Talk:The Years of Rice and Salt

The Years of Rice and Salt has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 22, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternate History (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternate History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Alternate HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Alternate HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Alternate HistoryAlternate History articles

Untitled

Not only because of the long time scale, but also because of its realistic-utopian elements, and because of the frequent reflections about human nature, The Years of Rice and Salt resembles Robinson's Mars trilogy, a utopia brought to Earth.

I don't understand this: is it trying to say the Mars trilogy is "a utopia brought to Earth"? --Sam

No. I tried to say that there are similarities between Robinsons utopian Mars trilogy and The Years of Rice and Salt in the points of:

long time scale
realistisc-utopian elements (i.e. ambivalence of utopia)
reflections about human nature

So, YRC is the Mars utopia brought to earth. -- till we *) 22:07, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

I'm confused, where is this edit? Jakesyl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

KSR seems to have written much of this book (excluding the Chronology at the beginning) without knowing that the Muslim calendar is lunar, and consequently he starts his story, which begins in AD 1405, in "AH 783". (The correct year 1405 can be deduced from where he diverges from actual history, having Timur travel in a different direction. The sickness that's affecting him in this book is what in fact kills him in our history.)

Later -- and this was corrected in the British paperback -- he calls the present year 2002 "AH 1381", and there are a few other places where he seems to be using solar (Persian) Muslim years. He should have gone back and corrected the entire text. I've replaced "ca. 1400" for Chapter 1 with "1405". --User:Heian-794 0:01, Jan 11, 2005

User:Ericg, Zheng He doesn't figure in part three at all. I've taken the liberty of editing your revision and putting him back in the first chapter. -- User:Heian-794 23:08, Apr 19, 2005

A question about the time scale

In this article it says the book ends in 2002 AD (1423 AH), but on one of the links provided it ends at 2030's AD or somewhere around there. Im not sure if there is some mix-up considering the book uses non-western calendars or if its just a general miss on wikipedia's part. Anyone bold enough to clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.184.10 (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utopian?

As someone who hasn't read this, I'm a bit confused. Is Robinson suggesting with this book that we would have utopia if all Europeans had died? And this is supposed to somehow be realistic? He seemed to touch on themes of this in the Mars Trilogy as I recall, but it sounds like this book was an off-the-deep-end bashing of all things Western. Perhaps not...? RobertM525 06:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, I think the "utopian" label is not necessarily because of the death of the Europeans, but rather referring to the hopeful tone of the last chapter, where a world that has endured a horrific multi-generational war between two throroughly opposed ideologies has still managed to recover and progress towards the same positive future that we see coming about at the end of the Mars trilogy.

This book is not at all a bashing of all things western. Give it a try; you'll enjoy it! Heian-794 07:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a utopian novel in the traditional sense, i.e. if the world was organised in such and such a way , and people made to do this and that, than we would have a paradise on Earth, far from it. The characters find themselves re-incarnated more often than not into lives ruled by political despots, but also despotisms of the mind and imagination. Despotisms that are the children of radical Islam, and the bureaucratic traditionalism of China. Nor is the novel religously utopian, the protaganists find no relief or reward from the pain of rebirth, from a life lived well or badly. There is no paradise or bliss following death, only rebirth, all one's hard won achievements, wisdom and insights lost, to be learnt again from the start.

It is utopian in its belief in the fundamental goodness of individual human beings despite circumstances, the belief that the human spirit can be unbroken by setbacks even when cast against providence itself. The belief thatat no life is wasted even if it ends seemingly in failure; as do the majority of the individual incarnations. The "utopian" world at the end of the novel, is only possible because of the un-recorded eforts of those who went before, the acumulated toil of the untold billions who never made it into a history book "..the nameless actions of people who are never written down, the good they do for others passed on like a blessing...".

Actually you might not enjoy this book, it might frustrate and irritate you, for example when favourite characters get no respite with neat easy resolutions; but if you persevere with this book and do so with an open mind, you'll be the richer for having read it.Koonan the almost civilised 20:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the far future:

Thank you so much for this. Whoever you are, you have so magically described my favorite book! I hope that you are well and content for all of your years. Sunriseshore (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cover YearsOfRiceAndSalt.jpg

Image:Cover YearsOfRiceAndSalt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A minor question...

"In the last chapters the book becomes increasingly reflexive, citing fictional scientists and philosophers introduced in previous chapters as well as referring to Old Red Ink, who wrote a biography about a reincarnating jati group."

Shouldn't that be 'reflective'? If it's referring back to itself, that would be reflecting on itself, wheras 'reflexive' would be, well, 'a reflex'.

Nope. Check your dictionary. "Reflexive" means operating upon oneself. It's a term borrowed from grammar, to describe works which self-reference. --Orange Mike 13:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Years of Rice and Salt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 23:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

After some small grammatical modifications throughout the article, I believe its prose, as well as its compliance with MOS policies, are of acceptable quality. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article makes frequent citations to the sources used, the sources are neatly arranged and reliable, and there does not appear to be any original research incorporated. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

There is no trivial or unneccessary information in the content, and the article thoroughly covers many important aspects of the topic. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Not counting what the cited critics say about the topic in the "Reception" section, the article is unbiased towards the topic, and thankfully does not "agree/disagree" with any of the comments cited in the aformentioned section. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The latest edits in the revision history give no evidence of an edit war having occurred in well over several months. If anything of the sort happened before that, it should be long ago enough that it doesn't matter to this review. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Of the two images in this article, one is fair-use and has a valid rationale and license provided. The other is a map visualizing the concepts portrayed in the topic, but not legally affiliated with the book itself; due to this I believe its license is also valid. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

With some minor modifications to grammar, upon the completion of this review, I am confident that this article qualifies for inclusion in the league of Language and Literature Good Articles. Congratulations! Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Years of Rice and Salt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]