. Spinning .

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?