Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott – Language Features (Narrative Conventions)

A typical house in the world of Flatland.

 

Want to get creative? Try this. Get some paper out and draw a little square. After that start to draw more and more shapes of varying types: a few triangles, squares, pentagons, circles; and why not vary them in proportion too: make some irregular, equal sides, angles a little wonky; heck, why not cram in a few random lines as standalone shapes here and there. Now just add in some big pentagons with a few open sides, and take a step back and be proud; you’ve just recreated the world of Flatland.

So as you’ve probably guessed, Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott experiments with the idea of dimensions. Although this heavily math-based book isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, Abbott did a good job of making his world come to life, which he achieved almost exclusively through narrative conventions. Personally I find myself quite interested in these narrative conventions, because it’d be interesting to know how Abbott created such an intellectually-stimulating text. So in this blog post, I will be talking about the three crucial aspects of narrative conventions in Flatland being setting, character, and voice.

To begin with I want to cover the most intriguing aspect of Flatland; the setting. The setting is especially important in this text because it’s the main reason why the author created the book in the first place. Flatland is set in a world with only two dimensions where everything is represented by a shape, but it goes into great depth, by discussing sensory perceptions, social class, gender roles, architecture, and the depressing “Natural Laws”. These aspects constitute the main focal point of interest in Flatland, and is the main reason why readers would stick through to the end; we want to know more about this little world. Picture a place where your career is determined by how many sides you have, a world where women are stuck as dim-witted lines, or a world where the only thing you can see of your son is a straight line. In a weird way you get hooked to the ways in which the world of Flatland works.

However ultimately the book is a narrative and its plot revolves around the protagonist Square, and what makes him so interesting is how the author carefully selected him. After all, why make him a square? Why not the prestigious circle or a 1-dimensional creature? The reason lies in his role in the plot. Square is meant to be the destined prophet of dimensionality. Therefore the main character must symbolize dimensionality. And if you were talking to someone about 2-dimensional shapes, what’s the first that comes to mind? A Square. Also in terms of the plot, the prophet has to be one which dips into the dimension below it, and have insight from one above it. And as humans have familiarity with the dimensions of one, two, and three, a creature of 2 dimensions was the best candidate for the character, i.e. a square.

Speaking of character, another pressing element of the book is the voice of the character in the text. Flatland is a first person book written as if by the protagonist Square, and therefore his gentlemanly voice is reflected throughout the text. Personally I find the monotonous tone throughout most of the book quite boring, but it was necessary for the concepts to be accurately expressed, as a lot of the details were quite mathematics and logic based. Overall the voice of the character leaves an impression of a certain formality and precision, which explains concepts nicely but falls short of having an entertaining glamour to it.

Flatland is described as a masterpiece and it is. It was the first to explore dimensionality in a fictional sense, with properly chosen language features, and an incredibly thought out setting and characters. However it is a book marveled more for its in-depth creativity of uncharted mathematical territory, so if you’re looking more for an engaging, heart wrenching, tear welling book, then this is not for you.