My father sent me the original article in the FAS, and I rechecked what I wrote about it before. The original citation concerning Perelman is
”[…] ich bin weit von Perelmans Niveau entfernt, und nehme an, ohne mich zu zieren.”
(“I am far away from Perelman’s level, and I accepted without hesitating.”). Then, I stumbled upon a new article about the book in the FAZ.
The new one is much less interesting, whereas in the first article a lot of interesting thoughts are mentioned. In the book, I have reached now the point where Villani and Mouhot finally proved the central point of the problem - at least as far as I understood. There were several pages, obviously taken directly from their publication. No chance to understand this!
In the first article the author claims that you do not learn much personal things about Villani. In my opinion, this is not completely true - not only because there is a excessive list of his favourite music. Looking at the dates of his email communication with Mouhot, there is hardly any time where they don’t write to each other, day and night, Sundays and any other day of the week. Does this not show how devoted he is to his work?