Intermezzo- | Sally Rooney

Rooney, Sally. Intermezzo . Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2024.

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.

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

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.

The Fugue State of Grief: Form, Feeling, and Fractured Masculinity in Sally Rooney’s Intermezzo Rooney, Sally

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.

In contrast, the chapters focused on Ivan are more conventional in syntax but radical in emotional restraint. Ivan, who processes the world through the binary, rule-based logic of chess, speaks in clipped sentences and literal observations. His grief is not a flood but a vacuum. When he begins an improbable affair with Margaret, a woman eleven years his senior, Rooney writes his desire in stark, geometric terms: He likes the way she holds her cigarette. He likes the space between her front teeth. Where Peter’s narration is a fever dream, Ivan’s is a series of coordinates. This stylistic bifurcation is Rooney’s great technical achievement: she gives each brother a form that feels organically tied to his neurosis. The novel becomes a duet between chaos and order, the Romantic and the Classical, with grief as the common key signature. Rooney has always written desire as a form

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.