can anyone convince me to complete Women In Love?? (D.H. Lawrence)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

i am being forced to read this book but 100pages in i just can't bring myself to finish it.. it is AWFUL! the overblown sexually descriptive language to describe non-sexual things, the repetitive use of particular adjectives, the annoying characters... i've never read any Lawrence before, is it just me? surely he's considered one of the great English novelists for a reason.. but i just can't figure out what that reason is...

― justine paul (justine), Thursday, 28 September 2006 08:25 (nineteen years ago)

Hell no. Lawrence is awful.

― Leopold Boom! (noodle vague), Thursday, 28 September 2006 08:28 (nineteen years ago)

Thirded. Lawrence may well have been daring at the time, but he's dated terribly.

― Revivalist (Revivalist), Thursday, 28 September 2006 12:00 (nineteen years ago)

Read T.E. Lawrence instead.

― Revivalist (Revivalist), Thursday, 28 September 2006 12:01 (nineteen years ago)

Ah I thought it was just me. I have this extremely poor looking Women in Love book. I figured I was too influenced by the horrid cover... I hate to say it, but sometimes I feel the cover makes me love/hate the book no matter how bad/good the writing is.

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Thursday, 28 September 2006 12:09 (nineteen years ago)

as i said before, lawrence's criticism is great, his novels not so much.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 28 September 2006 19:44 (nineteen years ago)

Agreed, read his essays instead and stay away from the fiction.

― wmlynch (wlynch), Thursday, 28 September 2006 20:48 (nineteen years ago)

I'm scared his criticism will be full of "gosh I hate philistines, me" raving with a bit of proto-Fascism thrown in.

― Leopold Boom! (noodle vague), Thursday, 28 September 2006 20:50 (nineteen years ago)

Read Apocalypse, it's on the Book of Revelation. I don't remember any fascism, but I read it a while ago...

― wmlynch (wlynch), Thursday, 28 September 2006 22:46 (nineteen years ago)

I was hoping this was going to be a thread posted by D.H. Lawrence about completing Women In Love.

― A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Friday, 29 September 2006 01:23 (nineteen years ago)

gee, thanks guys... i was seriously hoping someone could give me an meaningful insight into why this book deserves to be read.. my professor seems like a really intelligent guy (he's edited the Bible).. i just can't understand why!! why!! he would put this on the reading list (alongside: Pride and Prejudice; Jane Eyre; Great Expectations; Emma; Under Western Eyes; A Passage to India; and Howards End).

― justine paul (justine), Friday, 29 September 2006 07:31 (nineteen years ago)

I really love(d) Sons and Lovers/The Rainbow/Women in Love.

Perhaps because there aren't many East Midlands books, but I think they're pretty brilliant anyway. I suppose you could look at it as the story of the development of modernism, if you need a reason to finish it.

It would help to have read the first two though, even if it's only to marvel at the developing technique.

This feels as lonely as defending "Extras" on the other channel.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Friday, 29 September 2006 11:26 (nineteen years ago)

Did the Bible need editing? Perhaps it does.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 29 September 2006 20:14 (nineteen years ago)

it certainly has needed textual editing, like any other ancient text.

― Josh (Josh), Friday, 29 September 2006 21:31 (nineteen years ago)

David Norton is my prof's name. i think he edited an edition of the Bible for use in literary scholarship.

― justine paul (justine), Friday, 29 September 2006 22:25 (nineteen years ago)

It may be worth reading a couple of critical essays. If you look at the critical history of "Women in Love", there is a consensus about what the novel means that originates with Leavis (John Middleton Murray's similar reading predates Leavis's but wasn't very widely read).

What this suggests is that most readers don't have much chance of "understanding" the book without some kind of critical guidance. You could argue that if the book needs "explaining" in that way, it doesn't really succeed as a novel, and I would have a lot of sympathy with that argument, but if you have to read it I think you will get more out of it if you at least skim through a couple of the better known essays.

― frankiemachine (frankiemachine), Saturday, 30 September 2006 14:35 (nineteen years ago)

thanks for the Leavis reccommendation, i will check that out. i usually find that good-quality critiques do help with the more difficult or "less enjoyable" novels, i just haven't had the time lately! what little background info i did have concerned Lawrence's interest in the fluidity of personality; the way it changes and shifts constantly over time. as a premise, i thought that sounded intriguing, but it's his writing style that's really getting me down, more than the content.

― justine paul (justine), Saturday, 30 September 2006 21:39 (nineteen years ago)

i liked this book when i read it!

― and what (ooo), Sunday, 1 October 2006 10:40 (nineteen years ago)

tell me what you liked about it; it may put give me a better perspective.

― justine paul (justine), Sunday, 1 October 2006 11:08 (nineteen years ago)

I'm not saying that the book can't be enjoyed without reading any criticism, but I read through the critical history at one point, and the thing that struck me was that almost all the post Leavis critics understood the book in a different way from the pre-Leavis critics (as noted, the exception was John Middleton Murray, who was a close friend of Lawrence's and maybe had a head start in understanding the book for that reason). Even people who admired the novel (E. M. Forster springs to mind) didn't seem to be very clear about what they thought the novel meant.

Personally, I was a big fan of Lawrence at one time -- I've read "Women in Love" four or five times, but not recently: I've no idea how much or how little I would like it now. In those days, though, I would have been much more tolerant than I would be now of a novel needing some kind of critical explication before it could be properly understood.

― frankiemachine (frankiemachine), Sunday, 1 October 2006 11:14 (nineteen years ago)

The language is what's irritating me - it just seems excessive, and there's a constant stream of it. But it's recently come to my attention that of the 8 books studied, i only have to be familiar with 7. So I may leave Lawrence until summer in a couple of months, when I can take my time with him. But thanks to everyone who responded - I really appreciated all your opinions ;)

― justine paul (justine), Sunday, 1 October 2006 20:48 (nineteen years ago)

six years pass...

im just making my way through this book as ive to read it for a literary modernism module on my course. it has a very weird and odd take on sexuality.

SPOILER ALERT

so, birkin (who stands in as lawrence i assume and makes long winded rants at the drop of a hat throughout the book) and his lover ursula end up hating each other after they consumate for the first time but then when he fucks her up the ass (as he has gay tendencies) they come to a greater understanding? or am i reading it all wrong?

― Michael B Higgins (Michael B), Friday, 5 October 2012 19:49 (thirteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.