O Mínimo que Você Precisa Saber para Não Ser um Idiota

I disagree with a lot of what Olavo said, and I still gave this book 7.7. I think that already explains a lot about how I read it.

We have big differences in political thinking, and many of his conclusions I simply don't buy. But disagreeing doesn't stop me from recognising that he was a great writer who built his reasoning with a tightly woven internal logic. Many times I reached the end of a text disagreeing with the conclusion and having to admit that I didn't know exactly at which step he had lost me. That is a merit of the writer.

The book collects short texts of his, so you can read it in small bites, and that fragmentation helps. Some articles are pure provocation; others have a cultural critique that made me think, especially about how public debate turns into slogans and how few people truly read what they criticise.

It also made me practise something I think is important: reading someone I disagree with without hating them and without assuming they had no reason to think that way. Everyone who thinks has a reason, even when the reason is wrong.

The tone is aggressive, full of personal attacks, and in many texts provocation takes the place of argument. Some claims come with a certainty I couldn't see supported, and the reading demands a critical filter the whole time.

I recommend it to anyone who wants to understand an important part of the Brazilian debate, as long as they read it with that filter. Not for those who read only to confirm their opinion, from any side.