This is more erotic than I would have expected. I mean, yes, it is 1920, but I did not expected it.

Really, I was surprised to see this 1920 book to be so near frankness when it came to such humane matters (love making).

Whatever you are going to read in that book`s description, you should have in mind that the main love interest is in fact (per se; there is no fact when it comes to such subjective maters) Birkin and Gerald.

“Did you need Gerald?” she asked one evening. “Yes,” he said. “Aren’t I enough for you?” she asked. “No,” he said.

There is a lot of interminable talk. The text overdose it in that field. It is as if it restructures its entire literary purpose halfway through. You can become a bit confused regarding certain meanings. But then, I think the entire book was structure to be a mirror hall for love that could not be expressed in words.

At last I finished it! I was expecting more from the writer of Lady Chatterley's Lover. Unfortunately the book was tiresome for my taste and certainly I'll leave a lot of time to pass by before I start to read his book Sons and Lovers.

Continuing the story from The Rainbow, Women in Love follows the lives of Ursula and Gudrun Brangwen through their relationships with Birkin and Gerald. It explores the nature of modern relationships between men and women, marriage and love and the roles of women in society. (There are some other subjects covered in a lesser way like the mechanisation of coal mining, art, bohemian society, class mobility and death) I found it interesting and enjoyable (although some of the philosophical conversations went on a bit long!) and the climax in Switzerland was not where I expected the book to go.

This book is like an Expressionist painting: you look at it once, and return and see something different. The writing is lush, and almost poetic at times. Lawrence uses the idea of the two sisters, Gudrun and Ursula, as his canvas to explore ideas about men and women, marriage and fidelity, and whatever else runs through his mind and on to the page.

In this high-speed, instant world, we are losing the art of leisurely contemplation. D.H. Lawrence needs to be taken up, and put down, and taken up again. Forget about the criticisms of misogyny/adoration of women, eroticism/not erotic enough, too frou-frou /too manly. Just let the language wash over you and enjoy the experience.

Writing was lovely but the characters and plot I didn't enjoy, but maybe it was ok idkkkkkk

What's the problem with writing a great work of literature... in order to write about sex?

Like most topics, only more so, sex is personal. And if you don't particularly like the version of sexuality presented in that "great work of literature"? Will there be much left over to admire?

There wasn't for me. There are innumerable ways of enjoying heterosexual love. However, Lawrence's version didn't resonate for me.

To this reader, "Women in Love" might as well have been entitled, "Women in Heat." I wasn't prepared to enjoy reading about Gudrun Brangwen's relationship with insufferable Gerald Crotch -- or was it supposed to be "Crich"?

Yes, I'm still awarding FIVE STARS, in honor of the courage shown by D.H. As well as his attempt to write true literature, even if I didn't care for it.

"You've got to take down the love-and-marriage ideal from its pedestal. We want something broader. --I believe in the *additional* perfect relationship between man and man--additional to marriage."

I'd always wanted to read this Lawrence novel... and now I have. It's an odd reading experience overall, but I suppose I understand it better as a world-weary adult than I might have if I'd read it years ago. I wouldn't call it an easy read, as much of it - in particular the male-female conversations (the central four characters) seem at odds with credulity. Would anyone anywhere really talk this way, in such almost-non-stop philosophical / psychological terms? For the most part - and even though the two don't take the sexual route that one of them desires - it's really only the male conversations that seem rooted in reality and sense. We're led to the conclusion that male-female relationships, as viewed by Lawrence, are daunting things indeed... fragile, valuable but insufficient, and it's only sheer happenstance if they take off. More than that, though, is the novel's view that life itself is wanting, mechanical, and a mere shadow of what it could be. And love is too often caged.

That said, there's much to admire in the novel and many of the peripheral scenes are memorably laid-out and well-written. I came to like the main character of Birkin - even if his philosophy is overly ambitious and impractical, he handles himself in an amusing-enough manner to serve as a realist. The woman who takes to him - Ursula - ultimately seems a reasonable mate; though, like her sister Gudrun, she is shown as a vortex of emotion and contradiction. Unlike Ursula, Gudrun has few quiet or genuine moments and grows (inexplicably) into the image of a conniving shrew, set out to destroy the man (Gerald) she was happy enough to blissfully fall for. Like Gudrun, Gerald is something of a question mark, though he mostly comes off as a solid sort of man who gets things done, even if he doesn't allow himself to be understood well and is unsure of how to navigate his emotions.

[The edition I read is not the one shown here, but the complete Penguin edition.]

3,5/5

Tie knygų mėgėjai, kurie skaitė D.H. Lorenso romaną „Ledi Četerli meilužis“, manau, perskaitys ir šį romaną, nes autorius (kam patinka, kam ne) vis dėlto įsitvirtino XX amžiaus literatūros klasikų tarpe, nors buvo smarkiai kritikuojamas, jo romanai draudžiami skaityti (pvz., romaną „Ledi Četerli meilužis“ tik 1960 m. buvo leista spausdinti Anglijoje, ir tik po to, kai teismas priėmė teigiamą sprendimą – konservatyviąją visuomenės dalį piktino atviras ir drąsus seksualinio pobūdžio temų nagrinėjimas). Keletą mėnesių anksčiau romanas buvo išleistas JAV (nors parašytas 1928 m.).
Kalbant apie Lorensą, kaip apie klasiką, būtina pažymėti, kad jo „klasiškumas“ ne tradicinis, o savitas; kūriniai – tai būdas išreikšti požiūrį į žmogaus vietą pasaulyje ir bendražmogiškuosius santykius. Lorensui buvo artimos Ruso, Froido, Šopenhauerio ir Nyčės idėjos, jo kūrinių herojai intelektualūs, nors didelė reikšmė teikiama vyro ir moters santykiams, ieškant tarp jų naujų kūno ir dvasios ryšių.

Romano „Mylinčios moterys“ veikėjai ne schematiški, ne teigiami ar neigiami, jie sudėtingos asmenybės: su savo specifiniu juslingumu, filosofija, gyvenimo būdu ir būties suvokimu. Romano dialoguose daug poteksčių, idėjų – skaitydamas tik spėk mąstyti, nes veiksmas kartais kaleidoskopinis. Jame dvi pagrindinės siužetinės linijos: apie destruktyvų moters poveikį vyrui; ir apie kovą už meilę – kaip karą ir kaip harmoningą kūno ir sielos bendravimą. Ar įmanoma vienu metu meilė ir laisvė? – autorius klausia, o atsakymą turi surasti pats skaitytojas.
Personažai įdomūs, bet tas jų mėgavimasis intelektualiais pokalbiais šiek tiek įgrįsta. Lygiai kaip ir nuolatinis vyro ir moters vidinių galių aiškinimasis, emociniai šuoliai nuo meilės iki neapykantos, ir atvirkščiai. Visa tai daro aprašomas gyvenimo istorijas labai knyginėmis, nutolusiomis nuo realybės.

Dievas gali apsieiti be žmogaus, – teigia Lorensas, – ir apsieis, jeigu žmogus nesugebės kūrybiškai keistis ir vystytis. Tad gal žmogus Dievo klaida? (Pagal Lorensą, Dievas – tai kuriančioji paslaptis). Ne svetimas Lorensui ir žmogaus lemties teigimas („Laiminga prigimtis – didelis turtas“). Įdomiai jis traktuoja ir vyro artimą draugystę su vyru: „...užmegzti visišką pasitikėjimo ir meilės ryšį su kitu vyriškiu, o jau po to su moterimi. Jeigu jis pasižadėtų vyriškiui, vėliau galėtų pasižadėti ir moteriai ne vien juridinei santuokai, bet ir absoliučiai, mistinei santuokai“ – taip prieš ryždamasis vedyboms samprotauja vienas iš romano herojų.

Toks įspūdis, kad autorius šioje knygoje stengiasi ne tik atskleisti savo pasaulėjautą, bet ir suderinti joje Froido, Nyčės, Šopenhauerio idėjas, kas vargu ar įmanoma... Visą tą sumaištį Lorenso mąstysenoje gerai jau po jo mirties apibūdino žmona knygoje „Ne aš, bet vėjas“: „Manau, kad širdies gilumoje Lorensas visada baiminosi moterų, jautė, kad galų gale jos stipresnės už vyrus. Moteris tokia absoliuti ir nepaneigiama. Vyras veikia, jo dvasia skrajoja šen bei ten, o moters negali perprasti. Iš jos vyras gimsta ir į ją sugrįžta...<...> ji – tartum žemė ir mirtis...“ Taip parašė moteris, kuri susipažinusi su dar nežymiu jaunu rašytoju, metė savo vyrą profesorių ir ištekėjo už Lorenso.

Sunkoka knyga, ne greito skaitymo – tai reikia žinoti ją pradedant skaityti, kad nenusiviltumėt. Ypač knygos pradžioje, kol priprantama prie autoriaus stiliaus, veikėjų mąstysenos, poteksčių. Prisipažįstu: skaitant buvo ir taip, kad norėjosi praleisti keletą puslapių, tie ilgi labai protingi dialogai vargindavo, bet visumoje (bent jau man) knyga buvo įdomi prozos vystymosi pažintine prasme.

Women in Love was written by DH Lawrence. I am glad I had the opportunity to read and finish it. I have also read "Sons and Lovers" by the same author which I also enjoyed. It was my first novel by that author. The book shaped my attitude towards the writer. So when the opportunity to read the present book presented itself, my only worry was the length and the nature of the book. For those who have English as a second language may find it a bit difficult to understand. However, after fofty or so pages one gets the hang of things and it becomes bearable.

The theme. The novel is what I can clasify under the 'Romance' genre. It opens with a wedding which is attended to by the two main characters, Ursula and Gudrum Bangwen. After that they have to make up their minds as to whether they want to get married or not. To get married they must find suitable partners.

Rupert Birkin and Gerald Crich. They start out as friends with the Bangwen sisters. Soon thereafter they develop feelings for the women. The former targets Ursula Bangwen while the latter goes for Gudrum Bangwen. Be that as it may, it is not butterfly and roses as the women dreamt. Mr. Birkin is a detached lover who desires more freedom to interact with other people. He does not wish to be bound by the monogamous nature of a marriage between husband and wife. On the other hand Gerald is a sincere lover who breaks the tradition of the time by knowing Gudrum Bangwen without forst tying the knot.

Obscenity. The author was prosecuted after publishing his prequel, the rainbow. Subsequently, this novel was not published in Britain. It was first published in America. At the time, it was a criminal offence to publish obscene writings. The standards have changed. Personally, I never found anything obscene about the novel.

Conclusion. I greatly enjoyed the book. It was long but it was worth the time and energy that I invested into it.

Listen, I am redrafting a 500-page novel I wrote between the ages of 19-21. I have a comp sci degree to complete. I have 20+ Xmas books to read, I have 90+ movies to watch, I have the Guided by Voices canon to penetrate. There is no time for a witty capsule opinion of Women in Love, m’right? Believe me when I assert that this raw, raving, rage-filled, ragged-ass novel is something of an overwritten masterwork. G’night, asshats.

D.H. Lawrence RANKED

I liked most of this book and LOVED some of it, but I think the fact that I had to trudge through and even skim paragraphs and chapters here and there makes me feel like it’s more of a 3.5 stars for me.

What the title of the book does not disclose is that it’s women in love with a philosophy bro and a coal magnate, and both of them monologue for pages and pages about what love means and doesn’t mean to them. If that sounds interesting I can assure you it is definitely not!!

When they weren’t kinda waxing poetic about their philosophies of love, the book was actually really wonderful and even very fun! A good chunk of the book is the couples getting into screaming matches with each other (that’s amore, baby!!) and it genuinely felt like reading reality TV transcripts, it’s so fun and fiery and truly a blast to read. I was also very surprised just how overtly gay the relationship between the two men is (at one point they wrestle naked and end up on the ground out of breath and holding hands) given that this was written in 1916.

Ultimately mixed feelings because 20% of the book felt like DH Lawrence lecturing me through his characters, but on the whole I enjoyed this and it made me really want to read Lady Chatterly’s Lover, when he gets really unhinged and starts using the word “fuck” in every other sentence.

I disliked almost every page of this book. I don't understand how it can be on both the Boxall 1001 and the Guardian 1000 lists. That combination is usually a winner for me. If I don't personally enjoy the book, I can at least see the merit. Not so here. It was simultaneously dull and preposterous. All the characters argued like they were first year know-it-all university students. All the characters were constantly overwhelmed by feelings of fear and hatred because they felt like some other character was attacking them personally by their very presence. The dialogue was incomprehensible, and the characters seemed utterly unreal. I know there is something to be said for the observation that most people don't listen very well, they are too busy preparing what they are going to say next. But the characters in this book did not listen very well because they were too
busy internally constructing the other person's real agenda.

Character A: "Nice weather, isn't it?"
Character B: Why does A say that? The weather is spoiled now! A is always trying to oppress me! It is ever so hateful!

(Not a real example, but I couldn't be bothered to look up actual dialogue. The internal monologues of fear and loathing tend to run over multiple pages as well, before character B says something like "Isn't it just," but with such cold indifference that character A embarks on an internal monologue about how Character B terrifies them by their sheer masculinity/femininity/enigma/presence/whatever.)

The title was a complete misnomer. The women weren't in love so much as preoccupied with whether or not the men loved them. The men loved no one as much as each other. A better title for the book would be: Men in Love: An Unfulfilled Bromance.