I loved Flatland, but I'm finding Flatterland's writing insufferable.

Well, one was written over a century after the other by a different author. So I'd say "fanfiction" is basically correct

Like others have said, Flatland is an interesting thought experiment that isn't really aiming to teach anybody any math they don't already know. As long as you know what a sphere is, you're good to go. Flatterland imitates the basic format, but its goal is to be a math popularization book. The math is the point.

I read Flatterland when it came out. I liked it at the time. I ended up as a mathematician and I think reading books like that started me down that path. I don't remember it as a particularly shining example in the genre, and I haven't looked at it in 20+ years, but I think it's a pretty good book. You have to compare it to stuff by Keith Devlin and Amir Aczel and people like that, not to Flatland.

Is this a real post? Sorry, mean that gently. They are not from the same author or the same century. They aren't even from adjacent centuries.

There are some pretty interesting sequels, if you want to keep pushing. Sphereland is genuinely good and is as gently educational and provocative as the original, and Rucker's "Message Found in a Copy of Flatland" is joyously batshit.

Flattestland: A book by me.

We do not use the word sexist in this book, however, it is flat. End of book.

Where money?

I think you missed the point of the book. The author, Ian Stewart, has written a bevy of books on recreational mathematics, usually as collections of unrelated topics. Usually, the sections in these collections can be read in any order. Sometimes, he will write a section in a narrative style, but with no recurring characters or settings. In "Flatterland," he has attempted a narrative style throughout the book, with recurring characters (Vicky and the Space Hopper), but the topics of each chapter are still a collection of interesting mathematical journeys, similar to his other works. It isn't a strict sequel to Edwin Abbot's original classic so much as a jumping off point to describe interesting subjects in math(s). That said, I found the book to be more fun to skip around a bit and just dive into the sections that seemed interesting.

I agree, I also struggled to get through Flatterland. I think for me it sat in a sort of uncanny valley between fiction and popular science math that made it hard to stay engaged.

Highly recommend this very experimental book inspired by Flatland: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/V/bo3635091.html

I am someone who loves Mathematics and I loved both books. I have enjoyed Ian Stewart's writing.

I can understand why some people might find it offensive because of how much it indirectly talks about feminism. I personally, did not have a problem with it. It was also written at a time when it was more socially acceptable to hold views of feminism than today.

Personally, I did not give much attention to the non Mathematical parts of the book. I just loved the fluid extension of the concept of Flatland to explain subjects like Topology and Fractional Dimensions ! Isn't it fascinating to think of a world with fractional dimensions and where space is infinitely malleable ?

Flatland was revolutionary to me because of how it made me think of multi dimensional geometry. Flatterland used that same device and extended it beautifully to explain many more concepts, in my opinion !

The point of it is to engage people with a thought experiment for people that wouldn't otherwise think about that kind of thing with this subject.

I think it does well on that front.

3 body problem does it better but it's much much much longer and that specific subject is one of many