Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Songs of Summer Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro STEM

Format: Paperback|Change
Price:$12.00+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on June 30, 2016
Edwin Abbott wrote this work in 1884 as a political satire on Victorian culture. I first heard of it through a reference made by science educator John Clayton. The concept of an entire civilization living in a 2 dimensional world and unable to fully grasp the concept of 3 dimensions is a wonderful analogy for human beings attempting to understand the divine nature of God; especially the trinity. We can become insistent in our demands that nothing can exist outside of our sensory perceptions. Or, we open our minds to the possibility that there does exist something beyond our understanding that has been revealed to us in ways we could grasp.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 29, 2016
GREAT
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
Edward A. Abbott was a 19th century theologian and schoolmaster. He published this work in 1884. Based in part on the number of Amazon reviews, it remains well-read today. I first learned about this book when I was in school, a half century ago, and regret it has taken this long to have finally read it. The work is “multidimensional” as it were. It not only pushes the reader’s imagination to envision the concept of four or five dimensions by positing a world in which people live in one dimension LESS than the 3-dimensional world in which we are most familiar with, that is a 2-dimensional world known as flatland. It also is a social satire on the social customs of the day, including hierarchical relationships, in-group / out-group fads, and the role of women in society.

Shape is destiny! The more sides one has, the better. Women, alas, aren’t even 2-diminsional. They are a simple one-dimensional line. Men are the only ones that have breadth. The simplest are isosceles triangles, low on the societal pecking order. Equilateral triangles a bit higher, squares higher still, then pentagons… and on, to ones that have so many sides they approximate a circle, who effectively are the High Priests. And the ones that are irregular shapes: they are the outcasts.

Abbott pushes the reader’s imagination by examining the question of how various entities recognize each other in 2-dimensions, when, on first glance, everyone should appear as a line. He posits that the fog in northern climates provides a mechanism for recognizing if an object is more than a line, since the brightness of the line would fall off in the fog. With careful training, how fast the brightness falls off would denote shape and societal status, not much different, I suppose, from how clothes labels do today. One could imagine Abbott chuckling to himself when he proposed that there was a movement called the “Chromatistes” who felt that shape recognition could be enhanced by simply requiring each shape to have a standard color. There was a conflict on this issue, and the “lines” (the women) and the “circles” (the high priests) were aligned against all other shapes on the issue of the “Universal Color Bill.”

Other dimensions are visited… both below, that is, 1-dimensional space, and no dimensional space (periods), as well as above, 3-dimensional and beyond. Each dimension has grave difficulties envisioning any other world, much like we do in our own. In fact, those who advocate recognition of worlds with different structural dimensions are subject to criminal prosecution. Abbott does recognize a serious flaw in his “flatland” model in that in true 2-dimensions, no shape could really see another, so he fudges the issue a bit by indicating that each shape does have an intrinsic height, and fudges it more by calling it “brightness.” Oh well, all too many paradigms contain their own contradictions.

Overall, a stimulating read, which paved the way for the “space-time continuum” universe of four dimensions. Still, there is the flaw in his 2-dimensional world of “brightness,” the status of women, and some archaic prose. 4-stars.
0Comment|One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 20, 2016
I liked the film (not the movie) better but an interesting read.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 11, 2016
When asked by amazon to "describe the characters" I chose one dimensional because it is funny.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 8, 2016
Good book.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 5, 2016
the product came in dependable amazon prime fashion and was pleasing ,to read. the story the writer takes you through helps you understand his intent. over all it is a very good book, anybody intrested in math, science, or fantasy should read this bood
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 1, 2016
It gives a better appreciation for things outside our understanding.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 29, 2016
Interesting
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 24, 2016
This book is useless without the illustrations.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse