MAXIMO

The English used by Sanoi is sometimes archaic and erudite European-style ("discourse", "most worthy", "incumbent upon"), which can create a deliberate sense of estrangement and lend the text a solemnity that aligns well with the protagonist's philosophical pretensions. The book has moments of scatological humor and social satire that work effectively. The description of certain academics from the sects, pastors, and caricatured Brazilian figures carries a tone of mockery that is, at times, genuinely funny.
Attacks form only a small part of Sanoi's humor technique. He disqualifies Nietzsche, Freud, Gandhi, and others based on aspects of their personal lives-such as visits to brothels and vices-while simultaneously questioning some of their actual ideas. He does this in such a way that the careless reader will attack him for using ad hominem arguments.
He condemns all Protestants, atheists, and academics based on the worst examples he can find, dividing the world into the wise and the foolish, without admitting that there might be nuances or complexity. He frequently straw-mans his opponent's discourse so that it fits his preferred reality and can be properly attacked-sometimes in a joking manner. At times it may seem that Sanoi reduces all of psychoanalysis to a defense of depravity, but that is not exactly what he does.
He invokes himself as the supreme authority and shows no concern for educating through reasoned argument. He "educates" by reducing the other to what he claims they truly are-when possible, with insults.
There is a jocular tendency to reject ideas because of their origins. Example: a theory is false because it was created by an atheist, a Protestant, a heretic, or a Jew, and not on its own merits. All these aspects are used as tools of humor.
When speaking, Sanoi sounds as though he is dictating a treatise of traditionalist Catholic philosophy. His criticism of the relativization of truth, of academic "vainglory," and of the use of "science" as dogma is pertinent. The defense of a morality based on virtue and transcendent truth is a valid starting point for a philosophical novel.
The world is divided in an extremely rigid way, and this dichotomy could impoverish the philosophy-but the work does not set out to show any positive aspects of the other side. What is presented is not a balanced overview; it is the thought of the great philosopher Sanoi and the condemnation of everything different. Sanoi boasts of his "lack of moderation in speech" and his "virility" in speaking "truths," and this is portrayed as a virtue ("philosophizing with a hammer"). The scene in which he beats up the Protestant theologians is the culmination of this worldview.
The story itself-the journey of Sanoi, his romances, the encounter with Júlia-is extremely simple and serves merely as a clothesline on which to hang the practice of his philosophy. It could not be otherwise at a high level. The characters are shallow so they can function as types: "the foolish Protestant," "the naïve Mormon friend," the "capybara woman" who is treated with genuine affection but physically described in unflattering terms before being "beautified" by redemption.
Brazil is portrayed as a "madhouse" of ignorance, which is a valid perspective for a foreign character, but it can come across-and indeed does come across-as ethnocentric and prejudiced. Sanoi sometimes openly admits to being prejudiced when he says things like "[...] to pretend that I am not prejudiced."
MAXIMO can be understood as a deeply imperfect work for those who love the targets of its blind partisan criticism. The book can be difficult to access; the style can become tiring-and this is due to Sanoi spending several days discoursing to a friend, Jonas, who wakes up completely aligned with his philosophy.