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."'"
The nice (frustrating) thing about both Alice stories is that they can stand for pretty much everything. From the obvious ( one pill makes you larger ... dumdidum) to the less obvious ( Alice is supposed to be Queen Victoria?). Unless you can ask Dodgson directly, my guess is that it's just a tale he concocted on the fly, using whatever was on his mind at the time (so, yeah, probably mathematics, queen Victoria and possibly perspective-stretching mushrooms).
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
So do Saturday morning cartoons; hence the dual audience.
Judging intent is a phenomenally difficult task. To say Charles Dodgson was satirizing his trade can only be speculative, and it's just as easy to speculate that he wasn't. If an author writes a modern-day story involving a corrupt god, is he satirizing religion or is it merely just a story device he decided to use because he's religious and familiar with the concepts deity and good/bad?
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.)