alessioIRIDE

Pirandello on newsstands with Gente... here’s his target. The truth is there's a disarming lack of it. The review of Masnadieri has 5 comments, 53 for Pirandello. Your problem.

In fact, we have not exchanged any ideas. To exchange ideas, it is necessary to have them.

"You bring up documents steeped in antisemitism," but do you read the comments or what? That document was written by the chief rabbi of Jerusalem in 1492 and is still preserved in the archives of Toledo. Having pointed this out, I have nothing else to say. I agree with myself.

If we don't generalize, we can't say anything to each other. Without generalizing, Italy is not Berlusconian; without generalizing, you see nothing. Mean and median are just symbols of the total, but not the total itself. Until 1945, the word "Jew" was used by all non-Jewish intellectuals as an insult, as a symbol of modernity, utilitarianism, and human malice. Dostoevsky insulted with the term "Jew"... was he an anti-Semite? The anti-Semite exists only in the minds of those who surrender to society, to widespread values, because today one cannot criticize the Jewish lobby-cult without being branded an anti-Semite. That's why they won the war, because no one can insert themselves between them and their interests. The only ones who won the war are the Jews, just like in the first one, just like in the Russian revolution, and today I have discovered that I too am an anti-Semite... how wonderful, and what interesting people you are. Mah.

True Bart, since Pascal. Six Characters in Search of an Author doesn't address that theme and indeed it's super cool... I saw it in theater, just like Così è se vi pare, which already flaunts the same theme and honestly annoys me. But the fact is that from 1930 to 1950 Pirandello was just a jerk... we wasted a lot of time on these things losing out on others that really... I can't find the word. Bye

I don’t understand what there is to understand in a fucking movie like this. We’re talking about Spielberg, not Pasolini. It’s all gunfire, not all this introspection. Ratman, if we want to talk about something, we have to generalize... otherwise, we wouldn’t talk anymore if we went into specifics. Clearly, there will be some sweet and kind little Jew, but that doesn’t change the fact that the ones that count are pieces of shit who have made this world a sewer. So I say: the Jews are X, but I don’t mean all Jews... that would be impossible, but it would also be impossible to analyze anything without generalizing. Got it? Second, Jews could be racist in exploiting and besieging a different and racially different people, but we’re safer if we call them xenophobic or pieces of shit. If I hate Jews (which is not true, it’s just an example), I’m an anti-Semite, not a racist, because I don’t hate them as white people, but because they are Jews. Words are important :) Bye

It is true that the world is beautiful because it is diverse, but too much spoils.

<< Not necessarily must the writer refer to overarching systems. One can also focus on specific contexts and draw out messages of great significance. >> There’s a word for all this circumlocution: mediocre. Pirandello is not a phenomenon in anything. Massimo was a phenomenon at three sevens, but we cannot know this. It doesn’t stir consciences; it just says nothing. Similar concept, but different.

And then, whether he was fascist or not, who cares... there are fascist thinkers who are still light-years ahead even today. The problem with fascism isn't the intellectual (the fascist intellectual has that charge of will and drive that makes him fascinating, unlike the moralists)... it's the average person who confuses it all for marching, xenophobia, and similar nonsense. Corradini, Gentile... completely forgotten, and we talk about Pirandello. A writer who wrote one book and then traced himself over and over to exhaustion.

And who the hell cares about Italy? That's the problem... it's already humiliating, for both the authors and the learners, to study often banal writers (these aren't things that you study... you just read, you engage with the primary source in hand... not with the words written by who knows who!)... wouldn't it be better to break down these geographical boundaries and study, if we really must, the things that truly shake things up? I repeat: if at school they shove Pirandello down your throat in every possible way, it's precisely because his concept of the double, his critique of respectability are trivial, dull, sterile. At school, they make you study Marx, not Sorel... hehe, the prudence for the revolutionary. As if it were wise, for a revolutionary, to be prudent... at school, they make you study the things that pacify you, the ones that serve their purpose. Pirandello doesn't open any boundaries for you... at most, he opens them if you're all holed up in yourself. It's others who clear a path for you or, better yet, destroy it... of course, to each his own, as another Sicilian would say.