Hello! I'm your financial journalist and friend, an economist. Today, we're going to discuss a lengthy article that, on the surface, analyzes the new book by Irish author Sally Rooney, "Intermezzo." But if you read it carefully, you'll realize it's actually a profound study in the "economics of modern interpersonal relationships."
Rooney's book has become a bestseller not just because of its popularity but also because it accurately captures one of the most pressing issues of our society: how can we learn to reconnect with others in an increasingly atomized world?
Below, I'll break down this complex literary review into five key aspects in simple language to help you understand the underlying logic.
1. The "Dual Bankruptcy" of Men: Why Do They Hate Themselves and Yet Can't Live Without Women?
The article begins by examining two central male characters: Peter, the older brother, and Evan, the younger one. Rooney takes a rare approach by focusing on men, and she does so with a sharp and insightful perspective.
- Evan (the younger generation): A victim of online indoctrination
Evan represents many young men today. He used to be an "incel," consuming videos that promote a sense of male superiority and misogyny, thinking he was cool and independent. But in reality, he never really interacted with real women; his worldview was merely a collection of extreme opinions from the internet.
Interpretation: This is like someone who only knows stock charts and has never been to a trading floor, thinking they're a stock market genius. It's not until he meets Margaret, an older, divorced woman with a complex past, that she pulls him out of his virtual fantasies of masculinity with her genuine, imperfect love. Evan's transformation is a shift from consuming female images to respecting real individuals.
- Peter (the middle-aged generation): A self-aware "egoist"
Peter is a lawyer caught between two women. Unlike his brother, he's aware of his actions and even knows he's hurting others, yet he can't stop. He wants stability with Sylvia and passion with Naomi.
Interpretation: Peter embodies the dilemma of middle-aged men. He has a form of refined selfishness; he knows he's wrong but chooses self-hatred over taking responsibility. The article cites Chieko Ueno's theory, distinguishing two types of self-hatred: one is the hatred for not being masculine enough (like Evan), and the other is the hatred for the weakness of being male (like Peter).
Core Logic: These two men reflect the emotional incapacity of men at different stages of life. They don't seek help but instead collapse. This incapacity is a result of a patriarchal culture that teaches men to be protectors without teaching them how to be protected.
2. Are Women "Tools" or "Mirrors"?
This is the biggest point of controversy regarding Rooney's book: Are the female characters too perfect and stable, merely there to highlight the men's pain?
- Critics argue: Sylvia (stable) and Naomi (sexy) seem like two functional roles designed to satisfy Peter's needs, which seems to objectify women.
- Rooney's rebuttal and deeper interpretation:
1. The trap of perspective: Since the story is told from the men's point of view, the readers see women through their eyes. This perceived "imperfection" is actually a result of male gaze. Rooney intentionally exposes this bias and then breaks it down.
2. Margaret as a breakthrough: Margaret is the only character with an independent perspective. She's not perfect; she has shame, fears of aging, and defensive mechanisms. Her existence shows that women are not static backgrounds but real, struggling individuals.
3. The mirror effect: The article uses a metaphor: Women are like mirrors for the brothers, allowing them to see the direction of their lives.
Core Logic: Rooney isn't idealizing women; she's revealing a harsh reality: in this era, men often rely on women to give meaning to their lives. The stability of female characters highlights the instability of men, reflecting a lack of emotional depth in men themselves.
3. Brotherly Bonds: When "Others" Become "Kindred," Misunderstandings Still Happen
Rooney makes a bold shift in the book by focusing on brotherly relationships rather than love.
- Why are brotherly relationships more cruel?
In love, you can break up, block each other, or disappear. But brotherly bonds are inescapable; you share blood, memories, and a past. Conflicts in these relationships are deeper because they touch on fundamental identity.
- The symmetry of misunderstandings:
Peter judges his brother's relationships with adult standards while ignoring the age gap with his younger girlfriend; Evan feels his brother is rejecting his values.
Interpretation: Men misunderstand each other in the same way they misunderstand women—judging based on their own standards without trying to understand.
- The difficulty of reconciliation: The peak of their conflict is a simple statement, "I've hated you my whole life." There's no long speech, just a decisive break. Reconciliation doesn't happen at a warm dinner table but in a hotel corridor, filled with awkwardness and unresolved issues.
Core Logic: Rooney wants to show that even the closest people can become strangers if there's a lack of communication and willingness to connect. Brotherly relationships test a person's ability to empathize.
4. The "Disappearance of the Other" in the Age of Algorithms: Rooney's "Old-School" Prescription
This part of the article has strong sociological insights, incorporating Han Byung-je's concept of the "disappearance of the other."
- What is the "disappearance of the other"?
In the age of algorithmic recommendations, we only see what we want and only talk to those who agree with us. Blocking someone takes a second, and breaking off a relationship doesn't require a face-to-face meeting. We live in a homogenized bubble, avoiding those who can't be categorized or controlled.
Interpretation: Evan's immersion in extreme online rhetoric is a typical example of homogenization—no opposition, only likes. Peter, on the other hand, lives as if governed by algorithms, filtering the world through the lens of "I am right."
Rooney's remedy: Rooney's novel adheres to an "old-school" approach: her characters must be brought together in the same space (kitchen, hallway, etc.) and must have complete conversations. Arguments must be resolved, apologies must be made in person, and reconciliation must involve physical contact.
Interpretation: In an era where avoiding trouble, overstepping boundaries, and protecting oneself is considered virtuous, Rooney's insistence on dialogue is a radical moral stance. She believes that pain is essential to experience, and avoiding it (i.e., avoiding the other) leads to spiritual death.
Core Logic: Rooney isn't being nostalgic; she's offering a solution. Since the root cause is the disappearance of the other (we no longer face real, complex people who can hurt us), the remedy is to forcibly rebuild connections, even if they're painful and clumsy.
5. The Harshness and Warmth of the Ending: Imagination Is Also Life
Finally, let's look at the ending and what Rooney believes.
- No happy ending, just imagination:
Peter stands by the sea, imagining a Christmas where everyone is present. He hears the sounds of pots and pans, the steam, the cold wind, but he never writes about the actual reunion.
Interpretation: This is a very Beckettian (absurdist) ending. It doesn't promise resolution or reconciliation; it only promises to "continue."
- The moral power of imagination:
The article quotes the ending: "Imagination is also life." This means that even if reality is broken and we can't fully understand each other, maintaining imagination of others is a moral act.
- Rooney's belief:
Rooney believes no one is truly alone. She believes that despite misunderstandings and the complexity and difficulty of life, "more life, always more life" is the goal.
Core Logic: In an uncertain world, Rooney's message isn't a success story with a perfect ending; it's a message of existential resilience.
- Implications for ordinary people: We don't need to wait for all problems to be solved to love or communicate. Even if it's just an imagined Christmas dinner or a clumsy, unfinished conversation, as long as you step into someone else's world and are willing to take the risk of being offended, you're already fighting against the coldness of the times.
Summary: A "Financial" Advice for Readers
If we view life as a company, Rooney's "Intermezzo" teaches us:
1. Don't outsource your emotions: Don't let algorithms, online opinions, or a single partner define your worth.
2. Accept imperfect connections: Real relationships involve conflicts, but the willingness to sit at the same table after them is what makes them real.
3. Be curious about others: Whether they're brothers, partners, or strangers, they're not NPCs; they have their own stories.
4. Action is better than perfection: Continuing to live is more important than living perfectly.
In an era where the "other" is disappearing, Rooney reminds us to step into that room, finish the conversation, and even if it's just an imagination, you've already taken a step towards a richer life.
In conclusion, Rooney's book offers a practical financial lesson: in a world where algorithms and social biases shape our experiences, we must maintain connections, even if they're imperfect. By doing so, we can challenge the indifference of our times.