Skip to main content

Flatterland - Ian Stewart ***

Ian Stewart's Flatterland has been around since 2001, but I've only just come across it. It is, of course a sequel to the famous novella Flatland by Edwin Abbott Abbott dating back to 1884. The original Flatland is perhaps the archetype of a book that is based on a brilliant idea, but be distinctly dreary to read. So the key question here is whether Stewart escaped this limitation in his sequel.

We start here with the (literally, not metaphorically) two-dimensional characters familiar to anyone who has read Flatland. The original both explored the nature of existing in two dimensions (and how the inhabitants would see a three-dimensional object), and provided Victorian social commentary, with female Flatlanders both physically different to males (lines, rather than polygons) and limited in what they can do by society. Stewart only mentions the social side in passing, but instead focuses on mathematical experiences.

Guided by a space hopper (the 60s bouncy toy), the central character Victoria Line is taken out of Flatland to experience a wide range of different mathematical spaces. They start off with the conventional three-dimensional space Vicky's ancestor came across (the original book was supposedly written by A. Square, who Stewart tells us was Albert Square) but then go on to a whole range of different mathematical spaces, from fractal space to topological space, finishing off by straying into physics by bringing in Schrödinger's cat, Minkowski space and time travel via the special and general theories of relativity.

All the way through, Stewart seems to be trying to outdo Abbott's weak attempts at humour by piling on cultural references (we've seen a couple above) and resorting to often excruciating puns. This can be distinctly wearing for the reader, though there are occasional gems such as 'he was the black shape of the family'.

If you can cope with the barrage of irritating humour, some parts of the book work really well at introducing concepts such as topology - this section is based in part on the Mad Hatter's tea party in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. In fact, Stewart clearly takes a significant lead from mathematician Lewis Carroll's approach, though unfortunately lacks Carroll's peak writing skills. This is more Sylvie and Bruno than Alice or Snark. Other parts of the book, though, fail to get the message across. We are dealing here with quite abstruse mathematical concepts and while the portrayal through various characters and their worlds make good use of those concepts in you already know them, they don't act as a useful introduction, leaving the reader potentially baffled.

Like the original Flatland, this is an interesting and innovative attempt. It has always seemed that fiction should be a good route to explain science or maths painlessly and entertainingly. But for me, the painful punning and the relentless jokiness was too much, while the exposition was often not clear enough to do the job. A for effort, though.

Paperback:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more