THE YEARS OF RICE AND SALT by Kim Stanley Robinson

This is an alternative history  -which I usually enjoy.  The premise is that the Black Plague virtually wiped out all the Christian and Western European population, leaving the world to be dominated by, primarily, India and China.  The novel is episodic, and takes us from the time of the Black Death to an era that is roughly comparable to our own.  The device is that a group of six or seven souls are continually reincarnated together in each new era.  Most retain the same individual characteristics and foibels; the reader can recognize each one by the first letter of their name, which is always the same.  Interesting is the portrait of a North America that was never conquered by Europeans.  Japanese colonize the Western coast, while Chinese settlements are on the East coast.  The native Americans eventually come into their own, however.

There’s a lot in this book.  Nations in Europe are primarily Islamic.  The inevitable clash is between China and the world of Islam, leading to a war larger and longer than we have seen in present day.  India and the North American amalgamation are voices of reason and individuality – especially in terms of women’s rights.  The final section of this book waxes philosophical on human nature and war. 

Kim Stanley Robinson is undoubtedly a brilliant man, and writes books that are vast in scope (The Mars Trilogy is another prime example).  My own complaint about Robinson is that, in the end, I don’t find his books particularly memorable.  They don’t engage me, because I don’t feel connected to the characters.

BLACKOUT and ALL CLEAR by Connis Willis

Before reading these two books, I had read three books by Connie Willis:  LINCOLN’S DREAMS, DOOMSDAY BOOK, and TO SAY NOTHING OF THE DOG.  I had read and enjoyed her stories in science fiction magazines – this was probably in the ‘80’s  - and my recollection of LINCOLN’S DREAMS is that it was interesting, if not offbeat. 

But she won me over with DOOMSDAY BOOK.  This was a classic time travel story, where a history student in 2048 goes back to the 14^th century, and inadvertently gets caught up in the black plague.  She is stranded in a village where everyone begins to die.  I was very affected by the 14^th century characters.  I liked the book so much that I read it again last year.

Last year I also discovered TO SAY NOTHING OF THE DOG.  This book is set in the same future world as DOOMSDAY BOOK, but is a lighter tale.  The “past story” takes place in Victorian England.  Willis’ sense of humor is a little offbeat, but this book was very warm and amusing.

Both those books were written in 1990’s.  This year I discovered BLACKOUT and ALL CLEAR.  I’m not sure when they were written, but they are set in the same universe as the two earlier books.  This time, the time travelers are in England during the World War II blitz, and Mr. Dunworthy is still the university’s head of the time travel program, back in England of the future.

These books are two parts of the same story.  Once again, our time travelers are stranded.  This work is neither as heavy as DOOMSDAY BOOK, nor as light as TO SAY NOTHING OF THE DOG.

Michael has gone back to see the rescue of soldiers at Dunkirk in 1940; Eileen / Merope is a governess for children who have been evacuated from London; and Polly has come back to observe how normal citizens hold up during the bombing of London.  They are all stranded, and eventually find each other.

The books provide a lot of historical detail, which was new to me.  I had no idea how terrifying the London blitz had been.  Willis did a lot of research, and she made the era come alive.

The books also had a number of clever time-traveling twists that I really liked.  If I have any complaint, it’s that BLACKOUT was a little overdone.  

JUSTICE by Michael Sandel

Michael Sandel is (the book jacket tells me) a respected and renown professor of government at Harvard University.  He has presented some of his ideas in JUSTICE – WHAT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO?

I read this book in November. I was intrigued by some of his arguments when I was reading it, but, being somewhat intellectually lazy, I was but have more-or-less put it out of my mind since then.  So – did the book fail, or did I?

But he raises important questions.  He begins with a classic moral / philosophical dilemma, “The Runaway Trolley”.  He does not attempt to revisit that dilemma, but uses it instead to illustrate the nature of the questions we face in society.  As noted, he is a professor of government, and his philosophical questions relate to how we as a society should treat each other.

He examines several approaches to the question:

Utilitarianism – Jeremy Bentham wanted to “maximize happiness” overall.  Examples:  remove beggars from the streets and put them in a self-financing workhouse.  The beggars will be happier working, and the public will be happier not seeing them.  Among the objections to this philosophy:  1) violation of the rights of the individual; 2) how does one measure happiness, or value?  Bentham was a proponent of “the greatest good for the greatest number”.

Libertarianism – In my opinion, this one is the bane of our modern society.  According to Sandel, libertarians have three basic tenets:  1) no paternalism; 2) no morals legislation and 3) no redistribution of income or wealth.  My objection is not about morals legislation, but about the lack of a social safety net. 

Immanuel Kant – Kant’s theories are explored briefly in the book, but they are complex.  Sandel finally tells us that “…the political theory he favors …[is based] on a theory of justice based on a social contract.”  An American political philosopher, John Rawls, further defines this contract almost 200 years later.

I had a little difficulty understanding Rawls.  He defines the social contract as to what the citizens would agree to “in an initial situation of equality” - in other words, what would we agree as fair and correct without any knowledge of our own potential self-interest. 

Next, Sandel turns to Aristotle!  Aristotle believes that any discussion of justice must consider honor and virtue.   I have some difficulty with this, as it assumes that honor and virtue are universally understood.  I also had this problem with Kant to some degree. 

Sandel summarizes that he has considered three approaches to the question of justice:  1) maximizing utility ala Bentham; 2) freedom of choice (libertarianism), and 3) “justice involves cultivating virtue and reasoning about the common good”   (Kant, Rawls, Aristotle).  Sandel favors the third approach, and concludes, “Justice is inescapably judgmental…[it] is not only  about the right way to distribute things.  It is also about the right way to value things.”

I would have to say that I agree, though I wish there were a more definitive answer.  At least the utilitarians and the libertarians have been refuted here. 

In addition to presenting relevant theories in this book, Sandel discusses most of the modern moral dilemmas we face in the US today:  redistribution of wealth, same sex marriage, surrogate mothers, affirmative action, etc.  Makes for a provocative read, even if one doesn’t fully relate to or retain all the theories discussed.