The Years of Rice and Salt

[zoomar]

I know there has been some discussion of this book a while a go, but I only just found a copy and read it. I am curious what the general sentiment is.

I thought the basic premise was fascinating - and the use of sequential "short story" chapters rather than a continuous narrative was a good way to cover the time period involved. I also like the fact that many aspects of the alternate cultures were left unexplained. However, I felt the individual chapters were inconsistent in quality. Some were great, however. and the whole idea of a world history without "Europe" was interesting. I don't know whether I liked or didn't like the bridging chapters with all the reincarnation stuff, but it was an interesting device to emphasize the "alternate-ness" of this history for western readers. I'd be interest in knowing how accurate his portrayal of eastern thought is.

I thought the story weakened in the later chapters where the author seemed too intent on leading to a 21st century like ours (technologically sophisticated with secular liberal democratic ideals popping out all over after a huge world war).

 

[chunkeymonkey13q]

The beginning was good, but in my opinion, the book became worse and worse as the story progressed.

 

[Ivan Druzhkov]

Well, as I mentioned before, I always thought YRS was kind of like a novelization of a rather involved game of Civilization. It did seem to follow the models of OTL a little too closely, which I feel is not all that likely. That being said, I did enjoy the parts of the book discussing the Indian industrial revolution and the Long War. After all, how could the idea of the entire planet dividing into two teams and fighting WWI for 50+ years not be cool?

 

[Hendryk]

I found that novel a very enjoyable read, which is why I forgive what I'd otherwise consider plausibility problems. Among others, the fact that the technological evolution of his ATL matches ours a little too closely, and the complete lack of explanation on how the Haudenosaunee League manages to become a military superpower, complete with ocean-going war fleet. Also, if you take the storytelling concept at face value (the characters' jati being reincarnated down the centuries), a small group of individuals ends up having a tremendous impact on world history.
But unlike others, I don't mind the narrative slowing down towards the end. I like the idea of a world finally at peace after having been through a global war and a decades-long political crisis afterwards, in which the characters can sit back and enjoy their lives for a change.

 

[reformer]

The first story was excellent. Showed so many different cultures in one swoop. The India to Europe one was also excelent in that it showed so much of the world.

 

[Prunesquallor]

I think I got to the end but I'm not quite sure. This, to me, is the ultimate condemnation of any book.

 

[Faeelin]

I think I got to the end but I'm not quite sure. This, to me, is the ultimate condemnation of any book.

Really? Some of my favorite books are ones where the ending is a bit perplexing.

 

[Prunesquallor]

Faeelin- it's not a case of a perplexing ending. It's a case of when a book is so boring and unmemorable that you can't remember whether you persevered to the end.

 

[zoomar]

Faeelin- it's not a case of a perplexing ending. It's a case of when a book is so boring and unmemorable that you can't remember whether you persevered to the end.

Oh, you mean like "Dies the Fire"?

 

[zoomar]

Oh, you mean like "Dies the Fire"?

With "Rice and Salt", I know I reached the end but can't remember if I read everything which got me there. What does that mean?

 

[Count Dearborn]

I tried to read it, but I stalled in the part about the alchemist who starts the Renaissance after his right hand is cut off as punishement.

 

[chunkeymonkey13q]

Wow, you didn't get very far. It gets worse.

 

[Alayta]

I liked that book a lot. The thing with the author trieng to get near otl is true!
I used a sentence out of it to introduce my diploma-thesis

"all theories are tautological. Reality itself is tautologic." Or something very similar.

 

[joatsimeon@aol.com]

I had severe problems with it. The scientific and technological revolutions were the result of a whole series of unlikely events and trends -- political, economic, social, religious-cultural.

Subtract the West, and they might have happened -- but likely not for a very, very long time.

It's not a matter of a few individuals coming up with inventions, but of the fundamental likelihood of particular societies producing an environment which encourages and permits that sort of activity.

 

[Faeelin]

I had severe problems with it.

You wrote a novel about cannibalistic satanic russians breeding psychic women to overthrow a British Empire in India, after finishing up a series about a massive slaveocracy that has the power to overrun the world because every other nation is led by idiots, and am currently writing novels about what happens when the laws of physics radically change, in some weird way.

And you're criticizing another author for plausibility? That's a bit unfair, ain't it?

 

[Tyr]

I liked it.
On convergance... I think it managed to stay away from otl quite well especially compared to most AH books (the amount of times we see the USA coming along even with a medieval POD... ).
Was the end a world like ours? It seemed quite dystopian and 1984/Metropolis like to me over in China.
A part I disliked was the Indian industrial revolution- it was only touched upon very slightly and before we know it they are conquering the Turks. Eh? Should have had more about it then that.

 

[eschaton]

I wouldn't expect S.M. Stirling to enjoy anything Kim Stanley Robinson writes, because they both have such different opinions about human nature that I can't imagine they could get into a room without tearing each other's heads off.

Robinson is an unabashed leftist, albeit not of the classical sort. His politics roughly equate with "green socialism." These ideas are not only preferred, but seen as the logical progression of society. He's a progressive in a true sense of the word, with all his novels being about groups of people who band together to strike down the never-ending historical cycle of barbarism, meaningless conflict, and exploitative capitalism, in hopes of once and for all forming a utopian leftist society. Finally, evil is really nowhere to be found in Brin's books. People do selfish/wrong things, but generally it's more due to societal forces (and we only see it from a distance), not out of active devilishness (with one exception in the Mars series...I believe it was Phyllis, the conservative christian capitalist character)

Stirling is a cynic, and in the "romantic" tradition that is discussed in depth in David Brin's article critiquing Tolkien. Brin explains the romantic movement developed as a counter to the enlightenment, and it's literary side is shown by many features, including battles between pure good and pure evil, distrust of technology and its corrupting effect on the "natural order", a fascination with rank and elitism. While I'm sure that many/most contemporary fantasy writers fall into this area, Stirling is the only writer I know in AH who so clearly fits into these romantic ideals. I'm not saying he must desire aristocracy, just that he styles his writing on those from an earlier era who do so. In some of his series, notably the Island in the Sea of Time series, there are elements I would call "progressive" (inclusion of those not born in Nantucket into the Republic, use of a strong black female character, etc).

So Robinson and Stirling are about as diametrical as possible in what is implied as the...possibilities...of society. None of this is meant as an attack on either one...I'm a leftist and even I find Robinson's own viewpoint a little too anti-pragmatic at times.

 

[Paul Spring]

I liked it.
On convergance... I think it managed to stay away from otl quite well especially compared to most AH books (the amount of times we see the USA coming along even with a medieval POD... ).

What AH books/stories with a medieval POD end up having the USA? I've never read any.

 

[sikitu]

I enjoyed the book although the Bardo scenes were a bit confusing and it became difficult to keep track of characters. Also the Long War was a bit too long in my opinion, and whether a breakthrough in a trench war would occur in the Himalaya is a good question.

 

[Akiyama]

I didn't find Years of Rice and Salt at all implausible.

In OTL Europeans dominated the world for three reasons - they discovered the Americas, they gradually built on ideas originally developed not in Europe but in China, India and the Dar al Islam, and their region was divided into a number of competing states.

Ideas like the movable type printing press, gunpowder weaponry, oceangoing ships and steam-powered machines were all around in China before YoRaS's POD. The Americas would have been discovered sooner or later. There are always competing states. I don't see how removing Europe hinders technological development much, and China and India were wealthier and more productive than Europe (pre-industrialisation) so if you can start the Industrial Revolution there I think it is likely to progress faster than in OTL.

I wouldn't expect S.M. Stirling to enjoy anything Kim Stanley Robinson writes, because they both have such different opinions about human nature that I can't imagine they could get into a room without tearing each other's heads off.

I enjoy them both but they have very different writing styles. KSR gets very enthusiastic about explaining ideas - to the point where reading his books is sometimes more like reading non-fiction than fiction. Years of Rice and Salt is like all his books - well thought out but you couldn't call it a page-turner. SMS is the opposite. His ideas are not very well thought out at all but his "take no prisoners" style of writing is vastly better than KSR's.

joatsimeon . . . are you S.M.Stirling? Because if so then I noticed you said on the forum at Charles Stross's website that all your books are still in print. In that case you'll be able to tell me where I (or rather my local library - I'd bankrupt myself if I bought all the books I want to read myself) can get hold of a new copy of Under the Yoke. I loved it, but I've only read it in the condensed version. Amazon.com doesn't think it's in print.