•
Rating: I am writing a review of the conference presenting the book. It's your osmotic work... I find the opportunity to talk about a work after having looked into the eyes of the person who bled to publish it, and having shaken their hand, very exciting.
Is there criticism of "HIM"? Ooooh yes. About every 10 lines. What a surprise! But what a novelty!
However, I take the liberty to review the man and the work because, for once, it is not the usual sterile or short-sighted attack on the system and those who run it, but rather a lucid, calm (yet learned) analysis of our society and the news events related to organized crime over the last 30 years.
The author "knows his stuff", indeed. He has demonstrated it in the courtroom since he was barely a graduate and was placed in the front line. His name has emerged over the years in landmark investigations, often closely tied to politics, which by definition is everywhere and nowhere.
He speaks (and writes), not arrogantly, aware of the breadth of his legal culture and his field experience. These characteristics would entitle him to "pass judgment" like Travaglio (to name one), strong in the fact that few, in Italy, could effectively counter, even using the most redundant political jargon. But having an edge also means this, it means analyzing the facts almost in a whisper, leaving the interlocutor's mind room to work, to orient itself, and to begin nodding slowly, more and more convincedly, in front of the overwhelming force inherent in the facts themselves, simply.
The calmness of the author's intellectual work enhances the content of the work, and allows the reader (or listener) to carve out their own spaces, to voice their opinions. I reveal with narcissism the joy of not having been persuaded a hundred percent and of being able to insert my most intimate beliefs, steeped in Italian egocentrism, between the lines of the book, grateful to the author for not wanting to intoxicate me with data like Tremonti or with those shovels of nonsense typical of new millennium opposition.
To voice one's own opinion in front of such a magistrate? I did it at the conference, perhaps too provocatively, raising my hand and shooting at a category, the judiciary, which for me has always been a source of visceral love/hate, and which Spataro seems, at times, to want to sanctify.
His response, which can be found among the pages of the book, taught me a lot. Perhaps not from a legal perspective, but from a human one. He put me in my place with an enviable class. Buying the book (I would have bet it would never happen) and standing in line to shake his hand at the end of the conference was a due act.
So, was it worth it?
Yes! Everything else is sterile propaganda, of which I, honestly, am fed up.
Loading comments slowly
