isaexcel's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
izzadorah's review against another edition
4.0
I really enjoyed this book. It was maybe too long but the writing is beautiful and crazy enough that I didn't mind that too much. Idk how the author could write such annoying characters while still making me care about them I have no idea. They truly are terrible and I wanted them to get slapped sometimes, but they were still endearing somehow. I'll be contemplating this one for a while.
jamesthomas79's review against another edition
5.0
I've been reading this book for years, not because I don't like it but because I love it so much. The prose is exquisite! I read until I find a line that blows my mind and then close the book and sit, and just take it in. The book has a plot thinner than a thread of silk, and yet I hope it never ends.
olsonally's review against another edition
emotional
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.5
amymd729's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.75
halleymalley1's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
mashedpotatoandsaladcream's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
as a sequel of “the rainbow”, lawrence continues the tale of ursula bragwen and her sister, gudrun, as they “fall in love” with two friends (said friends having a blatant, at least to the reader, homoerotic relationship -one which i saw as gerald almost knowing and rupert as oblivious to the reality as a relationship like he proposed was, of course, not fully accepted, this could also be just a reflection of lawrence’s own sexuality in his desire for a “man friend” - “he should have loved me, i offered him” “what difference would it have made!” “it would! it would.” … “did you need gerald?” “yes.” “aren’t i enough for you?” “no”)
i’ll be honest i was much more interested in seeing the dynamic between gerald and rupert, and i would have loved to see more about hermione (the way rupert treated her and the others as well, and ig vice versa) seemed so brutal for me when i could read parts of her thoughts and relate and then to have lawrence’s self insert was like an attack for some reason (“you and spontaneity! you, the most deliberate thing that ever walked or crawled!… you want it all in that loathsome little skull of yours, that ought to be cracked like a nut. for you’ll be the same till it is cracked, like an insect in its skin —if one cracked your skull perhaps one might get a spontaneous, passionate woman out of you, with real sensuality— as it is, what you want it pornogrpahy —looking at yourself in mirrors, watching your naked animal actions in mirrors, so that you can have it all in your consciousness, make it all mental”) but she disappeared randomly like half way through the novel.
at times i had no idea why ursula and rupert were really together but that could just be me not fully understanding all the little nuances that lawrence is trying to get through his work but i just didn’t really understand (i have a uni course on him so maybe that will change) but the train scene?? the wrestling?? the blood oath scene?? how rupert reacted at the very end?? “gerald, i rather hate you” “i know you do”. i was rooting for them to be honest, i hated how gerald like changed completely when it came to women and desire (for control?? freudian mother and child theory w sons??) but i just got it in my head that he knew he loved rupert but wouldn’t accept it and i just KEPT getting that from his actions (not words) around rupert. like it was not like ambiguously hinted it was BLATANT at each point.
for a novel that was written through a war, you can sense the nihilism with humans and humanity and the industry so very clearly. each character experienced it at some point and it was so distinct. the themes of animals was also offene reoccuring (especialy with instinct in relationships, how everyone is an animal under the human outward appearance catered to society), conflict in relationship and the idea of triumphing over the other (especially on gerald’s and gudruns), but also he explores the different types of love and relationships one can have.
again his writing doesn’t fail (although his sex scenes… they’re something) and the way he writes of nature and personal conflict is always interesting to me. and i KNOW rupert is a sort of self insert and biased and all that but i think him and hermione were my favourite ones to see and read. rupert desire for something more?? something equal in a relationship?? my criticism is that sometimes things just went from one end to the other, quick changes and polar opposites of feelings (commentary on how close they are?? idk) and i just felt lost with why the sudden change or why the sudden acceptance in the relationship (am i missing a clue?? why did rupert suddenly love ursula?? i low-key found the beginning classroom scene cute but the rest?? confusion).
if you liked his other books you’ll like this.
i’ll be honest i was much more interested in seeing the dynamic between gerald and rupert, and i would have loved to see more about hermione (the way rupert treated her and the others as well, and ig vice versa) seemed so brutal for me when i could read parts of her thoughts and relate and then to have lawrence’s self insert was like an attack for some reason (“you and spontaneity! you, the most deliberate thing that ever walked or crawled!… you want it all in that loathsome little skull of yours, that ought to be cracked like a nut. for you’ll be the same till it is cracked, like an insect in its skin —if one cracked your skull perhaps one might get a spontaneous, passionate woman out of you, with real sensuality— as it is, what you want it pornogrpahy —looking at yourself in mirrors, watching your naked animal actions in mirrors, so that you can have it all in your consciousness, make it all mental”) but she disappeared randomly like half way through the novel.
at times i had no idea why ursula and rupert were really together but that could just be me not fully understanding all the little nuances that lawrence is trying to get through his work but i just didn’t really understand (i have a uni course on him so maybe that will change) but the train scene?? the wrestling?? the blood oath scene?? how rupert reacted at the very end?? “gerald, i rather hate you” “i know you do”. i was rooting for them to be honest, i hated how gerald like changed completely when it came to women and desire (for control?? freudian mother and child theory w sons??) but i just got it in my head that he knew he loved rupert but wouldn’t accept it and i just KEPT getting that from his actions (not words) around rupert. like it was not like ambiguously hinted it was BLATANT at each point.
for a novel that was written through a war, you can sense the nihilism with humans and humanity and the industry so very clearly. each character experienced it at some point and it was so distinct. the themes of animals was also offene reoccuring (especialy with instinct in relationships, how everyone is an animal under the human outward appearance catered to society), conflict in relationship and the idea of triumphing over the other (especially on gerald’s and gudruns), but also he explores the different types of love and relationships one can have.
again his writing doesn’t fail (although his sex scenes… they’re something) and the way he writes of nature and personal conflict is always interesting to me. and i KNOW rupert is a sort of self insert and biased and all that but i think him and hermione were my favourite ones to see and read. rupert desire for something more?? something equal in a relationship?? my criticism is that sometimes things just went from one end to the other, quick changes and polar opposites of feelings (commentary on how close they are?? idk) and i just felt lost with why the sudden change or why the sudden acceptance in the relationship (am i missing a clue?? why did rupert suddenly love ursula?? i low-key found the beginning classroom scene cute but the rest?? confusion).
if you liked his other books you’ll like this.
mmatti300's review against another edition
dark
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
I’m struggling to think of what my actual thoughts are on this one. Lawrence made some really salient points, however most of the book really dragged on and could have been cut down. I found myself bored at some points and on the edge of my seat at others but incredibly inconsistently.
hlawler94's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
emotional
funny
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
tomhill's review against another edition
4.0
"She was not herself--she was not anything. She was something that is going to be--soon--soon--very soon. But as yet, she was only imminent.”
So much of Women in Love is composed of philosophical ruminations and unhappy people behaving cruelly to one another. Love and hate, as well as so many other opposing emotions, are depicted by Lawrence as always linked to one another, and the book suffers a little if you don't buy into that completely. I think that can sometimes be the case--holding two opposite thoughts in the mind at the same time--but it's not something I subscribe to as a universal truth. I think love is, most of the time, very far removed from hate. Graham Greene made a similar argument in The End of the Affair and I wasn't buying it then either. But if you take this theory instead as these characters' truth, and not a universal one, the book works as the story of people who are often happy briefly, but are most of the time unsatisfied, if not downright miserable. The book is overwrought in a lot of places, which makes it seem a bit old fashioned, but then in other (great) scenes, I realized how ahead of its time it was. Modern readers will not be shocked the way so many in 1920 were, but you kind of have to put yourself in a 1920 mindset and appreciate how daring the novel was/is. It's really successful at portraying desire and repression, and while the male characters are not exactly taken to task for their behavior, the female characters' concerns are given voice and equal weight in many respects. And yes, the homoerotic wrestling scene between Gerald and Birkin is infamous for a reason, and distills so much of what Lawrence is trying to get across about desire and repression. Same is true of the final line. I really liked Women in Love, even if I thought it could have been a bit more concise, and I found some of Lawrence's philosophical musings tiresome and self-indulgent. The flashes of greatness in this novel make it worthwhile reading for anyone interested in this period of literature.
So much of Women in Love is composed of philosophical ruminations and unhappy people behaving cruelly to one another. Love and hate, as well as so many other opposing emotions, are depicted by Lawrence as always linked to one another, and the book suffers a little if you don't buy into that completely. I think that can sometimes be the case--holding two opposite thoughts in the mind at the same time--but it's not something I subscribe to as a universal truth. I think love is, most of the time, very far removed from hate. Graham Greene made a similar argument in The End of the Affair and I wasn't buying it then either. But if you take this theory instead as these characters' truth, and not a universal one, the book works as the story of people who are often happy briefly, but are most of the time unsatisfied, if not downright miserable. The book is overwrought in a lot of places, which makes it seem a bit old fashioned, but then in other (great) scenes, I realized how ahead of its time it was. Modern readers will not be shocked the way so many in 1920 were, but you kind of have to put yourself in a 1920 mindset and appreciate how daring the novel was/is. It's really successful at portraying desire and repression, and while the male characters are not exactly taken to task for their behavior, the female characters' concerns are given voice and equal weight in many respects. And yes, the homoerotic wrestling scene between Gerald and Birkin is infamous for a reason, and distills so much of what Lawrence is trying to get across about desire and repression. Same is true of the final line. I really liked Women in Love, even if I thought it could have been a bit more concise, and I found some of Lawrence's philosophical musings tiresome and self-indulgent. The flashes of greatness in this novel make it worthwhile reading for anyone interested in this period of literature.