Anne Rice’s success was deserved, Stephen King’s deserved, Tom Clancey’s, whoever wrote the Fifty Shades, and so on. They worked for it, tapped into the reader’s psyche, and, like all good romance writers from Jane Austen to James Hilton, she delivered the goods.
And there is nothing wrong with being a romance writer, it pays the bill and allows you to do what you love best. But, let’s be under no illusion about it. She isn’t pushing the boundaries of fiction, the novel, or frankly anything else. She is serving up lifestyle dreams. (And does it with the most hackneyed method; the novelist as character.) She is certainly no Dorthy Parker or Flannery O’Conner, let alone a Mitford.
And Marxism at this point is just a talking point, a way to either differentiate yourself or even more sadly, to fit it, to push the right levers to get past the hall of editors. Of course, she is hawking candles in that most millennial of marketing ideas, the pop-up. As she is a pop-up, only to be replaced at the next literary faire.
Μαργαρίτα Τάντση
2 years ago
One more Marxist celebrity
At the same time she relishes the goods of capitalist societies, she despise and condemns them.
The well known schizophrenic Marxist attitude!
Utterly hopeless defense there. You could argue that a youtuber is not anybody’s employer but that’s about it.
Clive Mitchell
2 years ago
Who? Really if she walked down the street who would know or care? Ok I’m not the demographic and I gave up on current fiction years ago, but please I don’t care what some well off Marxist pseudo whines about;
“Oh whoa is me, I’ve got all this money and half a dozen Hackney millennials recognise me, how will my Marxist principles cope”.
Really, why is this article indulging this? For goodness sake even her bloody photo looks self pitying.
Last edited 2 years ago by Clive Mitchell
Jon Redman
2 years ago
When is Julie Burchill coming back?
Jon Redman
2 years ago
So why doesn’t Rooney follow the example of Thomas Pynchon and embrace the mystique of life as a literary recluse?
At a guess because anyone who identifies with a murderous ideology like Marxism is necessarily a vacuous, hypocritical poseur. No genuinely thoughtful person could ever profess to be a Marxist. You have to be a misanthropic hatemonger.
She’s Anders Breivik but with a laptop rather than a gun. As a writer she’s Andy McNab: read only by her own sex.
Why isn’t her chicklit sold by weight?
that’s her next book sorted then, a miserabilist, barren spinster shagging and being miserable about it.
Terry Needham
2 years ago
There seem to be a lot of self-proclaimed Marxists around these days. I wonder how many of them have read Marx. But then again, maybe one doesn’t need to.
On various political forums there are far too many fashionably left-wing posters who not only see Marx as a serious intellectual, but as THE incontestable trump card in debate. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had a poster quote Karl Marx in response to a comment, as though that immediately stopped the debate, as though Marx was infallible and his every utterance inarguable. I must admit to a rather puerile sense of humour so on receiving a comment like: “The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”(Karl Marx) I invariably respond with “…… …… …… …… ….. , ….. ….. ….. ….”(Harpo Marx)
“The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”(Karl Marx) well then Karl, how will communists be able to hang other communists when they’ve hung the last man who knew how to make rope?
…there are different kinds of Marxists you know. Some are so grouchy they wouldn’t want to be a part of a movement which would have them in the membership.
Jon Redman
2 years ago
I’ve not read any of her stuff, but based on this essay it does appear to meet my definition of chicklit, which is to say it is preoccupied with stuff no male author would even bother to mention and which, if removed, would mean there was no book left. The case is conclusively made if this stuff comes up within any random 2 or 3 pages.
George Eliot, Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters, Anaïs Nin and Pauline Réage are not, by this test, chicklit.
This tut manifestly is. In the sample 50 words extracted, half of them are about clothes and interiors. I’d wager that elsewhere, shoes and hair feature quite heavily. If any character drives a car, I’d further guess that the colour is mentioned, but nothing else (certainly, absolutely, definitely not the make. Or the engine. The handling around bends? Forgeddaboutit).
It’s not that women can’t write. They plainly can. It’s just that only women crank out chicklit, and only women read it.
It’s kind of odd, really. If a man wrote an empty female character vacuously preoccupied with clothes and interiors, he’d be vilified for his sexism. What chicklit readers apparently want is identical sexism but from other women. I’d wonder about what that means if I cared more.
Austen is definitely chick lit by that definition. Pride and Prejudice was man meets girl, girl hates man but there’s sexual tension, there’s another suitor who turns out to be a bad un (these last two are the problems to be overcome by the putative lovers – typical of rom cons), girl finds out man is good un and has a huge gaff, girl gets her (now) dream man.
Austen doesn’t really hide the fact that the house matters either.
Yebbut Austen is satirising all that. When Rooney can’t stop mentioning clothes, it’s because she thinks this is important, because she’s fundamentally trivial. Austen was laughing at it in the same spirit that American Psycho laughs at it: because they are serious people but their targets are not.
Terence Fitch
2 years ago
The novel was originally a genre for over sensitive women with time to wring their hands within the 18th century vogue for The Sentimental. The first ‘sensation’ was the risible Pamela ( satirised by Fielding in his parody ‘Shamela’). Today the novel, despite the pompous claims of the literary world and academia, has largely returned to its roots.
That’s a very shrewd point. I wouldn’t have agreed with you even 10 years ago, but seeing and glancing through the mountains of appallingly badly- written dross in Waterstones et al more recently, you’re spot on.
D Ward
2 years ago
Normal People was a pile of dross. No idea why this woman is so feted. Doubtless she disapproves of Brexit but still is happy to live in London.
Ah, but is she “literally a Marxist?” Apparently there are are enough of the pseudo variety around that Ash Sarkar felt the need to set herself apart.
Madeleine Jones
2 years ago
I’m the target audience for Sally Rooney: Mid-20s, Anglosphere, Female, University educated (Especially in the humanities) and self-conscious as heck. I don’t mind reading authors I disagree with (although I’d add calling yourself a Marxist is off-putting) but there’s something cynical about Sally Rooney. Hence why I can’t bring myself to purchase her books. She feels like she belongs in the glossy pages of The New Yorker, not next to Virginia Woolf. There’s no unique attitude, or anything conveyed in the Sally Rooney brand that I haven’t read elsewhere.
Of course, Unherd has never been shy from discussing current problems in Irish & British literature. This is why in the next few years, I’ll hopefully read some encouraging pieces about new talent in literature, especially fiction. Authors with genuine love for language and storytelling, while having something meaty to say. Hopefully from those with different politics than ‘Marxist.’
Dustshoe Richinrut
2 years ago
“A pop-up shop in Shoreditch” sounds like the makings of an interesting novel. Or song. Or poem.
There was once a London lady called Trish
Who kept a pop-up shop in Shoreditch
When Pop-Eye would call by
He’d let out a long sigh
At the sight of all the nautical kitsch
In Shoreditch a pop-up once popped.
Though Its content could easily be topped.
Nearby places had books
More deserving of looks
Out of Shoreditch I was happy to opt.
There once was a Literary- Marxist, Who developed a political twist, At the height of her Zoom, She fell off of her broom, And found herself deep in Shoreditch…
Graham Stull
2 years ago
Just a quick comment to praise the writer of this book review.
Because it’s a very good book review.
Agreed. I’m not usually a fan of Sarah Ditum’s work here on Unherd but this is an excellent book review, imo.
T Doyle
2 years ago
Rooney strikes me as typical of the self loathing and loathsome generation of women who have much more than their predecessors but lack the nuances and life experiences. A writer writing a book about writers is so dull. She’s a Marxist because she’s thick. Is she related to Wayne Rooney? He’s more interesting. Innit.
Drahcir Nevarc
2 years ago
Sally Rooney is a Marxist. Ergo, she’s a fascist.
Kathryn Dwyer
2 years ago
Thank you Sarah Ditum for this great review. I might just read the earlier works, as your extract illustrating Ms Rooney’s capacity for distillation of a socio-economic moment was indeed impressive, something the undeniably amusing comments posted below seem to have overlooked.
In the belief your comment is serious…No, i dont think those amusing comments missed a thing. Honestly, i am not being frivolous,but in Wales we would just say Rooney probably didnt have enough cwtches when she was growing up ( or now) …
Phil Simmons
2 years ago
Very charitable of Sarah D to cite George Eliot in her exposition of Sally R’s style, but I can’t help wondering what Dr Leavis would have made of this…
Gayle Rosenthal
2 years ago
Thanks for the review. I’ve been curious about her because she made such a fuss about selling her books in Israel and not translating them into Hebrew outside the strictures of the BDS movement. Now I am spared the waste of time that would be involved. Her titles are winsome and her writing, judging from the few excerpts, is solipsistic. Anyone creative writing class can teach you to write an observant and sentimental paragraph about buttons and lampshades. Apparently there is no depth to her.
If there is ANY depth, it is to unintentionally portray the emptiness of millennial lives which are products of the fake feminist movement. I’d like to see Mary Harrington opine about her characters.
As for her anti-semitism, well that goes right along with her Marxism. Being Irish, she may have been steeped in anti-semitism since birth, or it is a new and rebellious hate which she took on to prove her Marxist chops. She should read Alain Finkielkraut, The Imaginary Jew, if she has not done so. She might find some identity of her own to value besides being a faceless and soulless Marxist. Then she might find that Beautiful World she is looking for.
She might also want to read up on some history of Israel and the Arab colonization of the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia. Being Irish, she should understand the real meaning of colonialism for it is NOT Israel.
Anne Rice’s success was deserved, Stephen King’s deserved, Tom Clancey’s, whoever wrote the Fifty Shades, and so on. They worked for it, tapped into the reader’s psyche, and, like all good romance writers from Jane Austen to James Hilton, she delivered the goods.
And there is nothing wrong with being a romance writer, it pays the bill and allows you to do what you love best. But, let’s be under no illusion about it. She isn’t pushing the boundaries of fiction, the novel, or frankly anything else. She is serving up lifestyle dreams. (And does it with the most hackneyed method; the novelist as character.) She is certainly no Dorthy Parker or Flannery O’Conner, let alone a Mitford.
And Marxism at this point is just a talking point, a way to either differentiate yourself or even more sadly, to fit it, to push the right levers to get past the hall of editors. Of course, she is hawking candles in that most millennial of marketing ideas, the pop-up. As she is a pop-up, only to be replaced at the next literary faire.
One more Marxist celebrity
At the same time she relishes the goods of capitalist societies, she despise and condemns them.
The well known schizophrenic Marxist attitude!
this article from Guardianland helpfully clarifies the Marxist millionaire dilemma : see It’s not actually a dilemma at all, only capitalist millionaires are evil. Now stop oppressing your Marxist millionaire betters you bigoted peasant.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/24/can-a-socialist-live-in-a-two-million-dollar-mansion
Utterly hopeless defense there. You could argue that a youtuber is not anybody’s employer but that’s about it.
Who? Really if she walked down the street who would know or care? Ok I’m not the demographic and I gave up on current fiction years ago, but please I don’t care what some well off Marxist pseudo whines about;
“Oh whoa is me, I’ve got all this money and half a dozen Hackney millennials recognise me, how will my Marxist principles cope”.
Really, why is this article indulging this? For goodness sake even her bloody photo looks self pitying.
When is Julie Burchill coming back?
At a guess because anyone who identifies with a murderous ideology like Marxism is necessarily a vacuous, hypocritical poseur. No genuinely thoughtful person could ever profess to be a Marxist. You have to be a misanthropic hatemonger.
She’s Anders Breivik but with a laptop rather than a gun. As a writer she’s Andy McNab: read only by her own sex.
Why isn’t her chicklit sold by weight?
God, what a dreary and adolescent existence.
Well yes, she’e going on thirty I gather. That doesn’t leave much time for growing up before decrepitude strikes.
that’s her next book sorted then, a miserabilist, barren spinster shagging and being miserable about it.
There seem to be a lot of self-proclaimed Marxists around these days. I wonder how many of them have read Marx. But then again, maybe one doesn’t need to.
On various political forums there are far too many fashionably left-wing posters who not only see Marx as a serious intellectual, but as THE incontestable trump card in debate.
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had a poster quote Karl Marx in response to a comment, as though that immediately stopped the debate, as though Marx was infallible and his every utterance inarguable.
I must admit to a rather puerile sense of humour so on receiving a comment like:
“The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.” (Karl Marx)
I invariably respond with
“…… …… …… …… ….. , ….. ….. ….. ….” (Harpo Marx)
“The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.” (Karl Marx)
well then Karl, how will communists be able to hang other communists when they’ve hung the last man who knew how to make rope?
Well that’s not Marx, and you could say that instead.
Point well made
It’s back to Wolfie Smith. Power to the people!
…there are different kinds of Marxists you know. Some are so grouchy they wouldn’t want to be a part of a movement which would have them in the membership.
I’ve not read any of her stuff, but based on this essay it does appear to meet my definition of chicklit, which is to say it is preoccupied with stuff no male author would even bother to mention and which, if removed, would mean there was no book left. The case is conclusively made if this stuff comes up within any random 2 or 3 pages.
George Eliot, Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters, Anaïs Nin and Pauline Réage are not, by this test, chicklit.
This tut manifestly is. In the sample 50 words extracted, half of them are about clothes and interiors. I’d wager that elsewhere, shoes and hair feature quite heavily. If any character drives a car, I’d further guess that the colour is mentioned, but nothing else (certainly, absolutely, definitely not the make. Or the engine. The handling around bends? Forgeddaboutit).
It’s not that women can’t write. They plainly can. It’s just that only women crank out chicklit, and only women read it.
It’s kind of odd, really. If a man wrote an empty female character vacuously preoccupied with clothes and interiors, he’d be vilified for his sexism. What chicklit readers apparently want is identical sexism but from other women. I’d wonder about what that means if I cared more.
Austen is definitely chick lit by that definition. Pride and Prejudice was man meets girl, girl hates man but there’s sexual tension, there’s another suitor who turns out to be a bad un (these last two are the problems to be overcome by the putative lovers – typical of rom cons), girl finds out man is good un and has a huge gaff, girl gets her (now) dream man.
Austen doesn’t really hide the fact that the house matters either.
Yebbut Austen is satirising all that. When Rooney can’t stop mentioning clothes, it’s because she thinks this is important, because she’s fundamentally trivial. Austen was laughing at it in the same spirit that American Psycho laughs at it: because they are serious people but their targets are not.
The novel was originally a genre for over sensitive women with time to wring their hands within the 18th century vogue for The Sentimental. The first ‘sensation’ was the risible Pamela ( satirised by Fielding in his parody ‘Shamela’). Today the novel, despite the pompous claims of the literary world and academia, has largely returned to its roots.
That’s a very shrewd point. I wouldn’t have agreed with you even 10 years ago, but seeing and glancing through the mountains of appallingly badly- written dross in Waterstones et al more recently, you’re spot on.
Normal People was a pile of dross. No idea why this woman is so feted. Doubtless she disapproves of Brexit but still is happy to live in London.
Hypocrite? Moi?
The TV series was ok. Never bothered with the book.
Woke, Remoan, uni-educated, female, 30something, weekend ft fodder. What more is there to dislike.
As a matter of interest, how is her being a ‘Marxist’ reflected in her every day life?
Ah, but is she “literally a Marxist?” Apparently there are are enough of the pseudo variety around that Ash Sarkar felt the need to set herself apart.
I’m the target audience for Sally Rooney: Mid-20s, Anglosphere, Female, University educated (Especially in the humanities) and self-conscious as heck. I don’t mind reading authors I disagree with (although I’d add calling yourself a Marxist is off-putting) but there’s something cynical about Sally Rooney. Hence why I can’t bring myself to purchase her books. She feels like she belongs in the glossy pages of The New Yorker, not next to Virginia Woolf. There’s no unique attitude, or anything conveyed in the Sally Rooney brand that I haven’t read elsewhere.
Of course, Unherd has never been shy from discussing current problems in Irish & British literature. This is why in the next few years, I’ll hopefully read some encouraging pieces about new talent in literature, especially fiction. Authors with genuine love for language and storytelling, while having something meaty to say. Hopefully from those with different politics than ‘Marxist.’
“A pop-up shop in Shoreditch” sounds like the makings of an interesting novel. Or song. Or poem.
Indeed! I spy a limerick.
There was once a London lady called Trish
Who kept a pop-up shop in Shoreditch
When Pop-Eye would call by
He’d let out a long sigh
At the sight of all the nautical kitsch
In Shoreditch a pop-up once popped.
Though Its content could easily be topped.
Nearby places had books
More deserving of looks
Out of Shoreditch I was happy to opt.
There once was a Literary- Marxist,
Who developed a political twist,
At the height of her Zoom,
She fell off of her broom,
And found herself deep in Shoreditch…
Just a quick comment to praise the writer of this book review.
Because it’s a very good book review.
ie, it’s the review that’s good, not the book
Agreed. I’m not usually a fan of Sarah Ditum’s work here on Unherd but this is an excellent book review, imo.
Rooney strikes me as typical of the self loathing and loathsome generation of women who have much more than their predecessors but lack the nuances and life experiences. A writer writing a book about writers is so dull. She’s a Marxist because she’s thick. Is she related to Wayne Rooney? He’s more interesting. Innit.
Sally Rooney is a Marxist. Ergo, she’s a fascist.
Thank you Sarah Ditum for this great review. I might just read the earlier works, as your extract illustrating Ms Rooney’s capacity for distillation of a socio-economic moment was indeed impressive, something the undeniably amusing comments posted below seem to have overlooked.
In the belief your comment is serious…No, i don
t think those amusing comments missed a thing. Honestly, i am not being frivolous,but in Wales we would just say Rooney probably didn
t have enough cwtches when she was growing up ( or now) …Very charitable of Sarah D to cite George Eliot in her exposition of Sally R’s style, but I can’t help wondering what Dr Leavis would have made of this…
Thanks for the review. I’ve been curious about her because she made such a fuss about selling her books in Israel and not translating them into Hebrew outside the strictures of the BDS movement. Now I am spared the waste of time that would be involved. Her titles are winsome and her writing, judging from the few excerpts, is solipsistic. Anyone creative writing class can teach you to write an observant and sentimental paragraph about buttons and lampshades. Apparently there is no depth to her.
If there is ANY depth, it is to unintentionally portray the emptiness of millennial lives which are products of the fake feminist movement. I’d like to see Mary Harrington opine about her characters.
As for her anti-semitism, well that goes right along with her Marxism. Being Irish, she may have been steeped in anti-semitism since birth, or it is a new and rebellious hate which she took on to prove her Marxist chops. She should read Alain Finkielkraut, The Imaginary Jew, if she has not done so. She might find some identity of her own to value besides being a faceless and soulless Marxist. Then she might find that Beautiful World she is looking for.
She might also want to read up on some history of Israel and the Arab colonization of the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia. Being Irish, she should understand the real meaning of colonialism for it is NOT Israel.