Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott – Structure

Welcome to Flatland, people.

So recently I wrote a post of my delight in reading Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott, and all of the wonderful language conventions it uses to create an intellectually intriguing text. However before I leave Flatland into the archive of science literature analysis posts, there’s something that I feel compelled to talk about, which is Flatland’s structure.

The main reason why I want to talk about the structure of Flatland is because it uses a particular story structure which reappears in many texts including “Jonah and the Whale” in the Bible, and it reappears so often because it’s a story that has strong impact on people.

“So what is this archaic story structure” I hear you ask? Ladies and Gentlemen, I’m talking about the story of what I call “the Failed Prophecy”, which is very much integrated into the story of Flatland.

To start with, here’s a quick chronological summary of what happens in Flatland. So our story starts with Square, a 2-dimensional creature in a 2-dimensional world. Here an extensive introduction is given about the society of these 2-dimensional creatures covering a wide range of topics: gender roles, social class, perception, architecture; pretty much everything we would want to know about the world of Flatland.

After that very long introduction, the book shifts to the world of Lineland where only one dimension exists. Square visits here through a dream, and becomes acquainted with the idea of dimensionality. And then the book shifts again to the world of 3-dimensions, where a prophet from that world comes and reveals Square to a whole new perspective of dimensionality too.

After the departing of the 3D prophet, Square begins his mission to reveal to others this great revelation. He begins with his son, however even after extensive explanations, his son responds in ridicule. Square, although disappointed, continues to spread the world, but person after person, they all reject his inconceivable idea of a 3^rd dimension, and he is sent to prison, cast as a lunatic prophesising about an inexistent truth.

So how does the “Failed Prophet” story fit into Flatland? Well firstly, the primary structure of the “Failed Prophet” story is the introduction, “the Vision”, and “the Prophesy.”

So in this story, the introduction’s role in the Failed Prophesy structure is to introduce the problem. Although various problems exist in Flatland, the main one which is focussed on is the ignorance of a greater truth i.e. dimensionality.

This greater truth is explored when Square goes through the stage which I like to call “The Vision.” Essentially this is where that greater truth is revealed, in this case, the existence of creatures in different dimensions. The visit from the 3-D prophet then allows for his mission to become clear; to prophesize about the existence of different dimensions.

And then this is where the prophecy stage comes into toll, where he attempts to convince people of this truth, which unfortunately for him, results in being cast as a heretic and held in jail because of the inconceivability of his message to a 2-dimensional creature. And that people, is the story structure of the Failed Prophet in Flatland.

The reason why I like the Failed Prophet structure is because although it’s sad, it has a very human, realistic quality, which draws on the relatable feeling of rejection. It’s a story which can really get to you; because everyone at some point has felt rejection before, and when we see a story of what seems like a hero figure ready to spread the word of a greater truth, turn into a story of rejection despite good intentions; it makes you a bit sad.

Now if you read my last post about Flatland, you might be baffled at this response, since I wrote before about how it’s a book for people interested in maths, not for those looking for a down-to-earth, moving narrative. But now that I’ve realised how symbolic and deep this story is, I’ve changed my perspective a bit.

So if you’ve already read the book, I challenge you to read it again, and notice how a seemingly over-wordy math book, is actually a powerful, humanistic story of rejection.

Einstein’s Dream by Alan Lightman – Language Features

The book cover for Einsteins Dream.

Imagine worlds where time is different. A world where time flows quicker in different places, people in a choice between slowing the moments of their life down to treasure fleeting experiences, or speeding the rest in an exhilarating rush. A world where time is about to end, the last moments of existence spent in one last attempt of seeking whatever joys they can scavenge. A world where time runs like a river – a continuous flow of repeated events, each action just a repetition of the same action that has been done before. These are the world’s which Einstein’s Dream explores, and I have to say, it is absolutely brilliant.

Einstein’s Dreams’ follows the creative journeys of renowned theoretical physicist Albert Einstein, into these imagined worlds where time is a distortion of his world. Like I said, it is brilliant; the concept in itself is both complicated and captivating, but his way of writing it makes the concept relatable, and comprehensible.

Much of this I believe is because of his mastery of narrative conventions. Predominantly a science based novel, Lightman draws upon various techniques to perfect his story. So in this post, I’m going to discuss two quintessential elements of language which I think constitute the main beauty of Einstein’s dream, which are his ability at creating setting and his ability to create a condensed narrative in such short periods of writing.

So what makes Lightman exceptionally good at creating settings? Well here’s an example of some of his work.

“It is late afternoon, and, for a brief moment, the sun nestles in a snowy hollow of the Alps, fire touching ice. The long slants of light sweep from the mountains, cross a restful lake, cast shadows in a town below.” (pg 46)

Lightman’s ability to create a vivid scene is what impresses me most. His use of metaphors like “fire touching ice” in the previous passage is both illustrative, yet allows space for the reader to recreate the scene themselves. By describing the light as “long slants” that “sweep,” and “cross,” he enhances the movement of the light, and again, leaves room for imaginative creation of the scene which I think is an important aspect of a novel.

And it’s especially wonderful how he makes each dream world seem so intricate and lively. Continuing from the previous passage, the book reads,

“In many ways, it is a town of one piece and a whole. Spruce and larch and arolla pine form a gentle border north and west, while higher up are fire lilies … In pastures near, the town graze cattle for making butter, cheese and chocolate. A little textile mill produces silks, ribbons, cotton clothes. A church bell rings…” (pg 46 – 47)

From these two paragraphs, Lightman beautifully creates this quaint, working atmosphere with the town. Whether it be his fresh descriptions of the local flora, or the illustrations of the on goings businesses of the town, Alan Lightman’s ability to create atmosphere and scenery is exceptional.

These are just a few examples of his literary prowess in setting; however Lightman also excels in creating narratives within short time spaces as well.

Many of the dreams shown in this book contain some snippet of a story between characters. The main reasons why I think Lightman’s doing of this is impressive is because of the small windows of opportunity that he does this in – since all of his chapters are merely a scene or too of the imagined worlds, Lightman needs to write concisely and cleverly to build up emotional attachment to characters. If you read the book, you’ll find that every chapter is like a snapshot of an entire story on its own. It’s like Lightman in Einstein’s Dream is opening all of these doors to worlds, letting us just a glimpse into a place of deep stories and conflicts.

It’s been nice to read a good science novel. His techniques are exceptional, and his sharp abilities in narrative conventions are what makes this book shine. So overall a great read, and I’d recommend anybody to read it, whether you have an interest in science writing or not.

The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake – Language Features

The cover of “The Science Delusion” by Rupert Sheldrake

So here I am again, back at reading The Science Delusion. If you read my first post about this insightful read, you’ll know that I had a look at the first little sections of the book, and briefly skimmed through some of the various ideas that it poses. With a full read through the book, taking in some of its quintessential features, I’m now ready to talk about its Language Features.

To give a quick recap so you don’t have to read the last post again, the Science Delusion is like one of those “constructive feedback slips” for tourism locations; except it’s for science and written in a hella-intelligent way. He deals with ideas like materialism, objectivity, whether inheritance is purely biological and others, and reasons about their viability and why having them as foundations for future endeavors in science is holding us back. These ideas are quite interesting in themselves – I had a good portion of my curious side piqued by his proposals – however it’s the techniques that he uses which makes the book easier to flow through.

Rupert Sheldrake in Hampshire

The three main techniques I want to discuss here are his voice throughout the book, how he structures his ideas, and ultimately what separates a book like this from “The God Delusion” (click here for my post on that) which is the style.

Let’s start with the voice. Not dissimilar to the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Sheldrake adopts a voice imbued with intelligence, authority, and credibility. Through this voice Sheldrake has the audience willingly listening to and accepting his ideas, while also using it to decorate his text with alluring metaphorical language, easing our minds around difficult concepts and wordy subjects. Although a warning to some, his voice may come off as too technical, so if you don’t find a book of big science ideas interesting, you probably shouldn’t expect a fun read. However although I found at various points in the book to be dry with distant and impersonal information, I enjoyed his enchanting voice which helped me drag though the boring bits.

To get an idea of the type of voice he adopts, here’s a short passage of some of his writing.

“Scientists are often imagined to achieve a superhuman level of objectivity. This belief is sustained by the ideal of dismembered knowledge, unaffected by ambitions, hopes, fears, and other emotions.”

Now as I mentioned previously, Sheldrake creates a credible text, which is largely due to the structure and extensive research he did. Each of his main “dogmas” are separate chapters, further sub-divided into sections regarding his main points. And each of these points are FURTHER sub-divided into a structure of an introductory passage, elaboration of the proposed statement, some evidence to back it up, and finally his evaluation. Although this formatting of ideas is very simple, it’s effectiveness is astonishing, and just proves how simple structuring of ideas allows a clever progression of thought for the readers to follow through with. And his research was excellent, both extensive and in-depth, calculated and convincing, being one of the main reasons why he comes off as credible. He did his homework, and quite a lot of it.

Which leads me to my last point which is his style.  Doing all of this research but directing it as an offensive text doesn’t do wonders to appeal to audiences. The main reason why I appreciated the Science Delusion a helluva lot more than the God Delusion was his approach to changing the audiences’ perspective on things. As opposed to an offensive, ridiculing approach that Dawkins’ takes, Sheldrake uses persuasion instead. Even to those to which he is directly trying to change the views on, he adopts a style of persuasion which is demonstrated across his text; he never directly ridicules their beliefs, he uses a gradual progression of information, he doesn’t command that the reader change their mind, he instead leaves a few short reflective questions for them to ponder on. Overall his style is a lot more charming than Dawkins, and uses more subtle suggestion, less insults.

So long story short, if you have some interest in science and are interested in the debunking of various dogmas of science, then “The Science Delusion” should be a good read for you, with its language easing your passage and making for an insightful experience.

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.

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins – Language Features

Richard Dawkins sharing the God Delusion to a group of people.

Whether you are religious or non-religious, if you have read “The God Delusion” there’s one thing you can be certain on; Richard Dawkins is a hell of an author. His persuasive ability is of the highest calibre, both subtle, and powerful; which of course he needed if he were to ever stand a chance to endeavour in one of the most ambitious tasks of any persuader; conversion of religion, or in this case, the switch to religion to the absence of religion.

Although of course he wouldn’t have succeeded in converting every reader to atheism, his book still required his incredible mastery of the language and its conventions to make his text persuasive. Richard Dawkins is like a trained assassin when it comes to using language. He has in his rack, various literary “weapons” of all kinds of shapes and sizes, which he uses with precision, power, and personality, to attack away at the victim of God. What are these weapons? Well let’s find out.

Anecdotes are abundant in the God Delusion, and are in fact his primal source of evidence, alongside his logical reasoning’s of his ideologies. These anecdotes and his explanations are what make up the fat bulk of the book, and arguably is the most important technique for his persuasion – no reader would just accept his beliefs, he had to back it up with solid facts. His arguments aren’t in some mixed up order either, they do follow a particular structure to develop the mind of the reader through these arguments; starting off with making suggestions as about some of the upcoming to believing in God, to straight-up rebuking the idea of God’s existence.

But another important technique he uses in making his anecdotes effective on the readers is his ability to create characterisations ideas like “God” as either Good or Evil. This is crucial to the book because Dawkins wants the readers to see God and Religion as bad, and atheism is good, and to do this he has to make clear distinctions between the sides, and cast them off to opposite poles, with one side clearing being in good favour. Perhaps the most distinguishing characterisations he made was one of God himself, in which he says,

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

When Dawkins made this little caption of God, he had to make his selection of words and figurative language very carefully. All of the traits he includes are negative ones, and he leaves no room for hopeful positives. He wants to characterize God as the most unlikable character ever to exist, and as such he finds the traits which the eye of the modern person would receive as undoubtedly horrible.

However all of this is just the main block of his persuasive plan. To effectively “make it work” he needed to round it all off with his profile, or how the readers viewed the author of the book. If the readers saw an argument which looked like it was written by and angry, ranting, idiotic, and frustrated atheist, they would automatically shut him off and deem any of his further arguments as just rabble. So Dawkins adapts his style of writing to the voice of someone people would listen to wilfully; that is, an authoritative, intelligent, and confident voice. Essentially he takes the role of the leader, and a leader that people would actually listen to. To achieve this is pretty simple really. Use big words, make assumptions but pose them as facts, add in a few sciency stories and WALLAH, you got yourself a nice, suited mask that says “Hey, I’m smart so listen to me.”

 

Little Black Spot on the Sun, today – Andrew Lockwood

Little Black Spot on the Sun, today – Andrew Lockwood

A square of solid blackness. Its darkness so powerful that no light or twinkle may pass through. All except for one.

The sun. A circle of glowing reds, oranges, and yellows, its surface thriving with these orange worms, pulsating and disappearing in a slow, hypnotic dance. It’s edges are lined with wisps of flares, their presence powerful, yet so tiny compared to the massive body of the sun.

Yet in this huge celestial king, lies a small, black mole. A crisp circle that cuts through the sun with clean precision, the sun around the circle edging back in fear. It is a stain of the great star. An imperfection which soils the great and mighty sun.

And even when the sun is so magnificent and glorious in cutting through the infamous darkness that swallows up any other light, this one imperfection is the first thing we notice, its flaw and oddity, the only thing which seems to matter.

The Science Delusion – Review by Aaron Lee

With a first glance at “The Science Delusion” by Rupert Sheldrake, obviously you assume that this must be a polar opposite of the best seller “The God Delusion,” taking its turn of the gun to rip holes in the poor victim of Science instead of Religion. Right? Well, not really.

In contrary to this first impression, the “Science Delusion” is actually written as a pro-science book; he doesn’t want to wreck holes in science it like the “God Delusion” does to religion, “The Science Delusion,” actually seeks to improve the way which science is directed.

Rupert Sheldrake says that we are held back by these science versions of the Ten Commandments, which he calls the Ten Science Dogmas, which are basically beliefs in science that Sheldrake believes to be outdated. In metaphorical terms, he says science is being held back, just like a tethered leash would hold back an energetic dog, ready to run and explore the world; and if we would just let it go, science could reach its full potential. Although I’ve yet to read chapters two and onward, there are still countless amounts of ideas contained in just the Preface, Introduction, and the first Dogma, “Is Nature Mechanical?”

So in the rest of this blog post, get ready to see my review of how these ideas have left their mark on me. And to do this, I going to discuss how it CONNECTED with me, what I want to CHALLENGE about the text, some of the key CONCEPTS involved, and what the books has CHANGED about my perspective of science, with a major idea in each category.

Let’s kick it off with connections. For me one of the strongest connections to me and my learning is the idea mentioned in the prologue which is determinism, or more specifically the “assumption that everything can be determined by mathematical laws”. Although the book is against it as it was disapproved during the 20^th Century, it still is an interesting idea to ponder about.

Throughout school we are taught things in maths and science, but always told that these are the “simple forms,” working only when a certain set of circumstances are met. For example, in physics we are told to calculate speeds of an object falling, but leaving out the effect of air resistance. But it’s interesting to wonder if we could have an equation, or set of equations to factor in every single variable in existence that could affect the outcome. So if we had all the variables, and knew all of the interactions, then we could determine the consequences of everything. If this could happen then weather forecasts could become accurate 100% of the time! And maybe even a prediction of the future. If we can know the actions and consequences of every possible action as a mathematical represenation, and compute this into some sort of calculator, then is it possible that we can determine the future?

But of course the books says determinism was disproved, as it states, “In 1927… it became clear that indeterminism was an essential feature of the physical world,” which therefore means determinism is a faulty idea. But still, it’s interesting to think about.

Now to the challenge section. And although there are many ideas that are begging to be challenged, right now I want to address this image of scientists as gullible, feeble-minded minions who absorb the ideas of the norm of science through, as he says, “a form of intellectual osmosis.” To me I think that’s a bit harsh.

Even though he does make a bit of room for error by saying that only “most” scientists do this, I don’t entirely believe in this ideology. From my experience with scientists, I get the feeling that scientists do take opinions from others, but from the most part are individualistic thinkers, fuelled by their natural curiosity to think the hell out of whatever comes to their mind. They don’t just absorb opinions mindlessly, they drag opinions through their barrier of scepticism, toss it, rip at it, until they get in their own special ideas. Well at least that’s my opinion.

But let’s move onto the concepts, which is personally for me the most interesting part. And there are just SO MANY of them. Even in the first chapter, ideas are galore. But the most critical idea of the first chapter was in fact the answer to the title of the chapter itself, “Is Nature Mechanical?” And this question is so important because it deals with a fundamental view of life and the universe.

To give you a quick synopsis, much of the first chapter is Rupert Sheldrake showing a battle of ideologies on the view of nature over time, mostly swiveling between the corners of materialism, vitalism, mechanism, and the authors pick, the philosophy of organism. Perhaps the most dominant of these in scientists is materialism, is what Sheldrake suggests, which essentially is a belief that all organisms can be broken down into complex interactions of energy in matter, or in subject terms, all biology is just chemistry and physics but with incredible complexity.

This ties into the idea that our minds are is confined to the electrochemical simulations in our brain cells and their interactions in patterns of presently-incomprehensible patterns. Is this true? Well that totally up for you to decide. Sheldrake personally goes against that, opting for a philosophy of organism, well at least in the case of describing the world view of the universe, as he states, “the entire universe is more like a growing developing organism than a machine slowly running out of steam.”

So with all of these ideas, how has the book changed my views? Well the main thing that I have learnt is that in science, you have to keep an open mind. Essentially these dogmas have been described as holding science back, and by trying to use them as stepping stones to unravel more and more mysteries; is limited. Like a wise man once said, “Before you build a house, you have to prepare the foundations.” And Sheldrake has me persuaded on this. I do believe that if we make future discoveries without a biased view of the world, then we can discover wonders of science that we never knew were even there. By clinging onto past beliefs, we confuse ourselves into finding the truth. Imagine trying to find a hidden pirate treasure, but using an outdated map. Regardless how far and wide you search, if you prelude yourself with using something that is outdated to try and find something in the present; you’re going to have a bad time.