Even though I am not a religious person, the book still held a lot of wisdom. However, I was annoyed by the following two statements: "Atheism is a peculiar state of mind; you cannot deny the existence of that which does not exist. I cannot say, 'That chair is not there,' if there is no chair to say it about" and "To the non-believer, the person who sees no cosmos in chaos, we are all the victims of the darkness which surrounds our choices; we have lost our way; we do not know what is right and what is wrong; we cannot tell our left hand from our right. There is no meaning."

The former is just a logical error. To use the same example as L'Engle, one can deny the existence of the chair if someone else is insisting the chair is there. An atheist may not be content to stay silent when others are loudly and insistently voices that there is a God. There is nothing peculiar about that.

The second is the same old annoying argument that without a belief in God one cannot have a moral system and cannot believe in order in the universe. Why can I not believe in a cosmic order without believing it was dictated by God? I can and I do. Why can a desire not to harm others and to try and do what is best not lead to a moral system without rules from God? It can. I believe I have morals, and I know many people who are agnostics or atheists who also have morals.

I respect people who are religious. I wish that more people who were religious would respect those of us who are not (and other religious people, for that matter. More people just need to respect each other.).

"Art is an affirmation of life, a rebuttal of death."

"It is one of those impossibilities I believe in; and, in believing, my own feet touch the surface of the lake, and I go to meet him, like Peter, walking on water." ( )

I read this book while immersed in an artist colony off the coast of Massachusetts, so its impact on my life is somewhat tied together with an experience that does, in fact, encompass many of the reflections that are written here.

While I do not come back to this book quite as often as some of L'Engle's other works, I do pick it up every couple of years. ( )

I liked the book and will most likely re-read it at some point. That said, the writing was a little loose. She seems to be the 180 degrees from Flannery O'Connor's vision of Catholic art and what it means to be a Catholic artist. Or, perhaps I completely misunderstood. Hence the need for a re-read in a few years.

There are a handful of writer's resources I go to when I get discouraged or feel stupid: Walking on Water, King's On Writing, and... Hm, maybe that's all. This book may be more Christian-centric than other resources. But L'Engle has an expansive and compassionate understanding of her religious foundation, as well as a rich cultural understanding of art, and I would encourage any writer to take a look at her ideas. She basically reminds us that writing serves something not entirely graspable by the conscious, rational mind; that it's hard work; and that humble service to a calling through hard work is all anyone should ever ask of herself. So relax, be grateful you even have a calling, and keep writing. ( )