вид
14 Декабря 2025г, Воскресенье€ — 93.5626, $ — 79.7296
Rooney has always written desire as a form of class and power negotiation, but in Intermezzo , love is explicitly framed as an improvisation—an intermezzo within the larger, broken score of life. The two central female characters, Margaret and Naomi, are not merely love interests but structural mirrors.
What Sally Rooney achieves in Intermezzo is a maturation of her vision. She has moved from the ironic, clipped observations of millennial precarity to a more symphonic, riskier register. The novel suggests that the spaces between the major events of life—between fatherhood and sonhood, between one love and the next, between childhood and whatever comes after—are not empty. They are where we actually live. The intermezzo is not a waiting room; it is the whole performance.
By giving us two brothers who cannot speak but who finally learn to sit in silence together, Rooney offers a profound meditation on masculinity, grief, and the slow, unglamorous work of loving another person. Intermezzo is not a novel about solving problems. It is a novel about holding tension—about learning to hear dissonance as a form of harmony. And in that, it may be Rooney’s most honest, and most beautiful, work to date. Intermezzo- Sally Rooney
The most immediate shock of Intermezzo is its prose. Rooney, once praised for her “masterly” minimalism, unleashes a torrential, unpunctuated interior monologue, primarily for Peter. Sentences spill across pages without periods, simulating the relentless, spiraling quality of anxious thought: he looks at her and the thought comes of how he will remember this moment later the way he is seeing it now and how the remembering will be the real thing even more than the seeing . This is not merely stylistic flourish; it is the novel’s primary engine of character. Peter, a lawyer trained to wield logic and language with precision, is internally incoherent. His grief for his father manifests as a somatic affliction—back pain, insomnia—and a compulsive, degrading relationship with his younger lover, Naomi. The unpunctuated prose captures his inability to close a thought, to reach a conclusion, to stop the recursive loop of self-hatred and longing.
Margaret, a librarian in her late thirties, is Ivan’s first lover. She is stable, intelligent, and trapped in a dying marriage out of duty. Her relationship with Ivan is improbable and, to many characters, scandalous. But Rooney refuses to sentimentalize or demonize it. Margaret sees Ivan’s social awkwardness not as a flaw but as a form of honesty she has been starved of. Their lovemaking is described with the same careful attention Rooney gives to a chess endgame: it is about patience, reading the other’s body as a board, making moves that are both strategic and vulnerable. Margaret represents the possibility of a love that is reparative —not fixing the other, but providing a space where one can be unfixed. Rooney has always written desire as a form
Ivan, by contrast, has rejected the performance of masculinity altogether—and been punished for it. He is described as “weird,” physically awkward, emotionally transparent. His passion for chess is a refuge from a social world that finds him lacking. Yet Rooney complicates the easy reading of Ivan as simply autistic-coded or innocent. His affair with Margaret—a married woman whose husband is dying of cancer—is not a fairy tale. Ivan is capable of cruelty, of petulant withdrawal, of a cold, logical selfishness. What distinguishes him from Peter is not goodness but lack of disguise . Ivan’s masculinity is not a mask; it is a raw nerve. The novel proposes that both paths—hyper-performance and social withdrawal—are inadequate responses to grief. Peter performs his pain away; Ivan buries his in ELO ratings. Neither works until they begin to speak.
Intermezzo is a sharp, compassionate autopsy of contemporary masculinity in crisis. Peter embodies the “successful man” as public performance: handsome, brilliant, sexually voracious. Yet this performance is a cage. He cannot cry at his father’s funeral; he can only analyze his inability to cry. His affair with Naomi (a 21-year-old college student he pays for sex, though the transactional nature blurs into something more tender and more damaging) is an act of self-annihilation. He uses her to debase himself, to confirm his belief that he is unworthy of the “real” love he still feels for his ex-girlfriend, Sylvia. Peter’s tragedy is that he has internalized the logic of the marketplace: he sees himself as a depreciating asset, his grief as a professional failure. She has moved from the ironic, clipped observations
Sally Rooney’s fourth novel, Intermezzo (2024), arrives with the weight of a literary event, yet it immediately defies the easy categorizations of her earlier work. While Conversations with Friends and Normal People established her as the chronicler of millennial intimacy and late-capitalist anomie, and Beautiful World, Where Are You wrestled with intellectual sparring and existential dread, Intermezzo represents a stylistic and emotional departure. It is a novel of grief, chess, classical music, and two brothers locked in a silent, agonizing war of interiority. The title itself—a musical term for a short, connecting movement between larger structural parts—serves as the novel’s central metaphor. Rooney presents the period following the death of a father not as a grand, tragic finale but as an intermezzo : a suspended, awkward, and deeply painful interlude where lives are momentarily unmoored before their next movement begins.
The novel’s climax is not a dramatic confrontation but a chess game. The brothers, estranged for most of the book, finally sit across a board. Peter, who has not played in years, allows Ivan to win—or does he? The ambiguity is the point. In that silent exchange of pieces, Rooney stages a reconciliation that is not about forgiveness or resolution but about acknowledgment . Peter sees Ivan. Ivan sees Peter’s pain. They do not hug; they do not speak of their father. They play.
Rooney resists the temptation of the redemptive ending. The final pages find the brothers in a state of fragile equilibrium. Peter is still addicted to painkillers and still entangled with both Sylvia and Naomi. Ivan is still socially odd and still in love with a woman whose husband will soon die. The grief is not gone. But it has been shared . The novel’s final image is of the two brothers walking together through a Dublin street, the rain stopping, the light changing. It is not a resolution but a coda —a brief, concluding passage that does not resolve the dissonance but allows it to fade, softly.
Rooney has always written desire as a form of class and power negotiation, but in Intermezzo , love is explicitly framed as an improvisation—an intermezzo within the larger, broken score of life. The two central female characters, Margaret and Naomi, are not merely love interests but structural mirrors.
What Sally Rooney achieves in Intermezzo is a maturation of her vision. She has moved from the ironic, clipped observations of millennial precarity to a more symphonic, riskier register. The novel suggests that the spaces between the major events of life—between fatherhood and sonhood, between one love and the next, between childhood and whatever comes after—are not empty. They are where we actually live. The intermezzo is not a waiting room; it is the whole performance.
By giving us two brothers who cannot speak but who finally learn to sit in silence together, Rooney offers a profound meditation on masculinity, grief, and the slow, unglamorous work of loving another person. Intermezzo is not a novel about solving problems. It is a novel about holding tension—about learning to hear dissonance as a form of harmony. And in that, it may be Rooney’s most honest, and most beautiful, work to date.
The most immediate shock of Intermezzo is its prose. Rooney, once praised for her “masterly” minimalism, unleashes a torrential, unpunctuated interior monologue, primarily for Peter. Sentences spill across pages without periods, simulating the relentless, spiraling quality of anxious thought: he looks at her and the thought comes of how he will remember this moment later the way he is seeing it now and how the remembering will be the real thing even more than the seeing . This is not merely stylistic flourish; it is the novel’s primary engine of character. Peter, a lawyer trained to wield logic and language with precision, is internally incoherent. His grief for his father manifests as a somatic affliction—back pain, insomnia—and a compulsive, degrading relationship with his younger lover, Naomi. The unpunctuated prose captures his inability to close a thought, to reach a conclusion, to stop the recursive loop of self-hatred and longing.
Margaret, a librarian in her late thirties, is Ivan’s first lover. She is stable, intelligent, and trapped in a dying marriage out of duty. Her relationship with Ivan is improbable and, to many characters, scandalous. But Rooney refuses to sentimentalize or demonize it. Margaret sees Ivan’s social awkwardness not as a flaw but as a form of honesty she has been starved of. Their lovemaking is described with the same careful attention Rooney gives to a chess endgame: it is about patience, reading the other’s body as a board, making moves that are both strategic and vulnerable. Margaret represents the possibility of a love that is reparative —not fixing the other, but providing a space where one can be unfixed.
Ivan, by contrast, has rejected the performance of masculinity altogether—and been punished for it. He is described as “weird,” physically awkward, emotionally transparent. His passion for chess is a refuge from a social world that finds him lacking. Yet Rooney complicates the easy reading of Ivan as simply autistic-coded or innocent. His affair with Margaret—a married woman whose husband is dying of cancer—is not a fairy tale. Ivan is capable of cruelty, of petulant withdrawal, of a cold, logical selfishness. What distinguishes him from Peter is not goodness but lack of disguise . Ivan’s masculinity is not a mask; it is a raw nerve. The novel proposes that both paths—hyper-performance and social withdrawal—are inadequate responses to grief. Peter performs his pain away; Ivan buries his in ELO ratings. Neither works until they begin to speak.
Intermezzo is a sharp, compassionate autopsy of contemporary masculinity in crisis. Peter embodies the “successful man” as public performance: handsome, brilliant, sexually voracious. Yet this performance is a cage. He cannot cry at his father’s funeral; he can only analyze his inability to cry. His affair with Naomi (a 21-year-old college student he pays for sex, though the transactional nature blurs into something more tender and more damaging) is an act of self-annihilation. He uses her to debase himself, to confirm his belief that he is unworthy of the “real” love he still feels for his ex-girlfriend, Sylvia. Peter’s tragedy is that he has internalized the logic of the marketplace: he sees himself as a depreciating asset, his grief as a professional failure.
Sally Rooney’s fourth novel, Intermezzo (2024), arrives with the weight of a literary event, yet it immediately defies the easy categorizations of her earlier work. While Conversations with Friends and Normal People established her as the chronicler of millennial intimacy and late-capitalist anomie, and Beautiful World, Where Are You wrestled with intellectual sparring and existential dread, Intermezzo represents a stylistic and emotional departure. It is a novel of grief, chess, classical music, and two brothers locked in a silent, agonizing war of interiority. The title itself—a musical term for a short, connecting movement between larger structural parts—serves as the novel’s central metaphor. Rooney presents the period following the death of a father not as a grand, tragic finale but as an intermezzo : a suspended, awkward, and deeply painful interlude where lives are momentarily unmoored before their next movement begins.
The novel’s climax is not a dramatic confrontation but a chess game. The brothers, estranged for most of the book, finally sit across a board. Peter, who has not played in years, allows Ivan to win—or does he? The ambiguity is the point. In that silent exchange of pieces, Rooney stages a reconciliation that is not about forgiveness or resolution but about acknowledgment . Peter sees Ivan. Ivan sees Peter’s pain. They do not hug; they do not speak of their father. They play.
Rooney resists the temptation of the redemptive ending. The final pages find the brothers in a state of fragile equilibrium. Peter is still addicted to painkillers and still entangled with both Sylvia and Naomi. Ivan is still socially odd and still in love with a woman whose husband will soon die. The grief is not gone. But it has been shared . The novel’s final image is of the two brothers walking together through a Dublin street, the rain stopping, the light changing. It is not a resolution but a coda —a brief, concluding passage that does not resolve the dissonance but allows it to fade, softly.
