Algebra In Wonderland 184
Posted
by
kdawson
from the you-are-sad-said-the-knight dept.
from the you-are-sad-said-the-knight dept.
theodp writes "As Tim Burton's 'Alice in Wonderland' shatters 3-D and IMAX records en route to a $116.3 million opening, the NY Times offers a rather cerebral op-ed arguing that Alice's search for a beautiful garden can be neatly interpreted as a mishmash of satire directed at the advances taking place in mid-19th century math. Charles Dodgson, who penned 'Alice' under the name Lewis Carroll, was a tutor in mathematics at Christ Church in Oxford who found the radical new math illogical and lacking in intellectual rigor. Op-ed writer Melanie Bayley explains: 'Chapter 6, "Pig and Pepper," parodies the principle of continuity, a bizarre concept from projective geometry, which was introduced in the mid-19th century from France. This principle (now an important aspect of modern topology) involves the idea that one shape can bend and stretch into another, provided it retains the same basic properties — a circle is the same as an ellipse or a parabola (the curve of the Cheshire cat's grin). Taking the notion to its extreme, what works for a circle should also work for a baby. So, when Alice takes the Duchess's baby outside, it turns into a pig. The Cheshire Cat says, "I thought it would."'"
Yeah Not Really (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, Dodgson was a mathematician and logician. But he was writing a mind bending kids story, not "satirizing" his trade.
All of the above and Cowboy Neal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah Not Really (Score:3, Insightful)
If you read xkcd, I'm sure you'll understand why it's possible to think allegorically about math. Theorems and proofs and magic!
Re:Yeah Not Really (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:-1, Don't Care? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's in 3D, which much like "...on a computer" and patents, completely changes everything. And yes, I'm planning on seeing it tomorrow with my wife, ;^P
Re:Yeah Not Really (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimately, and I think you know this already, authors write what they know about. Dodgson knew math, so is it really so odd to think he included mathematical concepts in his story because he thought it would be cool?
(Yes, I read the full article, and I see a whole lot of room for uncertainty.)
Re:-1, Don't Care? (Score:4, Insightful)
Alice in Wonderland is one of the few books that you can make a billion movies of and still manage to show a different angle of. The book gives you the material to tell pretty much anything, from a Disney-esque fairy tale with fluffy animals and a song every other minute to a gothic-horror splatter movie that makes you lift your feet every other minute to let the blood flood past.
I'm fairly sure that it's also the book that has been reviewed and discussed in more different classes and subjects than any other book. It contains material for sociology, politics, psychology and as we can see now, math. And I'm fairly sure a few more that I can't think of right now. It has a lot of angles you can look at it.
Yes, it's yet another Alice movie. And I'm quite sure it's different from any that have been made so far.
Re:Yeah Not Really (Score:3, Insightful)
While the phrasing may not have been the best, I don't know that it's necessarily a troll to mention pedophilia wrt Lewis Carroll.
You don't know? OK, let me help you out there, it is.
He *did* spend a lot of time around young children ...
What proportion of his time was that?
one of his hobbies was photography, his favorite subject young children.
Quick! Let's run out and lynch Anne Geddes! (Well that might not be such a bad idea ;)
And he named the main character of and dedicated "Alice" to a certain young girl he spent an excessive amount of time with.
Quick, let's run out and lynch all children's books writers especially those who spend more than a hour with a child.
There are a *lot* of "but that doesn't *mean* he's a pedophile" examples you can pull from Charles Dodgson's life.
He was a mathematician. "But that doesn't *mean* he's a pedophile" Oh look you're right.
Enough that the possibility is certainly up there.
It's just as possible that you are, surely?
Though you can't necessarily prove anything
Yeah that would be because of the complete lack of evidence.
There is not the least suggestion not the merest whiff of any impropriety. To level an accusation like that is a troll at best.
Re:A baby is not a sphere (Score:4, Insightful)
TBH, I'm not sure about satirizing (Score:4, Insightful)
TBH, having read both Alice novels and The Hunting Of The Snark, I'm not sure that it's _all_ satirizing. There are some pretty important concepts illustrated in some places. In a humorous way, sure. But I don't think the concept itself is being satirized most of the time.
E.g., the Walrus and the Carpenter part of Through The Looking Glass illustrates the problems inherent in deciding something rashly based on incomplete data, and without exploring it any further. Alice flip-flops between liking the walrus or the carpenter more, as new information is provided. And eventually comes to the realization that _both_ are repulsive characters, regardless of which one of them may be slightly less so. That's a lesson which is still lost even on many adults who seem to think that when taking sides between two parties, they must go all the way and make one the knight in shiny armour if that's the side they chose. (Heck, fanboy wars or armchair political debates are a prime example of that in action.)
Is the concept of deciding badly based on incomplete data satirized there, or is it just illustrated in a humorous way?
In a sense, see my sig below this message. Sure, it's intended to be a funny way to go about it (though if it's actually funny to anyone else, that's another question), and I particularly like the utter nerdiness of it. But by spreading that quote, I'm _not_ satirizing the concept of polar coordinates. I don't find anything silly or invalid about them, and have used them before. The joke is merely in the equivocation fallacy around "polar", nothing else.
Re:Yeah Not Really (Score:2, Insightful)
IAAL and where I'm from, before we accuse people of serious wrongdoing such as sexually interfering with children, we make sure we have the EVIDENCE to back up such a charge. Moreover we would hope such evidence is more than merely circumstantial.
Paedophilia is an attraction to children, it doesn't necessarily imply any actual physical acts, or any criminal behaviour. Safest to keep this one in proportion.