Talk:Flatland

Discworld

Discworld is not at all like Flatland -- no explorations of worlds with more or less than three dimensions, just parodies of various science-fiction and fantasy. Removing. --Crunchy Frog 23:07, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that Discworld has no relevance here, but Pratchett's work is not just parody. Of course Discworld is not a 2-dimensional space - the disc has height, and this is three dimensional.--RLent 17:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Term "Flatland[er]" in culture

• There's nothing in the article nor on this talk page about use of "Flatland" or "Flatlander" in other discussions, such as its use as an accusation of narrow thinking. I'll look for sources, and if there's no objection I'll add something, or encourage others to. Barno 18:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No relevant hits on Google's first "Flatlander" page, but there's a website listing the "Big Flaming Paper Sack of Dog Poo Award" on the same page as someone using "flatlander" for a Blogspot nickname. Guess I should look at later pages or refine the search. Barno 18:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • About half the first page of hits googling "Flatlander+thinking" are this usage. I'll add some text and some sourcing, and people can edit it as needed to, um, round it out. Barno 18:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• But does this mean (or is it being confused with) 'Flat-Earthers', i.e. people who believe the earth is flat rather than round? Ben Finn 13:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• The term Flatlander when used in terms of narrow thinking has nothing to do with this article, so no mention of it should be used.

There should be some mention - if only a "see also" - for folks who think the term is derived from this book and come here looking for guidance. ... As I noticed, after writing this note, that somebody has already done. That is sufficient, I think. - DavidWBrooks 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

movie of the book

Let's wait until the movie exists before we link to it - the world is full of "almost-made" movies that never make it to "made" - although it looks like it could be good. - DavidWBrooks 23:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No Spoiler warnings? 72.224.120.138

The movie has been made -- just awaiting release http://www.flatlandthemovie.com/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.235.173 (talk • contribs) 11:14, April 17, 2007 (UTC)

It has been linked for some time. - DavidWBrooks 11:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

where is Flatland?

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I seem to remember the sphere telling Square that Flatland was on the surface of a body of water, like a sea. Relevant? Wikiwarlock 19:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Do you have a cite? Sounds like you're misremembering. Xihr 20:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• He does say that (he calls the plane of Flatland a "fluid" because he can pass through it), but he's just explaining his ability to sink below the surface when he uses the "fluid" metaphor. This is during the scene in A. Square's house when the Sphere unsuccessfully tries to describe the third dimension (and Spaceland) with words. A. Square doesn't comprehend this metaphor or any other attempts properly and only understands once he is shown. Flatland appears to be a plane within Spaceland (just as Square dreams that Lineland is a line within the plane of Flatland). An infinite, but permeable, plane viewed from above could properly be described as a "sea." Oh yeah, as for a citation (it comes from Part II, chapter 16 "How the Stranger Vainly Endeavoured to Reveal to Me in Words the Mysteries of Spaceland") :

"You are living on a Plane. What you style Flatland is the vast level surface of what I may call a fluid, on, or in, the top of which you and your countrymen move about, without rising above it or falling below it."

--Curien1000 18:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Other works?

Does anybody recall a more recent novel based on a two-dimensional universe? I know it exists and I've read it, but I don't know the title off hand. It was somewhat more technical in approach, but it was most definately inspired by Flatland. 24.57.252.179

Probably The Planiverse by A. K. Dewdney. Xihr 22:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't this originally have links to the Flatland RPG sites? I found one of them eventually by going through three or four links, but can't find the other at all now.

My game (The Original Flatland RPG) is at http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=ROW003

The KaSe game was at http://edge.rpgnow.com/default.php?manufacturers_id=637 but this seems to be a bad link now, not sure what's happened to it,

Hope this helps Marcus Rowland 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Content?

Lots of nice links to further reading, but I've still no idea what the novella is about. I know that it's of interest to mathematicians, but no clue as to its actual substance. Not very useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.144.73.31 (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Huh? There's a long paragraph that describes the story, and then discussion about the social aspect. What else are you looking for? - DavidWBrooks 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Although that's true, the story wasn't described with much detail and several important elements were reported incorrectly, in the wrong order, or completely ommitted. I fixed a few things today. Before, Square's expulsion from Spaceland and imprisonment in Flatland were sort of combined into a single event and it was implied that Square was imprisoned for guessing that a fourth dimension might exist. Only the abrupt return to Flatland was related to Square's theorizing about a fourth dimension - he was imprisoned in Flatland for telling his own people about the third dimension. Also the article originally omitted the fact that Square and the Sphere were eventually reconciled and that the visit to Pointland occurs AFTER expulsion from Spaceland. I also put in the sub-plot about A. Square's imprisoned brother.I have the timeline in the correct order now, but my writing is pretty weak. Feel free to clean it up, but please keep the story true to the book. --Curien1000 18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an online Cliff notes - we don't need to relate every plot element of every book. The point is to give a quick overview of the storyline for the casual reader; dragging in every single plot and subplot makes things unreadably long and tedious, as I personally think you've done. But I won't revert it, since it's a matter of taste. - DavidWBrooks 20:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Depth perception

Even though flatlanders could only view two dimensional objects in one dimensional cross sections, couldn't they have utilized paralax? It's analogous to us three dimensional beings. We only view the world through two dimensional cross sections (you can never see an entire 3D object all at once without rotating it and going inside of it). Yet, we have depth perception because the closer an object is to the eyes, the more different cross sections that are produced in each eye. It just seems like the "fog" and "feeling" is a messy idea that could have been solved easily. Paralax would have solved the problem of getting impaled by a woman for example, because although a woman might appear pointlike to one eye, she would appear as a line segment in the other eye due to the different viewing angles of each eye.

Sorry- wrong term. It's not called paralax, it's stereopsis, but same principle. 24.187.17.94 05:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Flatlanders only have one eye - it's also used as their mouth. If they arre geometrical shapes without any internal structure they would fall apart if there was more than one opening into their bodies, which is why impalement is so deadly. Marcus Rowland 16:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the Flatlanders do have internal structure: The sphere pokes the square's insides (the square can feel it), and from Spaceland, they can see the internal structure that the square previously could only imagine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.161.36 (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I haven't read the book and may be asking a stupid question here, but if the shapes are two dimensional then their thickness would be zero, so how could they "see" each other, even in cross section? That dimension would not exist for them, and only an observer from above could actually "see" anything. The closest thing we have to a one-dimensional object is time, which cannot be "seen" in itself. Perhaps I should pop into my local library to see if the author explains this one... Paul-b4 (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

They see each other the same way that we see each other, but in one less dimension. Imagine, if you will, a four-dimensional being looking in at us from "above" and wondering how we manage to be able to see each other because our fourth-dimensional thickness would be zero. — Val42 (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is a good question, so much so that in the Preface to the Second and Revised Edition, Abbott feels compelled to address this. I'll copy the relevant part:

[M]y...Flatland friend...has...requested me to reply in his behalf to two special objections, one of an intellectual...nature.

The first objection is, that a Flatlander, seeing a Line, sees something that must be thick to the eye as well as long to the eye (otherwise it would not be visible, if it had not some thickness); and consequently he ought (it is argued) to acknowledge that his countrymen are not only long and broad, but also (though doubtless to a very slight degree) thick or high. This objection is plausible, and, to Spacelanders, almost irresistible, so that, I confess, when I first heard it, I knew not what to reply. But my poor old friend's answer appears to me completely to meet it.

"I admit," said he--when I mentioned to him this objection--"I admit the truth of your critic's facts, but I deny his conclusions. It is true that we have really in Flatland a Third unrecognized Dimension called 'height,' just as it also is true that you have really in Spaceland a Fourth unrecognized Dimension, called by no name at present, but which I will call 'extra-height.' But we can no more take cognizance of our 'height' than you can of your 'extra-height.' Even I--who have been in Spaceland, and have had the privilege of understanding for twenty-four hours the meaning of 'height'--even I cannot now comprehend it, nor realize it by the sense of sight or by any process of reason; I can but apprehend it by faith.

"The reason is obvious. Dimension implied direction, implies measurement, implies the more and the less. Now, all our lines are equally and infinitesimally thick (or high, whichever you like); consequently, there is nothing in them to lead our minds to the conception of that Dimension. No 'delicate micrometer'--as has been suggested by one too hasty Spaceland critic--would in the least avail us; for we should not know what to measure, nor in what direction. When we see a Line, we see something that is long and bright; brightness, as well as length, is necessary to the existence of a Line; if the brightness vanishes, the Line is extinguished. Hence, all my Flatland friends--when I talk to them about the unrecognized Dimension which is somehow visible in a Line--say, 'Ah, you mean brightness': and when I reply, 'No, I mean a real Dimension,' they at once retort, 'Then measure it, or tell us in what direction it extends'; and this silences me, for I can do neither. Only yesterday, when the Chief Circle (in other words our High Priest) came to inspect the State Prison and paid me his seventh annual visit, and when for the seventh time he put me the question, 'Was I any better?' I tried to prove to him that he was 'high,' as well as long and broad, although he did not know it. But what was his reply? 'You say I am "high"; measure my "high-ness" and I will believe you.' What could I do? How could I meet his challenge? I was crushed; and he left the room triumphant.

"Does this still seem strange to you? Then put yourself in a similar position. Suppose a person of the Fourth Dimension, condescending to visit you, were to say, 'Whenever you open your eyes, you see a Plane (which is of Two Dimensions) and you infer a Solid (which is of Three); but in reality you also see (though you do not recognize) a Fourth Dimension, which is not colour nor brightness nor anything of the kind, but a true Dimension, although I cannot point out to you its direction, nor can you possibly measure it.' What would you say to such a visitor? Would not you have him locked up? Well, that is my fate: and it is as 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! Points, Lines, Squares, Cubes, Extra-Cubes--we are all liable to the same errors, all alike the Slavers of our respective Dimensional prejudices, as one of our Spaceland poets has said--

'One touch of Nature makes all worlds akin.'" (copied from http://www.eldritchpress.org/eaa/FLPF.HTM where you can find the rest of it). 70.22.249.198 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I see. So, if I understand the above correctly, the Flatlanders actually DO exist in a three dimensional universe, it's just that they do not understand the concept of "height" (in the same way that some people cannot look at a picture of a car and recognise it as a representation of a 3D object.) Thanks for clearing that one up. Paul-b4 (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sexism

Having only run through some of the book, I'm not sure if this is relevant but: maybe this article should mention the sexism in the book? In part 1, section 3, they refer to the lower class inhabitants as "creatures almost on a level with women in their lack of intelligence". Unless this is some sort of victorian humour that I don't understand, I think it deserves to be at least mentioned here. Slut.i.huvudet 00:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Though the two-dimensional society portrayed in Flatland is undoubtedly sexist, the book itself is not; Abbott was satirizing Victorian attitudes towards women, not condoning them. This, of course, would be a good thing to mention in this article. Adso de Fimnu 04:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The article clearly state that the work is a satire, so such appearances of sexism should in fact, be taken to indicate the opposite. However, I think the current version of the article obscures this fact. While mention of the satire and social commentary is made, the majority of the article focuses on the mathematical premises of the work. Pretty much the entire first half of the work is ignored. (For instance, in the plot summary. However, as the fisrt portion is more descriptive, and as such has little in the way of plot. Nevertheless, more mention of it's content's should be made.)

In fact, in addition to being sexist, the Flatland society exibits many other facets considered unjust and as violating human rights. For instance, serfdom, a hereditary aristocracy, theocracy, suppression of freedom of religion, speech, etc., support for eugenics, racism (of a sort) etc. In my reading of the book (original research, of course, but not likely unique, so references may exist), it's really about closedmindedness and the mathematical aspects are used to enforce the points and ephasize that the closeminded cannot even percive thier failings. Karatorian (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, satire is often misinterpreted today. I suppose people of today may not be aware that when flatlands was written, the important battles to gain Woman's Suffrage were being fought, and that "Flatlands" was an instrument of change. Comments are regularly made about "Huckleberry Finn" showing complete lack of awareness of its role in the abolition of slavery. Perhaps people will also make similar comments about Swift's "A Modest Proposal". Ted (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Penname?

I was told by my Geometry teacher when we read the book that Abbott used a penname when he originally published it. Is this true? If so, it would be worth mentioning. 71.127.122.7 01:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Abbott was a distinguished schoolmaster and theologian. The first edition of the book was released under the pseudonym (or pen name) of "A. Square", which it carries to this day. I do not know which edition added Abbott's name, but preface to the 2nd edition (also 1884) indicates the author remained anonymous. Perhaps it was after he retired in 1889. --Blainster 00:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The name of the narrator ("A. Square" vs "a square")

It is a surprisingly common mistake for people to think that the narrator of Flatland is named "A. Square". This is not true, however. The original title page said, "By A Square"--no period after the "A", which is simply the indefinite article (this can be seen on the title page reproduced in this Wikipedia article). Throughout the novel, not a single character is named. I have corrected this mistake in the article here. JudahH 03:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your recent erasure of a sourced claim, JudahH, this and the above section must be the "old discussion"? It looks as though you are both correct and incorrect. You are correct in that Abbott's pen name was not "A. Square" (with a period) as indicated above by editor Blainster in March, 2007. But it does appear that you are incorrect in that Abbott's pen name was indeed "A Square" (without the period), so all that had to be removed from the claim was the period after the "A", and it would have been correct, isn't this so?

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  04:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the paragraph above was actually written in response to an earlier edit to the "Plot" section, stating that the narrator's name was "A. Square".

As far as the point you make, I suppose that technically you might say that "a square" is Abbot's pseudonym, but it's not really a pseudonym in the usual sense--that is, no one is meant to actually believe that the book was written by a square. It's just part of the conceit of the book, which was essentially written anonymously. Simply stating in the first paragraph that Abbot wrote under the pseudonym "A Square" without explaining the context of that is a bit confusing, in my opinion, which is why I just removed that clause, but since you think it should go in, I will make a more minor revision, clarifying the context of that name. (As for "A Square" vs. "a square", it is quite clear that the capitalization is a feature of the title page, not of the name itself. Actually, in the original edition (a scanned version is linked in the article), it was written in all caps: "A SQUARE".) JudahH (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no support for this except the simple fact of it, but the name Edwin Abbott Abbott contains A(bbott) A(bbott) = A^2, or A SQUARE(d) a clever pun from a clever mathematician and author. Ted (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Flatland as a social satire

It would be nice to add in information stuff about how Flatland is a satire of Victorian society rather than just talking about the book itself.

But we need citations to add this information. — Val42 19:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Stewart's annotated edition provides this in pretty good detail, along with a lot of other background research. 173.70.127.93 (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A reference

Brian Greene makes extensive use of Flatland (and Lineland) as an analogy in his books The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos. Perhaps that could be included in the "Other Uses" section? 66.66.133.188 23:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated films

"A 1997 animated short Flatworld is unrelated to Flatland". if it's unrelated shouldn't it be deleted? --G30ffr3y (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a judgment call. Mentioning it might help confused readers who came to this article by accident: "Oh, right, now I remember - it was Flatworld!" On the other hand, we can't mention every movie or book that might be confused with this one, so the question is whether this is close enough to be worth mentioning. I'd say yes. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

First Edition of Flatland

Anyone know anything about the First Edition of it? 1884 is the year of his Second and Revised Edition. --70.23.237.75 (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Harm of Flatland

This book has caused some damage. It leads impressionable people to believe that a dimension is a world that is inhabited by observers. It gives the impression that a dimension is a universe or a realm of being. It describes intelligent beings who could come from a certain world and be able to detect more dimensions than beings who have more limited intelligences and who live in another dimensional world. These are all false spatial metaphors. In so doing, the book misleads people and prevents them from understanding that a dimension is merely a way of measuring, determined by the constitution of our animal brains. As a result of this constitution, there can be only three spatial dimensions. The author cleverly presents authoritative people who live in worlds of limited dimensions as cruel, tyrannical, and bloodthirsty. This engenders sympathy for people who crave the liberation of being able to know and experience more spatial dimensions. Many generations have been misinformed and misled by Flatland into misunderstanding the word dimension. It is likely that the damage is irreparable and dimension joins the many other words in our language whose original and proper meaning has been forever lost and whose signified concepts will now be always be misunderstood.Lestrade (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

And those talking bears in the "Goldilocks" stories - just think how many years they have fooled people into thinking that grizzlies are orators! It's a crime, I tell you, a crime!!!- DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your facetious post reveals the extent of the damage that has been done. What is your definition of dimension?Lestrade (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

What's the point of this post? The purpose of this talk page is to discuss the article, not the subject. If you feel that article should include this information, find reliable sources that state this and modify the article. If you cannot find a reliable resoure, then this is original research. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure, Lestrade, that the mathematical insights in "Flatlands" are limiting. I suspect that nearly all string theorists have read the first three chapters of Flatlands, and some of them have used Flatland as a conceptual framework to be able to visualize higher dimensions. I agree that combining Cartesian determinacy with Flatlands' dimensional limitation makes relativistic curving of spacetime a bit harder to fathom, but that is DesCartes' doing, not Abbott's. Ted (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Simpsons reference?

Could the Homer³ episode of the Simpons (as mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_of_Horror_VI#Homer3 ) also be a reference to flatland?

87.114.0.78 (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Only obliquely at best. It's trivia, anyway.  Xihr  08:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Other Related Works

The first exposure I had to Flatland was as the inspiration for a young adult novel I read many years ago. That book doesn't appear to be among the related works listed in the article. Unfortunately I do not recall the title or author. It was about a schoolboy (and, eventually, his female friend) who stumbles into hyperspace and has various adventures and mishaps. It also featured the existance of lower dimensional spaces, similar to flatland, but on the surface of a sphere. In the end he becomes a member of a secret society tasked with protecting one of them from from higher dimensional beings (such as, ironically, himself). Does anyone know the book I'm refering too? Karatorian (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would ask over at http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/topics but before doing so read the Story identification requests section of http://groups.google.com/group/rec.answers/browse_thread/thread/fac8bfea79f53415/b778d6c48f5d1dfc --Marc Kupper|talk 01:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)