Women in Love 695also apparent in the novel’s peroration on the “risen
body” in which the narrator becomes a resurrected
Christ embracing and kissing Mary Magdalene.
This need for the resurrection of the flesh echoes
the apocalyptic imagery of the novel, reinforcing the
kind of radical social transformation that Lawrence
envisions. Lawrence suggests that if the women’s
movement amounts only to jobs, money, and the
vote, unhappiness will remain until the distinctive
religious natures of women and men are fulfilled.
Lawrence also suggests that men and women are
fulfilled as men and women through their personal
relationships with each other, not through social
accommodation.
Mitchell R. Lewis
LaWrEnCE, D. H. Women in Love
(1920)
D. H. Lawrence’s Women in Love continues the
story line of The Rainbow (1915), but it abandons
the latter’s historical form to focus on Ursula and
Gudrun Brangwen and their lovers, Rupert Birken
and Gerald Crich, respectively. The novel contrasts
the two relationships, the first leading to marriage,
the second to assault and suicide. Women in Love
also explores the friendship between Rupert and
Gerald, with homoerotic overtones. Conceiving of
personal relationships as combative, Women in Love
is a disturbing meditation on the psychology of love.
Its characters are largely unconscious, driven by the
need for power, control, and authority.
Eschewing the linear narrative associated with
realism, Women in Love is episodic. Its chapters
usually focus on symbolic incidents that develop
its thematic concern with love. Among the famous
incidents are Rupert throwing stones into a pond in
“Moony,” Gerald’s cruelty to a horse in “Coal-Dust,”
and Rupert and Gerald wrestling in the nude in
“Gladiatorial.” In each case, the incident is vividly
described, but it resonates with a meaning beyond
the literal, like a dream.
Because The Rainbow was banned, Lawrence
had problems getting Women in Love published, but
many now regard it as Lawrence’s greatest novel. It
is also considered an important work of modernism
because of its episodic form, its use of symbolism,
and its concern with the unconscious. Women in
Love’s thematic exploration of love leads inevitably
to the discussion of gender and sexuality, but it also
touches on industrialism.
Mitchell R. LewiscommodiFication/commercialization
in Women in Love
Lawrence takes on the subject of commerce, in the
form of industrialism, in his treatment of the Crich
family. The dying patriarch of the family, Thomas
Crich, is a great coal-mine owner in Beldover, a
small Midlands town surrounded by mining vil-
lages and pits. Feeling responsible for his colliers,
Thomas tries to enact the Christian principles of
love and charity. He treats the miners as if they are
closer to God than he is, making them “his idol, his
God made manifest.” While he makes an enormous
profit from the mines, Thomas views the welfare of
the minors as more important than profit, the mines
being “primarily great fields to produce bread and
plenty for all the hundreds of human beings gath-
ered about them.” His sense of duty, moreover, leads
him to institute an open-door policy for the poor,
whose requests for charity he never denies.
Although all their basic needs are satisfied, the
miners eventually become discontented with their
meager share of the profit. Similar situations arise
in other mining communities. Meanwhile, the
mines are not producing as well as they had, and
thus not paying as well. As a result, the Masters’
Federation to which Thomas belongs forces him to
close his mines in order to compel the workers to
accept a reduction in wages. Resisting the lock-out,
the workers organize, animated by egalitarianism,
the idea that “All men are equal on earth.” Riots
break out, and a “war” ensues between the masters
and workers. After the workers set fire to a pit, sol-
diers suppress the riots, restoring order and break-
ing the will of the miners.
During the course of the riots, Thomas sym-
pathizes with the workers, reluctantly closing the
mines. He can see that the “disequality” between
master and worker is wrong, but “he could not give