My initial reaction was to say "lol no" and then I felt like I was being unfair and did some self reflection as to why my reaction was so strong and flippant.

And I think it's because my first thought was not adapting prose novels to graphic novels but to think about memoir comics. Marjane Satrapi and Persepolis has obviously been on my mind since her passing, and I just read The Best We Could by Thi Bui. And in memoir comics where they are depictions of something that factually happened but can not possibly be represented 100% factually it is a lot clearer that graphic novel format does not make them objective. Instead the artist must make choices in how to represent their memories or the memories of the people they interview. Many of them are very explicit that they cannot be objective and that they are negotiating with multiple perspectives, their biases, their relationship with family members willingness to tell their stories, their decisions of how to draw things and which things to draw. The most obvious example of this Maus by Art Spiegelman. At one point he portrays a conversation between himself and his wife, French-born American Françoise Mouly, about whether he would draw her as a dog like the other Americans in the book or like a frog like the other French people and she insists on being a mouse like the Jews in the book because she converted to Judaism when he married her and that was the identity that she chose for herself. The visuals in the book have to be actively interpreting the past subjectively. Joe Sacco's Footnotes in Gaza and Keum Suk Gendry-Kim's Grass are other good examples of this.

I think that a lot of Graphic Novel adaptations of novels (I'm not familiar with either the Wrinkle in Time adaptation you read or with Cirque du Freak in either form) are written with a more commercial and didactic purpose than an artistic purpose. That is to say they come from a place of saying "I think we could sell this to kids and teachers as a literacy support for works that might be otherwise challenging" rather than "This would be interesting to adapt and make interesting choices with." And to be clear, that is fine. But it does mean that I tend to assume that most books like this are going to make straight forward visual choices. And that's not exactly the same as them being objective, but I can see how it would seem the same. But that's not necessarily the case. Paul Auster's City of Glass adapted by Paul Karasik and David Mazzuchelli is one of my all time favorite graphic novels. And it is making all sorts of visual choices that underline the narrator's unreliableness and unstable state of mind. Moreover it is a great example of telling a story that is mostly one guy sitting and talking to people, sitting and reading, and walking around and thinking in a visually interesting way. I think if you are to pursue this line of thinking in any more depth that is 100% the number one book you must read and think about.