I agree with this statement because oftentimes I will notice these stereotypes enforced upon female characters that aren't even empowering when I feel like sometimes they have that intention. After seeing these stereotypes, it just brings to my attention how hard it really is to a woman in this society. From this quote it says, "these characters hint at the confusing and excruciating experience of being a woman in a society that in equal parts fetishes you and hates you." The stereotypes of "badass" and "girl boss" just stem from women trying to assert themselves in a world that is dominated by men. I think at times Marianne is embodying these different roles but then at other times, Rooney writes her as this "outcast" and "loner," who is waiting for Connell to fully accept her. I think in general, Marianne's character could have a little bit more depth, but overall, she does take on these roles of "badass" and "outcast" at the same time.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I've stated this before, but I feel that the way Sally Rooney writes this novel in such a way that depicts normalcy, is exactly why it's such a great novel. It's relatable and can make the reader feel included and devoted to these characters. I think that this novel gets kind of a bad reputation by some people, like Will Self, because it doesn't have an overly exciting plot. Readers can find things in common with the the characters, especially through their hardships like heart breaks, depression, and abuse. I feel that it's precisely these relatable characters and storyline that make it so enjoyable to read.

I think this is an interesting comment because I feel that both Marianne and Connell sabotage their own happiness in a way. I don't think Connell is this inherently "good guy" who has just been pining away for Marianne the whole book, and I also feel that Marianne isn’t just this sad girl who has been waiting for Connell to sweep her off her feet. Both characters have good things and bad things about their personalities that occasionally hinder their ability to be fully committed to one another. I mentioned in my last comment that both Marianne and Connell make it known that they love each other but can't seem to really pull together. I think the tendencies they both have to sabotage their happiness and the lack of good communication is what keeps them from becoming a full-fledged couple throughout the whole book.

I think that Marianne and Connell's relationship is challenging enough for the reader to follow and poses its own obstacles. I think the constant back-and-forth between the characters and the tension between them is almost a challenge for the reader because the reader already has an outcome in their mind about what they want to happen between Marianne and Connell. I also feel that the heavy topics in the novel like mental health and abuse is not a comfortable territory for Sally Rooney to cover in this book. How raw and real these scenarios are is exactly what makes these scenarios both uncomfortable and challenging for the reader.

I agree with this statement and have even wondered it myself while reading the novel. What is it that keeps Marianne and Connell from truly becoming a couple? Is it the miscommunication between them? This question mainly pertains to the time they spend at Trinity College, where both characters are clearly infatuated with one another, but can't seem to fully commit. On page 154 of the novel, Connell talks about how he has a new girlfriend named Helen. Marianne is so shocked by this news that she feels physically ill. Rooney writes that "[s]he feels a sharp pain in her chest and her hand flies to her throat" in reference to Marianne hearing this news from Connell (Rooney 156). Marianne wanted to ask Connell to stay with her in her apartment for the summer but since he acquired a new girlfriend, that no longer was an option. I feel like it's this kind of miscommunication that has kept these characters from being fully committed to one another in the early to middle stages of the novel.

This comment confuses me. The author of this article has explained that they feel Normal People is a novel that is "bland," with "archetypal" characters that are not compelling. I feel that if the author of this article finds Normal People to be bland, then either "baffling" is not the word they should use here or they are not accurately telling us how they feel about the novel. Baffling to me means that you are taken aback by the content in the novel or it's difficult to follow exactly what's going on. To me, Marianne and Connell's relationship is baffling in a way that it keeps me on the edge of my seat. I really never know what is going to come out of a conversation between these characters. It seems that the author of this article would agree with the statement that Marianne’s and Connell’s relationship is puzzling, which is why I'm a little confused at the use of the word “baffling” in this context.

I think Rooney writes her characters in this way because the novel is supposed to tell the story of "normal people." In other words, I feel like Rooney is trying to make her characters ordinary, everyday people. I don't feel that this novel would be as comforting to read if the plot and characters followed this intense journey filled with action-packed scenes. To me, this novel tells the story of young love that blossomed into so much more as time went on. I think it's precisely the simplicity and normalcy that you feel while reading this book that makes it so enjoyable.

I LOVE this statement. Particularly because these conversations have been so prevalent in modern media. This whole essay covers white privilege and what it means for white people in the working world and this sentence really just brings the whole essay to a satisfying end.

I really really like this paragraph. I personally enjoy reading and learning about current world issues and other cultures. When people branch out and read things outside their comfort zone, there is so much room for growth. Like mentioned earlier in this essay, "It’s not entirely surprising that white critics gravitate toward writers in whom they see themselves, and who write about topics and lead the kinds of lives they are familiar with," by attempting to engage with material you aren't familiar with, you are actively fighting the status quo and stereotypes that surround different types of media. There are always more sides to a story, learning from those other perspectives doesn't just benefit you. Issues surrounding race are present in all areas of life like climate change and economic injustice, if you aren't educating yourself about those issues, then you could be a part of the problem.

This is a trend seen a lot in media nowadays. Often people of color are seen as outsiders and this can translate into any kind of work that they do. I mentioned previously in one of my comments that people of color and their work are a lot of times seen as outside the "mainstream" of things. Even though in the last few years society has made a lot of progress, we still have a long way to go before we can normalize pieces of work from people of color. There are many people of color that are born in the United States, so it's time to stop viewing their work as exotic and to simply just normalize their work. Even though this essay highlights the issue of race withing literature, these issues expand to every area of life like in the workplace, at school, or even in places of business.

I think this is an interesting way to put this. Personally, I feel from the books I've read in this class, There There, 10:04, and Normal People, that none of them include characters that are prosaic or boring. If a writer is going to write a book, I feel that they will ensure that the characters they are writing about have notable things in their lives that are worth writing about. If the characters were truly boring, no one would bother reading these books. All of the novels I mentioned have won awards or been honored in some kind of way. In my opinion, this wouldn't be true if the books included boring characters. Sometimes, it's precisely the sense of normalcy that you get from the characters in autofiction books that makes it so enticing to read.

I kind of disagree with this statement. I feel like the author and the public has control over what is said about a novel. Even though critics and publishing houses have the ability to influence a novel's reputation, ultimately, it's up to the public to determine how they feel about the book. So when the author of this essay says writers have "virtually no power" over the classification of their novels, I feel like they are the ones who pick and choose what kind classification their novel should fall under.

I really like this entire paragraph but more particularly the last line where it says "they are regarded as books by and about people outside the mainstream of life." I feel that people of color are often seen as 'outsiders' and 'minorities,' when people of color in reality make up such a large percentage of people. I think as time has evolved, we as a society have gotten better about acknowledging experiences other than the white experience, but as the other states in this quote, books and media written by people of color are still considered to be not mainstream media.

I really like this differentiation between what autofiction is versus autobiographical fiction. What may see like a small difference actually makes a difference in the way it is assessed by critics, as stated by the author. Other than the reasons stated, I'm curious about what these kinds of differentiations mean for authors when they are decided what to write. I feel that it might be kind of difficult in your head to imagine if this idea you are having is "new" or "traditional."

To me, when I see these trends in the media, I always feel that it's a form of whitewashing. The author will usually state their intention with their novel in terms of classification. An examples is that this author wrote this novel under the influence of autofiction and considers it to be a piece of autofiction. Another example is There There by Tommy Orange who writes this novel under the genre of political fiction that is heavily influenced by Native American culture. When someone is reviewing a piece of work, it's important that they pay attention to the author's intentions and influences.

This is interesting considering I have done a couple discussion posts about this concept in some of my classes. The main question being- what classifies a novel as a specific kind of generational fiction? For example, what is it that truly makes something a millennial piece of fiction? These ideas are interesting and as this quote states, these definitions are not unanimous and differ from person to person.