On the manifold postmodernities of the C.Ronaldo 'transfer'

Firstly, that nomenclature employed so liberally by the critics (cf The Sun, Daily Mirror et al.): 'the Ronaldo transfer'. A transference which never occurred, stasis seemingly restored but, in fact, never having gone away. A simulation of a change; a narrative about a metamorphosis, which became a narrative about a narrative about a metamorphosis, which became a narrative about an un-narrative - because the metamorphosis never morphosed.

The mutability of meaning and sheer inefficacy of words has been - ironically - made all too clear by this so-called saga. We have been treated to untold verbiage detailing Ronaldo's desire to go, as expressed by the man himself, his relations, his agent... We have been treated to countless denials from Sr.Calderon, naysaying a transfer which - somewhat perversely and in true pomo fashion - was itself only conjured by these negations.

And all of this, reported via several degrees of separation: the agent speaks to the Brazilian journal, the journal prints the story, the English critics pick up the story and thus it goes on. Mistranslations at every stage. Words divorced from their intended meaning almost at the moment they leave the mouth/pen/heart. What better way to depict the something rotten at the heart of language than this physical re-enactment of the degrees of separation which occur every single time we communicate?

And the biggest postmodernism of all this: the footballer's contract. What bolder expression of the inarticulacy of language, the weakness of our common grammar . So weak indeed that it crumbles under thin papers inked with the only symbol apt to hold firm to its true intention: £.

To come:

C.Ronaldo's hair: postmodern, or WTF.