Scan barcode
duriangray's review
adventurous
challenging
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
novelinsights's review against another edition
adventurous
hopeful
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
This was a step in the right direction from the last installment. For one, we went back in time a ways to when Meg was in college and the twins were still kids. For two, this was a more traditional adventure story in which our protagonists were actually involved in the plot, rather than the last story, which was experienced almost entirely through kything (a concept that didn't even make it into this story at all). That said, it still didn't match the vibe of the first two books. While L'Engle has created a scientific explanation that allows her characters to travel to any point in the universe, this is the second book in a row that has taken place on Earth and has simply chosen to go backward in time instead. While there are still some fantastical beings involved with the whole experience, it's beginning to feel like L'Engle decided she wanted to be a historical fiction writer rather than a science fiction one, and I miss the Douglas Adams-esque sci-fi nonsense of the first two books.
I did appreciate that this book focuses on the twins, who had seemed oddly dismissed in the first several books. The Gary Stus of the family, they had been deemed the "normal" family members because they excelled in sports and social activities while the rest of the family was more focused on intellectual pursuits, though at the same time, they grow up to be a doctor and a lawyer, so the concept of normal seems perhaps lost on the Murrays. While I liked that they got to star in their own novel, they were perhaps personalities than Meg and Charles Wallace, and there was nothing in particular that stood out to me as defining personality traits to differentiate one twin from the other. I think we were told at one point that one of them was more of a leader and the other was quieter, but I don't know that I really appreciated that in the actions they took throughout the novel.
I had mixed feelings about the idea of dropping the twins into a Bible story, as well. I'm not religious, and while there were occasional religious references in previous books in the series, it was fairly ignorable. I was worried when I realized this was about Noah that it would become a Narnia-type book (aka unapologetic Christian propaganda). However, the Noah story was stylized here so that it felt much more fantastical, so I do think L'Engle managed to include it without coming across as particularly preachy. There were even questions raised as to whether there was any purpose to the concept of the flood, since people seem about the same now as they were then, and whether it was even truly caused by a god or whether it was actually a natural disaster. The critical thinking aspect was much appreciated.
I did have a few general complaints about the plot and details of this story, as well. For one, I'm not sure what the purpose of the story was. Often in portal fantasy-type tales, the protagonist(s) change something in the secondary world and then learn something to bring back and apply to their lives in their original world. In this case, they did make a few changes to the interpersonal relationships happening in Noah's time, but I didn't feel like they played any role in the actual flood or ark-building, and nothing in particular seemed to change about their approach to life upon their return, either. It felt almost as though the whole book could have not happened and nothing would have changed.
I also felt a little confused by the plot at points.For example, when Sandy was kidnapped, it seemed like no one knew where he was, but also that he had been kidnapped to use as a bargaining chip to take over Noah's vineyards, and I didn't understand how both of those things could be true at once since it's only effective bargaining if the person you're bargaining with knows you've kidnapped the person. I also didn't understand why the people of Noah's time had to shorten their names, since Sandy and Dennys are much simpler names than most of the characters of that time actually had. Plus, there was a weird element of slut-shaming that I didn't love, especially in a children's book.
In general, I'm somewhat underwhelmed with the direction this series has gone in, and while I might still have enjoyed these books as a kid, I suspect only Book 2 would have held the same kind of magic for me that the original had. I am still going to read the final book in the series, but I don't have particularly high expectations for it, unfortunately.
I did appreciate that this book focuses on the twins, who had seemed oddly dismissed in the first several books. The Gary Stus of the family, they had been deemed the "normal" family members because they excelled in sports and social activities while the rest of the family was more focused on intellectual pursuits, though at the same time, they grow up to be a doctor and a lawyer, so the concept of normal seems perhaps lost on the Murrays. While I liked that they got to star in their own novel, they were perhaps personalities than Meg and Charles Wallace, and there was nothing in particular that stood out to me as defining personality traits to differentiate one twin from the other. I think we were told at one point that one of them was more of a leader and the other was quieter, but I don't know that I really appreciated that in the actions they took throughout the novel.
I had mixed feelings about the idea of dropping the twins into a Bible story, as well. I'm not religious, and while there were occasional religious references in previous books in the series, it was fairly ignorable. I was worried when I realized this was about Noah that it would become a Narnia-type book (aka unapologetic Christian propaganda). However, the Noah story was stylized here so that it felt much more fantastical, so I do think L'Engle managed to include it without coming across as particularly preachy. There were even questions raised as to whether there was any purpose to the concept of the flood, since people seem about the same now as they were then, and whether it was even truly caused by a god or whether it was actually a natural disaster. The critical thinking aspect was much appreciated.
I did have a few general complaints about the plot and details of this story, as well. For one, I'm not sure what the purpose of the story was. Often in portal fantasy-type tales, the protagonist(s) change something in the secondary world and then learn something to bring back and apply to their lives in their original world. In this case, they did make a few changes to the interpersonal relationships happening in Noah's time, but I didn't feel like they played any role in the actual flood or ark-building, and nothing in particular seemed to change about their approach to life upon their return, either. It felt almost as though the whole book could have not happened and nothing would have changed.
I also felt a little confused by the plot at points.
In general, I'm somewhat underwhelmed with the direction this series has gone in, and while I might still have enjoyed these books as a kid, I suspect only Book 2 would have held the same kind of magic for me that the original had. I am still going to read the final book in the series, but I don't have particularly high expectations for it, unfortunately.
shhchar's review
3.0
I read this for school. Even though I haven't read any of the others in this series, I found everything so creative. I love a book that has symbols, and this one had so many little things that meant so much more. The best word I can think of is, cool. Haha.
robivy's review against another edition
3.0
This book has a fairly interesting story line and I do like the Biblical tie-ins, but I had one major issue with the book. My 9 year old son and I have listened to the first three audiobooks in this series together and all were completely kid-friendly. This book had a number of references to sex and got so uncomfortable that I had to stop listening to it with him and finish it by myself. I thought these were unnecessary and didn't really add to the story...disappointing.
melissa_who_reads's review
5.0
L'Engle's take on the Flood of Noah ... wonderful, spiritual book, with Sandy and Dennis Murry, the practical twins from A Wrinkle in Time, as the main characters.
Loved it.
Loved it.
breakfastgrey's review
1.0
There's no way around it: this book is terrible. You could literally lift the two main characters out of the story entirely... and it wouldn't make one bit of difference to the plot. In 350 pages, all that happens is (mild spoilers) Sandy and Dennys get transported to the past, get sunburnt, heal, then go home. Also, an absurd amount of deus ex unicorn. That's really it. I was originally intrigued by the Old Testament-inspired fantasy setting (there seriously need to be more books that do this), but the lack of a story, repetitive dialog, cardboard thin characters, and weird obsession with lust/sex killed this book dead.
nahanarts's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.5
spiderelsa's review against another edition
3.5
I feel like I learned a bit from this book as a kid - the concept of virtual unicorns struck me as especially poignant in my early 20s. I loved seeing the twins as equals to their heretofore more adventured siblings.
On this pass, I clearly feel like I've outgrown the series. (I'm now wondering if I may like the adult Meg books. I never gave them a shot before.)
On this pass, I clearly feel like I've outgrown the series. (I'm now wondering if I may like the adult Meg books. I never gave them a shot before.)
parcoeur's review
adventurous
hopeful
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.5
thatokiebird's review against another edition
adventurous
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
1.5
Many Waters is the fourth book in the Time Quintet, and definitely my least favorite so far. It is Sandy and Dennys's solo adventure book, and it is so weird and so off the themes of the other books. I mean, there's still time travel, but past that it relates very little to Charles Wallace and Meg's adventures. They basically accidently travel back in time to Noah and the Ark's world and do little, if anything, to alter events that happen after they return to their normal world moments after they left it.
First of all, this book has far more sexual mentions than I think I've ever found in a middle-grade novel? The term "rosy breasts" and "kissed all over" has been mentioned multiple times. As well as unicorns only accepting virgins to touch them, and quite a few references on the fact that the twins are "unexperienced". Like ew? This book is written for pre-teens, right? The physical attraction between the twins and the granddaughter is a little more explicit than you would expect? Like seriously what happened to Madeleine L'Engle between A Swiftly Tilting Planet and Many Waters? Did she have children hitting puberty and wanted to include a morality lesson about purity culture?
And the way my eyes rolled when the father introduced himself as Noah and Dennys immediately thought “oh good I’m still on earth but just before the flood.” Like why would the name Noah immediately mean and the ark? Has there never been another Noah in the entire history of the world?
First of all, this book has far more sexual mentions than I think I've ever found in a middle-grade novel? The term "rosy breasts" and "kissed all over" has been mentioned multiple times. As well as unicorns only accepting virgins to touch them, and quite a few references on the fact that the twins are "unexperienced". Like ew? This book is written for pre-teens, right? The physical attraction between the twins and the granddaughter is a little more explicit than you would expect? Like seriously what happened to Madeleine L'Engle between A Swiftly Tilting Planet and Many Waters? Did she have children hitting puberty and wanted to include a morality lesson about purity culture?
And the way my eyes rolled when the father introduced himself as Noah and Dennys immediately thought “oh good I’m still on earth but just before the flood.” Like why would the name Noah immediately mean and the ark? Has there never been another Noah in the entire history of the world?