|
|
|
|
"Villain!" I cried.
|
| | 1 | 10/23/2011 12:44 AM | Keeping the Ball Rolling. I feel like posting more on this subject to keep this board up here. (sorry Mr. Chiz)
So to not drag on with an old topic, I want to draw some parallels between Flatland and our more recent topics.
Twelfth Night: Specifically the heirarchal pecking order of the characters.
In Flatland the caste is specifically outlined with the smarter (less inquisative/ adventerous) beings at the top, and the less smart (more inquisative/ adventerous) beings lower down. The very bottom reverts to the less adventerous, more obedient beings, and the least smart ones.
In twelfth night the system is less clear as all characters interact almost as equals, however the standard order of master and servant can be applied, putting (to name only a few) the Duke at the top, cesario in the middle, and maria at the bottom.
Comparison: SAME: The Duke (aka circle) controlls all, and rarely leaves his estate to mingle in the scenes of the others. Cesario (aka Square) goes out into the city and is the middle man, he interacts often and has more knowledge of the goings on of the world of the play than the others. Maria (aka triangle) at the very bottom must follow orders, and she does follow those of Olivia and Sir Toby.
DIFFERENT: The Duke proves to be the most accepting of the characters concerning the concept of violas deception, as he immediately reconciles with her. Viola/Cesario proves to be a "circle" in disguise, and yet has the characteristics of a "square" concerning knowledge of the goings ons of the others. Maria proves to be clever in her plan to humiliate Malvolio, even though it didnt really work out in the end.
What I would like to know is, what concepts/steryotypes of societal order are each of these works trying to discuss and how do the similarities and differences of the thematic element of caste serve to do so?
Any other comparisons? |
| | 2 | 10/9/2011 3:07 AM | Role Reversal I know that the structure of the flatland society has been extensively analysed, but I had a though that I want to just put out there.
What if the Circles had been the lowest class, and the Triangles had been the highest.
I dont know if this would necessarily be a complete reverse, with the circles having less brain power supposedly, and the triangles having ultimate wisdom, and with both classes staying the same other than shape reversal; or if they would retain their respective brain power, and society would experience a complete flip with the ruling class being comprised of the least smart individuals.
What would be interesting to me for the first senario, is how that would affect the roles of women. If the lines and circles were still confused for eachother, but considered almost equal, would that affect womens standing in their society?
For the second senario, I think it would be interesting to see how society would function. Maybe the triangles would not make too many decisions and just be figure heads, and the circles would make all the decisions complacently from their lower status, and they wouldnt be corrupted by their need for power if they were stuck in their place by their shape.
Any thoughts? |
| | 11 | 10/9/2011 1:09 AM | Marxism and Eugenics Maybe this is just me but I find the idea of breeding isoceles to be equilateral profoundly disturbing. On two levels.
On the first, it is the arrangement of careful marriages to produce "something better". This carries strong connotations of eugenics and a treatment of the "lower class" as worthless. Also, the idea of breeding people. Which I mean, might be a great idea as far as improvement of the species, but frankly sucks morally and ethically. And is pretty arbitrary too. Should we breed for looks, smarts, character, genius, artistry? no mattter what, we would lose diversity.
And while we're on the topic of lower classes, there's the second level. Triangles are described as the "Lower Classes" (for the love of ponies they are referred to AS SERFS) then professionals, squares and pentagons, then nobility. and lastly circles, or priests.What a specific, and rigid hierarchy, in which accession is possible but in fact, extremely dependent on birth and circumstance, not at all on personal ability, and in fact any improvement is unlikely for the majority of the population.
Isn't there some theory wherein the dream of advancement is seen as a method to keep lower classes content? Because they have HOPE for it, even if its unlikely. And the circles pretty much have a handle on everything! And what about what was said in the intro to 2nd edition? that the author no longer agrees with the circles? and something about imprisonment....hmmmmm....someone who disagrees with the high ups is in prison? Is our Mr. Abbott possibly a marxist, pointing out some flaws of a capitalistic system?
I PROMISE I'LL TRY AND THINK ABOUT THIS MORE WHEN I'M MORE COHERENT AND LESS TIRED. and improve my theory with like, research and stuff. |
| | 1 | 10/8/2011 11:16 PM | The Flatland Social Structure and India It appears to me that the social structure in Flatland could easily be seen as a two-dimensional replica of the caste system that was established in India for hundreds of years. Beginning at a low class, each shape must stay within their social group, and with each generation they gain a "side" moving them up in hierarchy. The same was in India, where through Karma an individual would be raised a class each life-cycle, unless violating social rules, much as the Squares grandfather did by accidentally stabbing his observer. As each shape gained a side, they would progressively become more enlightened until one generation would become a circle, reaching,in Hindu terms, "nirvana. It is also noted that no matter the case, women are always seen as the lowest class, and are therefore lines in Flatland. |
| | 11 | 9/30/2011 11:10 PM | "Ignorance is Bliss"? So in sixth hour today, we were talking about the scene where Square and Sphere visit Pointland, and we kept asking the same question: Is Abbott trying to say that it's better to be ignorant, or not? The Sphere, obviously, wouldn't think so; he believes that one must try to know as much as one can in order to truly lead an enlightened life. I think this was the point the author was trying to make - even at the end, Square couldn't see the visions in his mind's eye, but he knew the dimensions existed, and though it threw him in the loony bin I think that was enough for him. Based on the fact that he "decided" to pen his story down, I think he was happier to have known about the dimensions, even if it ended badly for him.
Thoughts? |
| | 5 | 9/30/2011 4:56 PM | Society While watching the movie, the main character (I don't remember what they called him) said that Flatlanders were all ignorant for not thinking that there is, per say, a higher life form than them, and I realized, us, being humans, are the same exact way. For example, I know it sounds crazy, but aliens. People don't believe in aliens because there can't possibly be any other life forms out there. Since we're humans, we believe that we have the power to do anything, which is ultimately how society became the way it is. |
| | 5 | 9/25/2011 1:16 PM | Flatland, Higher Power, and Religion Is there really a higher power in Flatland? This point confused me. Everyone wanted to move up in society and become a more respected social class and thus more perfect. The fourth dimension and the idea of other dimensions were introduced. But what exactly made the higher numbered dimensions better? They were only perceived as such by society. They were aesthetically more pretty. They weren't smarter, they were showed to be just as closed minded as the Flatlanders, they couldn't grasp the idea of the next dimension. As this book also has a focus on religion with the idea of higher unknown powers, I'd like to question the ideas of our modern religions. They contemplate one higher power. But what if that power turns out like the sphere, woefully ignorant of even greater powers? I guess my point is that we don't know, about higher dimensions or powers, so I don't think we can assign value to them. |
| | 11 | 9/25/2011 10:32 AM | Flatland movie While some what humorous and entertaining to see, the movie version of the book was quite dissapointing. Some of the main concepts like women being lines, and color being non existent where left out, and things like that completely change the ideologies of the people of Flatland. |
| | 9 | 9/25/2011 1:10 AM | Originality I must say, one of the things that I truly appreciated about Flatland was it's utter originality. Sure, there are books that expose a corrupt society, but I think that Abbott presented his ideas in such a new and interesting way. Not even that they were shapes, or that they were so blunt about the discrimination in there country. A. Square didn't get a happy ending. He didn't liberate that thinkers of Flatland or revamp society. No, he's locked in a jail right now. Rather somber, but also refreshing. And there was no romance. No crazy whirlwind adventure. Just the society and ideas. I liked this. |
| | 0 | 9/25/2011 12:17 AM | Shakespeare in Flatland Now that we're reading twelfth night, I remembered all of the little Shakespeare quotes referenced in Flatland, and was wondering if anyone ever investigated their significance. I believe that Edwin Abbott wrote something about the linguistics of Shakespeare, so I am guessing that this played a role in the inclusion of the lines. But after we discussed the book in class and tried to interpret the novel's meaning, I'm wondering how those quotes would fit in when put into context. |
| | 1 | 9/24/2011 10:20 PM | Flatland Movie Short analysis: Martin Sheen. 'Nuff said. Long analysis: It was a little disappointing, I suppose. I understand little changes like adding faces to the characters (geometric shapes aren't terribly emotive) but the film completely missed the social commentary involving the women, and quite a bit involving the caste system. Sure, they added quite a bit more drama, but Abbot's book was a satire, not a sweeping romantic adventure (although the cover does call it a "romance of many dimensions").Perhaps the indie version will be better? |
| | 10 | 9/24/2011 12:35 AM | Lesson learned "And hence, learn this lesson, that to be self-contented is to be vile and ignorant, and that to aspire is better than to be blindly and impotently happy" (75)
Is this the lesson of the entire story? That we should not be content with our society and we should consistently aspire to better things? I believe it is. Abbott makes a fabulous point when speaking of the non-dimensional world. This one, solitary dot has no thoughts of a world outside of himself just like the King of Lineland had no concept of a Line, and so on. Are we to the point where we are just blindly happy with what we are given and Abbott is making a mockery of it? |
| | 3 | 9/18/2011 6:05 PM | Lineland's Porcelain Dolls So I find it infinitely hilarious that women in Lineland can't be touched or they will shatter. Hahaha Victorian ideas of femininity and chastity of women. Touching is not only inappropriate but will harm a woman, they are so fragile. This is, I'm pretty sure, a parallel of Victorian attitudes towards male-female relations. They are supposed to be proper and sexless (gloved hands and respectful distances). I thought that this was intriguing to view this apparent criticism of Victorian sexuality, but also pretty funny. |
| | 5 | 9/18/2011 3:02 PM | Relinquishing Superiority I just wanted to note that in order to understand the next dimension, the shapes or people must realize thay they are not they best there are. This is extremely hard to do, as it is hard for humans to imagine not being the pinnacle of evolution, that there is something more. The idea of three dimensions has been so long engraved in our minds, that it would be difficult to change. Most people would not think there is even something greater than them, their natural self-centeredness would inhibit them of comprehending a further dimension. A fourth dimension would make all of us old, out-dated and inferior, and this would be hard to accept. Not that I am arguing for or against a further dimension, its just that it is so difficult to think about a further dimension because it means giving up your superiority mindset. It is easier, safer, and less frightening to think you understand everything, even if you don't. |
| | 2 | 9/18/2011 1:39 PM | Different dimensions Flatland is two dimensional, so a square looks like a square if you drew it on paper. In lineland however, everyone looks like a line, so when square travels to lineland, the king just see's him a an ordinary line. He has no sense of north or south, he can only see what he was taught to see. When square travels to the third dimension, he see's cubes and other 3 dimensional shapes, but he still says, even after he saw it, that he found it hard to believe. I think that Abbot was trying to point out that we, as humans, are limited by what we are taught, and what we believe. Sometimes, when things don't make sense, instead of pushing them aside, we should have faith in them, otherwise we will be as ignorent as point, or the king of lineland, or even sphere while square mentions a 4th dimension. |
| | 1 | 9/18/2011 1:29 PM | Religous References Flatland's society was parallel to Victorian society, especially in the religous aspects. For instance, the circles in Flatland are like priests, the most educated powerful beings. Only they can talk to God directly, they make all the rules, and rule over society, but they are flawed. They are not really circles, they just have too many sides to count. Just like priests are not perfect, they are only human therefore still sin.
Even though Abbot doesn't actually mention God, he still incorparates him into the book. When God's son Jesus came to earth he came in human form, just like when sphere came to flatland he appeared in 2 dimensional form, or as a circle. |
| | 0 | 9/18/2011 1:14 PM | Flatland Movie
In the movie the Square and the Polygon that were the special prophet had a difficult time grasping the concept of a third dimension and when they proposed an idea of a fourth dimension to the sphere the sphere laughed and said there was no such thing. The sphere acted just like the shapes of flatland before he told them about the third dimension. |
| | 1 | 9/18/2011 12:41 PM | Women in Flatland movie One thing I immediately noticed when watching the movie version of flatland was that women were not lines and that A. Squares granddaughter was even a hexagon! I then thought that this book was written in a completely different time period where many women were indeed, inferior to men, whereas this movie was made in the times of today, where many women are treated more equally than before. Perhaps it would have stirred too much controversy to keep the women as lines in a movie of today? But then again, isn't that what the book flatland was all about? Stirring up controversy?... |
| | 0 | 9/18/2011 12:27 PM | Flatland and Our Own Self-Centered View For those who have read the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, there is a connection between an important theme in that novel and in Flatland. In Ishmael, it is discussed how we as humans believe that the world was made for us, that everything in the universe has led up to the final, dramatic event of human existence. It is also noted that species that arrived before us, such as the jellyfish, believed at one time that they too were the "center of the universe," the peak of evolution. This same theme is portrayed in the satire of Flatland. With each dimension, beginning with Pointland, the residents of that land believe that they are the peak of existence. It is impossible for them to comprehend a universe with a higher dimension than theirs, even though there is. No matter the dimension, the residents portray mankind and its thoughts on being the climax of evolution, those for whom the world was made for, and that no dimension can proceed after theirs. |
| | 0 | 9/18/2011 12:15 PM | Going back a little... Many of Flatlands themes and ideas remain true for today. Flatland is a timeless piece that anyone can truly play with in their minds. This book, however frustrating I may have found it, (which I definitely expressed to Mr. Chisnell) sparked so many ideas in my mind that I toyed with even after I closed to book. Many themes such as power in class ranks and what not, still hold true of today's time. A. Square said repeatedly "I'm humbly a part of the square class." which he was not oh-so-humble about. People are still like this today! So my point is, no matter how frustrating this book may or may not have been, it is truly a timeless work. |
| | 0 | 9/18/2011 11:52 AM | Forever continuous dimensions? One thing I really noticed as A. Square visited all the dimensions unknown to him, was perhaps there is a never-ending spectrum of many different dimensions. Or perhaps that was something Abbot was trying to get at... If the king of Lineland could not recognize a flat shape, then surely A. Square should find it hard without lots and lots of help to recognize a solid, three-dimensional shape? A 3D shape should then find it impossible to conceive a 4D shape, which holds true for most of us 3D figures today (humans) haha. We find it very odd and ridiculous that there may be a 4th dimension, something so unknown to us (although some may argue the fourth dimension is time). This all just leads me to wonder what else is there we may not know about? |
| | 3 | 9/18/2011 11:31 AM | The Irony of Flatland What struck me as sort of humorous about the book was how ironic almost every character was. Square tried to explain to the King of Lineland the concept of Flatland, but the King simply wouldn't have it. He didn't even try to comprehend the concept of Flatland, he just blocked out what Square was saying and went on with his life. This same thing happened to Square when his grandson came up with the concept of the third dimension, or Spaceland. Square simply scolded him and claimed there was no such thing. Then sphere comes in and explains everything about Spaceland to him, and he admits being proven wrong. Finally, when Sphere is confronted with the idea of a fourth dimension, he also claims there is no such thing and dismisses it immediately. All of the characters claimed there was only the worlds they knew of, and every one of them denied the ideas of higher dimensions, even though some of them actually existed. |
| | 0 | 9/18/2011 9:40 AM | Flatland:The Movie (Hollywood version) While watching Flatland, I noticed several differences between the book and the movie. First off, in the book the women were only lines, no other shapes, but in the movie women were all different kinds of shapes. One women was even a sphere, the most powerful shape in Flatland. Also, in the book, square had a grandson who was a hexagon, not a granddaughter. Another difference in the movie was the class of isosceles trangles. Hex, in the movie said that isosceles trangles have equilateral children, but in the book most isosceles triangles have children almost equal to 60 degrees. Overall I liked the book better, and the movie was funny, but it didn't really do a great job of explaining Flatland. |
| | 8 | 9/18/2011 1:40 AM | Nature, Nature, Nature I think that nature is the most used word in this book. The Law of Nature decides that women are lines. The Law of Nature states that each son will have one more side than his father. Square reasons everything with "It's a Law of Nature." Even the King of Lineland attests that "Nature ordains that every man should wed two wives" and "a Law of Nature compels us to move to and fro with a rhythymic notion." Why is Nature's presence so powerful in this book? I've always pictured Grandmother Willow from Pocahontas when I think of Mother Nature and I just cannot picture her writing all these laws for Flatland and Lineland (I haven't read about the other lands, yet, so I don't if it holds true there.) She seems way too sweet and wise to ever do such a thing. Is nature supposed to symbolize something else-- maybe God? There are a few of us Spacelander people who attribute a lot to God, saying things like, "Homosexuality should not exist. It says so in the Bible," or "God does not want your unborn baby to die." Often times, religious folk will assert these points with, "It goes against nature!!" It always bugs me when people say things like that, because I'm thinking, "How do you know? Have you ever talked to Grandmother Willow... or God??" Maybe nature is just supposed to symbolize nature and the biology of the way things work around these little universes, but it was coming up so often, that I figured I had to bring it up. What is everyone's opinion on this? |
| | 6 | 9/18/2011 1:24 AM | Flatland the movie! The differences of the book and movie is where the granddaughter, Hex goes to Area 33H I believe and notices first one dimension, then two, then three dimensions when she goes inside the cube. The Circles are very bossy and have great authority. I enjoyed the point in Pointland and the King's personality in Lineland. I love Hex though and her curiosity! |
| | 1 | 9/18/2011 12:26 AM | Vision? I may have read this wrong (and forgive me if I did), but when Sphere takes Square to Pointland, isn't it just a vision? That leads me to wonder if that portion was Square's interpretation of what must have been, or was it something 'real'? The same was for Lineland; Square dreamed of Lineland and then Sphere came, taking him to the 3rd dimension. Are these two linked? Did Sphere put the vision (and then, the later one of Pointland) in his head, or did Square come up with them on his own? |
| | 2 | 9/18/2011 12:22 AM | Is Spaceland our world? When reading about A. Square's encounter with the sphere, one question bugged me: how was the sphere sentient? Surely it could not be human (such as you or I), but it conversed with the square like a human. But it wasn't, it was a sphere. The question kept returning, like a phantom haunting my mind. Then a thought occurred to me. I had always assumed that Spaceland was Earth. But perhaps it isn't. Spaceland could be a seperate planet from ours (the universe is a very large place after all) or it could be an entirely different (yet still three-dimensional) universe. I briefly considered that the sphere might be human who only appeared to be a sphere to the square's limited vision, but this theory was fractured by several points. First, the sphere openly called himself a sphere. Second, the sphere had knowledge of the multiple planes of existence and discussed a seemingly-religious motive of spreading the "Gospel of the Three Dimensions," a mission and knowledge no human would likely be aware of. This leads me to conclude that the sphere is some form of extraterrestrial life, a cosmic being waiting thousands of years to pursue his mysterious goal. I'm suddenly reminded of Lovecraft... |
| | 3 | 9/18/2011 12:19 AM | Women's Deadly...Walking? One of the strangest points that I have noticed so far in this book is regarding the women. Since they are merely lines and can not be seen head-on if they are not moving their backside back and forth, they can deflate a male on accident by bumping into one on the street. What in the world? I can not understand what this could be referencing in Victorian life...or any other era for that matter. Could Abbott be implying that women can bring a man down without even noticing? Or that they are careless about it? I am so lost here. |
| | 2 | 9/18/2011 12:14 AM | Lineland dating I found it very interesting that in Lineland they had two wives. That it took them a while to find their mate and when they did they had to be in perfect harmony with their voices.
"Each trial of voice, each fresh discovery of discord, almost imperceptibility induses the less perfect to modify his or her vocal utterance so as to approximate to the more perfect"
This reminded me of in class when we had discussed how they are just trying to reach their own perfect world. Just like in a sense we are, we all just want to reach as close to perfect as we can. |
| | 1 | 9/18/2011 12:05 AM | Higher Dimensions When I was reading the book, I began get a pattern going in my head. Each dimension is the building block for the next. What I mean by that is a point, no dimensions, is the "side" of a line, one dimension, which is the side of a square, two dimensions, which is the side of a cube, three dimensions. Another pattern I noticed was that in the first dimension, you saw a point and inferred a line. In the second dimension, you saw a line an inferred a shape. In the third dimension, you saw a shape and inferred a solid. In the fourth dimension, I imagine, you see a solid, and infer something else. Also, in the fourth dimension, a cube would be the side of something. This differed from the short film about 10 dimensions during class. The way I see it, there would be no limit for the number of dimensions; I did not think of it in the point, branch, fold pattern developed in the movie. Any thoughts about how you view higher dimensions, if they exist at all? |
| | 6 | 9/17/2011 11:25 PM | What do you see? We discussed how in pointland, the kind sees square as a point, in lineland, the king sees the square as a line, in flatland, the square sees himself as a square, in the 3rd dimension, the sphere sees him as a cube. Whatever dimension you are a part of is what you picture the next dimension to be as well. What I mean by this is: if god was the 4th dimension, how do we pitcure him? As a person in the 3rd dimension. Abbotts clever parellelism now makes sense. |
| | 4 | 9/17/2011 11:24 PM | Flatland Movie Flatland, the movie (Or should I say poorly attempted children story), was not an accurate representation of Flatland, the book at all. First, and most importantly, women are lines. The square made that very clear, and Hex, the curious GIRL hexagon, should not have existed. Therefor, she could not have been the 'prophet', because nobody would have paid any attention to her. Women make peace calls and wag their butts in Flatland, not disturb the natural order of life by getting everyone to believe in the third dimension. I hope that the hour and a half long movie followed the book more accurately,, because the short one completely disregarded it. |
| | 1 | 9/17/2011 11:08 PM | Movie v. Book I felt as if when you compare the book to the movie in the aspect of women the movie was completely off. But when the movie compared the different lands it was dead on. The way Lineland and Spaceland were demonstrated in the movie in comparison to Flatland made it more clear to me on how the two lands worked and how they had the ability to interact with each other through the square. |
| | 11 | 9/17/2011 11:03 PM | Flatland: the Movie?!? In class today, we watched the short film version of "Flatland" and to say it screwed with my head would be an understatement. Not only did this movie make me question whether or not something was slipped in to my water at Jimmy John's today, it made me question the purposes of filmmakers as a whole! Why did these writers take so many liberties? Why weren't women lines, like in the book? Why didn't Square go to prison at the end? Why did the king of Lineland talk like Crush from 'Finding Nemo"? To anyone who read "Flatland," this film is comical because the only thing that "Flatland: the Movie" shares with "Flatland: the Book" is the title. I could go on and on about how different the two were, but instead I'm wondering this-- If the filmmakers' purpose was NOT to bring the book to life, then what was it?
In my opinion, if filmmakers say that they are adapting a novel or a play or something for the screen, they have an unwritten duty to the literature. No, they don't have to follow every line word-for-word, but to take liberties to the point where the original is unrecognizeable makes me angry... I love that film can do what literature can't and that literature can do what film can't, but is that reason to change plot? What do you guys think about this? |
| | 8 | 9/17/2011 10:38 PM | Evolution? I know this is a crazy idea, but bear with me.
What if flatland were realy an analogy for evolution?
Or maybe just the progression of evolution.
First we start with a point, a single cell.
Second, we get groups of cells, or ameobas, or whatever, the lines.
Third, we get concious beings that start to have thoughts and emotional lives and things like that, the shapes.
Fourth, we get the superior, well rounded individuals, who think they know it all, humans, or the 3D shapes.
Each step up had more knowledge, more of a scope of life, and in general, more.
Kind of like evolution, which builds up organisms to survive better and have more in life.
Not an extrordinarily profound observation, but just a thought. |
| | 4 | 9/17/2011 10:12 PM | Edwin Abbott Abbott While I understand that wikepedia is not always the most reputable source, it did provide imformation about Abbott's schooling/life. He studied theology, which would explain much of his religious references. An authors life and period of life always influences his writing and can often help us deciphre his message. |
| | 1 | 9/17/2011 9:33 PM | End of Flatland I was very disappointed with the end of flatland. That even though he had finally found many new lands he was still imprisoned for even suggesting such a thing.
Although i realize he had told his grandson and he wrote everything down so he wouldn't forget it, i felt it wasn't a satisfying ending for such a fulfilling story. |
| | 2 | 9/17/2011 8:21 PM | Applying logic After sphere uses his logic of how square cannot see a third dimension in Flatland and how a moving square could produce a cube of three dimensions, square tries to apply it as well. Square, after seeing three dimensions, starts to think of a fourth or even further dimension and when he tries to tell sphere about it, sphere completely dismisses the thought. Now Square is finally opening his mind to new ideas and possibilities while sphere is ironically turning down his own logic to another dimension. Just because he cannot see the next dimension does not mean that there isn't a possibility of it existing. It is so ironic, how in this book one creature tries to explain his dimension to another dimensioned creature and the one recieving the lecture is ignorant and does not want to listen. Then the one who was giving the lecture ends up recieving teaching about the next dimension and then that creature is ignorant and does not want listen. |
| | 2 | 9/17/2011 7:15 PM | Being Considered Mad On page 81, there is a quote that I find very true, sad, and interesting. The quote goes like this, "prophets and inspired people are always considered by the majority to be mad." Nobody ever wants to listen to the people that have new ideas that seem to be very different from conventional society. Square was one of those people who strived for knowledge and thought differently than the rest, but it is so sad that no one wanted to listen to him and he ended up in jail to experience a miserable rest of his life when instead he could have spread his knowledge to the rest of Flatland. Not all new ideas are crazy and implausible like some might like to think. Now, I definetly agree that some ideas and proposals are out of wack and impossible but not all of them are, so as the greater majority, we must give new things a chance of consideration because it could be a breakthrough discovery that could change the world forever. |
| | 4 | 9/17/2011 2:56 PM | I HATE THE CIRCLES They don't appeal to me at all. If I (being a woman) and lived in flat land, I would most likely go tell these "circles" that they arn't even circles at all. Just stuck up men with too many sides to handle.. and that they wish they were perfect but they arn't!
And even though it might, or actually would, get my killed.. it might start a revolution or something. Then I might actually like to read the book. |
| | 1 | 9/17/2011 2:23 PM | Religious aspect The difference between the Natural world and the Supernatural World is defined when Sphere is three dimensional but only appears as two dimensions is Flatland. And Square is to dimensional but appears as one dimension in Lineland. The religious aspect of Flatland is that God is superior and he shows himself differently on earth. He shows up as a Human: Jesus. So Abbott is saying that we see God as Jesus because we could not visualize God on Earth. |
| | 1 | 9/17/2011 2:19 PM | Irony On page 56, after square had already talked to the line king, square begins to talk to the sphere. The sphere is trying to explain a third dimension to the square just as square was trying to explain a second dimension to the line. Square tried to use logic with the point moving to make a line and then a line moving to make a square, but the line would not open his mind to imagine such a thing. The square was mad with the line king and thought he was very ignorant but then when the sphere was trying to use the same logic to explain a third dimension, square became the ignorant one who would not listen to reason. You would think that after just trying to explain another dimension to someone that would not cooperate, that the square would be a bit more open minded to the sphere, but instead he acts just like the line king. Ironic, right? |
| | 0 | 9/17/2011 2:09 PM | Part 1 and Part2 Abbott organizes Flatland in a very simplistic way. He simply has Part 1, as half the book, including how Flatland works, and Part 2, the other half, on what happened to him in one encounter in flatland. Why does Abbott make this so simplistic? Would he possibly have made it so simply sectioned into 2 parts because Flatland is only 2 dimensions? It doesn't have depth or height in it's world, so why should the story go into depth if it is something that they know nothing about? |
| | 0 | 9/17/2011 12:51 PM | Parallelism I found parallelism in Flatland when Square tried to explain to the King in Lineland about upward and two dimensions. The King did not believe anything that Square was explaining and Square couldn't grasp why the King didn't understand two dimensions or left and right. Then when Sphere came to Square and explained three dimensions, Square was stubborn and refused to believe that because he couldn't fathom it. He didn't accept the concept of three dimensions just like the King didn't accept the concept of two dimensions. |
| | 2 | 9/17/2011 11:56 AM | Classes and Dimensions. To me, the different Dimensions in Flatland can be considered like the social classes in the world. It's limited to the 3rd dimension, and that there's not room for improvement or moving to a different class unless it's within their own dimension. But, figure Spaceland is the 3rd dimension, with the high and mighty type people, who know about the lower classes, but don't do much for the lower classes. The 2nd dimension has the upper and lower middle class and the 1st dimension and having no dimensions. The 1st and non-dimensions are considered the lowest of the low, and don't have as many choices as to what they can do and the 2nd dimension is more of the working class of the three. |
| | 1 | 9/17/2011 11:34 AM | A Dream called Flatland So I just read the first two chapters of part 2 and chapter 14 was down right trippy! The narrator has three pages of conversation with the King of Flatland (or Lineland I can't tell) then tells us it was all a dream! Is this a sign or omen to the unnamed narrator (Square man?) that he will encounter and King and a world like this? Not sure.. I liked how the narrator questioned the king about the customs and ways of life in this world. About the marriage system and ability to move not only north and south but east and west. From reading part one where no one stood up for themselves to a higher class, to part 2 when this new traveler comes and talks with the king, it's very refreshing. |
| | 2 | 9/17/2011 10:19 AM | Flatland movie... Okay so this movie was an ATROCITY. I didn't understand if this movie was supposed to be a kids movie or not, but the entire message of the book flatland was basically stripped from the story in this film adaptation. The diatribe against the Victorian society aspect was NOT present in the book, AT ALL. And the idea of women being treated like crap wasn't present in the movie at all. The lower classes were only barely mentioned as having to do the "harder jobs" and that was the extent of the discussion on class in this hollywood horror(alliteration. 5 pts.)
Also, the whole "God" thing was not really discussed in this movie, and considering it was the main drive behind Abbot writing the book(he was a clergyman after all) it makes me wonder, what would Abbot have said if he had seen this LSD induced fantasy-horror?! Abbot is surely spinning in his grave... |
| | 0 | 9/16/2011 9:37 PM | Painful I'm sure that we've all heard Chiz speak about the hour and a half version of Flatland. Well, I found a lengthy clip of it on youtube. I am so grateful that he didn't show us that in class. Ap lit would have gone from one of my favorite classes to the bane of my school day. Perhaps you're wanting to see this horrific clip for yourself?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNXyqd48oiQ&feature=related |
| | 2 | 9/16/2011 5:13 PM | Abbot, whatcha trying to say?? Somthing about the entire second half that has been bothering me.The sphere went to such lengths to convince square that dimensions exist beyond flatland. Supposedly he wanted to turn square into a 'prophet' of some sort. to spread the word and what not.
In lineland, the square met no success in convinsing the kind of a world beyond lineland.
In pointland, the sphere basically said "oh dont bother with this guy you'll never convince him."
In flatland, well we all know what happened.
So i guess my question, is what's the point? Are we too set in our ways to concieve a dimension beyond our own? If nobody can be convinced, then why even try to have a prophet? I'm really confused on what the author is trying to convey |
| | 5 | 9/15/2011 11:31 PM | 1st and 2nd Dimensions Similar to The 4th dimension, and the 5th and so on, we really dont know if a 1st or 2nd dimension exist. While you may say that the first dimension is a line and the 2nd a plane, these are still only concepts, not physical truths. If you draw a line or a square on a piece of paper, they are still 3 dimensional, because the marks on the paper and the paper all have 3 dimensions. they are no more than representations of those concepts, such as numbers are conceptual symbols that stand for values. So how can flatlanders see? they would not be capable of sight because a square does not have the 3rd dimension necessary to see it. |
| | 3 | 9/15/2011 6:05 PM | Smart Grandson On page 53, square begins to give a lesson to his grandson about geometry. He tells him that a moving point makes a line and a moving line makes a square. The grandson takes this to the next level by applying this logic to a third dimension in saying that a square moving parallel to itself must make something else. I was astonished to see that a two dimensional child could somehow stumble upon a fundamental idea of third dimensions. But what astonished me more was square's reaction. I could not belive that square called the child a fool and did not even want to think that what the child was saying was a possible truth. This is, again, another case of inability to open one's mind to new possibilities and ideas. Besides, shouldn't square accept what the child is saying because the child is a hexagon, and therefore, smarter than a square? |
| | 2 | 9/14/2011 8:57 PM | Theme I personally think that the entire point on Flatland was to teach us that priests and possibly the government are opressing our knowledge and opportunities by giving us morals to follow and telling us "what god wants us to do". What i don't understand is whether the author is telling us to keep following the rules we're given and be ignorant to what else is out there or to rebel even though rebellion only hurt the square in the story. I am almost positive it is the latter but the whole message. |
| | 1 | 9/14/2011 7:33 PM | Destruction of Flatland's Society with Color Who ever thought that color would be such a terrible thing! Apparently the inhabitants of Flatland thought it would completely destroy the art of feeling and seeing and everything else their society stood for and practiced forever.
We mentioned in first hour how color could not only wipe out these ways of recognition, it could also destroy the entire structure of Flatland. There is a clear societal order with the shape patterns: cirlces being at the top and triangles at the bottom, with irregualar patterns beneath them. With colors, and no "art of sight recognition" or the "art of feeling" being 'necessary' anymore, it would be harder to determine what shape you are talking to and interacting with. Mr. Chisnell started a scenario that was along the lines of "Two squares sitting at a bar and this brightly colored woman walks in and starts talking to them..." Because the squares have tossed aside their precautions that this might be an irregualar shape (because they are not looking at the lines or feeling the angles), they might be interacting with a grotesquely deformed shape who is parading herself around as something she is not. New shapes would be introduced into Flatlands already very structured and percise society and would throw off any sort of stability.
Color would not only take away the arts practiced at the university and the universal ways of determining a shape (and if it is OK to interact with one another) but it could potentially crumble a strict, preset society. |
| | 3 | 9/14/2011 7:09 PM | The Giver As I'm reading this book I am thinking about back in 8th grade when we all read The Giver. Its somewhat the same concept. The author is creating this world where the beings in the world are striving for some sort of perfection. In Flatland, as we discussed in class, the number of sides a shape has gives them more power so some shapes have there children go under surgery just to change there appearance and hopefully change them into that hexagon they really wanted. In The Giver the adults go by an order that basically leads their children to be perfect. While both versions of perfection are different, I find these two books to show some similarities. |
| | 2 | 9/14/2011 5:45 PM | Awkward.. Reading part 2 is definitively different that part 1. It's more like a novel, with a lot of dialog. A lot of interesting dialog that it. The conversations are so weird! I kinda like it though. It is less confusing, and simple to read. I wonder why Abbott does this? Making each persons point a different paragraph, and specifically saying who's talking at which time. Part two is a little less confusing than part one, having it be more like a 'book' is nice. |
| | 1 | 9/13/2011 10:45 PM | "feeling" in flatland Okay normally I'm not the one to push the interpretations of books. I think most interpretations are pretty simple, but I was struck by the bluntness of the quote that said something along the lines of the upper classes being forbidden to feel. Is it just a coincidence or does that part of the story really mean more? Considering that this book was written in the Victorian era and class and propriety were the most important things to them I think this may actually mean more. Is he connecting Flatland to his own life? The higher your class, the more likely your marriage will be arranged and the less emotion you can get away with in public. In flatland, as you gain class you are no longer allowed to "feel." |
| | 0 | 9/13/2011 10:16 PM | Alice in Wonderland I got the impression that chapter 19 is like Alice in Wonderland. The Sphere takes the Square from his home in Flatland to the unfamiliar world of Spaceland. Sphere poofs him into Spaceland and shows him the ropes. This is like when the (i think) rabbit shows Alice in the new world when she falls into the hole in the ground. She can't believe what she's seeing, just like the Square can't believe there could be such thing as 3-D. Sphere is also like a magician. Pg. 65 ".. to the arbitrary visitations of a Magician who could this play tricks with one's very stomach." I'm 99% positive that the madhadder (like a magician) in Alice in Wonderland did the same. At the end of chapter 19 pg. 74 Square says, "Down! Down Down! I was rapidly descending; and I knew that return to Flatland was my doom." This is like Alice waking up from her dream. Wow, similar right, because Square is waking up from his dream. |
| | 1 | 9/13/2011 10:01 PM | It's all a Trick I think that a lot of people having read Flatland thought that the story was a little crazy. Which it is. The different dimensions are a head game for sure. I think that Abbott may have predicted such skepticism and thus he put chapter 14 in the book.
I believe that chapter 14 forces us to relate to square. Even if we had been bored by all that lead up to it, we relate once we read that section. I suppose this is somewhat of a spoiler. I must first start by suggesting that subconsciously or consciously we played a scenario through our heads with trying to describe our world to square. Chapter 14 has that poor square going through the same drama as he tries to convince that ignorant line that there is more to the world. I think that we all have to sympathize with square for his plight. |
| | 1 | 9/13/2011 9:57 PM | Vision of Lineland In the first chapter of the second part of Flatland, Square describes his dream of an encounter in a separate dimension. He meets the monarch of Lineland who tries to inform him about the way things work in that plane.
When reading about the culture of Flatland in the first part of the book, the unspoken rules, along with the laws of Flatland, were strange and somewhat unnecessary to me as a reader. When I started reading, I was sure it was going to be impossible to relate to a square, and therefore impossible to connect to the book.
That changed when I read Square's recapping of his vision of Lineland. As the monarch described his own culture and that of his subjects, Square reacted almost as I had to the culture of Lineland. He was confused as to how such a culture could work, and became frustrated when the monarch of Lineland acted appalled to his demonstrations. The reaction of Square to Lineland's culture connected easily to my own reaction to Flatland's culture, thus giving me a basis to help connect better to the characters of the story. |
| | 1 | 9/13/2011 9:49 PM | Is Lineland purposefully way awesomer than Flatland? This may have just been my opinion, but I feel like Abbott depicts Lineland as being way cooler than Flatland! Granted, people can't really get anywhere and whoever they are next to is their neighbor for life, but all the same, it seems a lot better. For example, their way of singing to find their soulmates... That is just way too cute! In Flatland, it seems like no thought is taken to find marital matches (except checking a woman's family tree). For me, I would much prefer to live in Lineland than Flatland because I don't enjoy people touching me in order to recognize me. I also love that the voices of Lineland harmonize every week. Their society is like a giant choir! Lineland seems to be more focused on emotions and voices, (perhaps because they can't do anything else?), while Flatland is concerned with work and rules and mathematics. What is your opinion of Flatland compared to Lineland? If you find one dimension "better," do you think that Abbott is trying to tell us something with that? |
| | 1 | 9/13/2011 8:32 PM | My head hurts As I read this book, i couldn't stop thinking. I won't say too much in case someone hasn't finished it yet, but all of the dimension talk really made me think, and I couldn't stop and I couldn't reach a conclusion. What if we do live in some sort of flatland? And there's another dimension that is looking down on us and can see our insides, like the other worlds in the book. It's stressful because i can't think about how it's possible, but neither could Square. What if there's another dimension (besides time and light and whatever other BS dimensions there technically are:) ) Did anyone else go through these same thought while reading?? |
| | 0 | 9/12/2011 7:10 PM | Page 54 Proverb On page 54 about halfway down the page there is a couple of proverbs. The proverbs state, " 'feeling is believing' and 'A straight line to the touch is worth a circle to the sight." The first one is similar to our "seeing is believing" and the other one is basically creating an equality between the classes. The women is saying that touchimg for lines has the same satisfaction and result as seeing does for the circles. This is comparable to our world and the hierarchy of classes where maybe a used car that runs perfectly is exciting to one person while another, richer, person wants a brand new lamborgini to be satisfied. The only difference in the satisfaction is the person and his/her preference. So basically this proverb is somewhere along the lines of, "one man's trash is another man's treasure." |
| | 0 | 9/12/2011 6:26 PM | Lineland In his dream, square visits the a dimension a step lower than his in Lineland. There, he speaks to the King of Lineland who thinks that square is ignorant, while square thinks that the King is ignorant because the King cannot bring himself to expand his mind a bit to understand another dimension. Neither of them really seem to understand that they are both from two different worlds, therefore, things are obviously going to be done very differently. When the King speaks about what is done in Lineland, we can tell that it is very different from Flatland, and instead of being simpler, it seems harder and more complex to grasp, which may just be a result of me being from a three dimensional world. The inhabitants of Lineland get married and have children by the male calling with his two voices in order to find two wives, one of which will have twin girls and one of which will have a boy. Another thing done in Lineland is that they distinguish line from point by hearing. So it is very interesting to see the differences from one world to another and get to be able to expand our thinking in order to understand new ideas, which, unfortunately square and line king failed to do. |
| | 0 | 9/12/2011 6:09 PM | Honouring Grandsons On page 38, Square starts to talk about honouring grandsons. But as he says, honour does not by any means mean indulgence but instead one must basically accomodate them. As square says, "the duty of fathers is to subordinate their own interests to those of posterity." Basically the fathers are to give up there own lives and what they want to do in order to help develop and cater to their sons. The reason for all this is, of course, to benefit the "welfare of the whole state." Flatland is so concerned with continuing to advance the state that they forget about the individuals and their best interests. I understand that one should dedicate some time to sons and grandsons to help them advance, but that should only be to a point, because eventually there will be a piece missing from the parent's life and that is to fufill some of his own interests in order to be happy. |
| | 0 | 9/12/2011 3:52 AM | Minorities The "irregulars" in Flatland are all of the outcasts of society, and they are treated as the lowest class and given the lowest occupations. This group in our world would be any minority or specialized area of the population such as: anyone not white and middle-class. Through this parallel, I found that the way our worlds treat these groups seems different from one another. In Flatland, the "irregulars" are not respected or appreciated by most anyone. They are considered the lowest of the low and the higher classes are obligated to feel superior. In American society today, minority groups hold many disadvantages, yet we are attempting to overcome them. In the last 90 years we have made great strides in this area with women and African Americans, although there is still a long way to go. I believe that the issue with Flatland is that they have not yet had a successful revolution by the frustrated lower classes. Once one occurs, (like the color movement) and succeeds in overthrowing the hierarchy system they will be able to better the lives of the "irregulars" and perhaps reduce the power of their caste system to almost nothing. |
| | 0 | 9/12/2011 3:39 AM | Peer Perceptions Flatland's inhabitants see each other head-on as merely line segments (or if they are looking at a woman, a dot). I believe that with this, Abbott is referencing human perceptions of their peers. In the story, as one becomes more and more educated they gain a stronger ability to decipher one's social status by their looks. In the human world, we often claim that you must not judge one another by their looks; yet that is exactly how the shapes recognize others. They can even paint themselves and easily be mistaken for someone else. This, I believe, implies that we do as well. As much as we would all like to discredit this idea, we all place ideas and judgments on others by their physical appearance every single day. As we mature and gain a broader outlook on our peers, many of us begin to consider the entire context of another before placing our notions. This is the "honorable" way of conduct, which Abbott mocks in Flatland. |
| | 0 | 9/12/2011 3:24 AM | French Revolution This could be a stretch, but as I read about the color revolution in Flatland I could not help but relate it to the French Revolution back in the 1700s. The French Revolution, while involving a great deal of political issues and upheaval, centered around the collapsing old order and a new radical way of thinking. The radicals supported inalienable rights for all people, such as equality and opportunity. This led to the Enlightenment's beginning in Western Europe. The new generation radicals were infuriated with the strict class structure in existence, and sought to fight back against the upper class for their own personal liberties. Although the color revolution has not yet been discussed in-depth, I see a clear correlation between the two events. |
| | 0 | 9/12/2011 2:51 AM | Narration I found the whole concept of narration in this book to be a sort of...relief. A. Square provides his personal outlook on Flatland, his own views and explanations and perceptions about society and its people. For me, this seemed to be the inverse of the actual story. Everyone is ranked by their intelligence and the societal order is based on logic and aristocracy and...geometry. The idea that this world is explained to us by one of its inhabitants, rather than in an in-depth textbook-style manual feels a bit contradictory to me. |
| | 0 | 9/11/2011 10:55 PM | Allegory
Abbott uses remarkable mathematical allegory having the different classes represent different shapes and the amount of sides and angles determine which social level a shape belongs to. Also the more angles a shape possesses the more brain capacity a shape has. Also women are a straight line which represents what little importance they have in the society, they are dominated by men and are denied power. |
| | 0 | 9/11/2011 10:52 PM | Missing The Point I've read quite a few posts concerning the "sexism" and "misogyny" of Abbot. This seems completely absurd to me. Do people not know what a satire is? A satire is a criticism of society disguised as fiction for the purpose of bettering it. Abbot is criticizing Victorian England's treatment of women. In the novel, women are portrayed as shallow and stupid. However, it is later revealed that this is mainly due to the fact that women are refused education, as the males deemed education to be wasted on them. So you can see, because women are not educated, they are ignorant, thus perpetuating the belief that they are mentally inferior. This echoes the real world's history, no? In fact, one could even apply this concept not only to gender, but race, for the same thing was occurring to blacks in the American South during the Jim Crow era. |
| | 0 | 9/11/2011 10:35 PM | The Fourth Dimension In Flatland, A. Square inquires about a fourth dimension (and even higher dimensions) while learning about the third. This made me curious about the topic. I tried to imagine what the fourth dimension could be, but it proved very difficult. I kept thinking of it as sideways and up. I seemed to recall that the fourth dimension was space-time, but I wasn't sure, so I looked it up. It turns out that there are different fourth dimensions. Space-time is indeed a fourth dimension, but is a temporal fourth dimension. There is also a theorized spatial (occupying space) fourth dimension.This is best described by the tesseract. The tesseract is the 4D equivalent of a cube, just as a cube is the 3D equivalent of square. The simplest way to think of it is this: A line is one-dimensional. A square is two-dimensional. A square has 4 sides, each composed of lines. A cube has 6 sides, each composed of squares. Therefore, a tesseract has 8 sides, each composed of a cube. Just as the sphere robbed A. Square's safe by reaching down from above, a four-dimensional being could rob our safes by reaching "behind" them, as there would be no additional cubes to stop him (her? It?). I understand if this is confusing (I still haven't quite grasped the concept myself) but this was the simplest way I could put it. Now, hopefully I'll be able to figure out the ninth dimension by morning... |
| | 0 | 9/11/2011 10:10 PM | Women
Abbott discusses the Women of Flatland on several occasions during the novel. I believe his phrasing in the novel depicts his own feelings about the intelligence of Women, he exaggerates and describes ridiculous laws women must follow and customs that need to be performed. For example each house has two separate doors one small door for the women and one larger door for the men, females must continually keep up their peace cry in public places, and if they suffer from St. Vitus’s dance they shall be destroyed. The women must also sway their back, back and forth and the mother and daughter must have their eyes and mouths turned towards their husband and male friends. The strict laws in place in this society have a much deeper representation than just how women were viewed during the 1840’s, it illustrates Abbotts own thoughts and feelings of women. |
| | 0 | 9/11/2011 9:24 PM | Society
In flatland furthering of society is their number one priority, for example when a True Equilateral Triangle is born from Isosceles parents he is taken from his parents home and adopted by an Equilateral and never permitted to enter his former home. It is to prevent from falling back into his original social class. |
| | 3 | 9/11/2011 9:20 PM | Religion in Flatland. In Flatland, at first glance, seems to have no religion. When discussing it in class people complied with that statement, and upon disccussion I brought up Nature. Why is eberything justified with Nature? The isosceles triangles are discriminated against because they don't follow the requirements of Nature. Is nature their god? Now I don't believe it is, but it is powerful and has effect on the people. It's capitalization raises it's standards and Nature is obviously a huge part of Flatland's countrymen's lives. |
| | 0 | 9/11/2011 8:47 PM | The Colour OK so this factory that makes the color for the dementions does not make any since because if they annually kill off their workers and bring in new ones it will cause a problem because eventually they will either run out of people to work or people will realize that if they work there they will die and no one will want to work there.... I think they need to figure out a new hiring system over there quick |
| | 3 | 9/11/2011 8:36 PM | Irregulars in Flatland Next to woman, the irregular shapes are the lowest class. In human society the "irregulars" would be poor, minorities, disabled, or anyone who is different than anyone. "From his birth scouted by his own parents, derided by his brothers and sisters, neglected by the domestics, scorned and suspected by society..." These poor unfortunate shapes must live a life of misery from the moment of birth. This is similar to societies all around the world, if you are different, you are treated poorly your whole life. |
| | 1 | 9/11/2011 8:36 PM | 3rd dimension in Flatland? "...Pantacyclus- arose to find himself hissed and hooted...."
"... uproar being converted to an applause"
*Page 32
Being stated in earlier chapters it was said that Flatland is of two dimensions, and two dimensions only... Therefore, there is no up or down. So in the first quote how can one of these characters arise?! I'm confused!
Also, being shapes and all.... how can they applaud? Do these shapes now have hands? |
| | 9 | 9/11/2011 8:32 PM | Sexist Jerk Edwin A. Abbott is disturbed. Apparently there are laws in Flatland concerning women and their behavior. The three laws are: Every woman must enter in the Eastern side of the house, No female shall walk in a public place without keeping up her Peace-cry (whatever that is), and third, any female with St. Vitus's Dance, fits, chronic cold, or any disease with involuntary motions shall be destroyed. The problem I see with this is that it only concerns females. I would never want to live in Flatland, especially if I had to continually sway my behind back and forth in public. |
| | 2 | 9/11/2011 7:19 PM | What's hard to understand... I think one of the main points of the book is to demonstrate how easily it is to understand lower dimensions or the things that we have already experienced, and then how hard it is to contemplate anything above our current experiences. Just how you can tell that Abbott tried to explain the 4th dimension, but it was a very hard concept to grasp. I think this book was written in a way that made our minds wonder beyond what we would think in our own world, but still kept us thinking in the end. |
| | 4 | 9/11/2011 6:36 PM | the Cure for Insomnia To those who are finding this book enjoyable and fun to read, I applaud you! To others are are finding this book interesting yet somewhat slow moving - again - I still give you a round of applause!
Regrettably, I personally cannot for the life of me or this book keep my eyes open while reading Flatland. I wish I could read this book, make obvservations and stay awake long enough to actually finish an entire page without drifting off. Maybe it is just the mindset of "this is going to be boring" or maybe it is the time of night that I am finally opening the book to set to reading but either way I am lucky enough to get through 3 sentences or so before the book starts to slip from my hands and my eyes close out the words...
Is anyone else finding this to be the case with this book? |
| | 6 | 9/11/2011 6:27 PM | Why A Square as the main character ? I have been wondering why the author chose to tell the story from A Square's point of view. A humble Lawyer, he is not the most interesting character that could have been chosen (in my opinion anyways) I think that hearing from the extremes (A Circle or an irregular) would provide a much more interesting look into the society. However I believe Abbott chose to use A Square as the main character because he is not an extreme, but actually a sort of middle. By using a square, the story is not told by someone who is at the very bottom of the chain or at the very top. It provides some sort of an unbiased view into Flatland society. If it was told from a circle's point of view, we might end up thinking that Flatland's society is totally perfect, and told from an irregulars point of view, we could be led to believe that nothing in Flatland was fair and everything had an alternative motive. However, this way, we are able to see that some things work and others don't. |
| | 2 | 9/11/2011 5:58 PM | First reaction to Flatland When I first began reading Flatland, I had a hard time imagining what something would look like in a one dimensional world. As I read on I became more and more confused. I didn't understand why this man was writing about living shapes and their society. I honestly thought he was insane and the book was a joke. Then, at about page 20, I started getting into the book, and I tried to relate it to our world. I began seeing the parallels between our society and theirs. Then I read the back of the book, and discovered it was a satire, and then it all made more sense. |
| | 7 | 9/11/2011 5:35 PM | Brain Capacity for the Shapes First hour started talking about why the Circles are in charge: we determined that it would have something to do with their brain size or capacity (being that with a larger brain, you are probably more likely to be smarter and therefore should be at the top of society).
Mr. Chisnell provided us with an example of how Europeans used to "scientifically" determine that the Africans within their colonies were smart or not by measuring the size of their skulls. They used these measurments as classification (of sorts): the smaller the skull size, the smaller the brain meaning the smaller the brain capacity and the less intelligent that human being (or group) is.
In Flatland, "skull size"/brain size would probably be determined by the size of the foremost angle: triangles have a smaller angle the squares do for example. The argument "Circles do not have any angles though" cam up in the discussion. THis is true but even without angles, circles have a large volume of area to fill - in Flatland, this would equate to a large skull measurement- meaning they are smarter because their brain is larger. Since the Circles supposedly have the biggest, smartest brains, they are of course at the top of Flatland society, no questions asked. |
| | 0 | 9/11/2011 5:23 PM | Circles - are they flawed themselves?! Cirlces are the art of perfection: one smooth line, no blips in the line, the continues around a perfect 360 degree angles and returns to its starting point. A cirlce is the definition of a beautiful shape. This means that of course the perfect shape is in charge.
BUT...in Flatland, there is a HUGE misconception. The Cirlces...[in loud whispers] "they aren't really circles!!!" Shocker! The shapes in charge claim to have this perfectly round shape yet they DONT! It is said that the Great Circles has more than a thousand sides - all infinitely small angles and infinitely small side lengths that give him the apperance of being an actual circle.
If the circles arent really circles, why are they in charge then? They are trying to pass themselves off as something that they are not exactly yet they ban any color so that no other shape could ever try to deceive another into thinking that it is in a "higher class" than it might be.
Circles may mathmatically be the perfect shape but in Flatland, the "Cirlces" are just the deception of perfection. |
| | 6 | 9/11/2011 5:14 PM | Life and Death in flatland We talked about it a little bit in first hour, but I was interested in when babies are born in flatland.
When talking children being born, it always referes to males. Which makes me wonder if flatlanders can birth female children. I mean it sound unlikely, but is it possible? and if not, where to women come from? I know in china, it was once(and maybe still is) better if you had a son than a girl. It could be a situation where you should be ashamed, or dishonored if you produce a girl.
I dont recall Abbot giving a lifespan to the flatlanders, and what happens when, and if they die.
Also, can flatlanders feel emotion? Obviosly they must feel some. Abbot talks about the women going into fits of rage and destroying households. And alot of different thoughts and feelings were produced by the Colour bill. But I'm tlaking more about affection and love, and sadness. Are they capable of it? Is it maybe a different kind of emotion that we spacelanders feel?
|
| | 7 | 9/11/2011 3:54 PM | COMON NOW. OKAY. It really bugs me how this dude explains little to nothing about the details of how Flatland works, because he doesn't think it's important enough. Whenever you hear about something new and rad and interesting you wanna know as much as possible. WELL THIS GUY IS LIKE NOPE I'M GOING TO TORTURE YOU. Like, he doesn't explain how and if they eat, or how they make babies, or if they go see movies, or if people hang out, or if they go to parties, or have birthdays, OR WHATEVER. Does anyone else want to punch this guy for witholding all this information? I don't know if he'll explain any of it in Part 2 but for now I am dying at the unknown. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW LIVING WORKS FOR SHAPES. IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK? |
| | 1 | 9/11/2011 3:26 PM | One dimensional? Until recently I did not understand this whole one dimensional thing. I just could not picture it in my head. It wasn't until the 6th chapter that I was able to see why they have to feel eachother because they are unable to see. Now when I picture Flatland, I picture looking at a piece of paper turned sideways, so it almost looks invisable from a distance. Until shapes in Flatland feel eachother they cannot tell the difference between shapes, because all of them look like a line. Woman in Flatland must sway back and forth so men see them coming, because if a woman run into a man, she is so sharp she would kill him. |
| | 0 | 9/11/2011 3:18 PM | Soldiers in Flatland The soldiers in Flatland are the highly pointed triangles. This class is above the irregulars and woman, but still below the equal laterals. I found a parallel between the soider class in Flatland, and the draft we had here. The soldiers in Flatland were only educated as much as they needed to be to fight in a war. During the draft, the men who were drafted for war were the ones who did not attend college. Since they were not furthering their education, which would help the public, they were drafted to go fight in the war. In flatland, although these high triangles did not have a choice to further their education, I found it ironic that the only way their "government" thought they could attribute to society was to put them to fight in wars. |
| | 0 | 9/11/2011 3:10 PM | The color rule The abolition of using color in this novel i thought was very clever. They wanted to keep away from the thought of being attracted to someone out of your class level because of how they look and the differentiation between colors. I thought it was almost a mock of today's society and the judgementality that people have towards each other. Its easy to see in this way of how Abbott is satire-ing our society! |
| | 3 | 9/11/2011 2:47 PM | Feeling vs Seeing- Who cares? It is very interesting that their are different ways of communicating for each class. While the lower classes are taught to "feel" one another in order to know one's location, the higher classes are forbidden from this teaching. Instead they are taught to "see" one another. It seems almost pointless that one group has to learn to communicate in an entirely different manner than another because of their social structure, but perhaps this is what Abbot is trying to highlight. In our society, does one class attempt to appear more sophisticated from another with higher education and speaking wordy sentences in a haughty tone? |
| | 0 | 9/11/2011 2:46 PM | Children shapes in flatland... During 1st hour Mr.Chiz talked about the fact that if parent shape had a child, and didn't exactly like how their child looked it could be "modified" or broken and remade (only males)... But while reading in the first couple chapters it was said that if something were to happen (ie when the isosceles triangles had an equilateral) where your offspring was in a higher stage than you, it would be taken away and you would never see your child again...
So doesn't this mean that if a parent really wanted their child to change they would have to give him up? |
| | 2 | 9/11/2011 2:36 PM | The Color Revolution It's interesting, isn't it, that color is what spurned forward a revolution for equality, amongst social classes, and amongst genders? Equality seems to be the issue you all are most concerned with, specially you women with all your feathers a ruffled (I guess I should say us women, but my feather's ain't very ruffled yet.) And here is color, and it initiated a massive rebellion. Color is something we take for granted, an ocular quality without which our world would be so different. But in Flatland, I think it has an even larger connotation: as a symbol of originality, non-mathematical thinking, imprecision and artistry. All things the geometry of flatland lack. So is Abbott suggesting that it is originality and creativity inspire equality? That through art we can find a less biased ground? Hmmmm....this might be close, but I would rather move in a more general direction.... maybe abbott is saying that art and originality inspire new thinking, stretch cultural boundaries: not necessarily notions of "equality" or "right and wrong"....just any thinking that is static, traditional (which isn't necessarily bad or good). Is flatland, with its precise geometry and class consciousness, flat not only in dimension, but also in perception? And color is the spice this land lacks (no dune reference intended)? |
| | 0 | 9/11/2011 2:35 PM | Sexist? I would just like to say that i don't think the author is sexist at all. I think they the whole point of Flatland is to show people a universal truth about how women were and still are treated. If anything the author, with the entire book, is trying to show humans how crazy and inhumane our rules and actions in society are. He is trying to spread awareness about the poor treatment of women as well as making us aware of many other flaws of human nature. He is giving us the harsh realities and i find his approach refreshing to say the least. He is recognizing all the bad treatment that women have recieved from men and society. The first step to change is recognition of wrong doings so in a way he is helping the women not offending them. |
| | 0 | 9/11/2011 2:30 PM | Woman in Flatland The social structure in Flatland has the shapes with the most sides on top. When a shape acquires so many sides that one cannot decipher them, they are labeled as a circle, the highest class of them all. Men strive to become circles, because when their sons are born they get one more side than their father and so on, until they finally become a circle. Woman, however, can only be straight lines, the lowest of all classes. Men in Flatland think woman are inferior, and believe they are unable of reasoning because they biologically driven by emotion. I think Abbott was relating this to woman during the Victorian Period in which he was living in, because the attitudes towards woman in this period were simialar to those in Flatland. |
| | 0 | 9/11/2011 2:21 PM | Plastic Surgery for shapes! A circle is not round in Flatland, it actually has many sides. The Chief Circle is said to have ten thousand sides! It is said to believe that offspring of a shape will inherit more sides than its parents or grandparents. Some parents put their child in the Circular Neo-Therapeutic Gymnasium so that they can gain many sides. However only one out of ten usually survive. |
| | 0 | 9/11/2011 2:11 PM | Color You have to summit to be painted and then women who want to be painted must have the half containing the eye and mouth be colored red, and everything else green. The problem I see with colors is that, if you are painted, how are people suppose to know if you are female or male. Color does make you a higher ranking in class however. |
| | 0 | 9/11/2011 1:47 PM | Making sense! The class discussion in my first hour helped bring it all together. There are regular and irregular objects. For instance, a circle is regular, an oval is irregular and therefore not functioning persons in society. Along with a circle, squares, equilateral triangles, and isosceles triangles are all regular. However, a rhombus or obtuse triangle are irregular. Also, the more sides you have, the smarter you are. Therefore, a circle (which actually has many sides) is smarter than a square or triangle. |
| | 0 | 9/11/2011 1:43 PM | Recognizing Shapes and Irregulars I find the concept of discerning between shapes, and even between shapes and building, very interesting. The lower classes generally feel each other to discern shapes, although they only have to feel one corner, and the upper classes use the "Science and Art of Sight Recognition." I also find interesting the pressure placed on the little, as in young, polygons. They have to pass their exam at the University for sight recognition, and if they do not, they are a social outcast. This reminded me of of a legacy at an Ivy League University. If a parent went there and excelled and the poured hundreds of thousands into the University for their child to go there, the child would feel an immense pressure to go there and succeed. If he/she flunked out, however, the parents would be mad, and society would reject him/her. Not that I am trying to be mean, but the Irregulars really get in the way. They throw a wrench into the means of recognizing and they get in the way, physically. All of the building and houses are designed for regulars, and if they have children, the unfavorable traits get passed on. Abbot is showing how brutal natural selection can be sometimes, the Irregulars are not well suited for their environment, and die away. |
| | 2 | 9/11/2011 1:40 PM | Rich and Poor On page 7, the Square tells us that a each generation has one more side than its parents. So a square would become a penagon, and pentagon a hexagon, and so forth. He also mentions that women stay lines for ever and that an isosceles triangle only gains a half a degree or so, until it becomes an equilateral. Also on page 36, he tells us that Circles can grow "at an accelerated pace." In essence, the powerful become more powerful, and it is very difficult and time consuming, or immposible in the women's case, for the weak to grow. I think Abbot is alluding to the saying that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It is very difficult for an isosceles to gain sides and power, and Abbot is emphaszing how unfair it is. |
| | 1 | 9/11/2011 1:37 PM | Suffrage Paralleled to Flatland Women in Victorian times did not hold much power, but they did have the potential to. When Abbot wrote this book, in 1884, women were realizing their rights were unfair. They were becoming a threat to powerful white males, and the suffrage speakers were deemed "crazy". These were powerful women, and they were called crazy...... Sounds familiar? In Flatland the women may not be powerful, but they show promise of resistance, and that's why i believe they are treated like animals. To prevent revolt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|