dexterw's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
pollincowbell's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
democratwaifu's review against another edition
I will read it sometime. It was a forced read for my essay and it didn't go well.
lameeya_'s review against another edition
emotional
reflective
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
aahh so intense. loved the way the author was able to bring forth emotions and the interior world of the characters.
thatonewhoreads's review against another edition
3.0
The rainbow is a great read. It’s typically something I wouldn’t read but giving it a chance was worth it. Lawrence has a really visual writing style and he captures the audiences mind so well. I enjoyed reading about the characters. The only down side of this book it just felt so dense that it felt like a massive time commitment at times, although 460 pages it certainly at times felt like 780 pages. But having pushed through it was such a divine classic that I really enjoyed reading.
chairmanbernanke's review against another edition
3.0
People’s relationships, lives, and their spaces. A thematic rainbow also.
mashedpotatoandsaladcream's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.25
the book follows three generations of a family beginning when tom bragwen marries a polish woman, adopting her child as his, and ending with ursula bragwen as she grows within a society that forces her to accept a role she does not want, because why should she settle down and marry one man? why shouldn’t she be able to work and treat the students kindly instead of punishing them by thrashings?
although the book goes through the generations, it really is mainly a prequel to women in love, that follows ursula and her sister in their romances as adults so when she’s born the previous generations just kind of disappear? but either way they each depict a key point in relationships.
tom married a woman who is depressed and disassociates much after her first marriage and he’s forced to learn that sometimes you can’t just change the person you love and are to fit into the relationship you WANT it to be, or perhaps to stop them changing from who they WERE when you first met them.
“it was not, he had to learn, that she would not want him enough, as much as he demanded he should want him. it was that she could not. she could only want him in her own way…. she still would do so, in her own time and ways. but he must control himself, measure himself to her”
i was quite looking forward to anna (the daughter of the polish woman) but she was almost over as quickly as she started, and at least to me, you could clearly see why she acted in her marriage due to how tom had raised her. she falls in love with the thrill of the courtship and yet when she’s married she can’t seem to stop criticising and degrading william and his interests, so much so that her family notices and she bursts into tears often because of how she can’t seem to stop it. and ig it was this that really stuck with me because it’s just relatable (perhaps not the best thing bur humans you know?) and that when she’s finally married she just questions whether this is all there will be.
“you must think i want to be miserable. i don’t” “we quite readily believe it. neither do you intend him to be hopping for joy like a fish in a pond”
ursula is the first child of anna, and one of many many, and she immediately sees herself as different than the other villagers, that she’s meant for more. she lives in daydreams and most of the novel is her growth into someone who becomes disillusioned by society where she just wants to keep dreaming and the acts people have to put on to fit in otherwise you're outcasted. she seems to just want more from life, she has multiple lovers (men AND there’s a woman) but she just doesn’t want to get married and says this outright causing one of the men to start crying in a cafe. she wants to work instead of do nothing at home. she goes to college to get a degree (which doesn’t turn out as well as she would originally dream about). at the end you almost think huh shes gonna be trapped by anton into marriage when she clearly doesn’t want to do this (which is almost reminiscent of how her mother and grandmother were both pressured into their marriages -their moments of hesitation and silences after the proposals) but she DOES escape and there’s a moment of weakness after but at the end she sees a rainbow and hope is on the horizon again.
“but do you love him?” “it isn’t a question of loving him, i love him well enough —-certainly more than i love anybody else in the world. and i shall never love anybody else the same again… but i don’t care about love. i don’t value it. i don’t care whether i love or whether i don’t, whether i have lobe or whether i haven’t, what is it to me?… as an end in itself i could love a hundred men. one after the other. why should i end it with skrebensky? why should i not go on, and love all the types i fancy, one after another, i’d love is an end in itself?”
depsite how his books don’t seem to have any interesting and out there plot (which would probably not be said the same back when it was published with the way it speaks of religion and social and sexual relationships) but lawrence’s writing keeps it interesting (however in this book he tends to keep repeating phrases to make it dreamy or something and his writing is like that anyway so the repetition just gets annoying after a bit) and i gotta say he’s one of my fav classic authors and i’ve not really been that bored at any of his books and the ideas he shows just seem modern to me when he was writing some of these a hundred years ago.
although the book goes through the generations, it really is mainly a prequel to women in love, that follows ursula and her sister in their romances as adults so when she’s born the previous generations just kind of disappear? but either way they each depict a key point in relationships.
tom married a woman who is depressed and disassociates much after her first marriage and he’s forced to learn that sometimes you can’t just change the person you love and are to fit into the relationship you WANT it to be, or perhaps to stop them changing from who they WERE when you first met them.
“it was not, he had to learn, that she would not want him enough, as much as he demanded he should want him. it was that she could not. she could only want him in her own way…. she still would do so, in her own time and ways. but he must control himself, measure himself to her”
i was quite looking forward to anna (the daughter of the polish woman) but she was almost over as quickly as she started, and at least to me, you could clearly see why she acted in her marriage due to how tom had raised her. she falls in love with the thrill of the courtship and yet when she’s married she can’t seem to stop criticising and degrading william and his interests, so much so that her family notices and she bursts into tears often because of how she can’t seem to stop it. and ig it was this that really stuck with me because it’s just relatable (perhaps not the best thing bur humans you know?) and that when she’s finally married she just questions whether this is all there will be.
“you must think i want to be miserable. i don’t” “we quite readily believe it. neither do you intend him to be hopping for joy like a fish in a pond”
ursula is the first child of anna, and one of many many, and she immediately sees herself as different than the other villagers, that she’s meant for more. she lives in daydreams and most of the novel is her growth into someone who becomes disillusioned by society where she just wants to keep dreaming and the acts people have to put on to fit in otherwise you're outcasted. she seems to just want more from life, she has multiple lovers (men AND there’s a woman) but she just doesn’t want to get married and says this outright causing one of the men to start crying in a cafe. she wants to work instead of do nothing at home. she goes to college to get a degree (which doesn’t turn out as well as she would originally dream about). at the end you almost think huh shes gonna be trapped by anton into marriage when she clearly doesn’t want to do this (which is almost reminiscent of how her mother and grandmother were both pressured into their marriages -their moments of hesitation and silences after the proposals) but she DOES escape and there’s a moment of weakness after but at the end she sees a rainbow and hope is on the horizon again.
“but do you love him?” “it isn’t a question of loving him, i love him well enough —-certainly more than i love anybody else in the world. and i shall never love anybody else the same again… but i don’t care about love. i don’t value it. i don’t care whether i love or whether i don’t, whether i have lobe or whether i haven’t, what is it to me?… as an end in itself i could love a hundred men. one after the other. why should i end it with skrebensky? why should i not go on, and love all the types i fancy, one after another, i’d love is an end in itself?”
depsite how his books don’t seem to have any interesting and out there plot (which would probably not be said the same back when it was published with the way it speaks of religion and social and sexual relationships) but lawrence’s writing keeps it interesting (however in this book he tends to keep repeating phrases to make it dreamy or something and his writing is like that anyway so the repetition just gets annoying after a bit) and i gotta say he’s one of my fav classic authors and i’ve not really been that bored at any of his books and the ideas he shows just seem modern to me when he was writing some of these a hundred years ago.