Ranucci denies the double signature; Boccia tells us that a book exists. Mysteries and clams

Clams, clams of my heart’s desire, which is the finest book in the realm? A man who knows MR Boccia well – and, alas for him, Ranucci too – tells us that ‘Sigfrido will surely have promised to write a book to make himself look good’. The man, whose identity is a thousand times easier to guess than the existence of the ‘bivalve’ book, then adds that he wants nothing more to do with ‘those two’. But come on… Does this book actually exist or not? He, Sigfrido Ranucci, said no yesterday in La Repubblica. She, Maria Rosaria Boccia, says ‘I don’t know’ today in Il Foglio. “It’s best not to say anything more about the publication, at least for the time being.”

But how so? Why not? A month ago we already questioned her on the subject – or rather, on the tome – and she, Maria Rosaria, did not deny it. So why is Sigfrido now denying it? “I certainly do not take Sigfrido’s words as an attack on me,” Boccia replies calmly, “nor as an attempt to contradict me or distance himself from me.” Who knows if someone suggested he should do so instead… “I know what our relationship is like. We’re very close, we care for one another and we’ve even shared painful moments.” So? “So I won’t allow a headline or a different interpretation to turn a human relationship into a confrontation that, between us, doesn’t exist.” All right. But what interests us now is the book. One question: do you have an agreement or not? “Well, there’s just one aspect regarding the book that I think is important to clarify.” Please go on. “In the Corriere, I had stated verbatim: ‘I therefore also confirm the book. The project exists, it is real, and it is at an advanced stage’.” So it does exist. “But I hadn’t stated: ‘I confirm that Sigfrido Ranucci and I are writing a co-authored book’”. So it doesn’t exist. “In the published interview, in response to the question which already contained a reference to a book co-authored by myself and Ranucci, my answer was summarised. But these are two different ways of phrasing things which, when read in context, can take on a different meaning”. Editorial alchemy. “I can only answer for the words I actually spoke”.

But if it isn’t a co-authored work – or perhaps it is? – can you at least tell us whether Ranucci is helping you with the writing? “Better not.” Whether it’s a biography, a memoir, a hagiography... “I understand your curiosity. But as for the book, I really prefer not to say anything more for now – not to create an air of mystery, but because I don’t want my words to be exploited.” But Sigfrido has denied its existence. “Sigfrido simply wanted to clarify what he believes does not correspond to reality.” Do your versions of events differ? “He wanted to defend himself against media pressure that I know all too well. Just yesterday, in fact, he spoke to my solicitor, commenting on the interview in La Repubblica”… it was a matter of moments from La sera andavamo in via Veneto to La sera andavamo in Lavitola… “They commented on it without, however, mentioning the bit about the book, and without Sigfrido showing any resentment towards me.” Why didn’t you discuss it directly? “Because I’m on holiday. But he’s in touch with my solicitor, with whom he has a relationship based on mutual respect and a habit of getting in touch when necessary.” But you’re very close friends; you’re always in touch. “Yes.” How is he doing now? “We care deeply for one another, and perhaps that’s why I’m particularly able to understand what he’s going through. I’ve been through the media pillory and its consequences before.” And yet “the mystery of the book” – which is also the title of a Harmony novel – remains. “I know what it’s like to see every word blown out of proportion, interpreted and woven into a narrative that, at a certain point, risks overwhelming not only the person directly involved, but also those close to them.” Is that why he denied it? “That’s why he felt the need to defend himself and put a stop to it all.”