'A Wrinkle in Time': A cut passage is published

Fans of the classic science fiction novel recently got a look at a section of the book that was taken out before publication. 'Wrinkle' won the Newbery Medal.

'A Wrinkle in Time' is by Madeleine L'Engle.

Fans of the classic science fiction novel “A Wrinkle in Time” recently got a look at a section of the book that was cut before publication. 

According to the Wall Street Journal, “Wrinkle” author Madeleine L’Engle’s granddaughter, Charlotte Jones Voiklis, discovered the section. “Wrinkle,” which won the Newbery Medal, centers on Meg Murry, her brother Charles Wallace, and their friend Calvin O’Keefe. The three children set off to search for Meg and Charles Wallace’s father, who is being held prisoner on a mysterious planet.

In the deleted passage, Meg asks her father how evil took hold on the planet Camazotz, where all people perform the same actions at the same time and free thinking is discouraged.

“It was the logical outcome of two things,” Meg’s father tells her. “Of complete totalitarianism in certain countries…. It’s like Russia under Kruschev. Or Germany and Hitler. Countries under dictatorships. Franco. Mussolini. Castro. Mao.” When Meg asks him about democracies, he says, “It’s an equally logical outcome of too much prosperity. Or you could put it that it’s the result of too strong a desire for security.”

Wall Street Journal reporter Jennifer Maloney says that some scholars she queried about the passage believe that naming specific political figures could have dated the book. L'Engle may have taken it out because it was “too political, or too obviously political,” suggested Suzanne Bray, who studies L’Engle’s work. 

Voiklis told the WSJ it was her wish that “Wrinkle” fans not narrowly connect Camazotz only with communist countries. 

“It’s normal to be afraid,” she said. “But you can’t let the fear control your decisions. Otherwise, you risk becoming like Camazotz.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.