Having reviewed Flatland itself separately, what did I make of the Annotated Flatland?

I think the main problem is that I am not the intended audience for the annotations- I have a masters level degree in mathematics, and Stewart is writing for a lay audience. Another problem is that Abbott was a truly superb teacher. The combination of these two things leaves many of the annotations feeling clunky and superflous - Abbott will give an elegant explanation of something, and then Stewart will pop up in the margins and explain it again, more ponderously.

I did enjoy bits of it though. I had not known that Abbott was a clergyman, which was another angle to view the book through. Nor did I know he was sort of responsible for the existence of the Salvation Army, by being William Booth's inspirational teacher. And I'd never spotted that Abbott had amusingly labeled the vertices of the roof ROF. ( )

math theory (sort of). Kind of a quirky premise, but ultimately not something I can see myself reading a whole book about. Would rather just read the endflap descriptions and listen to the book discussion on npr (sept 2012).

In looking at “The Annotated Flatland – A Romance of Many Dimensions” one has to look at both the original work by Edwin A. Abbott, as well as the extensive notes provided by Ian Stewart.

“Flatland” is a classic work, which many have read. An early fantasy using math/geometry as a basis, to comment on Victorian society and expand people’s minds to the idea of a fourth dimension (and more beyond that). The text provided here is from the most known second edition, though Stewart does provide notes as to changes made from the original edition. “Flatland” has survived the test of time, and is a clever and humorous fantasy story. Though not as iconic as the works of Jules Verne, or H. G. Wells, it has a well-established place in the history of early speculative fiction works.

Ian Stewart has added a wealth of information, though his notes need a significant review as some of his statements regarding “Flatland” are simply wrong. I did not check his notes to references outside of the book, but would be concerned that he may have made similar errors there. Stewart also had a look at “The Fourth Dimension in Mathematics” and bibliographies of Edwin Abbott Abbott and Charles Howard Hinton, as well as lists of sources and references and further reading suggestions. Stewart also tends to mention his own continuation of “Flatland” called “Flatterland” a but much, but frankly he clearly has a great love of the original and it is puzzling how he could make the errors that he made in his notes given that love of the original.

I am also not happy with the way the notes are presented. The book is setup with “Flatland” in the inner part of the pages, with the notes in the margins on the outside. This is well enough when the notes are short, but some of Stewarts notes go on for pages, resulting in many of the notes not being on the same page as where the footnote was marked, and also with the notes expanded to four columns at the end of the chapter. I would have much rather that Stewart stuck with the notes at the bottom of the page, or at the end of the chapter, or at the end of the book in a notes section. That would make it easier for people who just wanted to read the book and not get distracted by the columns of notes.

"Flatland" by itself gets four stars, this edition distracted from the original work too much for me, mostly because of the layout and the way the additional material was included, but also due to concerns over the inaccuracies. ( )