We Are Not Saved

Do Not Go Gentle: The Case Against Assisted Death
By: Kathleen Stock
Published: 2026
304 pages
Briefly, what is this book about?
The general topic is right there in the subtitle, but Stock separates out two distinct ideological foundations. There are those who consider assisted death (a term she prefers over "assisted dying") to be a way of eliminating suffering. And then there are those who view it as a principle of liberty: If we allow people absolute bodily autonomy, why should someone be prevented from choosing to end their life? One problem with having two ideologies is that they might end up pointing in different directions. And indeed one of the big themes of the book is exactly this tension. But the bigger issue is that proponents of assisted death end up using whichever ideological framework is the most convenient for their argument at the time. 
When these different ideologies are distilled down to the practice of implementing a legal "right to die"—which is to say actually assisting in the actual death of actual individuals—it results in incoherent standards. This incoherence leads to misinterpretation. The misinterpretation allows for opportunistic expansion. The expansion leads to abuses not foreseen by the law's framers, and these abuses lead to deaths we might otherwise want to avoid.  Some people might call these deaths murders.
What authorial biases should I be aware of?
If you've heard of Stock previous to this it was almost certainly for her gender-critical views, which led to her being forced out of her position at the University of Sussex in 2021. I don't think it's fair to call her right-wing, but she is definitely iconoclastic. 
Who should read this book?
...

Annihilation: A Novel
By: Michel Houellebecq
Translated by: Shaun Whiteside
Published: 2022 (English translation 2024)
544 Pages

Briefly, what is this book about?
Houellebecq is a well-known French author, and this book felt very French to me. What does that mean? Good question… Certainly there is a lot of wine drinking, a fair number of R-rated sex scenes, and French politics plays a major part as well. Mostly I think there's a lushness, and a lack of action or even conclusion, which reads more as European decadence than the typical American delusion I'm used to.
I opened with a description of the atmosphere because this is a very atmospheric book. Though initially it pretends to be a techno-political thriller, don't be deceived; this book is a melancholic reflection on aging, ennui, death, and loneliness. The central character is Paul Raison, a high-level French civil servant, who appears to have it all, but actually has nothing. The hollowness of his life is brought home when his father has a stroke. This serves as a catalyst for recognizing his emptiness and attempting to pull together some meaning. In particular, it helps thaw the long frozen relationship with his wife. 
To the extent that he finds meaning, it's always found in small things, relationships, meals, conversations. And this greater sense of connection doesn't solve all of his problems. In fact, re-engaging with his wife, the world, his family, and his father, brings a whole host of new problems. The journey ends up being very bumpy, but more satisfying than his previous hollowness.
What authorial biases should I be aware of?
Houellebecq clearly has a reactionary bent...

Picky: How American Children Became the Fussiest Eaters in History
By: Helen Zoe Veit
Published: 2026
304 Pages

Briefly, what is this book about?
Stop me if you've heard this one… Up until the beginning of the 20th century we never ever did this one thing, and then starting in the 20th century attitudes and culture gradually changed until now, this very new thing, that basically never existed historically, is accepted as a fact of life.
For this go-around it's children being picky about food. The whole concept only began to emerge in the 1930s and back then it was just used to identify something that needed to be corrected. Like lying, swearing, or truancy, it wasn't until after World War II that the modern "something we have to work around" usage started to solidify. 
This book is the story of why things changed and what we can do to reverse that change.
What authorial biases should I be aware of?
This is not a disinterested academic overview of things. Veit thinks that pickiness is a bad thing, that it's tied to consumption of "junk food", obesity, and a general culture of overconsuming food. The 19th-century child eating raw oysters and organ meats could be considered the hero of the story, the entire edifice of modern food dysfunction is the dragon, and the 21st-century child who eats nothing but hyperpalatable, low-nutrition snacks, and then is too full for normal meals is the princess in need of saving. 
Who should read this book?
I think people who have picky kids and worry about whether that's a problem would definitely benefit from reading this book. 
I enjoyed it because I'm always fascinated by the strange transitions of modernity. Should you fall into that bucket you'll probably enjoy it as well. 
What does the book have to say about the future?

Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court
By: Sarah Isgur
Published: 2026
416 Pages

Briefly, what is this book about?
A deep dive into the Roberts Court, with a historical framing of the Court as a whole. Two main themes run through the book. 
First, while people want to evaluate the Court on the single axis of liberal vs. conservative, there is a second, perhaps more important axis that tracks the institutionalism of the justices—respect for precedent, maintaining the legitimacy of the Court, congressional deference, etc. Once you consider both axes, rather than a 6–3, Republican vs. Democratic Court, you get a 3–3–3 Court. Composed of (in Isgur's words):
1- The Deciders: Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett
2- The Conservative Honey Badgers: Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch
3- The Lonely Liberals: Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson
Second, there's the idea of the Supreme Court as the Last Branch Standing, by which she means that it's the only branch of government that would be recognizable to the Founders. Which also means it's the one branch of government trying to hold a constitutional line. This is not a comment on Originalism or Textualism, this is a comment on the fact that the executive Branch has accumulated an enormous amount of power, while, conversely, the legislative branch does barely any legislation. As a consequence, much of what the Court does is designed as subtle encouragement for Congress to take back some of its power.
What authorial biases should I be aware of?

Three Men in a Boat (To Say Nothing of the Dog) by: Jerome K. Jerome

Something to Do with Paying Attention by: David Foster Wallace

The Leopard by: Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa

Rendezvous With Rama by: Arthur C. Clarke