Skip to main content

Years of Rice and Salt

Years of Rice and Salt, by Kim Stanley Robinson, was a frustrating read. It's a compelling book, full of 'so wrong it's right' moments, and a very satisfying ending, but it is a slog.

So, if you've never heard of Years of Rice and Salt it's an alternate history novel tracing the six or seven hundred years development in the world once Europe has been completely wiped out by the Black Death instead of only mostly being wiped out. The great civilizations of the world go through revolutions of philosophy and technology that parallel but never recapitulate the events of our own history: Dar al-Islam recolonizes Europe and goes through what might be termed a cultural renaissance in the far-off Central Asian city of Samarkand. A wayward Chinese military fleet discovers North and South America but the colonization and exploitation of the New World proceeds much more fitfully. The Industrial Revolution occurs in Southwestern India in the Travancori states.

As a fan of alternate history, I would say Robinson makes two interesting but risky choices in presenting his tale. The first is in telling the entire history from start to finish. If you are familiar with alternate history tales such as "Man from High Castle" by PDK, you may have grown used to having an alternate history set in an alter-present that mentions the events of the past without dwelling on them. Years of Rice and Salt dwells. It inhabits. It sets up shop, throws out an awing and stays awhile. By the final chapters of the book, Robinson is referring to the cultural reactions to previous fictional philosophical movements in locations and countries that don't exist in our world. I found this part pretty compelling actually, but you don't get there before first hearing an awful lot about Widow's Kang's theory of Cultural Collisions.

An obvious problem with this approach is how to knit together a coherent narrative. In Cryptonomicon, Neal Stephenson used the device of two generations of families separated by many decades, the struggles of the earlier generation informed the world of the subsequent. Robinson tells his story through the device of a jati, a group of reincarnated souls that pass in and out of each other's lives. There are something like seven reoccurring characters, each one adhering to a naming convention centering around the first letter of the character's name. There is a fiery, impatient revolutionary character ('K'), a placid and patient nurturer character ('B') and a thoughtful observer, ('S'). There's also 'S,' but he's never developed much beyond just being a bit of a jerk. Actually all of these characters are pretty thin and the conflict of their lives, while hinted at, never really comes together. Ultimately we follow these characters because we want to see what outrageous violence Robinson inflicts on the proper course of history.

Which gets to the second risky choice. This one occurred to me late in the book, when the history of Years of Rice and Salt began to finally diverge significantly from our own world. In "A Man from a High Castle," the change to history is an active one. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan defeat the allies. America is now a divided, humbled nation. Something has been done to the world of the characters. In Years of Rice and Salt, the change is an absence. Western Civilization no longer exists but the rest of the world proceeds along pretty much as normal for a good third of the book. Robinson, I believe, recognizes this approach by naming the first part of the book "Awake to Emptiness." The changes to this alternate history are ones centering around what's missing, not what is present. So, ultimately Years of Rice and Salt begins by describing things identical to our history and it's only over time that the slow differences accumulate. The final effect is really powerful but, man, it takes a while to get there.

Comments

Peter K. said…
I dunno, I found it a slog entirely because of the outrageous violence inflicted over the course. I can just start to think, "Oh, they seem to be finding some meaning in life, accomplishing something worthwhile," but here's another fresh wave of vast suffering and chaos to shake things up again. Feeling futility and hopelessness yet? How 'bout seconds?

One might argue that's life, but makes laborious reading for my tastes.
Morgan Crooks said…
@Peter K., fair, but my impression of Robinson is he is definitely of the "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to wake," school of writing. I think I would have liked the violence to be a a bit more well, personal. Not being invested in the characters means the violence just seems sort of anonymous.

Popular posts from this blog

With the title World War Z

Early on in the mostly disappointing zombie epidemic thriller World War Z, UN Investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) hides out in a Newark apartment, trying to convince a family living there to flee with him from the hordes of sprinting, chomping maniacs infesting the city. The phrase he uses, drawing from years of experience in the world's troubled war-zones is "movement is life." Ultimately he's unsuccessful, the family barricades their door behind him and they join the ever-swelling ranks of the undead. As far as a guiding philosophy goes for a pop-action thriller like World War Z, 'movement is life,' isn't bad. And for the first half of the movie or so, it follows its own advice. Similar to other recent zombie movies (Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead) the warning signs of what the rest of the movie will bring are subtle and buried until all hell is ready to break through. The television mentions 'martial law,' Philadelphia traffic snarl
I’m going to take a slightly abbreviated approach to this year’s best-of lists and mostly focus on movies. It’s not that I didn’t read or listen to music but for whatever reason I feel uninspired to talk about either topic. C’est la vie! So in no particular order are five movies I greatly enjoyed watching this year. Firstly, Avengers: Endgame. Well, I guess there is some order to this list because literally the first thing I thought of in terms of movies I’ve seen is this movie. It is inevitable! This is the one MCU flick it’s hard for me to remember as simply a super-hero film. Although I found its predecessor a bit more more compulsively watchable, I really enjoyed this film. First of all it’s tone, which veered from despair, heist hijinx, parental reconciliation, to epic mega-brawl was never boring. Even the gorgeous mess which is that final fight has its own interior logic and sports some of the best looking cinematography this side of Black Panther. With Endgame MCU found a

Stephen King's 2017

Despite the release of a single novel and a few short stories, 2017 has to rank up there as one of the more Stephen King ascendant years. No less than four movies based on his works appeared, including one of the most successful horror films of all time, the first part of IT. 'The Mist' (Stephen King) by Dementall.deviantart.com Of course, with King, for every high, there are plenty of lows and 2017 also provided a number of examples of how to do his works wrong. But let's start with the good stuff. The movie adaptation of IT, directed by Andres Muschietti and starring a number of talented young actors (including Finn Wolfhard of "Stranger Things" fame) really captured, for me, a lot of what I liked about the original novel. Being scary certainly helped, but with King, the horror slice is never really the whole cake. What makes King King, at least for me, is the combination of earthy, believable characters with lurid, "Tales from the Crypt&quo