As a book that has been in print for a long time (since 1961 if you can believe in) A Wrinkle in Time has had a lot of different covers.
This is the version I grew up with. As a kid, my bookshelf contained a number of mysterious volumes that I can only assume belonged to my parents when they were my age. This was one of them. Printed in 1962, it was one of the earliest covers. As a kid, I was a huge fantasy freak and I assumed, based on this cover, that A Wrinkle in Time was a fantasy story. (I was also a horse freak, so... yeah. sold.) I'm a bit biased, so tell me. Does it accurately represent the story? If you saw it all shiny and new in the bookstore, would you stop? Truth? I miss illustrated covers. I know we're at a point in cover art where everything is digital... but a hand-drawn image contains so much personality. It contains the power to transport in a unique way. I think this cover speaks directly to kids. It's more feminine than masculine. You think that's good or bad? In an era where sci-fi was believed to appeal more to boys, it's probably a smart choice if you're trying to bring young, female readers into the fold. So, I approve.
Well, this is more typical of sixties sci-fi. This cover was released in 1964 and I think the designer might have used their kid's spirograph to create it. (Remember spirographs?) What can you say? It's pretty simple. One of those silhouettes might be James Bond. Yeah, there's something intriguing about the combination of colors and the layout of design elements, but it's not extraordinary by any means. They've got that gold Newbery medal on it and I suspect they relied on it to do most of the heavy lifting.
1973. We get a clearer look at the characters and a clearer idea of exactly how strange this book is. There is quite a bit of detail here and I suspect that the illustrator was a big fan of the book. It looks like the work of an admirer, doesn't it? It also screams NOBLE QUEST! Funny how the centaur got so much prettier. Charles Wallace is also a little precious. I'm nitpicking.
Another 1973. I kinda love this one. Classic example of less is more. Love the illustrations of the kids. Love the centaur. Love the strange egg things and the sense of height and wonder. It reminds me a bit of an illustration for a Roald Dahl book, which is not a bad thing at all. I've done some clicking around to try and discover the cover artist, but made a massive fail of it. Poop.
1976. I remember this rerelease version. Pretty modern, no? I could see this being released today. The centaur design is cool and I love the text layout. It's pretty sexy. Labyrinth sexy.
1988. My first response is to giggle. The man with the red eyes looks pretty grouchy, doesn't he? Maybe because he's afraid the centaur is gonna pee on his head. Or, trip over his magical bubble. :) Actually, the cover is intriguing enough that I'd probably pick it up. It's corny, but it's the right kind of corny. I love how watery and muddled everything is in contrast with the sharp peaks and razor wings. On the other hand, there's such a strong mystical vibe that my parents might have though twice about letting KidSarah read this. It looks like a dangerous book.
This is the 2007 version. It's clear that they've tried to maintain a nostalgic vibe. I'm fine with that. What do I like about this cover? I love that Mrs. Who, Mrs. Which and Mrs. Whatsit finally get some cover time. They're awesome characters and they deserve it. It's sort of cool that you can follow the story-line around the border of the book. On the other hand, it isn't a cover that's going to catch your eye from far away. They're selling this book to the parents who read it as kids, not to the actual kids of today.
Which version did you grow up with? Do you have a favorite?