What’s so great about this novel is that it illustrates its points in dimensioning, i.e., a triangle or square is drawn as a figure. In Flatland, these actual figures are seen only as straight lines and the image of triangle, square, etc., only from above, which would be height as height and width (or breadth) are the only two dimensions known to its inhabitants. Light or brightness coming off the angles of the form can indicate what that form can be, regardless of its line-appearance.
What’s even better about this novel is that even though it’s likely a one-day read, I tend to drag it out and think about it a while and make references of my own. One reference is back to The Life of Geronimo Sandoval and string theory which is what led me to Flatland as a next-up choice of reading.
Another is to my own favorite subject of perception. My husband’s outright laugh after all these years has come down to a tolerant smile as I tell him that a six-inch plane flew overhead yesterday. As a design engineer he has learned to come through the process of hand-drawing three-dimensional objects on paper all the way to the computer rendering of three-dimensional prototypes with the CAD software available.
In one way, once you learn about something new you only see that new viewpoint. For example, those poster images where you stare at them long enough you’ll see a "hidden" image composed of certain colored dots. My gynecologist has one on the ceiling of the examination room. Once you have attuned your eyes and senses to see the image, you’ll almost always find it immediately after that.
Another thought: Why can’t televsion and movie film shoot the three-dimensional and present it as such, or through a filter so that the red/green cellophane eyewear or the stereoscope for stills isn’t required at this last viewing stage, but built in somewhere earlier in the process?
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology