telespallabob

Next time, write in decent Italian; the problem is not just the punctuation (even though that's quite obvious). I don't know the group.

One is mediocre not for the reality they intend to describe and its "circumscribability" but for the message they convey. If they say obvious and stupid things, they are mediocre, but that's a subjective judgment. Let me give you an example. We know your love for Celine; someone might come along and say he's talking nonsense. That's their judgment and it stays there. @Il percussionist, I don’t feel like it!

The fact that he was fascist was just a clarification, that's all. In fact, I agree on that point of view. Political thought doesn’t matter; what matters is what is said. Has he been obsessively and continuously recycled? I wouldn't know, but his critiques are neither weak nor sterile. The way he lashes out is very strong; you don't have to be explicitly forceful to be fierce towards your interlocutor. The message can be very powerful but adapted and modified with a kind of biting and ironic writing. It's called being subtle, and Pirandello was a phenomenon in this regard. I don't believe Pirandello dulled consciences, also because his aim was not to create revolutionaries but people aware of reality and certain mechanisms of the individual. Does he not open any boundaries? Not necessarily; someone who writes doesn't have to refer to grand systems. One can also focus on specific contexts and draw out messages of great significance.

Pirandello can be said not to have been strictly Fascist, in the sense that he joined the regime late and subsequently did not hold back on criticism after witnessing the situation that had developed. This is evident from some private letters and from correspondence with the OVRA, the Secret Police, which monitored him and Marta Abba. In fact, he received less acclaim than some of his colleagues who wrote decidedly more aligned works. I believe his value and genius are incredible; at least, I adore him. I find Alessio's critique to be reductive. The theme of personalities is certainly one of the most popular, but not the only one. He railed against respectability and other social practices of the time; I disagree with the notion that others did it better than him. Pirandello had a satirical ability and a style that Italian literature has rarely seen.

I made a mistake, and a big one too. These are the real grades, since a review like this makes no sense for the reasons mentioned above.

What the hell! A copy of this came out 10 days ago. Can't you pick some other record?

@Ardalo, take your time to mark them down. In the meantime, I congratulate the reviewer.

And this film deserves quite a lot. I wouldn't know if it's a 5, but it deserves it. Your words could reopen a controversy that exists elsewhere and on which I have expressed myself at length. I don’t want to repeat myself.

At certain moments, it's better to rely on the staff, trust me. Like in this case. Recommended.

Stop everyone. Are we joking? A 4 for this review? One can also sit down and describe the complete works of a writer (everyone does what they believe). Let's say someone feels like doing something like that. They should sit down and describe the messages the writer wanted to convey, reflect on them, and maybe draw personal conclusions. Here we have 4 lines and a whole sequence of story titles, with a note on the ones preferred. Why this selection? What are your thoughts? What are Lovecraft's? Gentlemen, it's not like one just sits down to write a whole series of little stories for the sake of it. Did he want to say something, or not? Well. You can't be so reductive and schematic; it's mockery.