Normal People shows a terrible relationship - and is painfully traditional

[stumbledin]

"And they say porn is damaging our young minds"

Woman writing in the Independent thinks lockdown has addled people's brains!

" ... On the pro side, Connell is very clever, he cares – about finding himself. He reads books. He asks for Marianne’s consent when they have sex.

The cons: he’s a mummy’s boy. (That can spell trouble.) Connell starts having sex with Marianne and asks her to keep it a secret. He doesn’t stick up for her when his friend calls her a “flat-chested b**ch”. He sleeps with another girl, Rachel, but doesn’t appear to have much respect for her and tells her to F off at the disco. He’s so emotionally distant that the most expression we ever get from him is via his orgasm face.

Their relationship is also painfully traditional. He plays sport, while Marianne dances seductively at the disco as he watches. He rescues her (physically) when Marianne’s brother gets violent, while Marianne rescues Connell (emotionally) when his friend from home dies. Marianne makes the food, washes the dishes and plays hostess at her Italian villa, and she forgives him readily for being kept a dirty secret.

I’m almost surprised that after the #MeToo movement there hasn’t been more conversation about not only the toxicity of their relationship but the unfair power dynamic between them. ... "

www.independent.co.uk/voices/normal-people-marianne-connell-relationship-paul-mescal-rooney-a9551506.html

I thought OP was quoting from an article?

I agree with Dido upthread.

Apologies if it wasn't the OP, whoever decided to use the phrase mummy's boy be it the OP or the article author my point reminds the same.

I don't understand the criticism about it being "painfully traditional".

Most young people going to university are going to be involved in opposite sex relationships. Writers fall into 2 categories- those who only write about what they know and don't step outside their own experiences e.g Austen, Waugh, Hemingway and those for whom every book is different- e.g David Mitchell or Zazuo Ishiguro. Sally Rooney, so far has been in the former category - and that is fine. If one doesn't like her world, don't go there.

It's fair enough to dislike Austen, Hemingway and Waugh because one isn't interested in their narrow worlds. It's not fair however to criticise them for not writing about a different subject matter. Nor is it fair to criticise Sally Rooney for writing about heterosexual relationships.

I wish more Irish mothers were like Lorraine.

Kazuo Ishiguro obviously

Yes I was quoting an article. I did nearly edit out the "mummy's boy" section as I felt it detracted from what I took to be Rachael Revesz's main point: "What I am questioning is the type of relationship and/or partner that so many of us seem to be hankering for."

Have been surprised by how strongly some here reacted against her comments!

I took it more that we the viewers are some passively accepting that life hasn't moved on at all. And that with or without the actually sex the relationship is stereotypical in terms of what boys/men can get away with and what is expected of girls/women.

Although as we know from reports of gross sexual behaviour and actual violence in universities many young men are not better educated about women and may even because of social media / porn even less inclined to treat woman as equal.

She is suggesting being in lockdown had somehow made us less critical, or more ready to go along with a traditional narrative.

I had wondered if the book was published some time ago ie reflecting a not very aware period of time, but see it was published in 2018. For those who have read the book was it set in present time or was it about say the 80s or 90s?

OnceUponACat - yes! State of Happiness was brilliant although the young women weren't exactly in an empowered position - to begin with and managed to escape from the traps / traditions.

contactusdeletus - thought your in depth description of the impact of a "mummy's boy" on sisters really insightful. I had an elder brother like that. My mother just couldn't seem to help herself. I think parents do have to be aware of how unintentional preferences can impact on other sibblings. Its like the term Daddy's Girl which can imply a whole range of things. But it can also imply a young girl being horribly objectivesed and trivialised by an older man.

My apologies for conflating you with the article's author op. I believe it was written and/or based in around late 2000s? (I haven't read the book though but sure I read that somewhere).

It was written in 2018 and set in 2008. I didn't particularly like it as Marianne and Connell were deeply uninteresting.

I think some criticism of this book are based on the critic not liking it, but not having a clear idea why. So they come up with things like it's doesn't take on what we've learned from metoo, or the people are traditional.

Most good literature is not good because it springs out of some ideological attachment to the latest social justice trend, or because it shows people living non-traditional lives, or is critical of people living non-traditional lives.

Good literature is good because it says something true in a compelling way, makes us think about it in a new way or see it more clearly than we did before. A lot of the time it isn't saying anything really new, and the people in the story, like most people in life, are pretty traditional.

A lot of stories like this, when they don't quite hit the mark, it's because something rings false about the people or setting, or it seems contrived. But that doesn't seem specific enough for a reviewer.

But then I've never understood the desire for novels or films or television to show a world in accordance with a particular ideological or political viewpoint.

The thing I still don't understand was what went down in Mariannes childhood. I'm not particularly convinced by it. It's not clear enough on the book or show.

I don't think it's the end for them either. I think they are the sort of people that would forever come in and out of each others lives. I'd hate to be the one that got on the way. They have power over each other and they know it.

Marianne's liking for rough sex, for being beaten, would definitely not be "solved" yet just because Connell refused to comply. There's some deep self-hatred there that goes beyond normal relationship problems.

I didn't get the the impression that Marianne liked rough sex, just that the feelings it brought up were familiar to her plus she had no self worth. The feeling of abuse was normal for her. Seeing her father abuse her mother. And her brother abusing her. The sex that wasn't with Connell didn't make her feel anything. Rough sex and domination made her feel something.

However we frame it, as "liking it" or "feeling something" through it: it's disturbing in that it shows there is a deep seated sense of worthlessness there that was not sufficiently addressed in the film. I don't know if it was resolved in the book, but it needs to be if either is to be truly satisfying. As it is, it's left in mid-air.

it's disturbing in that it shows there is a deep seated sense of worthlessness there that was not sufficiently addressed in the film.

Isn't it purposefully not addressed because Connell doesn't really ever access that part of Marianne? They were already at college before he was even aware of her brother's treatment of her. Lorraine knew, and at one point in the very beginning told Connell that Marianne was vulnerable, but that didn't land because Connell was so lost in his own head about what people think.

IMO there are many people going through life with a deep seated sense of worthlessness, and it doesn't always get addressed...it just is.

Marianne's liking for rough sex, for being beaten, would definitely not be "solved" yet just because Connell refused to comply.

Maybe not solved as such, but when Connell stood up to her brother, and then spoke to her about it in the car, there was a hint at a kind of shift. She never went back to that house. And later her mother walked straight past her. Something changed that night in Connell taking her away from that situation.

Yeah, I never got why it needed some dude to tell her bully brother to f$%££ck off? Didn't seem to take much telling. Guess there would have been no story if she'd figured that one out for herself...

IMO there are many people going through life with a deep seated sense of worthlessness, and it doesn't always get addressed...it just is.

Yes, most of us do, in fact, especially women. I had it, and I was able to solve it myself, without the help of a man. Many people in real life don't get it resolved.
But this is fiction. In fiction, the reader/moviegoer wants internal problems to be resolved. That's the whole point. That's what the writer/screenwriter should be able to show through the story and characters.

To me, it all kind of just fizzled out, with us, I suppose, assuming that she's now healed. I found the last episodes (I haven't read the book, as I said) rather underwhelming. There is subtext, and there is vacuum. I felt vacuum -- but maybe I just didn't get it.

Well looks like we were all wrong. According to this article in the Morning Star the author Sally Rooney has a Marxist perspective on relationships!

morningstaronline.co.uk/article/c/nuanced-normal

I hated that she wanted abusive sex. It’s such a bloody cliche. Abused women, seeks out more abuse. Ugh.

Well acted but ultimately I didn’t care. Would have loved it in my 20s. Too Old to be watching teenagers shagging now tbh!

@Ellabella222 I'm glad it's not just me, I find it really uncomfortable watching anything with teenagers having sex, it creeps me out how much it's shown on mainstream tv shows. I fast forwarded the NP sex scenes.