Russell's Reviews > Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions

Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review
Mar 23, 2011

did not like it
Read in December, 2009

This was the direct result of drug overdose. In Psychology, we studied how our consciousness becomes altered by certain things, like sleep, sleep deprivation, drugs, and near-death experiences. I think that the mathematician, Edwin Abbott Abbott, needed sleep, less drugs, and life experiences OUTSIDE of the house because he imagined less-than-exciting characters with lower-than-poop plans. During sleep, we dream, which is an altered consciousness. Now, all of Edwin's dreams, just because he wrote this terrible book, are dumb. Drugs induce other-worldly experiences in the human mind, or alters its consciousness. When Edwin took too many, he very nearly died, which made him hallucinate. I wish that he didn't stop, but he did. He did not die. He came back to reality and started writing this novel immediately.
This is what makes it such a bad book. The main character is a square. Literally. And this square has a line segment as a wife. It is a wonder how he couldn't have died from overdose here. Suddenly, a circle, which is actually a sphere, appears in their two-dimensional (flat) vision and kidnaps the square to explore Space (three dimensions). Ooh... Then they look at Lineland, which is just a line, then on to Pointland, which is just a point. There is only one person existing in that universe, which is a point, or an infinitesimally small sphere with diameter zero. It was a lonely point, as much as Edwin probably was, being a mathematician and all. The point is that Pointland was pointless like Abbott.
Anyway, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions is a Victorian-age multidimensional romantic novel that should be avoided at all cost, then burned then burned again.
Actually, this book does give inspiration for a fourth dimension, which I think is pretty cool. Other than that, this novel is garbage (or) (maybe) (even)
2 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Flatland.
Sign In »

Comments (showing 1-5 of 5) (5 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

Josh Trolltastical review, yo

message 2: by M. (new) - rated it 3 stars

M. You should type a million wacky words about thing

Michealla The plot itself with the 2D world is in relation to society and how closed-minded it was in his time, and still is today. The different dimentions can be seen two ways, as many have been saying as a mathmatical view-point, or as my English class saw it, as a metaphor of how society could be more open-minded. Abbot wasn't crazy, you're just taking him a bit literally.

message 4: by Gaston (new)

Gaston Your review is as much garbage as you think this book is. You probably are so close-minded enough as not to see things from a different perspective. In fact, I hate to burst your bubble, but I actually even think you failed to offer the novel any logical, scientific view at all. Based on your review all that you thought about it was that it was purely made without a thematic organization and that it lacks any foundation necessary to provide a strong structure for the plots to exist. I'm sorry mister but I beg to differ with your argument. I absolutely think this book is such a great classic in as much as it inspires me to think things in general with more sophistication. It has wrapped me up in almost all fields and I'm proud to say that. I owe it all to this book for being able to figure out the principles of why we believe in a supreme being and how important it is for us to believe in a fourth dimension, how surreal it may be, for I am sure that it exists, as necessary as we three-dimensional beings do to those that remain flat.

Russell To be clear, sometimes, people can write well like Gaston and Michealla. With English as my second language, I make up for my lack of talent in writing by using sarcasm. I appreciate the feedback, but if you had looked closer, my writing is always full of sarcasm and satire. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I think you failed to offer my review any illogical, non-scientific view at all.
This is not to say that I despised the novel, or loved it. It was pretty mind-boggling to read about a different dimension beyond our own, but there are also other sources of these ideas that are more accessible to the layman. I wrote this to vent about how difficult it was for an immigrant still learning a second language--one of the most complex and difficult, yet beautiful to learn--in an Honors math class.
I don't really believe this book to be garbage, but it was one of the harder novels that I had to read in a math class, if "one of the harder" is synonymous with "the only". I am sorry if I offended you and am willing to delete my review if it suits you.

back to top