. Spinning .

Tremendously interesting book, despite the fact that it likely could have been read much faster and I sort of dragged it out a bit.

What I appreciated was the concept of presenting the one-dimension, two-dimension, and three-dimensional worlds and populating them with geometric forms then tossing them into areas so aligned with the nature and history of mankind. 

Patterns of superiority/inferiority within worlds and amongst them were statements appealing to the natural inclination of dominant/subordinant personalities. Metaphors of forms for residents is curious, angles of import being equal or of greater degree, thus the near-angleless women being at the bottom of the pile.  While social status is based on productivity or career, similar to the situation in Handmaid’s Tale, the specific differences in appearance and evident disdain for the sharper or irregular angled folk brings more of a racial or tribal element in.  Orwell’s Animal Farm hinted at this as well since the species were so dissimilar.

As far as the writing style, I don’t feel competent to judge but I do know that I didn’t find any great creative use of language.  Imagery is for the forms and so much is taken up by imagining the worlds that Abbott may have indeed focused our attention there.  For example, the one splash of color as the residents discovered paint was easily visualized and reinforced the two-dimensional figures.

Very interesting book, the creative force directed not to plot or character, but to concept.  And, to my own love, perception.

Many layers of this story, in fact, explaining layers of life, planes, dimensions.  There’s the obvious lessons of dimensioning geometric figures.  There’s the even more obvious statement on society and the oppression of women and the lower classes.  What’s interesting is that Abbott reveals human nature in this simplest and most basic form.  As Square tries to learn the concept of a third dimension, he must be shown and see it with his own eyes before he will accept and understand the idea.  His initial response was anger; later, it becomes open to all possibilities even beyond the third dimension he has seen.  In doing so, he has elevated the Spacelander first to a god, then to just a stepping stone in the patterns of life that may expand to many, many dimensions.

I: My Lord, your own wisdom has taught me to aspire to One even more great, more beautiful, and more closely approximate to Perfection than yourself.  As you yourself, superior to all Flatland forms, combine many Circles in One, so doubtless there is One above you who combines many Spheres in One Supreme Existence, surpassing even the Solid of Spaceland. (p. 70)

Square will be persecuted for his knowledge, something that the Circles have known about but suppressed to protect their on authority.  Sound familiar?

Oddly enough, a place like Flatland, Orwell’s world of 1984, Atwood’s Handmaid’s Tale, all strike me as only extremes of what we live ourselves right now.

Square has awakened from his dream of Lineland to find a visitor from the three-dimensional world of Spaceland in his home.  Just as he tried to explain his world and grew frustrated with the failure of the Lineland Monarch to comprehend a second dimension, Square cannot conceive what his visitor is describing.

Experience affected by knowledge into change of perception.

I’m determined to finish this novel today and then maybe take a break from reading.

It seems that there is much that Abbott gives the reader to consider though the symbolism in his written world can mostly relate rather obviously.  There are a few questions in this reader’s mind however that point to less evident trails and this is where I always wonder whether the author was clever enough to consider them or whether indeed, a student of Barthes just steamrolls his own way through.

As our two-dimensional Square first comes upon Lineland, his confusion is clear:

It seemed that this poor ignorant Monarch–as he called himself–was persuaded that the Straight Line which he called his Kingdom, and in which he passed his existence, constituted the whole of his world, and indeed the whole of Space. (p. 45)

The people here are all lines, standing in a straight line end to end with the Monarch at its center, therefore, even with an eye at each end, he sees only a point in each direction.  Also, these folks don’t move–except for sex and that’s another oddity (I’m sure that’s one thought that most readers have wondered about even in dual dimensionality from page 1:  how do they, you know, do it?).

What then does this limited view of the world represent?  And yet they seem to know each other well–if no one and nothing outside of this line.  They depend upon voice, which would make sense, since if they cannot move out of formation (there being in their minds no existence of space left or right).  To procreate, once a week they shimmy in place and raise their voices until a male finds two females in harmony and the trio consummates the marriage in the sound.

So what is the importance of sound in this land?  The humming or Peace Cry was something Flatland females were required to make as a means of protecting other forms (male) by warning them of their proximity.  That, together with a wavering of their needle-sharp rear ends kept the world safe–unless a devious Woman felt particularly nasty, being loaded with emotion and little sense.

The forms take on a question of their own.  My first thought would have been that the straight line represented the male and the circle the female.  But then, I live in a seventeen-dimensional world. 

This concept may be very familiar to mathematicians but to me it was a flash:

Although popularly everyone called a Circle is deemd a Circle, yet among the better educated Classes it is known that no Circle is really a Circle, but only a Polygon with a very large number of small sides.  As the number of sides increases, a Polygon approximates to a Circle; and, when the number is very great indeed, say for example three to four hundred, it is extremely difficult for the most delicate touch to feel any polygonal angles. (p. 35)

I love it.  As each generation gains an angle (or more) more than their father–since mom is a needle-ended line only–the additional sides, now shortened and of higher degrees, would eventually round out to a circle, the highest form of Flatlander.  What I see here as well is the hidden true nature of the ones in power, appearance being not only false, but very alike each other without close inspection.

This I don’t love so much, but understand that it was a comment on not the women so much as the patronizing mindset of the men of the Victorian era:

About three hundred years ago, it was decreed by the Chief Circle that, since women are deficient in Reason but Abundant in Emotion, they ought no longer be treated as rational, nor receive any mental education.  (p. 39)

Moreover, among Women, we use language implying the utmost deference for their sex and they fully believe that the Chief Circle Himself is not more devotedly adored by us than they are: but behind their backs they are both regarded and spoken of–by all except the very young–as being little better than "mindless organisms." (p. 40)

By the way, the improper use of punctuation is as it appears in my book–not of my own doing.

I do wonder how this book was taken at the time of its printing.  Did men recognize themselves as the pompous pricks referred to in the novel?  Did women, many of whom did recognize their state as demeaning yet saw the trade-off in being taken care of and full measure of control over their households, see this as satire?

Did they wish to have the Flatland woman’s ass of a deadly needle?

If a man with a Triangular front and a polygonal back were allowed to exist and to propagate a still more Irregular posterity, what would become of the arts of life?  (p. 24)

None but the perfect need be.  Survival of the fittest.  Genocide.

The concept of this story is phenomenal because it is based upon a simple premise of figures and angles, the whole being personfied into Flatland and its inhabitants.  I would of course love most to know how this idea came to Abbott, and how he approached it in to come up with the narrative structure here.

Another thing: the detail, the foreshadowing of conflict, the world that Abbott has created is well carried out and yet…I’m not involved.  The writing is fine.  There is humor and there is social statement and it is well presented.

There’s some great stuff here but why has nothing hit me aside from the concept?

Gender, sure, but what’s the difference when the physical difference is so surely the reason in Flatland:

To my readers in Spaceland, the condition of our Women may seem truly deplorable, and so indeed it is.  A Male of the lowest type of the Isosceles may look forward to some improvement of his angle, and to the ultimate elevation of the whole of his degraded caste; but no Woman can entertain such hopes for her sex.  "Once a Woman, always a Woman" is a Decree of Nature; and the very Laws of Evolution seem suspended in her disfavor.  Yet at least we can admire the wise Prearrangement which has ordained that, as they have no hopes, so they shall have no memory to recall, and no forethought to anticipate, the miseries and humiliations which are at once a necessity of their existence and the basis of the constitution of Flatland.  (p. 14)

Abbott is of course hyperbolizing the condition of women’s status in society at his time of the late 1800s and yet there seems to be a poke at religion here as well.  What is the real reference for "wise Prearrangement" when seen as a plan to keep women in their place?  Does the "necessity of their existence" refer to bearing the mark of original sin? 

There’s more than human rights at the core of story here.  Even as one reads this over a century later there is a twinge in this woman’s non-feminist mind of rebellion and so I must wonder what the women–if they’d read it–of Abbott’s time would think?  Did they, as I, swallow back the gall of memory and laugh?  A polite titter perhaps?

I doubt it.

Isn’t he just adorable?

This might be something cool–Flatland, the film might just be something I’d like to get a hold of and do a comparison of both medium and culture, especially since there’s over a century between the writing and the movie rendition.  The website for the film is here.

That’s obviously a Sphere above, a native of Spaceland, since there’s shadow and light reflections that indicate the depth that a Flatlander just ain’t got.  What I’m assuming is Square looks like a flatter version of Spongepants Bob.

Hah!  It wasn’t his educational reputation he was worried about, nor political and social shunning.  Edwin Abbott originally published Flatland under a pseudonym.  I strongly suspect it was for his very life he feared once this got out:

Not that it must be for a moment supposed that our Women are destitute of affection.  But unfortunately the passion of the moment predominates, in the Frail Sex, over every other consideration.  This is, of course, a necessity arising from their unfortunate conformation.  For as they have no pretensions to an angle, being inferior in this respect to the very lowest of the Isoceles, they are consequently wholly devoid of brainpower, and have neither reflection, judgment nor forethought and hardly any memory.  Hence, in their fits of ffury, they remember no claims and recognize no distinctions. 

(…) Obviously then a Woman is not to be irritated as long as she is in a position where she can turn around.   (p. 13)

Women in Flatland, you see, are shaped like needles, and of course if they face you head on, they can hide in near invisibility and hell, if you back into them or they come at you, you’re dead meat.  Besides, they’re also dumber than a rock–albeit a dramatic rock.

Evidently satire, but as Abbott indicates, there’s no telling how intolerant and downright nasty some folks can get when led by emotion.

What’s so great about this novel is that it illustrates its points in dimensioning, i.e., a triangle or square is drawn as a figure.  In Flatland, these actual figures are seen only as straight lines and the image of triangle, square, etc., only from above, which would be height as height and width (or breadth) are the only two dimensions known to its inhabitants.  Light or brightness coming off the angles of the form can indicate what that form can be, regardless of its line-appearance.

What’s even better about this novel is that even though it’s likely a one-day read, I tend to drag it out and think about it a while and make references of my own.  One reference is back to The Life of Geronimo Sandoval and string theory which is what led me to Flatland as a next-up choice of reading. 

Another is to my own favorite subject of perception.  My husband’s outright laugh after all these years has come down to a tolerant smile as I tell him that a six-inch plane flew overhead yesterday.  As a design engineer he has learned to come through the process of hand-drawing three-dimensional objects on paper all the way to the computer rendering of three-dimensional prototypes with the CAD software available. 

In one way, once you learn about something new you only see that new viewpoint.  For example, those poster images where you stare at them long enough you’ll see a "hidden" image composed of certain colored dots.  My gynecologist has one on the ceiling of the examination room. Once you have attuned your eyes and senses to see the image, you’ll almost always find it immediately after that.

Another thought:  Why can’t televsion and movie film shoot the three-dimensional and present it as such, or through a filter so that the red/green cellophane eyewear or the stereoscope for stills isn’t required at this last viewing stage, but built in somewhere earlier in the process?

Abbott seems to have something to say about culture and society in his own world of four dimensions and is getting it said via Square’s description of Flatland:

Rarely–in proportion to the vast numbers of Isoceles births–is a genuine and certifiable Equal-Sided Triangle produced from Isoceles parents.  Such a birth requires, as its antecedents, not only a series of carefully arranged intermarriages, but also a long, continued exercise of frugality and self-control on the part of the would-be ancestors of the coming Equilateral, and a patient, systematic, and continuous development of the Isoceles intellect through many generations. (p.

Flatland’s strict social structure reminds me of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, wherein the status is determined by the occupation of the individual, though the explanation above obviously indicates that all stations have breeding rights, which Atwood’s world did not allow.  However, while the inhabitants of Flatland are also known by their geometric form, Atwood’s characters were distinguished from one another by their attire, both in color and style.  But we can see how a jig or jag in a gene in a Triangle can produce a Square–and this child would become a higher form, but wait, here’s what happens:

The birth of a True Equilateral Triangle from Isoceles parents is the subject of rejoicing in our country or many furlongs around.  After a strict examination conducted by the Sanitary and Social Board, the infant, if certified as Regular, is then immediately taken from his proud yet sorrowing parents and adopted by some childless Equilateral (…)

There then is the similarity to Atwood’s future world.  Not only is social strata of prime importance, there’s the acceptance of this outrageous behavior for another reason, one that existed and likely will always exist as a large part of man’s nature, that of the grumbling of inequality and eventual war.  The upper classes of Flatland understand that the lower classes, with this one hope of bettering themselves in generations to come, were less likely to rebel. 

How many authors have I read now that had been writing under threat of political persecution–Boethius, Aristotle, Voltaire, Bulgakov.  And now, while Abbott is not under such, his character of Square, the narrator of this story ends up there evidently and Abbott himself published the novel originally under a pseudonym so as not to risk tarnishing his reputation by writing about unheard-of ideas.

This, in the Preface says it well:

What would you say to such a visitor?  Would not you have him locked up?  Well, that is my fate; and it is so natural for us Flatlanders to lock up a Square for preaching the Third Dimension as it is for you Spacelanders to lock up a Cube for preaching the Fourth.  Alas, how strong a family likeness runs through blind and persecuting humanity in all Dimensions!  Lines, Squares, Cubes, Extra-Cubes–we are all liable to the same errors, all alike the Slaves of our respective Dimensional prejudices, as one of your Spaceland poets has said–"One touch of Nature makes all worlds akin."  (p. ix.)

Even in our own modern democratic society there are those who will aspire to higher knowledge and ideas that are in conflict with those long established and held by the majority.  Abbott here is just adding a touch of historical realism to his fantastical story.

How could I put back upon the shelf a book wherein circles talk to squares?

This short novel by Edwin A. Abbott looks to be the perfect followup to The Life of Geronimo Sandoval. Again, I may not quite catch the mathematical equations but it is such an intrigueing idea, the additional dimensions to a world that’s getting tired and so unglamorous because it is too well accepted as being known.