This book is a overview of early anarchism in the US and Europe, from its break with Marxism at the first international, to the early twentieth century. But the nature of anarchy means, you simply cannot explore the movement at any time without exploring the anarchisms that exists in South America, Asia and Africa. Even with a specific focus, Means and Ends continually expresses that anarchy itself is a global, interconnected movement. Always anti-state and anti-imperial.

Means and Ends focuses on the idea that, by exploring and understanding the roots of the early anarchist movement, we can gain an understanding of the world, state power and our own agency in order to take action. It focuses specifically on collectivist anarchism (rather than individualist anarchism, which shares more similarities with libertarianism). At it’s core, collectivist anarchism is about freedom, but a freedom that can only be achieved in and through society.

I really enjoyed this book. At the beginning, and in the conclusion, I thought it used clear language to make a very clear argument. For me, it dragged a bit in the middle, bogged down in theory as the author was delineating the different branches of anarchism (Insurrectionist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc.) I understand why this kind of taxonomy is important, since it explores the actions early anarchists were taking, their desired outcomes, and the authors view of the results, but taxonomy is never not boring to me. I find it hard to hold all the details in my head, and the different categories can feel less than dstinct. I also wish I had more of an idea of the author’s personal beliefs, because I think they influence how she describes these different movements within anarchism, in both their aims and outcomes. Nevertheless, I think that the author gives a great overview of what historical anarchists thought to help modern workers develop their own ideas. The book provides a great overview of early anarchist thinkers like Bakunin, Malatesta, and Kropotkin among others.

I think this book is interesting especially becuase anarchism as a political philosophy has been mostly erased from the modern consciousness except as a stand in for bombs and chaos. Very few people know what anarchism is, or the role that anarchists played in so many powerful social movements of the modern world. This book is a good, if someone theory-heavy/dense introduction to the roots of modern collectivist anarchism.

The introduction to this book is a revelation. It so powerfully argues against all of the common criticisms of indigenous plant knowledge and medicines that I wanted to give it a standing ovation. In particular, for me, I loved the discussion around consent when testing medicines (as opposed to the the Western model of animal testing, on beings who cannot consent). I can’t stop thinking about it. I can’t stop thinking of birds and bugs and rocks as older siblings with so much to teach.

The rest of the book is also wonderful. Rooted in story. I don’t think reading it quickly, cover to cover, like I did is the best way to approach this book. Taking your time, so you can really absorb and differentiate each different plant and their stories may be a better reading experience. But I absolutely recommend it. Like the best nature writing, this book rearranged my understanding of the world and gave me new frameworks through which to appreciate it.

If you loved this book, I’m sorry. But I deeply disliked it. When I picked it up, I thought it was straightforward fantasy with a side of romance, but it’s actually thoroughly romantasy. But even within the genre of romantasy, this was just pat and cliche. Which is such a shame because the introduction had me hooked. The idea of exploring a paladin who has lost his god drew me in, and then the book did literally nothing with that exciting concept.

That incredible hook was just the fuel for constant miscommunication tropes, becuase the MMC was worried he might be violent and hurt our darling heroine. I’m so tired of the big violent man (who isn’t violent toward you, of course!) and the tiny silly women with her manic pixie dream job (perfumer), who always makes a big fuss about how she hates being saved (and then spends the whole book never showing any true agency). This is literally the gender dynamic of every romantasy I’ve read, and it’s exhausting. Give me a book like the Everlasting or She Who Became the Sun, every day of the week, filled with complex gender dynamics that are constantly shifting, and never cliche. Given me women with real goals, and motivations, beyond girl boss feminism. Give me the kind of books where the FMC does not spend the whole time judging herself by her appearance (or in this case, how good she is in bed).

Beyond my issues with the core relationship, the politics of this book were not good. After reading several T. Kingfisher books, I have to finally concede that there is no subversion, no deeper meaning. These books are just deeply liberalist, which is really disappointing. In T. Kingfisher books the ruler is always some silly little guy that needs to be told that bad things are happening on his watch. And then, as soon as they know they take action to set things right. The rulers are never politicking, always just completely oblivious to the injustice going on in their name. In this book, there’s also the addition of the lawyers for social justice (the rat temple), who are always there when someone is wrongly accused, never to disrupt the system, but instead to ensure that it can function. At one point the Bishop of the Rat temple literally says “No executions without a trial and the chance to appeal!” As if a violent bureaucratic state that executes its citizen is the ideal. For me, the political landscape of this book lacks any true depth or nuance. If you love cosy fantasy it might work for you.

For me, I like my fantasy worlds to feel real, complex and, preferably, to have something to say about the world we are living in. T. Kingfisher is just never going to deliver on that. The plot of this book is basically identical to the middle grade a Wizard’s Guide to Defensive Baking. And so, I think I’m finally throwing in the towel and giving up on T. Kingfisher. I know you all love her, but her books are just not for me.