L'Engle doesn't underestimate them in this way, at least initially, on the surface. Since my biggest problems with this book all involve my finding it simplistic, naive, and certain parts of it cliche & obvious, I wonder if I need to remind myself that it's meant for children. Perhaps children should be idealistic, or even naive, in the way that this book is. But then I wonder if that is another way of underestimating them. ESPECIALLY since I felt exactly the same way when I read this book as a child! Wind In The Willows makes me feel closer to God, or a creative power (though there's some gushing in there too, at the end.) The Jungle Book explores social constructs and morals, more deeply and naturally, for me. A Sound Of Thunder blew my mind, in grade school, with its "butterfly effect" theory of the power and responsibility of each individual. All of these are childrens' books, though they span generations, and time and space, more gracefully than tessering did for me. I could name so many more. But, if A Wrinkle In Time opened your mind to new ideas, (instead of making you feel frustrated by light treatment of them), made you question some latent prejudice, (instead of feeling bored by obvious metaphors), lifted your spirits & made you cheer for bookish outcasts, (instead of feeling that no one is that one-dimensional) or cry for the love of a big sister & little brother, (instead of cringing when