Women in Love (Modern Library 100 Best Novels)

Women In Love is one of the most beautifully written books I have ever read. The author's mastery of the English language is evident on every page.
Women in Love is also one of the most pointless books I have ever read. Sure, there are some very interesting conversations along the way -- but (and a big BUT) everything else smacks of being false and contrived.
Considering its girth, there is very little action in this novel. When there is action it repeatedly springs out of left field. All the action and most of the conversation in this novel suffers from a fundamental disconnection with reality.
Beyond all the other problems of this novel is its flawed premise. Lawrence seems to be saying that the only way modern man can ever escape the world he lives in is to be so passionate as to overcome it. In this, Lawrence seems to be the opposite of a Buddhist. That notwithstanding, Lawrence's theory also fails. How can being passionate overcome a world system based on the passions of men? Just as Buddhist withdrawl from the world of passion can never fix the problems of that world, Lawrence's call for unguided passion would only add fuel to the fire of a broken and fallen world.
In essence, Women In Love is beautifully written, inherently flawed, and marred by the surrealistic motion of the plot. I cannot in good conscience recommend a book this large, which when finished amounts to a bad daydream.

First off, I LOVED the Rainbow, the prequel to this book. I was very excited to get into this book and see how the characters developed further. In the beginning I felt the same interest as I did with the Rainbow, but as many others have stated, somewhere in the middle the reading got a litte tedious. Birkin was such a preachy kind of character, constantly spouting off stuff without ever convincingly proving he believed it himself! Luckily, Ursula seemed to tone that down in him. I did have a point where I debated finishing the book but I figured I had already committed to seeing how things worked out with everyone. Man, what a payoff at the end! BIG twist ending!!! Maybe that was Lawrence's way of rewarding his readers for allowing him his theological or philosophical rants and loving him anyway. He threw in the big exciting finish. Well, I say if you like Lawrence and you liked the Rainbow, this one might feel like a little more work but give it a chance and you're sure to get a satisfying conclusion to these characters.

His writing style has a subtle melancholy that draws the reader in. You can feel the despair, the helplessness, the almost contempt for emotions - or perhaps it's an acceptance that is beginning to manifest itself.

I'm not sure but in this book (just like the previous 2 books I've read of his) Lawrence manages to render me a try enough that I want to slap some sense into a few characters

Women in Love, as the title would suppose, should be about women in love. Herein lies the complexity of Lawrence: the novel is about men in love, who only through there female counterparts, are able to foster the emotional disposition necessary for what they really strive for, namely, each other.
Meet Birkin, a morose and exasperated cynic, who is tired of Aristocratic English life and wants something more, deeper, spiritual. However, this `spirituality' he is so fond of is not that of religion, but of `sensuality', which in this particular novel is the code-word for `sexuality'. His rather heated and ambivalent relationship with Gerald, his strong, virile, and confident friend, borders on homo-erotic. (In one memorable scene, the two men get naked and `wrestle' eachother.)
However, Birkin and Gerald are technically straight, and acquire amorous relationships with Ursula and Gundrun, respectively. The women are independent minded artists, who despite their strong personalities, wrestle with the idea of marriage, and the subordination that goes along with it. This implicates a broader theme of the book: Being trapped- whether it be by gender roles, love, desire, one's country, social economic standing, etc. All four characters suffer the peril of their own stagnation, trying to transgress any boundary they can, which in this book, between their bodies.
The novel was infamously banned by England upon publication, and was only printed for subscribing Americans. Some of the most vivid parts of the book are the sex scenes, which are not necessarily `graphic', but highly suggestive, using words like, `erect, explode, release, etc.'
Lawrence is remembered as a troubled man (he had an Oedipal relationship with his mom, some suggest). His characters are gritty, obtuse, even crass. Yet he writes about nature with the compassion and earnestness of Thoreau and Woodsworth. Lawrence is not a philosopher of the cerebral, but of the visceral- be it human bodies or nature. For Lawrence, union between all things is only possible where the irrational counters the rational. This novel investigates such polarities.

D.H. Lawrence's "Women in Love" features various philosophical ideas, each thinly disguised as a character. They are: the sisters Ursula and Gudrun Brangwen (rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it?), collier's son Gerald Crich, and idealist Rupert Birkin. Eventually Gerald pairs off with Gudrun and Ursula with Birkin. Gudrun and Gerald have a rather violent relationship, in which each partner is always struggling for power. Ursula and Birkin strive to relate on a "higher plane", on some vague cosmic level.
Unlike some readers here, I was not particularly bored by the characters' theoretical discussions on love. More annoying were the exhaustingly detailed descriptions of their actions (to use the word broadly) and thoughts. For long stretches of time nothing much happens and no one speaks.
Presumably the reader is meant to identify most with Birkin, who is very close to Lawrence himself. But if the reader is anything like me, he will instead identify with the minor character of a young girl who drowns in a lake. The reader, too, is drowning, but in a sea of philosophy rather than water. One looks frantically about for a plot to cling to.
Then why does this book deserve any stars at all, much less three? Well, some parts are beautifully written. And there are a number of underdeveloped but quite intriguing ideas: such as the way Gerald's belief in ruthless, triumphant industrialization permeates his romantic life as well. The possibility of love (even erotic love) between men who also love women is explored from time to time, to much interest, then sadly dropped.
In a few places the plot moves along nicely, and sometimes it is quite involving. I don't know if these moments make the entire book worth reading, however.
I should say, to be fair, that "Women in Love" is a sequel/companion to Lawrence's "The Rainbow," which I haven't read. But I doubt that it would have made much difference.

Delving with modern topics of social injustice against the interplay of 20-somethings who woo and are wooed, this novel opens the eyes of the 21st century reader as it must have in its original time.

Two sisters, Ursula and Gudrun Brangwen, are courted by BFF Rupert Birken and Gerald Crich. Birken is the speaker and writer of social injustice calling the people among him the canaille - present company, of course, excluded. Birken and Ursula are teachers who fall into the common love of the people of that time; while Crich and Gudrun have a very uncommon love - including a premarital affair, and some rough sex.

Many think that Birken is autobiographical image of the author while Ursula is his wife, Frieda. Whether true or not, Lawrence uses Birken to address topics as he would have wanted in editorial comment. Some examples: "After all, when one was fulfilled, one was happiest in falling into death, as a bitter fruit plunges in its ripeness downwards. Death is a great consummation, a consummating experience." ". . . in his accompanying readings, he had come to the conclusion that the essential secret if life was harmony. He did not define to himself at all clearly what harmony was. The word pleased him . . . [and] he proceeded to put his philosophy into practice by forcing order into the established world, translating the mystic word harmony into the practical word organization." "He knew that his spirituality was concomitant of a process of depravity, a sort of pleasure in self-destruction. The really was a certain stimulant in self-destruction, for him - he knew it, and had done it."

The above passages show a repetitive use of certain words within the same paragraph. This sighnature to Lawrence's writing may have discouraged by today's publishers, and would more likely be a cause of editing in the swift delete, cut and paste world of computers. But, that style of the old handwritten novel is likea nything else of any generation -- a great symbol of the different people and their concepts at a different time.

And, like the last quotation hint: things do get destructive - but only at the end of the novel. Before that, the love between the parties - although outdated by today's concept - opens and evolves like the beautiful flora surrounding the young people. But, like any flower, the love of one sister, one woman in love, also dies. And, that sister is no longer in love, and the ending title could be said to become Woman in Love.

Oddly, this book deals more about men in love. And, that undertow in this novel is the precious instrument which Lawrence attempts to convey without being too radical and too outspoken in a world which honored and allowed censorship for scandalous literature - which included this novel for the heterosexual encounters which are anything but descriptive. In the end, he hammers the concept home - almost painfully so - but prior to that moment a few other scenes hinted of men's mutual love, but never as confirmed as done in the end.

This is, like `The Rainbow' and `Sons and Lovers', a masterpiece.

It was originally intended to be all one story with `The Rainbow', but by the time Lawrence got to writing `Women in Love' his powers and confidence as an artist had grown. The Ursula character was to have carried the Laurentian message forward into the second story with extra force, because we would have a full understanding of the development of her mind to the point where she meets Birkin. However we find in `Women in Love' that the voice of Lawrence is with Birkin and Ursula is a slightly diminished character, who often finds herself challenging him.

The result of this is to mean you can read to the two novels separately and be satisfied with both as single pieces of great fiction.

Reading, studying and then having the joy of sharing the work of Lawrence with young people, when I taught him at `A' Level has been one of the high points of my life.

In my own novel `A Song for Jo' Lawrence has an influence on the intellectual and emotional development of the two main characters, Jo and Chris, who are college students studying English. Other great literature from Keats, Emily Bronte and Shakespeare (and more) is worked into the narrative. It is a love story with a difference!

People of all ages and sex have enjoyed it.

It's available on the store - please follow the link.

A SONG FOR JO

Facts: Women in Love is a story about Ursual and Gudrun Brangwen. The history of the Brangwen family may be referenced by reading "The Rainbow" as a foundational text. Likewise, "Sons and Lovers" as a foundational text will explain the life of a coal mining family. Ursula has a love relationship with Rupert Birkin, a school administrator. They eventually marry. But in this relationship, Birkin wants more than love can offer - "something other" including a love for a man. Gudrun has a relationship with Gerald Crich, a wealthy and good looking man. Although, they have an affair, the relationship fails because it was based upon pity. Gudrun was not ready for a life as a wife and mother to a coal mining family even if he was the manager. Gudrun remains unloved and single with her future course in question.
Issue: Is "love" immutable, absolute, and eternal? NO
Held: In Chapter 13, there was a contest between a male and female mino cats. The female was wild, but submitted to the dominance of the male cat. This metaphor for male and female relationships was lacking. Both Ursula and Gudrun were the stronger in both relationships. Birkin was a flawed idealist. Gerald was looking for a mother. One can be happy that Ursula has managed to love a man, and we can only hope that perhaps she will explore her further potentiality as a mother perhaps. Gudrun has moved on with the minimal knowledge of what not to look for in a relationship with a man. She is a strong character which I prefer to assume will do very nicely in the future in love and all things.

Deservedly a classic novel for its representation of early 20th century challenges to "Victorian" sexual morality and to the manic and dehumanizing qualities of early 20th century industrialism. The story presents the development of love relationships between two sisters and their lovers, Gerald the industrialist and Rupert, a school inspector and stand-in for Lawrence himself. Be prepared, though, for some longish accounts of the feelings of these major characters. The treatment of physical love is frank but not as graphic as in the Ken Russell movie version. Lawrence's aim seems to be to promote an ideal of physical and "mystical" love between partners who respect each other as equals. The text of this edition has a few obvious typos, but with a free edition, who would quibble?

I first read this book when required to in college. I did not appreciate it at all -I found it boring and hated it. However, since then I've lost track of how many times I've picked this book up in my life. Sometimes I re-read it in its entirety, and on others, only excerpts that were moving to me. This book is full of scenes and passages that are so pulling on emotions and stir such deep introspective thoughts that it's almost disturbing.

The story contains characters whose relationships are difficult to relate to, and yet, somehow are familiar at the same time. The passions are mostly emotional and under the surface even though there is sex and are lots of discussions about it.

In the very first chapter, one of the sisters, Gudren, feels "I shall know more of that man." From this scene on, it's torturous for both the characters and the reader as this is not a love story, but a story about what love does to people.

I wanted to read this book becuase, years ago, it was a staple of the British Lit courses that my college friends were taking and I had always wondered what it was about. I am glad that I read it now, mostly for historical reasons. It was thought-provoking and emotional, but, I have to admit, I didn't bring the intellectual energy to it that would be necessary to truly analyze all of the ideas presented in the dense narrative and dialogue. I read it superficially, and, on that level, it read like an overly-long but decent multiple character study.

This is a great, challenging book. Much like the ominously unfolding twentieth century it so astutely depicts, this novel is fascinating and deeply disturbing. I was so enthralled by it that I had a hard time putting it down. I doubt, though, that I would appreciate Lawrence as much as I do had I not read this particular edition (Oxford World's Classics). David Bradshaw's introductions are the most illuminating and beautifully written I've ever encountered, and this one in particular provided a wealth of insight and context that proved crucial to my enjoyment of the book. Reading the essay was rather like taking a quick class from the most interesting professor you can imagine. I can't recommend it highly enough!

The title is a misnomer or possibly intended to be satirical. It could just have easily been entitled "Men In Love." Two sisters and their best friend suitors engage in a "battle of and between the sexes" set in pre-World War I Midlands England.

Riddled with symbolism and themes, the primary theme of the novel is defining what a committed, intimate relationship should entail--love, something less, something more, or something altogether different.

Birkin, one of the two male suitors, is Lawrence's alter ego. It is his position that he wants something on the other side of and beyond "love." He does not want "love-plus"; he wants something altogether different, something less human and bound by social mores. His stance sounds all noble and good. However, you soon realize that he is using it to justify marrying his chosen of the two sisters, Ursula, but have an ongoing intimate relationship with his best friend and suitor of the other sister. Forgive me, but I didn't buy it.

Many commentators comment that the prose style has not held up well over the years, is dated, and is hard to read. I agree. One piece of advice I would have given to the author: "Lose the adverbs."

The book is also famous for its censorship. Tame by today's standards, it does use flowery language that evokes an image of sex that is occurring in real-time, including between the two main male characters. That latter relationship probably sent the censors of the day over the top.

Sadly, while acknowledging its rightful importance in the history of English literature, I cannot recommend the book anymore than I would recommend reading Beowulf. Read the Cliff Notes and move on.

Well, the feminists hate it, the Christians apparently hate it (check out Irving Nutt's uproarious "review" below)...is there any other way to convey that Lawrence still has the power to provoke?
This is an absolute must for anyone serious about literature....Lawrence tries to stuff the whole dang world into a book. Everything he is trying to achieve here is breathtaking. The characters are all rather deplorable, but there is such psychological insight and empathy towards even the foulest of them, that the reader feels for all these fools. No two readers are going to look at it the same way....Is Crich a pitiable martyr or a ruthless phallocrat? Is Gudrun Lawrence's swat at women in general, or a pre-cursor to the cold, Thatcher-style "feminism". Is it about women in love...or is the romance strictly between the men? This ambiguity makes "Women In Love" absolutely timeless...
... a poetic, violent, and remarkably unsentimental masterpiece.

I found the first couple hundred pages slow going. My mistake was to read it before The Rainbow, which I also intend to read, since it too is on the Modern Library panel's list of the best novels writtten in English in ths centruy. But I found when I finished the book I thought it well worth reading, even tho the characters are too cerebral for a commonsenseical person such as I think I am.

This book is amazing. I agree with Maureen--genius! How deep this man dives in his exploration of love set against a god-awful backdrop of dankness and eternity! He speaks to me. How can he not speak to you? Look around you. How can he not be mirroring our lives in these characters? Dreadful, huh? Why? Because they're not like you. That's the crux--they're better.
And to know that Lawrence wrote this tedious book under 8 months amazes me. The intensity, the love, the hope.
He's the man...

Reading Lawrence's dialogue in this novel is like having your eyes dug out with spoons. He binges on adverbs and it often made reading the novel a torturous experience. If there wasn't a single line of dialogue in the novel, it would be a huge improvement. Hackneyed conversations about race, sex, and consciousness are as subtle as a crowbar. His expository power is the novel's biggest saving grace.

Want to read Lawrence at his best? His short fiction. This is a waste of time.

Genius--pure and utter genius! His talent with words is unsurpassed. I disagree with many of these reviews--his characters are so real, their emotions and fears are so true it is hard not to relate. It makes you think, plain and simple. Allow yourself to question your own desires and motives in this world; then ponder these with Ursula, Gudrun, Birken and Gerald. A wonderful read that truly enlightens. Love is complicated and Lawrence certainly weaves a tale.

I couldnt' stand these people- usually I don't mind books of great reflection and little action, but these people were dreadful! I'll try again sometime, but not when I'm dealing with unlikeable people in real life.

The text of this compilation is a faithful rendition of the edition of "Women in Love" published by Thomas Seltzer in 1922. It's a clean and carefully copy-edited version, so it is a pleasure to read. Add to that the Klimt illustrations, and you have an exceptional edition of "Women in Love," well worth adding to your virtual library!

I recently read this book (finished it April 30th of this year, actually), and while it didn't take me terribly long to read (three weeks, if that), it was really difficult to get through it. At times it was terribly confusing, and I had to re-read passages to get the full meaning every once in a while, but once I did, I found myself not terribly impressed with it. Unfortunately, my English teacher spoiled every book we read this semester (Fathers and Sons, Madame Bovary, Maggie: A Girl of the Streets, A Portrait of a Lady, and Women in Love), so nothing in the book came as a surprise, which disappointed me even more. One good thing she did, however, was explaining some of the more difficult scenes [...], which helped me appreciate the novel more than I normally would. I have to say, however, that I just didn't like it very much. I also have to say, that I don't regret reading it, and I'll always remember it.

this is definitely a five star book for david herbert. the only knock is it's a bit meandering, but thematically it encompasses so many things. i loved the character Loerke in the end as a foil to Gerald and perhaps a more succinct explanation for what Birkin was trying to get across all along.

Over this past year, I've been unfortunate enough to be assigned to reading this horrid piece of work in my Literature class. I found it terrible. The characters were completely unlikeable, unbelievable and all the same. I heard good things about D.H. Lawrence prior to reading this book, but I refuse to ever read anything by him again. This book totally traumatized me. The people who tried to censor it 80 years ago were right. Nobody should ever be forced to endure the torture of going through this book. It was so uneventful and boring; the conversations that occurred were also completely arbitrary and all conveniently led to some sort of philosophical topic. DON'T READ THIS BOOK!!!

Gerald Crich
a rich
stud won
Gudrun
(Poorly chosen:
He got frozen
out)
Ursula
lacked her colour
but for Birkin
threw her work in
(Same old plot:
they tied the knot)

I had just started the "humanities" requirement for my degree program and was assigned this book to read for a literature course. I did not expect, from the title, that it would be a book for a Christian, but I believe in respecting authority, so I tried to read the book. But I was not able to finish it. It was so dark and full of all kinds of morbid things, that were almost as bad as the pornography. It had no redeeming feature. I felt ashamed while I was reading it, and it was so bad that even the places which were all right seemed suspicious. I thought, how will he find something weird and ugly here? This book was written back when England was full of labor unrest and socialism and paganism and what they called "free love" so I suppose this had something to do with it.
Some of the Christians in my class wanted to complain to the Dean about a hostile study environment for Christians, but we were afraid of retribution by secular humanists.