What I did not have a problem with in this book:
the lack of quotation marks for the dialogue – Some people always complain about this and I do not get why. It is very clear what is and is not dialogue.
What I hated in this book:
the cliché autistic character written by a non-autistic author – and him being mocked by his own brother for it, and this not getting addressed.
the wishy-washy religiousness
the relentless abelism featuring the “convenient for the plot disease” – aka the unnamed mysterious health issue one of the love interests. That only prevents her from having a normal sex life. But otherwise she is living on her own, maintains a full-time university lecturer job, has an active social life and is involved in the community, and has time for an on-and-off-again romance with one of the male protagonists. The especially disgusting part about this is that the main protagonist is more than willing to live with this condition. It is she, the disabled person, who wants to turn herself into a martyr, but at the same time string him on forever. Disgusting representation of disability from on of Time’s 100 most influential people in the world of 2022.
the cringey sex scenes
the prudish fear of “what will the townspeople think”
the polyamory phobia – I hate love triangles in books. So this coupled with the constant avoidance and disgust the characters show for the very obvious solution to their situation (I do not want to call it a problem) was very annoying. Is Rooney trying to trigger the liberals or the conservatives with this? She was after all “the top debater at the European Universities Debating Championships in 2013”. She literally puts debate edgelord Ben Shapiro’s famous “facts don’t care about your feelings” line in the mouth of one of the main characters. And honestly this book would have been a lot more interesting if instead of chess it would have featured a debate society. A university debate champion brother versus his practicing lawyer brother (you know someone who debates in the real world with real stakes) and their conflict and avoidance of their childhood traumas and grief over their father? Sounds great, and unlike most authors Rooney could write this from experience. Instead we got this fake, poorly put together shit. I will not speculate about the reasons for that, since I no longer care.
the agesim (we cannot have a relationship because I am so much older than you + you cannot have a relationship with a woman who is older than you, but at the same time...)
the hypocracy (… I can have a relationship with a woman who is younger than me) You could say this is part of the plot, but it is never addressed or resolved. As far as I am concerned this is yet another lazy plot device. Why did she write this like it takes place in the ye olde 1600’s?
the fake working-class struggle whining (I can’t make my share of rent this month because I am not being payed by this company, so I’ll just go stay at my dead dad’s house, which is technically my house now, for free)
the yoda-speak – I saw some reviews mention that Rooney claims this is inspired by James Joyce. I have not read any of Joyce’s work, but I have watched nine Star Wars movies. My conclusion: The Yoda is strong in Peter.
the poorly written suicidal thoughts
the lack of believable characters all throughout
the length – please hire some editors again, I beg you. Not every book needs to be 400+ pages.
Overall this really was the last chance I gave to Rooney. I thought Normal People was ok, but nothing memorable. I intensely disliked Beautiful World Where Are You, and promised myself not to give in to the hype for her next book. Then came the hype for Intermezzo. So I bought it. And ended up hating it again. But with this I am well and truly done.
