Emile Zola's Germinal has intrigued me over the last few months. Not only as a social study dealing with issues such as anarchism and socialism but in its form as a social commentary. Zola was not afraid to create a macrocosm in which he could launch a scathing attack on the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. Perhaps he is most known for his iconic "J'accuse" headline in an open letter to Felix Faure, the leader of the Republic, in support of the jailed Alfred Dreyfus. Not only iconic, it almost divided France in the years shortly afterwards. Can you imagine something so controversial happening these days? Is that a pig I see up there...
That is what I admire most about Zola. After Germinal, most of his works were all commentaries on different aspects of life. L' Argent explored the widening world of the stock exchange whilst L'Oeuvre provides an insight into Parisian literary and artistic life. The latter in fact, also delved into contemporary thinking based on the ideas of many of Zola's "high-art" friends. He paid the price however after the famous impressionist Cezanne reacted badly to his representation in the novel and ended their friendship.
In today's apparently "Orwellian" society, why is there no-one out there who is prepared to write a brutal portrayal of society's ills? With America now the de-facto leader of the world, championing democracy, it's almost as if people have accepted the current state of affairs as the purest form of society.
Of course with the current state of political correctness gone mad, how is RIGHT that an individual cannot attack an intruder for fear of being prosecuted? That's not as it should be - that's almost anarchism turned inside out. What would Zola make of that? In fact what would George Orwell make of it?
The way I see it, social ideology has somewhat stagnated over the past 50 or 60 years. As my narrow mind can only deal with all things sporting, the best way I can describe this is by using a footballing analogy.
Tactically, football has developed little since the 1970's. Since Mario Zagallo's 4-2-4 that so brilliantly won Brazil the 1970 World Cup and Johan Cruyff's/Rinus Michel's conception of Total Football that should have seen Holland win both the 1974 and 1978 World Cups , there has been hardly any tactical upheaval (save for Arrigo Sacchi's brilliant AC Milan side of the late 1980's that was more experimental than groundbreaking). At the moment football tactics have retreated to either a standard 4-4-2 or 5-3-2 or 4-5-1 depending on whether a manager is intent on attacking or defending.
It's my humble opinion that football needs something to wake it from its slumber and return it to its attacking roots. Much like the famous Hungarian team of Ferenc Puskas that so brilliantly humbled England at Wembley in 1953 (a side that I would have loved to have seen live).
It's a similar situation in society at the moment. The Sun newspaper ran a campaign named "Broken Britain" underlining the increasing 'hoody' culture and the general decline of society and its morals/standards. Does society in this country need someone that can put it back together again or come up with a new social structure?
Controversial? Please comment with your thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment