he made the rash and misguided decision to conform with
IT in order to save his father. Charles Wallace did not take into account the fact that on Earth, he
had a loving home where he could turn away from the conformity and be himself. On Camazotz,
no such place existed. With no love in IT, where he had receded to, he had no anchor from
which he could safely let his individuality through. He was too far into IT by this time to even
turn to Meg and Calvin for help. As mentioned before, Camazotz, the bat god, always killed off
the dying men. IT, on Camazotz attempted to kill the children, but only really succeeded with
Charles Wallace. Camazotz as a bat god shows how dark the planet is. It sucks the life out of
individuals; just as the bat god kill dying men.
The theme that individuals conform to society to make their lives easier, but not
necessarily to make their lives happier is very evident at this point in the novel as well. Charles
Wallace, controlled by IT, is discussing whether or not people like to be different with Calvin
and Meg.
‘I’m different, and I’m happy,’ Calvin said.
‘But you pretend that you aren’t different.’
… ‘Maybe I don’t like being different,’ Meg said. ‘but I don’t want to be like
everybody else, either.’ (L’Engle, 141)
This could not make the message that people do not like to be subjected to conformity
any clearer. Meg states explicitly that she likes to be different, even though there are times when
she wishes that she were a little more like the rest of society. Thus, it is apparent that L’Engle
acknowledges that conformity can make life easier while still maintaining her view that
conformity does not make one happy.
The conformity that is imposed on the people of Camazotz is evidenced very well
through the description of the CENTRAL Central Intelligence Building. “ ‘Look.’ Meg pointed.
Ahead of them, across a square, was the largest building they had ever seen, higher than the
Empire State Building, and almost as long as it was high.” (L’Engle, 110) This description
shows just how large the power over the people by IT was. This building represents this power.
Its grandiose proportions represent the immense control and conformity that the inhabitants of
Camazotz are subjected to.
When facing IT for the first time, Meg sees the giant gruesome brain as horrible, and
feels like acting violently against it.
Meg had felt that when the day came she would never be able to endure it
[studying a human brain in biology class]. But now she thought that if only she
had a dissecting knife, she would slash at IT, cutting ruthlessly through cerebrum,
cerebellum. (L’Engle 161)
She felt some amount of love for the brain in her class, since she did not want to hurt it in any
way. She felt that she couldn’t ‘endure’ studying it, because the human brain was just that, a
symbol of humanity. No other brain in any other human would be alike. IT, however, was
inhuman. It simply pulsed, controlling the minds of all others, and killing humanity. This brain,
in her opinion, was the antithesis of humanity. She realized that this was the source of all of the
inhumanity on Camazotz, and that destroying it would not be killing a human being. She felt no
love towards this being. The fact that this is the symbol and center of conformity on Camazotz,
and that Meg cannot feel love towards it by any measure, simply proves the message of the novel
yet again. It proves that conformity cannot endure any feelings of love or humanity. Meg does
not have kind thoughts towards this being, showing that conformity cannot allow human
happiness. The fact that this large brain is called ‘IT’ also indicates something about its
dehumanizing effect. The conformity that it subjects to all around it is done without any remorse
or feeling. This brain is only a brain, it has intelligence, but it does not have emotion. The name
‘IT’ is very vague, and does not refer to anything in particular. This shows the blank nature of
the conformity that it subjects. The name is completely inhuman, and does not have any
individual characteristics. This portrays the level of inhumanity that it represents.
Of course, after all of this, Meg must still save her brother from the clutches of IT, and
save him from the overbearing conformity. As she sees Charles Wallace kneeling by the dais
that the brain was set on, she feels hatred towards this controlling being, IT. But then she
realizes, “Hate was nothing that IT didn’t have. IT knew all about hate.” (L’Engle 207) This is
where L’Engle almost literally equates conformity to hate. With this realization of Meg’s it
becomes clear that love cannot be bred by conformity, when conformity is in itself hate. The
true tenets of humanity seem to be individuality and love. Conformity prevents individuality,
and hate prevents love, and thus, neither can allow humanity to flourish.
With this realization comes the realization that love is indeed the opposite of hate, and
thus the opposite of conformity. By knowing this, Meg has found the ability to help her brother.
She realizes that love played a significant factor in her fight to save her ‘loved’ ones, all along.
When she saved her father, her love for him led her to be strong and overcome the agents of
conformity such as the Prime Coordinator, and Charles Wallace controlled by IT. Now, she
decides that “She could stand there and she could love Charles Wallace…Now she was even able
to look at him, at this animated thing that was not her own Charles Wallace at all. She was able
to look and love.” (L’Engle, 208) This quotation makes it quite evident that love is what saves
an individual from conformity, and brings his individuality-his humanity-out. It stops Charles
Wallace from being ‘an animated thing’ as L’Engle so aptly puts it. Meg finally sees the
individual within the controlled body of Charles Wallace, and loves him deeply. Her love brings
him out of his conformed state, and brings back the individuality that is essential to his humanity.
Thus, this release from conformity is what finally makes all of the characters happy.
When they arrive back on Earth, in the twins’ vegetable garden, they realize how special it is to
have a unique family, full of love. “…there was a tremendous happy jumble of arms and legs
and hugging…” (L’Engle 210) This captures the feeling of joy that all of the characters felt at
being safe from conformity and having their family back. Having their whole family back meant
that there was more love, which is of course, synonymous with happiness and humanity. Also,
the hug was described as a ‘happy jumble’. It wasn’t uniform, methodical, controlled; it was
simply a human show of happiness. Yet again, this show of love in such a uncontrolled manner
shows that love does indeed overcome conformity.
The family’s love here goes beyond
conformist cultural norms, and is simply a messy emotional gathering. The true human spirit of
love and individuality is shown here, in a raw and nonconformist manner.
This Formalist critique technique is very useful as a preliminary look into the author’s
views against conformity. Through her precise diction when describing Camazotz, and her
joyous passionate tone when describing love and individuality, the author shows the reader her
true feelings against conformity and in support of individuality, and thereby humanity. This
technique, due to its critical approach to specific aspects of a work, allows the reader to grasp
subtler meanings of L’Engle’s work in a far easier manner, than other critiques might.
However, New Historicism is another technique that successfully depicts this view of
L’Engle’s that conformity is the opposite of humanity, and that it can only be overcome by love.
This form of critique analyzes the historical setting of the novel, and the historical setting of the
author and how these concepts influence the work, and the meaning of the work. New Historical
critique is quite useful in furthering the message that conformity destroys love, and that yet only
love and individuality can overcome conformity. L’Engle’s view that conformity destroys love
and individuality, and that these concepts are the basis for humanity, stems deeply from the
sentiments and events of the Cold War era.
Madeleine L’Engle, as an author, is very concerned with representing the current
problems in society of her day in her works. “…L’Engle believes that she has a responsibility as
a writer to respond to problems in society and to deal with difficult matters…that publishers in
the fifties and sixties were slow to recognize as appropriate for young adults.” (Hettinga, 9) This
is a sentiment shared by many authors. However, the fact that L’Engle clearly feels this
responsibility supports the fact that her novel, A Wrinkle in Time, would specifically deal with
the problems with communist society of the time, as viewed by her. She seems to want to
project this concern about communism and its relation to conformity and dehumanization to
youth.
L’Engle, an American author, published A Wrinkle in Time in 1962. At this point in
history, American and the Soviet Union were in the throes of the Cold War. The Bay of Pigs
incident occurred in 1961 (Kort, 49), the same year that the Berlin War was erected. (Kort, 48)
America at this point was at a high level of tension regarding the affairs with the Soviet Union.
The same year that this book was published, the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred (Kort, 5).
Obviously, all of these issues crept their way into this novel. The conformity on Camazotz and
the control by an inhumane brain seems to mirror communism under a totalitarian leadership.
More specifically, “…A Wrinkle in Time examines the implications of social conformity … in a
totalitarian state…” (Hettinga, 9)
As William Blackburn states in his essay “Madeleine L’Engle’s A Wrinkle in Time:
Seeking the Original Face”: “Camazotz is…an early sixties American image of life in a
Communist state.” (qtd. in Nodelman, 128) This quotation depicts how many critics view
Camazotz to be representative of the average communist state. More specifically, during the
Cold War period, Camazotz seems to parallel the USSR and the nations that it influenced to be
communist. It forces conformity upon its citizens, and attempts to conform others as well.
In the book “Presenting Madeleine L’Engle”, the author remarks, “What is missing on
Camazotz is…love.” (Hettinga, 27) This is exactly true of American sentiment against the
communists during the Cold War.
The nation viewed those living under communism as
individuals who had no choice in anything that they did. In America, the founders of the nation
based their government on freedom of choice, both in choosing the leaders, and in spending their
wealth. Neither of these freedoms was granted to individuals in communist society. Americans
viewed communist lives as lacking individuality and love, and thus lacking humanity.
“Then the doors of all the houses opened simultaneously, and out came women like a row
of paper dolls. The print of their dresses was different, but they all gave the appearance of being
the same.” (L’Engle, 103) This particular quotation makes it unmistakably clear that the author
views all of these individuals as lacking just that, individuality. They are simply clones of each
other, to a frightening extent: they perform the same actions in sync throughout their entire lives.
However, L’Engle also seems to take pity on these individuals and their lack of individuality.
When one of the boys who live in one of these houses drops the ball that he was playing with,
Charles Wallace takes it back to the ‘mother’. She states, horrified, “ ‘Oh, no! The children in
our section never drop balls! They’re all perfectly trained. We haven’t had an Aberration in
years.’ “ (L’Engle 106) This statement itself is completely devoid of love for the boy. The
woman is horrified that anything nonconformist could happen, first of all, and second, she is
horrified that there could be an abnormality, but by far, the worst implication of this statement, is
that because of the brainwashed state that she is in, she is unable to feel love for the boy and
doesn’t care about him as an individual. Both of these quotations show that the value of the
individual is not there. All of the inhabitants seem far more preoccupied with the state that their
entire society is in. This is the way that Americans viewed communism also. They saw it as a
social system where the focus was on society, and society’s production, and the betterment of
society, rather than a social system where the individuals actually focus on their individual
needs.
This is evident, especially in the second quotation, where the woman is far more
concerned with the fact that her section would never have an abnormality, than acknowledging
the fact that she has a ‘son’ who is in fact an individual. This woman not acknowledging the
individuality of her ‘son’ shows how L’Engle disapproved of the dehumanizing nature of
communist society and ideals.
As William Blackburn states in his essay “Madeleine L’Engle’s A Wrinkle in Time:
Seeking the Original Face” “…IT, a disembodied brain, and all of whose inhabitants are
automata, cells in the body politic who live only to do IT’s will.” (qtd. in Nodelman, 124) The
political machine, which in this case is a pulsing brain, controls these individuals. It is evident
that this reflects L’Engle’s view on the subject as well. She seems to find people in communist
societies to be far too controlled, and lacking substance as individuals.
This is akin to
McCarthyism that was present in America in the years before this book was published. “One of
the sad ironies of the Cold War era was that while the United States was waging the Cold War
abroad to preserve its freedoms, it permitted fear and uncertainty to undermine those very
freedoms at home.”(Kort, 35) This quotation describes how freedoms were taken away from
American citizens and communist citizens alike during the Cold War.
This depicts the
conformity on Camazotz, but it also depicts Meg’s unhappiness with conformity in her home on
Earth. As expressed in the Formalist critique, Meg has problems with conformity and integration
into school and with her peers on Earth as well. She feels suffocated, but at that point, she does
not realize that by not conforming, she was actually doing herself a favor. In this quotation, it
presents this very fact. Even during the Cold War, America was fighting battles to prevent
communism abroad, yet didn’t realize that it was taking away rights from its citizens by
imposing strict regulations and checks to ensure that no one defected and supported communism.
L’Engle presents the message that conformity can be closer to one’s own life than they realize by
creating this parallel. Also, the fact that McCarthyism was a problem during the time that this
novel was written shows the parallel that both in American society at the time, and on Camazotz,
the government was far too concerned with how others would view it and its people. In
America, McCarthy and his supporters were afraid that the people within the nation were
Communist. On Camazotz, the fear was that its people were not ‘perfectly channeled’ just as the
woman whose son dropped the ball mentions. Both show irrational fears that individuals might
not be conforming to the view/norms of the society in which they live. This parallel shows that
L’Engle again feels that conformity is dehumanizing.
As the story progresses, Meg and Calvin, who refused to join IT, are forced to face IT
along with Mr. Murry. As IT attempts to conform their brains, Meg attempts to keep her brain to
herself by concentrating on different subjects. She first progresses through nursery rhymes,
which she realizes are far too rhythmic to stray from the overbearing rhythm of IT. As another
resort, she begins to recite the Declaration of Independence. “ ‘We hold these truths to be selfevident!’ she shouted, ‘that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’”
(L’Engle, 160) The choice of these words, exemplifies L’Engle’s feelings when writing this
novel. As stated in “Presenting Madeleine L’Engle”, “L’Engle strongly believes in the human
freedom of choice.” (Hettinga, 31) Considering the state of American society at this time, this is
not surprising. L’Engle incorporates this particular section of the Declaration of Independence in
order to show support of freedom of choice. Specifically at the end, liberty is mentioned. This is
the very concept of freedom of choice, or right to make one’s own decisions. At the time that the
novel was written, America was facing the threat of communism that we feared would consume
the world. Two of the main results of communism are a lack of choice in one’s government, and
a state control of economics. In America, freedom of choice in economics is a large part of life.
The American Dream, a concept that has pervaded this nation throughout its existence, is a
concept of working hard to earn more money than generations past, to buy a house of one’s
dreams, along with different amenities that one can only choose in a capitalistic society. L’Engle
herself seems to have experienced this: “Soon after the marriage, L’Engle and Franklin bought a
two-hundred-year-old farmhouse in northwest Connecticut, a house that was to become a symbol
of their marriage…” (Hettinga, 8) Thus, L’Engle seems to have supported the idea of the
American Dream, since she seems to have fulfilled it herself. As Americans such as L’Engle of
the time viewed communism, it lacked any room for such a dream. The state controlled one’s
paycheck, which was barbaric to Americans.
In communist societies, each individual is viewed as a subordinate of the entire
government. They are forced to integrate, and yet, their single opinions can do nothing to
change the majority. Yet again, there is evidence that conformity destroys individual will and
humanity. “She knew that her own puny little brain was no match for this great, bodiless,
pulsing, writhing mass on the round dais.” (L’Engle, 160) This quotation, from when Meg is
facing IT for the first time, is evident of the fact that she, the individual, was beginning to be
overpowered by the great power of conformity. The single brain that controlled the lives on
Camazotz was beginning to gain control over her as well. This scene seems to be greatly
influenced by the Korean War (Kort, 14), which ensued in the beginning of the 1950s. Here, the
great Communist control center seemed to spreading swiftly through Southeast Asia. The United
States feared that the USSR would gain control over all of Korea. Meg’s dilemma seems to
reflect that of America during the Korean War. The overpowering USSR was trying to conform
Korea to its communist ways.
Americans viewed Korea as a battleground for
individuality/humanity or democracy to overpower the communist control. Similarly, Meg
viewed Camazotz as the battleground where she could save her family members from
conformity-first her father, and then her brother. The fact that Meg-at this point in her struggle
against IT-failed, is akin to the United States not succeeding in Korea. We pulled out, and left
Korea in a mess. Similarly, Meg was not strong enough to pull through IT’s power and save
Charles Wallace, and thus had to withdraw, tessering with her father and Calvin to another
planet. This shows the true weight and importance of the battle between conformity and love in
L’Engle’s eyes. The conformity on Camazotz was so strong that it took more than one try to be
overcome.
“Many Americans found it difficult to understand why the United States, having
triumphed so completely in World War II, was unable to assert itself more successfully in
peacetime.” (Kort, 33) Madeleine L’Engle was obviously no exception. In A Wrinkle in Time,
after Meg faces the man with the red eyes, her first confrontation with a being on Camazotz that
attempted to conform her, she remains strong. This is actually her first true sign of strength.
She wanted to reach out and grab Calvin’s hand, but it seemed that ever since they
had begun their journeyings she had been looking for a hand to hold, so she
stuffed her fists into her pockets and walked along behind the two boys.-I’ve got
to be brave, she said to herself.-I will be.
(L’Engle, 137)
This quotation depicts a parallel to how the United States in World War II had been incredibly
strong. Her individual character, filled with self-determination allowed her to be strong, and
resist conformity. This also shows great transformation in her character, which is similar to
America’s transformation at the time of World War II. America had consistently had a policy of
isolationism with regards to other nations. Unless conflict was absolutely required, because the
nation’s borders were threatened, the United States did not involve itself in foreign affairs. Thus,
it did not wield the power that it has had from the time of World War II until even now. Meg,
similarly, had relied on the strength of others to pull through tough experiences. For example, at
home, Charles Wallace comforted her, if she needed it.
However, finally, Meg had grown. She
chose to assert herself, and let her own individual strength guide her, rather than relying on
others.
However, when Meg is forced to tesser away from Camazotz, the true threat of
conformity is shown. Her visit to IT rendered her weak. IT’s attempts at conformity left her
vulnerable, which led her to lose consciousness during the tesseract. As her father tessers her
and Calvin away, “She was lost in an agony of pain that finally dissolved into the darkness of
complete unconsciousness.” (L’Engle, 162) This is akin to America struggling through the Cold
War. As mentioned in the earlier quotation, many Americans were confused as to why America
was struggling so much, and this concept found its way into the novel. This also shows that
conformity cannot be overcome easily and swiftly. It is a long process, just as the Cold War was
a long process, in which there were successes and failures until the USSR finally became
democratic.
Although the Cold War had certainly not finished at the time that the novel was
published, the progression of events, and the conflict between conformity and love are still
mirrored and explained by the progression and resolution of the Cold War. “Slowly his mouth
closed. Slowly his eyes stopped their twirling. The tic in the forehead ceased its revolting
twitch. Slowly he advanced toward her…. Then suddenly he was running, pelting, he was in her
arms…” (L’Engle, 208) This barrier closing, with Meg successfully saving Charles Wallace, is
akin to the slow but ultimate fall of the Soviet Union. “The dissolution of the Soviet Union
convinced even those few who still doubted that the Cold War was over.” (Brands, 212) This
reunion of Charles Wallace and Meg as a result of them overcoming conformity with love
resembles the end of the Cold War-the end of the Cold War that L’Engle herself envisioned. It
shows the end of a long dispute, and Meg finally being able to love Charles again. This is again
similar to the Cold War, in that the attitude of Americans to Russia improved greatly after the
fall of the Berlin Wall, and the fall of the USSR. Meg was able to love Charles Wallace again as
she realized that she could save him from conformity. It is very easy to understand this portrayal
of the end of the Cold War. All Americans wished for the fall of the Soviet Union, and it is
natural that this sentiment would be reflected in L’Engle’s writing, considering that so much
other Cold War sentiment is also present.
New Historical critique is very efficient at portraying Meg’s progression through
defeating conformity with love and individuality. The history of the Cold War was an influential
one. The entire nation was on edge with all of the military events, wars, and ideological
influences that took place. These events have woven their way into this novel, portraying Meg’s
progression through her conflict with conformity. The parallels of the Cold War and conformity
play off of each other to show the true strength of both conformity and love, and yet eventually
show how love will indeed prevail over conformity. Since the comparison is linked to the Cold
War, a conflict between nations, New Historicism shows the conflict between love and
conformity on a larger scale, rather than on an individual scale in the way Formalist critique did.
However, the essential message remains the same as portrayed in Formalism. With the added
emphasis of historical background, New Historicism effectively strengthens the argument
already made by Formalism.
Marxist critique is the third and last form of critique with which this novel will be
analyzed. It evaluates a work based on the nature of the social classes, the relationships between
them, and the social ideological questions that are raised in response to these ideas. A single
homogenous socioeconomic class and the role of the leader of the society in which it exists are
portrayed as impractical and destructors of humanity in A Wrinkle in Time. With the satirical
way in which the planet of Camazotz is portrayed, the social question of whether a social system
with a homogenous socioeconomic class could support individuality and love is posed. Through
Marxist critique, this question is answered to show that this type of social system would not
support individuality and love, and would thus dehumanize the citizens of the society.
As stated in an article about Marxist criticism, “Central to the Marxist plotting of history
is the economic struggle for power between the ruling class and the working class, between the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat.” (Fish) The planet of Camazotz is portrayed to be one where
these struggles for power are eliminated. All beings on the planet are equal in power, both
economic and otherwise. However, this socioeconomic equality is a satirical manner of
portraying the message that this equality can never exist without an all-encompassing power that
is the ruling class. The conformity on Camazotz is a result of IT’s control of all of the
inhabitants. IT forces all beings to be of equal class, regardless of profession or age, and at the
same time, takes up the ruling position for itself. When the children first meet with the man with
the red eyes, this becomes apparent. Their confrontation with him shows that even he, the
figurehead of the society on Camazotz, is only part of the common social class.
‘It is not necessary for you to know who I am. I am the Prime Coordinator,
that is all you need to know.’
‘But you’re being spoken through, aren’t you, just like Charles Wallace?
Are you hypnotized, too?’
‘I told you that was too primitive a word, without the correct connotations.’
(L’Engle, 137)
This exchange between the Prime Coordinator (the man with the red eyes) and Calvin
effectively depicts the seeming equality between the social classes. The Prime Coordinator, a
term that indicates power over the people is in fact ‘hypnotized’ by the same being that binds all
of the other citizens. This shows how all of the citizens of this society, were in fact identical in
power regardless of profession, or figurehead status. However, the irony of the situation is that
the people do not have control of the power, as one would expect of a society that seems to
parallel a Marxist society. They are simply minions of a controlling power source, IT. IT’s
power serves to mock Marxist society. It shows that even though individuals, such as the Prime
Coordinator, in this case, disillusion others into believing that they have power -or the power of
the people, as they like to make people think- they truly do not. The depiction of the Prime
Coordinator as a prime example of a figurehead being coordinated by IT, shows how the novel
does not seem to value this socioeconomic structure. The conformity imposed on the citizens of
Camazotz also serves to mock the ideals of equality of social classes. The individuals within the
society do not truly seem happy at all. They are equal, completely and thoroughly, but their
inhumanity is still emphasized.
As these people came to the main street from the side streets they would swing
around the corners with an odd, automatic stride, as though they were so deep in
their own problems and the route was so familiar that they didn’t have to pay any
attention… (L’Engle, 109)
This quotation shows that these people truly are equal; which is represented by the identical
stride that they all possess. Yet, at the same time, it is clearly stated that they have their own
problems, which indicates that they are not happy. Thus, it is evident that these beings are not
happy with their equality. Their uniformity ruins the happiness that equality could potentially
bring.
As Meg and the boys walk through the streets of Camazotz, they encounter a paperboy
who proudly proclaims:
‘Our production levels are the highest. Our factories never close; our machines
never stop rolling. Added to this we have five poets, one musician, three artists,
and six sculptors, all perfectly channeled.’ (L’Engle, 108)
This quotation, the words of a paperboy on Camazotz, perfectly depicts the nature of the
society of Camazotz. The focus of this boy’s words is solely on artificial gains. Since the poets,
musician, artists, and sculptors are ‘all perfectly channeled’, they are essentially being controlled
by IT. Their accomplishments are only another venue for the supreme leader, IT, to gain from.
As members of the uniform social class, their individual achievements gain them no ends. The
lack of importance given to these people is evident by the fact that the boy does not know the
names of these accomplished citizens. The social class only knows that such people exist, and
make their social class seem accomplished. As one article states, “Individuals do not have an
existence independent of society. Individuals are creatures of social history.” (Fish) The focus is
on production, and economic stimulation (‘our factories never close’), rather than the essential
wishes of each single individual. On Camazotz, society is to be valued and the majority’s wishes
are to be abided.
Thus, in this endeavor, the individual’s needs and desires are easily
overlooked. This is exactly what the novel seems to be mocking. The child’s insistent praise of
his city’s superior statistics in terms of production, and ‘culture’ are undermined by his last
assertion, that all of their ‘cultured’ individuals were “perfectly channeled”.
The people of
Camazotz seem to think that this social system was intended to be a social system where all
individuals would be treated equally, with equal rights. However, in this society on Camazotz, it
is evident that this equality is forced since the people are ‘channeled’. Instead of voluntarily
being equal, the inhabitants of the society are forced into equality as a result of the control of the
supreme IT, which controls their lives. By this conformity of those beneath it, IT ensures that it
alone has control over everything.
Karl Marx “...predicted in the 19th century that…the
proletariat would take control of the means of production, and use those means to create a good
society, in which justice and fairness would replace privilege and exploitation.” (‘Marxist
Criticism’, 198) This shows that in true Marxism, no one individual would have the means to
exploit another individual, and that society in essence would be completely fair and just. This
seems to be the ironic view of society that the inhabitants of Camazotz have. They view their
planet as being fair and equal to all people. As Charles Wallace, controlled by IT says,
Why do you think we have wars at home? Why do you think people get confused
and unhappy? Because they all live their own, separate, individual lives. I’ve
been trying to explain to you in the simplest possible way that on Camazotz
individuals have been done away with. (L’Engle, 142)
This shows that IT wants those that it controls to think that they are all equal, and that they are
all part of a single happy entity. This idea confuses the controlled into believing that they are
equal to all others, and thus that they are happy. This indicates that any society that is practicing
this homogenous social class structure simply does not realize the problems that it brings forth.
Also, it specifically states in this quotation that ‘individuals have been done away with’. There is
no simpler way to explain that conformity or a uniform social class takes away individuality,
than by these words.
Karl Marx’s view that the proletariat would control the means of production also mirrors
how identical the results of that production would be. When the children walk through the
suburbs on Camazotz, they see a boy who is on his paper route.
It might have been Dennys or Sandy or any one of the hundreds of boys with a
newspaper route in any one of the hundreds of towns back home, and yet, as with
the children playing ball and jumping rope, there was something wrong about it.
The rhythm of the gesture never varied. (L’Engle, 107)
This quotation shows how the services done by the proletariat in this society are entirely
identical. The society on Camazotz has created beings that are machine-like in their work, and
this serves to indicate the level of conformity that exists as a result of that Marxist society. The
statement that ‘there was something wrong about it’ indicates that the novel does not support this
type of conformity within the means of production and service.
The entire view that IT has about conformity versus Meg’s view on conformity comes to
a culmination point when Charles Wallace attests that society on Camazotz has complete
equality.
Then she realized that Charles Wallace was speaking, or being spoken through by
IT.
‘But that’s exactly what we have on Camazotz.
Complete equality.
Everybody exactly alike.’…
‘No!’
she cried triumphantly.
‘Like and equal are not the same thing at
all!’…Like and equal are two entirely different things. (L’Engle, 160)
This realization of Meg’s-that like and equal are two different things-serves to show that in a
homogenous class structure where people are all considered ‘equal’ by being treated ‘alike’ and
being sorted into one homogenous social class, the citizens are actually being misguided by the
ruling authority. This type of social class rids society of diversity and thus rids society of
individuality and thus humanity. On Camazotz, each individual is alike, and there are no
differences. IT’s control ensures this conformity.
This quotation also indicates that a single social class, where all citizens conform to one
socioeconomic level, does not create equality. Each individual still must have some form of
individuality, which makes him or her equal, but not completely alike. The point is stressed here
that a single social class creates homogenous society through conformity, but in the process
destroys individuality. There is a clear distinction here between likeness and equality. By Meg’s
realization, it is evident that she is opposed to the idea prevalent on Camazotz that equality is
based on conformity. Her realization mirrors what the reader must also understand-that equality
can exist with individuality, whereas conformity cannot exist with individuality. This also
returns to the quotation where Meg recites the Declaration of Independence. In the preamble,
from which she was quoting, it clearly stated, “all men are created equal”.
This is very
important. She quotes this document, a symbol of both equality of liberty, which uses the word
‘equal’ rather than ‘like’.
Thus, the Declaration of Independence, which Meg chooses to
specifically refer to, indirectly makes a distinction between ‘equal’ and ‘like’ as well. This
further supports the fact that equality can exist without conformity or a uniform social class.
The social conformity under IT also destroys the value of individuality. The man with
the red eyes recognizes that Charles Wallace has a superior brain, but he still conforms him to
IT, and thus, does not value that individual quality.
‘But it is only the little boy whose neurological system is complex enough. If you
tried to conduct the necessary neurons your brains would explode.’
‘And Charles’s wouldn’t?’
‘I think not.’ (L’Engle, 128)
This quotation of the conversation between Meg and the man with the red eyes shows that he
recognized that Charles Wallace had a superior brain. Yet, he ignored that fact and chose to
conform him. Thus, he did not value the individuality that Charles Wallace possessed. A
uniform class structure that conforms its citizens, with no divisions, prevents individuality and
thus conquers love.
This society on Camazotz truly holds a degree of conformity that destroys love. As
Charles Wallace points out repeatedly, people on Camazotz have no need for a family. In his
controlled state, he argues that family does not exist. Meg starts out her journey on a quest to
save her father from the clutches of Camazotz. However, under the control of IT, Charles
Wallace does not understand the concept or acknowledge the importance of a father any longer.
…‘I should have known better,’ he said. ‘If you want to see Murry you’d better
come with me and not try any more hanky-panky.’
‘Is that what you call your father-Murry? Calvin asked.’ (L’Engle, 138)
This quotation makes it clear that Charles Wallace does not value the importance of a father
anymore. He refers to his father by his last name, and thus shows no respect or emotion towards
the father figure. The control of IT has done this to him. This is obvious since throughout the
rest of the novel, he has referred to his father as ‘Father’ and not as ‘Murry’. The society,
without any class distinctions is easily to blame for this. This social class also creates an
atmosphere of equality and alikeness to such an extreme that love of any kind is destroyed.
There is no value for familial attachment, and this is evident in Charles Wallace suddenly
beginning to refer to his father as ‘Murry’ after being subjected to the power of IT. Charles
Wallace’s disdain for the concept of a father is evidenced by his response to Calvin’s question. “
‘Father? What is a father?’ Charles Wallace intoned. ‘Merely another misconception. If you
feel the need of a father, then I would suggest that you turn to IT.’” (L’Engle, 139) For a boy
who respected his elders, and had such a strong love for his family on Earth, it is surprising that
anything could deter him from that love. At this point, Charles Wallace is so deeply immersed
into the mind of IT, and the society on Camazotz, that he regards IT as the most important being
in his life. He regards IT as a leader figure, and does not understand the simple concept of
loving a father the way Meg and Calvin do. This absence of love and this lack of importance of
family are attributed to the homogenous social class structure of this society. Camazotz, and the
lack of familial love on the planet, represent the message that one single equal class would ruin
individuality and ruin the ability of individuals to earn respect for others. This is evident yet
again, when Charles Wallace comments to Meg: “ ‘You say you want to help Father?’ Charles
Wallace’s voice came from behind her, with no emotion whatsoever.” (L’Engle 146) The fact
that he says this with ‘no emotion whatsoever’ depicts the extent of the breach of love between
Charles Wallace and his father after Charles Wallace is subjected to IT. Charles Wallace
obviously does not respect his father here, and this seems to be indicative of how in this uniform
society, since nothing would separate people from others, it would be impossible for people to
respect and love others. It is evident that love is a large part of humanity, and it is indicated that
a uniform class structure destroys humanity by encouraging conformity and destroying
individuality and love.
Marxist critique effectively shows the message that conformity destroys love, but that in
turn, true strong love can overcome conformity. When Meg returns to Camazotz, to save
Charles Wallace, she loves him for himself as an individual, and not as a part of the homogenous
social class under IT. She loves him alone, and this is what allows her to save him.
She could stand there and she could love Charles Wallace.
Her own Charles Wallace, the real Charles Wallace, the child for whom
she had come back to Camazotz, to IT, the baby who was so much more than she
was, and who was yet so utterly vulnerable.
She could love Charles Wallace.” (L’Engle, 208)
Here, Meg loves Charles Wallace as an individual. She is seeing him as separate from the rest of
the social class, and is valuing his individual traits. Thus, he is saved. The novel is showing
how an individual is more important than the social class that they are in. It still does not support
the uniform class structure, because it equates all individuals into one single class, and does not
distinguish based on individual achievements or capabilities, just as IT does not distinguish
between different capabilities. This shows a culmination point for the novel’s message through
Marxist critique. The message is crystal clear here that love of an individual for his own unique
qualities is what can overcome the obstacles of conformity posed by an uniform class structure
with only one homogenous socioeconomic class.
Marxist critique shows how a society with uniform class structure, like the one on
Camazotz, attempts to destroy individuality and love, but that still, when one realizes the value
of individuality, they are able to overcome conformity. The progression of Charles Wallace
through his stay on Camazotz, and the manner by which Meg finally saves him shows how
conformity and a uniform class structure attempt to overcome love and humanity. However, the
fact that Meg does save Charles Wallace proves that individuality and love are the only things
that can overcome conformity and the strains of social class. It is still clear that homogenous
class systems stifle an individual’s humanity, and this is evident through the events that take
place on Camazotz.
Of the three critiques used to analyze Madeleine L’Engle’s A Wrinkle in Time, Formalist
critique seems to be the most effective. Although the other critiques provide other, more
specific, angles through which one can analyze the novel, Formalist critique alone returns back
to what the author had originally intended. The diction, tone, and irony of the events that take
place on Earth and on Camazotz portray a deeper meaning of the novel, than can be achieved
through analyzing the historical background, or the social structure within the novel. Formalist
critique allows the reader to find the essence of the book, without outside information that will
inherently have a bias, in the way that A Wrinkle in Time inherently has a deeper meaning. Also,
Formalist critique allows the reader to analyze the views of the characters, and the emotions
displayed by the characters to a greater extent. In this novel especially, due to the age of the
characters, the tone and emotions of the characters are very important to understanding the
deeper meaning of the novel. The characters’ young age is reflected through the novel by distinct
tones that contribute heavily to their progression towards humanity and away from conformity.
This emotion can only be analyzed by Formalist critique. New Historical critique, for example
does not readily lend itself to this type of analysis. Instead, due to its historical nature, New
Historical critique in this case focuses on the effects of Cold War sentiments on the novel.
Although this is also an effective form of analysis, it is too focused on only one aspect of the
novel. It only focuses on how Cold War sentiments reflect upon the conflict between conformity
and humanity. The same problem exists with Marxist critique. It only involves an analysis of
how socioeconomic class structures and struggles show that conformity is not beneficial. These
two critiques do not take into account any other aspects of the novel, since they are too narrowly
focused. On the other hand, Formalist critique allows the reader to analyze all aspects of the
novel that are expressed through the novel itself. This includes far more venues for analysis,
such as rhetoric devices, as well as allegory and symbolism. Symbolism was definitely present
in this novel, with the connection of the name of the planet Camazotz to the Mayan bat god.
This connection was rather strong in the Formalist critique, yet due to the restrictions of the other
two critiques, could not be addressed anywhere else. Also, the connections made by Formalist
critique made the basis for the focus that the other two critiques were centered on as well. Thus,
compared to New Historical Critique, and Marxist critique, Formalist critique was the most
effective.
All three criticisms, Formalist, New Historicist, and Marxist have shown that conformity
challenges individuality and love, and therefore humanity; yet, love and individuality can
successfully overcome conformity. This message in A Wrinkle in Time shows a truth about
humanity that affects the lives of all individuals. The simple childhood fantasy story about
aliens, friends, and family has become a tool to spread the word to all readers that one’s
individuality should not be compromised in any manner.
Regardless of whether or not
conformity is voluntary, it takes away a bit of a person’s happiness and etches away from their
love. As a reader of this story, this message will stay with me forever. After reading this novel,
it has become evident to me that love and individuality are two aspects of our humanity that
people should never take for granted. Although this novel certainly portrays this message in a
very fantastic manner, the message is still true.
Taking away an individual’s love and
uniqueness is equivalent to stripping them of their humanity. Any novel has value for its story,
but its true potential can only be seized if the reader can understand the message that the author
is attempting to portray. Hopefully all of the children and adults alike who have read this novel
value their individuality more for it. This novel has truly shown all that love and unique
characteristics are what define us and separate us from all of the other citizens of the universe.
Conformity can try to take these things away from us, but as long as we have faith in ourselves,
in our loved ones, and in those qualities that separate us from the rest of the world, whether it be
our intelligence, our communication, or our persistence to save those whom we love (even if it
requires facing an evil brain twice), we will survive happily. These life lessons shine through
this novel to leave a deep impact on all of its readers. As Madeleine L’Engle herself stated in the
introduction to A Wrinkle in Time from New York in September 1997, “Story always tells us
more than the mere words, and that is why we love to write it, and to read it.”
Works Cited
Benson, Elizabeth P. Bats in South American Folklore and Ancient Art. 1991. Bat Conservation
International, Inc. 10 May 2005 <http://www.batcon.org/batsmag/v9n1-2.html>.
Blackburn, William. "Touchstones: Reflections on the Best in Children's Literature." Madeleine
L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time: Seeking the Original Face. Comp. Perry Nodelman. West
Lafayette: Children's Literature Association, 1985. 123-131.
Brands, H W. The Devil We Knew: Americans and the Cold War. New York: Oxford UP, 1993.
"Chapter Fifteen: Marxist Criticism." In Search of Authority. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 197-205.
Fish, Tom, and Jennifer Perkins. Marxist Criticism. 07 July 1999. Cumberland College. 27 May
2005 <http://cc.cumberlandcollege.edu/acad/english/litcritweb/theory/marxism.htm>.
Golden, Joanne M. The Narrative Symbol in Childhood Literature. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
1990. 200.
Hettinga, Donald R. Presenting Madeleine L'Engle. New York: Twayne, 1993.
Kort, Michael. The Columbia Guide to the Cold War. New York: Columbia UP, 1998.
L'Engle, Madeleine. A Wrinkle in Time. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Group, 1962.
"L'Engle, Madeleine." Children's Literature Review. Comp. Ann Block, and Carolyn Riley.
Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1976. 134.
Lukens, Rebecca J. A Critical Handbook of Children's Literature. Oxford: Miami University,
n.d. 73-81.
"Madeleine L'Engle." Children's Literature Review. Comp. Gerald J. Senick. Detroit: Gale
Research Company, 1988. 132-156.
Novel Analysis: A Wrinkle in Time: Theme Analysis. 22 May 2005
<http://www.novelguide.com/AWrinkleInTime/themeanalysis.html>.