March 2026 Readings

We ended at 19 books read last month, and I'm not gonna lie, I'm loosing steam a little. Also Slay The Spire 2 released in early access this month, and I might already have 75h hours in it. Those two statement are not linked in any way. Overall, I've not been into a really reading mood. Nevertheless, we carry on, even if slowly.
L'ordre du Discours – Michel Foucault
A transcription of Michel Foucault's (french philosopher) inaugural speech at the Collège de France on December 2nd 1970.
The main thesis of this work is that the production of the discourse in a society is controlled, selected, organised and redistributed to remove its power, its danger, and its material reality.
Many process, Foucault says, are used to this end.
External processes:
I – Prohibition: it's pretty self explanatory how prohibition limits discourse II – Sharing vs rejecting: Categorising discourse as being worthy or not of being shared. (in the speech Foucault refers to this process as the Discourse of the Madman) III – Truth and Falseness: Excluding discourse that are categorised as false, and putting the truth above all else in the discourse. Caring more about how something is said rather than what is said (think “Fallacy fallacy”)
Internal processes:
I – The commentary: distinction between the discourse that are legitimate and enduring in time (religious texts, law...) and the ones that are considered ephemeral. (gotta be honest I didn't really understand this one well)
II – The author: Used to credit/discredit a discourse, being allowed or not to produce a discourse on a topic or not. The presence or not of an known author changes how we perceive a discourse.
III – The discipline: categorising the discourse to a certain discipline limits what it can say, and how it can say it. A scientific paper in a botanical journal will be limited in what they can say about certain historical cultural norms and their impact on a specific species of plants. It also inscribes the discourse in a certain consensus, either forcing to explore a trendy topic or reject something out of fad.
Limiting the number of discourse havers:
By the processes in which the discourse is supposed to happen (written form, memorisation...), with arbitrary rules on how to discuss, what to discuss about, who can discuss about that and who can hear and relay this discourse (private debate salons...).
Last part I understood nothing, he talks about history and hegel, about reversing the trend, about his debt to another philosopher about genealogy. It like the last 10% of the book but I feel like it might have made more sense when he talked about it in class.
I wanted to do a little summary here to make sure I understood and remembered most of the book, as it wasn't the simplest to read. I neither have the time nor the will to do a fully fledged article. It says some interesting stuff, but there are some things in particular that I think are not as relevant, especially with the advent of the internet and the seemingly “infinite” amount of discourse (even if it is controlled and limited in pretty the same manner as described above in my opinion). It's an interesting concept, but not necessarily something that I'm interested in, so I probably won't be reading further about the subject for now.

Universal War One – Denis Bajram
(Volume 1 & 2 [out of 6])
At the end of the 21st century, humanity has conquered everything. There is one central government ruling the earth, and one central force, the United Earthes Force (UEF) defending the Earth and other human colonies like the moon and mars. The capital has also centralised, and only 9 companies in an alliance — les Compagnies Industrielles de Colonisation (CIC), remain to exploit resources. There are constant tensions between the central government and the CIC. One day, a wall of nothingness appears next to Saturn. Nobody knows what it is and how it came to be, and the UEF send the Purgatory Squadron to investigate. This squadron is composed of soldiers that had one choice after getting court martial — pay for their crimes or serve in the Purgatory Squadron. Could what the Purgatory Squadron discover next to Saturn lead to the first Universal War...
A classic of french BD, and sci-fi. The drawings and colour look good, but it is sometimes a bit complicated to follow the story/action. It is extremely fast paced. It does dive head first into “feelings”, which I can appreciate, as I'm not always a fan of more “inorganic” SF. Some interesting themes are starting to be discussed, I'll wait to see if the author did anything with them. Overall enjoying my read so far. It's really impressive that a single guys did everything, story, drawings, colours...
This doesn't count as a full book, it's only when I'll be done with it that I will. But since it technically came out in separate volumes it feels appropriate to include it here.

100 Easy Ukrainian Texts – Yuliia Pozniak
(Part 1 and 2)
Some of you knight know that I have been learning Ukrainian for a little bit, to be able to speak with my in-laws/Tetyana's extended family. I've started with the usual duolingo — it's not great and became even worse with all the AI garbage, then I got a couple of textbooks (neither were great). There are not a ton of resources to self-teach ukrainian, and it's also a very complex language — all the languages I had learnt before, english, italian... were coughing babies in comparison. So in September last year I got a teacher, and have been taking one to two 1h lessons per week. My ultimate goal is not only to be able to speak in ukrainian, but I want to be able to read books, and write stuff in ukrainian as well. I had asked my teacher what books he would recommend for me to start dipping my toes in ukrianian literature, and he literally told me that none of them are good, because there is no standard literary ukrainian, so everything is way too tough for me. He recommended to read ukrainian translations of english book, like 1984 which he was currently trying to read in english.
I thought it was fitting as 1984 is the first book I read in english, when I was around 16. So I picked up a copy of the Ukrainian translation and quickly realised that it would not happen, as the first sentence of the book spans a whole page. I therefore turned to much more approachable 100 Easy Ukrainian Texts.
I finished part 1, Я і моя родина (me and my family) and part 2 Мої речі (my things). Riveting stuff really. To give you idea, this is one of those texts:
Якось я загубив свій рюкзак. Я дуже засмутився, бо там були мої документи, ключі від квартири та гроші. Я пішов додому, а через кілька годин до мене прийшов молодий хлопець та повернув мій рюкзак. Він сказав, що знайшов його на автобусній зупинці. Я був йому дуже вдячний та запросив його попити зі мною кави. Ми познайомилися і виявилося, що ми сусіди. Тепер ми спілкуємося та часто ходимо разом в спортзал.
Basically this is saying “Once, I lost my backpack. I was upset because I had my IDs, keys and money in it. I went home and after a few hours, a guy came and gave me my bag. He said he had found it at the bus stop. I was very thankful and invited him for coffee. It turned out we were neighbours, we said we would go to the gym together.”
The text are your usual easy language textbook texts, but tbh I can't read anything more complicated and I even have a bit of trouble with the more advanced texts in this. This language is so hard, it feels like I've been learning it forever but I can still not say anything and barely understand stuff. We stubborn, we keep going though.
This doesn't count towards the book counter because it's one of my extra book, which wasn't part of the backlog.

La Maison des Mères – Frank Herbert
(Dune saga book 6)
More sex kung-fu, some Judaism, and somehow more questionable stuff, still peak. This is the last book of the Dune saga, and the last book Frank wrote before he died. It's an interesting conclusion to Dune, and I personally think that this was intended as the last book fr fr. I really don't believe in the “notes” for a seventh book that his son found (but nobody else has ever seen) that the son used to cash in on his father's work continue the series.
I'm satisfied, but I still have to think about it. I'll probably re-read the series in a couple of year.
Very meta ending

What Do Men Want – Nina Power
I picked up this book at Indigo while Tetyana was looking for her pick, ahead of the feminist theory night (to which we unfortunately ended up not being able to participate in). I didn't look up the author or the book, I just naively thought it could be interesting to get a feminist point of view on men. I should have done some research.
Within the first few pages of the introduction, Mme Power defends JK Rowling, Jordan Peterson, reveals herself as a terf and as someone who thinks there is a war on men and that anyways, on the topic of misogyny and violence towards women, it's only a very small amount of men that are part of the problem so it's not systemic. We're on page 6; it's gonna be a long read.
With this book coming out in 2022, it is incredible how much it got wrong. Early in the book, she kinda dismisses the idea of the patriarchy as a driving force of the unease around gender in modern society, and then goes on to showcase issues or phenomena and is always puzzled about where those came from/what causes that, and the answer is always the patriarchy. This goes on for almost everything in the book. She keeps dismissing the idea of systemic things by saying: “well this breaks down at the individual level, therefore it's not real/doesn't exist”
This book is not about men, it's not about desire (what men want), and its takes on masculinity is laughable. First of all, this book constantly confuses sex and gender, and therefore cannot say anything pertinent about either. Second, it mostly talks about cis men through their relationships with women, with an emphasis on sexual relationships with cis women and only cis women, i.e. this book is just super hetero-normative. This not only exclude the vast majority of the material reality of men, it also just excludes a bunch of men entirely.
The way the book talks about anything also sucks. The way she broaches any subject is “Conservative figure/MRA says [statement about men/women that is fucking stupid and not true]“. That's it, no analysis, no pushback, no fact-checking. She just parrots their point of views and then goes on to develop her own views using theirs as a foundation or launching pad, or even just ignoring everything (why bring it up at all then?). This book was such shit that I needed to exteriorise my frustration, and wrote notes as I read. Touching on this, I wrote : “>Bring up something potentially interesting to explore, does nothing with it or worse, quotes a chud and then moves on”. She literally cites Michel Houellebecq multiple times, one of our own (french) chuds, who not only is a misogynist, but also extremely islamophobic, and a defender of the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory.
Her views on sexuality are also catastrophic, I'll just leave you with two quotes: “There are plenty of people today ,[...], who understand that sex is a marketplace like everything else.” & “As we have seen, sex, like money and good looks, is not fairly distributed” — literally incel talking points.
She also brings up capitalism and consumerism at times, but only in passing, without tying it to anything she said, or without saying anything of substance with it. It's as if she was filling a “how to appear like I'm a lefty” checklist, but without understanding anything, or without wanting to alienate anyone who's not on the anti-capitalist train.
Her conclusion boils down to: “If we all ignored systemic issues and were nicer to each other on an individual level, everything would be better :D”.
This reminded me of both Kill all Normies and Brave New World Revisited, by Angela Nagle and Aldous Huxley respectively, Nina Power's british compatriots — I don't know what's in the water in the UK, but it's making everyone very complacent about harmful right-wing rhetoric.
This is not a feminist book about what men want, this is a masculinist book, clad in a mantle of pseudo-progressivism, pseudo-feminism and pseudo-critique of consumerism and capitalism not to be shot down on sight, peddling idiotic and regressive views on men, women, masculinity, and sexuality.
At the very least, it made me think about the concept of desire, and I feel like I would want to read more about it (although in this is book desire is taken to be exclusively sexual desire from men towards woman, which is wholly uninteresting as, imo, it is the most easily understandable in an almost instinctive manner).

That's it for this month, although I've fluffed up this article, I've actually done very little reading. And I was far from the 50 pages a day I need to finish this project. I'm at 22/60 books in the booklog, and at 6691/19886 pages — or 37% and 34% done respectively. A pretty slow month for reading, again, but c'est la vie.
Thank you for reading my logorrhea Eddie – Award winning author






















































