A couple of books..
I've gotten back to my march trough the various Warhammer 40K novel series.
I've been mostly staying within a small set of writers when necessary because there seems to be a dramatic drop off in skill without the cadre of WH40K novelists.
The best by a wide margin is Dan Abnett. His works are great and thoughtful and engrossing.
I decided to break from working through the Horus Hersey novels in order after the first 4 books, which cover the backstory of the Horus betrayal, and jump forward to the Novel series "THE END AND THE DEATH" which covers the final day(s) of the Siege of Earth (Terra).
One of the things I find fascinating about Abnett is his ability to take a story that most people with a passing knowledge of WH40K lore already know the ending for and still make it engrossing.
Yes, there will be an ultimate face off between The Emperor and Horus, and Horus will lose and the Emperor will suffer a mortal wound and only be spared death by being placed in his throne where he will remain for 10,000 years... this is known, and has been known for maybe 30 years, but Abnett tells the story in a way that makes the confrontation about far more than who wins.
I've also finished...
This is probably my third reading of this book, but de to recent events, probably the first time I really understood it.
It's poignant and sad and uplifting, and now with my own experiences I realize it is personal.
I mean, that should be obvious, but I realize now how the same and different everyone's experience is with grief. I couldn't really tell anyone that they are doing it wrong, except insofar and what others might do to harm themselves in that grief.
Maybe I am just lucky as a devout believer in God, being almost dragged back to faith in my late 20s, that I don't see finality in death. That doesn't mean that I don't despair, I certainly do, God willing I will live to a ripe old age, and that is a long time to wait to be with my daughter again. but it's not final.
I am eternally grateful for this book, having read it twice before my daughter's passing, I am navigating the grief better than I would have without Lewis' wisdom.
And I have reread...
This is my second cover-to-cover read through of Sowell's treatise on the origins of the Western political divide.
I first read the book in the mid 90s, and it was a catalyst of change in the way I view Western politics.
Sowell's book covers what he sees and two competing principles (visions) that underpin all Western political philosophy. He argues that all political positions rely on two different expectations of humanity. These expectations are that either Mankind is constrained (unchangeable and forever burden by our shortcomings of greed, etc.) or the unconstrained, meaning that a better humanity is possible.
What first attracted me to Sowell's argument is that to my old way of thinking his argument seemed cynical and self defeating, but by the end of the book I was convinced. It would seem to me now that the greatest threat (this isn't Sowell's conclusion necessarily) to mankind is optimism in mankind being able to change, in writing laws that need a humanity that doesn't exist. The worst we do to ourselves is done almost entirely in a foolish belief that a better humanity ill come out on the other side, while the best we do for humanity begins with the assumption that we all have competing self interests and always will, and moreover, that we are all prone to corruption.
From that latter position comes opposition of monopolies (public and private), a belief in the need for checks and balances, a distrust of government power and a defense of freedom and individual agency.
The whole argument is beautifully cast in the comparison of two revolutions that happened in short succession, each an adherent to one of Sowell's two stated visions. The American Revolution being grounded mostly (eventually?) in the Constrained Vision, and the French Revolution in the Unconstrained vision. The outcomes of these two revolutions could not have been more different.