Rating: 
Summary: Does the flatness of a book determine is value?
Review: I wish I would have read something else by Ian Stewart before this book as I am sure that anything else he has written must be better than this. The mathematical context is fair but is a hodgepodge of mathematical musings having little to do with the original Flatland, like the title implies. Often the textual explanation absolutely requires a drawing or equation before the concept is tackled. In this way the book is poorly laid out with diagrams coming after the concept has been read (publishers fault and completely confusing to the reader). The chapter on fractals seems to be first draft filler. Perseus publishing should hold most of the blame for this text being in print.The most troubling part of this book is the neverending cutesy play on words and banal dialog that hurts the readers train of thought in trying to grasp a concept more than it helps. If you don't feel embarrassed for the writer when coming across such passages you are likely still in elementary school. By the end of the book you will be able to foresee these passages dotted between the 'meat' of the text so as to avoid them outright. This book could have been written in a quarter of the space since the other three quarters reminds me of bad puppet theater.
Rating: 
Summary: Some god some bad
Review: I would have liked a bit more discussion on some of the topics, and a lot less of the "cutesy" word play. The "Space" Girls and other laboured puns actually took away from the read. But there is some interesting stuff in here. Fairly high level overview. Relatively easy to understand.
Rating:
Summary: Good teaching tool
Review: I've used Flatland and Sphereland in my High School Pre-Calculus class. They're both entertaining books, but also ones that are a bit elementary for the class. I would say they are written for entertainment first, enlightenment second. Flatterland is NOT the same type of book. I have never been an Ian Stewart fan, but I do like this book. While the first two books are easy enough for a 7th grade student to understand, the topics in this book will require most high school students to be walked through the material. It's not an easy read. I will use this book with some of my students in the future, but only those that enjoy a challenge. It's true that the book tries to cover too much, but I think you should view it as a survey of modern mathematics. In my opinion, this is some of the best writing I've seen from Stewart, but definitely not up to the literary level set by Flatland and Sphereland.
Rating:
Summary: Regurgitation of old stuff
Review: Ian Stewart thinks he must write two books a year. But he doesn't really have anything new to say (besides the title which is as old as the hills...). He turns over and over churning the old mathematical ideas that he and others have talked about. What a waste of paper! For heaven's sake: Please let the trees grow! Why turn them into pulp?? I did give this book my full attention, but I got absolutely no satisfaction. This is the man who, as reviewer, called David Berlinski's innovative and interesting book, A Tour of the Calculus, "California Computing," Stewart's implication being that Berlinski, who then lived in San Francisco, was somehow soft as Stewart views all Californians. Let me tell you: This snooty British writer is much worse than Berlinski. Please read better books than Stewart's nonsense.
Rating: 
Summary: A good sequel to Flatland
Review: In Flatterland, Vicki Line, the granddaughter of the adventurer in Flatland, is taken by a multidimensional being named Space Hopper to visit various mathematical places. Vicki and the reader is given a guided tour of modern mathematics and physics. She is educated in noneuclidean geometry, fractals, topology, and other topics of mathematics. In physics, she learns about relativity, cosmology, and quantum theory. In each realm, Vicki meets and converses with its inhabitants. These inhabitants possess the characteristics of their realm and, along with SpaceHopper, become Vicki's mentors to help her understand a particular branch of mathematics. I recommend this book to nonmathematicians. Some of the subjects are challenging but all the subjects are enjoyable to read. I did not give this book five stars because Stewart's inventive naming of dates is a distraction.
Rating:
Summary: Literature that makes me grind my teeth
Review: In this book agonizingly simple theories and bits of logic are spun into a web of mixed metaphors and frustrating wordplay that is tedious, confusing, incessant, and causes the reader to fixate and break his or her reading 'stride' every other sentance to translate into "Planiturthian". Entire chapters are devoted to simple mathmatical theories I recall from high-school algebra, which could be described to conclusion over the course of a brief paragraph (such as tacking an extra dimension onto a geometrical equation). After reading the first paragraph of any section and translating all the gibberish, your mind will leap to the logical conclusion about seven pages before the author does. This book offers little educational or entertaining rewards. Reading it is more of a test of determination.
Rating:
Summary: Lame
Review: Like totally. It is so bizarre to have to deal with Stewart giving voice to a adolescent girl's diary. Kind of distrubing actually. INteresting math, but the format here is painful to read. Try Jeff Weeks' "the sahpe of space"
Rating: 
Summary: Flatterland: Like Flatland Only Pompous
Review: Please do not judge the classic "Flatland" by the bland "Flatterland". While "Flatland" was creative and alegorical, "Flatterland" is just an exercise in cutesy phrasing. I suppose that Stewart does a decent job of explaining multidimensional geometry to the layman, but is there a need to do it so condescendingly? And what is there of a message beyond the mathematical analogies? Abbott's original is a classic because it is socially relevant. Stewart even references this, but he makes no effort to provide a current relevance to his story other than to reference current culture. This book is an insult to the original classic. Those looking for a better understanding of multidimensional mathematics and physics are better off looking elsewhere.
Rating:
Summary: wkrc rubbery red critters
Review: see the Canadian review or amazon. Spaceland Ruby
"rubbery red critters"
spotter109
Toggle Grid *N
Toggle Cap {Open\\}
Rating:
Summary: should have handed his ideas to a better writer
Review: Stewart has some interesting math to give to the common person, however he isn't very good at setting it down. His jokes are horrible, and his narrative is slow. It is written as if he is giving a lecture in tag-team mode between the protagonist Vicky and her guide the Space Hopper. After reading Flatland, I had hoped this sequel would live up to the sort of lofty ideals and imagination of Abbott's work. However, just as the people in Victorian England, Stewart immediately shrugs off the possibility of any higher spatial dimension than 3, and proceeds to merely give lectures on topology and geometry through bad puns and tiring dialogue.
| 
