Slashdot Mirror
Algebra In Wonderland
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."'"
It's pretty well established that the Alice books contained all kinds of references and allusions that would have gone straight over a child's head.
There's an annotated edition that is much more than "decent".
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Annotated-Alice/Lewis-Carroll/e/9780393048476/?itm=1&USRI=annotated+alice
you'd already know that "Alice" was a satire.
For those interested, the full version of this article originally comes from the New Scientist, just before Christmas. The NYTimes version is shortened and split onto two pages.
Just sayin'
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427391.600-alices-adventures-in-algebra-wonderland-solved.html?full=true
Judging intent is a phenomenally difficult task.
Sort of. If you look at it in an absolutist, objective sense, then yes. If you look at it in a subjective, probability sense, it's not that difficult at all. In fact, most people successfully do this many times a day.
To say Charles Dodgson was satirizing his trade can only be speculative
Of course. But that's true of anything done by anyone. Even if they tell you to your face exactly what their intentions are, you can only ever speculate if they are telling the truth. At the end of the day, it always comes down to speculation.
and it's just as easy to speculate that he wasn't.
This is the part you get exactly wrong. It's *not* just as easy, because given that he was a mathematician, and that the two Alice books abound with satire, it's difficult to believe that he wasn't satirizing mathematics when his books have so many examples of such.
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?
Here's a simple litmus test. Does the math seem bolted-on? Or does it integrate with the work as a whole? If it feels bolted-on, then perhaps it's just something he thought would be cool. If it fits the work as a whole, then it's most likely meant to be taken in the same way the rest of the work is, which is very much to be satire.
Like you said, though, you can never be absolutely certain, but you can be certain enough to make a personal judgement.
It certainly is NOT a troll to mention paedophilia with regard to Lewis Carroll.
I won't pretend to expertise as regards the jurisprudence appropriate to trolls. However, I doubt that notion of prior art constitutes a defence here. ;)
The fact that ... all play into that notion. That isn't to say it's true.
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.
[A]ny biography of the man would be sorely incomplete without mentioning that the theory of Carroll as repressed paedophile permeated much 20th century analysis of the man and his work.
Nonsense. A biography of the man could simply rely on documented events in his life. You can leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Now if you were to write "any historical review of Carroll scholarship would be sorely incomplete ...," I could not disagree. Let me remind you, however, that the original statement you are defending as not-a-troll was something to the effect that Alice in Wonderland is not a book about maths, but a book about paedophilia.
the traditional scholarly conception of Lewis Carroll is as a celibate paedophile
Again where I come from I would like an act as well as the intent to commit act before I condemn someone.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke