David Mendoza -- Is It A Satire or Is It Not?

  As we discussed when you came to my office hours (and as 
  Tom Banchoff discussed in his talk last Tuesday evening), I 
  think there is actually very strong evidence that Edwin Abbott
  Abbott was a strong *proponent* of women's rights and education
  for women.  So it is actually clear that he was writing Part I of
  Flatland as a satire of attitudes prevalent in Victorian England.
  The negative attitudes about women expressed by A. Square were
  not Abbott's own opinions.  He wasn't just saying "women can have
  have a strong character" because almost all of the descriptions
  of women are *negative* -- they say that women are overly emotional,
  "unthinking organisms" with no brainpower, no memory, and bad tempers. 

  Your argument that it's sometimes difficult for a modern reader to 
  tell that is true by reading Flatland is still OK, but I think your
  case would have been stronger if you had singled out the old-fashioned
  language Abbott uses as the source of the difficulty in interpreting
  what he was trying to say.  Think about the exaggerated tone and the 
  language he uses in passages like this one from page 12:  "For as 
  they have no pretensions of an angle, being inferior in this respect to the very 
  lowest of the Isosceles, they are consequently wholly devoid of brain power ... "  
  I think the tone in phrases like "no pretensions of an angle," "inferior
  in every respect," "the lowest of the Isosceles," and "wholly devoid of 
  brain power" is meant to be "over the top."  Abbott meant the reader to 
  understand from signals like that that he was engaging in satire.  But 
  for readers in 2016, maybe phrases like that just sound stilted (strained, 
  unnatural) and old-fashioned.  

  As far as the writing goes, I am afraid that you still have a lot
  of work to do.  Many of the same issues I have flagged in comments
  on previous papers (unclear sentences, unclear connections between sentences,
  incomplete sentences, ... ) are still present here.  Let's just go
  through the opening paragraph (sorry but I don't have the time to 
  do any more than that):

  In a world governed by the shapes, the narrator A. Square explains 
  how society is run as well as his personal encounters within the world 
  of shapes. 

> This is not clear because you are saying Flatland is both a "world of shapes"
  and that it is "governed by the shapes."  I know what you mean (I think)
  but the connection is not clear from what you have said.
    
  Within the society similar to historical caste systems within civilizations, 
  women are portrayed as simple lines. 

> It's true that the rigid Flatland society is somewhat similar
  to caste systems in other historical societies, but you don't 
  really develop that idea, and it's not clear how that relates
  to your main point. 
  
  The square also goes on to describe women as emotional and simple. 

> "Emotional and simple" is a really understated way of characterizing
  his descriptions.  (See the passage from page 12 quoted above.)

  As I read this, I had no reaction in particular, but others might find 
  this text to be absurd due to the way the book portrays women. 
  The purpose of this book portraying women in such a form is unclear to 
  a modern reader because the form that the book was written makes it 
  difficult to interpret. 

> This is mostly good.  But you need to be more specific than just
  saying it's the "form that the book was written."  Does that mean
  the fact that it is a short novella?  Does it mean that it uses
  a first-person narrator (the Square)?  Or is it the language and 
  tone?  You can tell what I think from the comments above.  

  Thus we could attempt to make complete sense of this book. 

> This sentence does not really say anything by itself.  You 
  could say that about any book!

  I believe that a conclusion can not be made clearly. 

> I think you meant to say something like, "While we could attempt
  to make complete sense of the book *as a satire,* I do not believe 
  that one can conclude it was intended that way."
    
  Although countless people have made a conclusion to make this book 
  as a satire, I have come to the conclusion that it is possible 
  that the author might be expressing his opinions through this novel. 

> "Countless people" is an exaggeration and it's trite.  Avoid 
  phrases like that when "many people" would do just as 
  well.  Also, "... made a conclusion to make this
  book as a satire" does not work grammatically.  You could say
  "have come to the conclusion this book is a satire"    

  What he may be saying is that women have a strong character that 
  can lead to the worst of scenarios.

> How can "having a strong character" lead to the "worst of scenarios?"
  Isn't a strong character usually a *GOOD THING*?  "worst of scenarios"
  is also an exaggerated stock phrase like "countless people."  
  This would be the place to be more specific about the bad traits
  that Abbott says Flatland women have: violent tempers, over-emotional
  natures, a lack of balance and reason, ...

Content:  B-

Mechanics:  B-