Stoney

But no, I was referring to the comment before mine.

Gustavo, why ever?

In my opinion, this about his character is just like Allevi: the cultural-fake-alternative-high-as-a -kite-depressed-artist-like eccentric that people only like because he piques their curiosity, so everyone rushes to look for profound meanings in the deliberately obscure nursery rhymes he sings. Bah.

But half a minute to reread your comments before posting them?...

1) "a historical manifestation of Italian Song, which always has elements of charm and interest and remains, despite everything, a mirror of our country." Speak for yourself. Not all Italians are automata drugged by the simplistic banality that a handful of obscurantists would like to pass off as musical culture. 2) "The beauty is that they have never descended into vulgarity." The festival itself is vulgar. Even without exhibitionists (paid) showing their breasts to boost the audience. 3) "At least with Hugh Hefner, we got to feast our eyes: thanks, bunnies!" Thankfully, when we feel the urge to jerk off, there’s always the internet. We’d be in a bad way if we had to wait for the bunnies at the Sanremo festival. 4) "Patty Pravo can afford to be "transparent" and do it with a class and beauty that today’s scantily clad girls can only dream of." Just the thought that I’ve seen the breasts of a seventy-year-old makes me want to throw up on tables. 5) "Let’s start with the "important" ones; there are quite a few evaluations to make. You see many "glories" (Leali, Albano, Zanicchi)." Oh, just imagine those who aren't worth a damn. 6) "offers the best with the "cucuzzaro" led by father Arisa: definitely unique, it brings a Jazz breeze and fascinates quite a bit." Enough already. I’m fed up with anyone who does a half-hearted bluesy flourish on the piano deserving the title of "jazzist," waved around here and there as a guarantee of some supposed skill. Go back to studying, ignoramuses.

@Cptgaio. But why, instead of dismissing Sanremo altogether, are we always there hoping that this year it will finally produce something just a little better than the nothing we’ve come to expect, and if it happens, we’re even happy about it? Why not just not care from the start? I mean, this is a serious attitude, damn it… instead of realizing that it’s the Sanremo system that generates mediocrity, we’re there hoping that Sanremo becomes less mediocre. It's like continuing to vote for a well-known thief hoping he’ll become less of a thief instead of voting for someone else (or not voting at all). It’s like saying that TV is full of trash but still watching it hoping it’ll start producing cultural programs. We’re so lobotomized that we don’t even dare hope for a world without Sanremo. Still judging whether a certain group did well to participate, wondering if there’s a rebellious attempt behind it all to break the mold, etc. Enough, after 50 years what molds need to be broken? Haven't we learned the lesson yet? Let me tell you why a group like the Afterhours goes to Sanremo. Because the music industry isn't stupid; it knows that Sanremo is something that kids of a certain age who are passionate about good music don’t watch, in fact, they hate it by default, and this is the (winning) method to glue them to the television anyway. And maybe they will manage to convince not only those kids but also the groups themselves that they are doing something transgressive that violates who knows what rules. Cheers and forgive the rant.

@Dervin. Is it a surreal fairy tale for you? Is it a story that goes nowhere and doesn’t intend to go anywhere? Who knows, for me these are great excuses to justify anything one wants to write: it can be a good idea to write a novel that doesn’t want to reach any conclusion, but it has to make sense, it can’t just be something for its own sake. Because if it is, it might even be beautiful, but it remains useless. It’s a bit like saying that a random splash of colors on a canvas is abstract art just because the colors are placed together in a pleasant way. As if fairy tales were frivolous nonsense and not a clever and ironic way to talk about serious things. And this novel, I’m sorry, but it really is just a hodgepodge of meaningless fripperies, where that "campato in aria" you speak of is skillfully passed off as a "who knows what it meant," when in fact it’s nothing. I don’t want to be aggressive or rude, really, I have NEVER SAID that the book can’t be enjoyable for someone, nor have I brought up the emotions I personally felt while reading it, because it’s obvious that this novel does evoke emotions, it was created for that purpose, and it’s exactly what I criticized: the ease with which it moves the reader, exploiting rhetorical techniques that every somewhat skilled writer knows perfectly well. The point is "how" it does it, not "if" it does it. I hope I’ve been clearer.
@Bartleboom: the digression on the Nymphés is something truly mind-blowing... I think it’s one of the worst passages I’ve ever read in a book in my life.
@Newromantic: Maremma shepherds, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

I had also read "orgasmi facile."

Here we go, it's a pity that mathematicians are well aware of the fact that the "axioms" on which their discipline is based often can be far from the ultimate reality of things, and if you had read the review, this detail wouldn't have escaped you, which is, by the way, one of the foundational theses of the book. In mathematics, there are still open disputes regarding the definition of natural numbers (1, 2, 3...), demonstrating that even axioms undergo continuous revisions in order to better fit reality, something that doesn't seem to concern religion.

Macaco, yes, if you encountered someone from another tribe, you would kill them, what barbarism. But think about today, when by pressing a button we can annihilate entire villages of defenseless civilians in a second, and not because they pose a threat to our "tribe," but simply because someone gives orders and another is obliged to carry them out. Moreover, I found some dogmas in the Gospel, for example when Christ claims to be the son of God, or when it is written that Christ rises after three days. They don't seem like historical facts or scientific proof to me, so I'm sorry but I call them dogmas.