Rating: 
Summary: unintended consequence
Review: Besides the history of a family over three generations, the key character is Ursula. In the early 1900s just before WW1, she is a "feminist" before her time. We find that she rejects marriage, engages in premarital sex, conducts a homosexual affair, and "objectifies" men. She is also non-religious and probably never has children. My point is not that she understands the human need to be a strong independent individual and does so, but that in the process of her female emancipation, she loses her ability to love a man and be loved in return. It is sad that in her search and rebellion against the traditional gender roles, she loses sight of the human need to bond.
Rating:
Summary: Maybe not quite three stars....
Review: I decided to read this because of how much I enjoyed Lawrence's "Sons and Lovers" when I read it recently a second time, after reading it many, many years ago and loathing it.
"The Rainbow" is not as good as "Sons and Lovers," in my opinion. But I did find interesting Ursula's parents and her family life -- I liked how she wanted to be different than her mother who kept popping out babies (not to put down Ursula's mother; I liked her, and thought if anybody should pop out lots of babies it should be her, she had good attitudes on child rearing and kids, especially in a time that was governed by the heinous idea of "spare the rod and spoil the child"), and was really keen to see where Lawrence was going to go with this character.
But Ursula's infautation with a female teacher, and her relationship with Anton, and also her depressing teaching experience, well, to me, some of it just did not ring true.
It was really interesting to see a female character in those times strive for a more independent life, but I guess I thought the book was most satisfactory when her struggle was with her parents. I mean, was there no other man than Anton? Was she conflicted about her sexuality? What did she want? This book did not answer the questions it should have.
The book is more bogged down in religiosity than obscenity (nothing seemed obscene to me), but that is of course from the standpoint of this modern reader. Lawrence writes brief sentences and short paragraphs, so the book does read, even though some passages were unclear, and one chapter was deadeningly boring. ('The Bitterness of Ectasy.') But because of that readability factor, and because of my fondness for "Sons and Lovers," I plan on reading Lawrence's "Women in Love" sometime soon.
This Modern Library edition is excellent; I especially liked the biographical information on Lawrence. One should take note that it mentions Lawrence suffered from mental instability.
Rating: 
Summary: Has anyone read Lawrence?
Review: I get the impression that, just as some authors remain fashionable due to their undeserved reputations, Lawrence's reputation suffers from unfounded and unjust criticism. How many people who dismiss Lawrence as a shallow, sex-obsessed writer have actually read him, or if they do read him, merely skip to the "juicy" bits in their desire to be offended? Should you dislike Lawrence, that's OK, but form your opinion after having read him objectively. It worries me too that there are still people out there who advocate the banning of books just because they don't like them - please try to remember Heine's advice. I can almost hear the autos da fe being prepared. I'm firmly of the opinion that the starting presumption should be one of tolerance rather than proscription. What of "The Rainbow"? I think that it's not the best of Lawrence's work that I have read so far - that plaudit belongs to "Sons and Lovers", but it's far better than "The White Peacock", "The Trespasser" and the awful "Lady Chatterley". There are painfully poor parts in the novel: the description of the visit to Lincoln cathedral is embarrassingly bad, and the prose is at times hackneyed, almost becoming a self-parody. Yet, there are excellent passages, such as the death of Tom Brangwen and Ursula's experiences as a school teacher. But the true value of the book is in its in-depth characterisations: the constant, unachieved desire for meaning in life (why aren't I content, now that I've reached this age, what drives me on?); the mixture of love and hate - how strong emotions often exist together rather than excluding each other (ever wondered why couples argue and "make-up"?); and (for the time) ground-breaking exploration of female sexuality. I found this refreshing - how tedious the mythology of boy meets girl, 400 pages of manoeuvering later they get married and live happily ever after. This myth does a great disservice to marriage - what institution could possibly live up to it? Oh, and if you're uncomfortable about that myth being dispelled, good, and read Hardy, Zola and especially Anne Bronte for further enlightenment.
Rating:
Summary: Would get an oscar in cinematography
Review: It is a rare book indeed that I can't make it through. There are some books that I start and put down, but mostly for reasons of disinterest or poor workmanship. _The Rainbow_ suffered from neither of these. Instead, I simply could not put up with the seemingly endless vacillations of the characters, the souped-up description of all that they thought, and the plodding storyline. All these things are Lawrence's style, and it is a style that I just couldn't stand. In some ways, this did not surprise me. I've never been that fond of description. I favor dialogue, then plot. A book in which action and character are made manifest through dialogue usually ends up as a favorite of mine; books with lengthy ruminations on the beauty of the landscape, in which the author tries to be both poet and storyteller, annoy me. I don't dislike characters that have trouble making up their minds--such is life. I do dislike novels in which that is the only point of the book. Maybe I missed something. Maybe I'm not mature enough for this book. Maybe in ten years, or twenty years, or more, time I will come upon Lawrence again and my viewpoint will have radically shifted. These comments here, then, stand as a benchmark for that future date, to remind me of how absolutely dreadful I thought this book was.
Rating:
Summary: Engaging
Review: Not as moving as some of my favorite books, but this was an engaging look into three generations of the Brangwen family in small-town England. Interesting portrayal of the roles and rights off women in each generations and the repercussions of changing standards.
Rating:
Summary: Engaging
Review: Not as moving as some of my favorite books, but this was an engaging look into three generations of the Brangwen family in small-town England. Interesting portrayal of the roles and rights off women in each generations and the repercussions of changing standards.
Rating:
Summary: a certainly beautiful, underwhelming novel
Review: Or call it missed opportunity. Now The Rainbow is, of course, a glorious masterpiece and blah blah blah, mostly as a result of its 'passion and intensity of vision'.(or quote any Lawrence critic particularly in love with what someone else said about him) If you are at all familiar with the author its likely you'll know what to expect: gorgeous, twisting passages of intense interior monologue where every question is asked and an uncomfortable number are answered. There is no space for lies or delusion as a nobel and frequently brutal honesty must underlie any such personal thoughts. The story is actually often rather interesting, particularly the earliest section, the beginnings of this family and the comparitive subdued nature of their once scandalous passion. I found myself most interested by the patriarch and matriarch and felt the children's defiance and mistakes were inevitable. The problem is that this theme is hammered home in such an ongoing blaze of fury that the very similarities of each subsequent generation becomes a superfluous point thereby rendering the whole construction numb. By all accounts a worthwhile reading experience, those of a mind for(or with tastes running to) passionate inquiry into the nature of life might quite possibly love this book.
Rating:
Summary: Probing for truth beyond the mist of lust
Review: Sunshine is a substance of transparency, yet when it touches the soft mist and shines through the concrete droplets, the arc of color manifests and dazzles the human yes. In many ways, this is the journey of man as the essence of living is filtered through the mist of love. D.H. Lawrence's controversial Rainbow makes few reference to the natural phenomenon as rainbow, yet through out the lines, readers feel the "unbearable lightness of being" sipping through to cinch the yearning hearts. Countless twenty-century writers dedicated their finest works to capture this evanescence, and surviving through scandals and suppression is this ambitious piece. One of the unique faces of The Rainbow is its treatment of characters; instead of expanding from individuals, D.H. Lawrence reverses focus and lets the plot drift along. It's impossible to determine which character is the true protagonist because individuality is simply abashed in this banned work. In place of emphasis on characters, Lawrence traces a circuitous journey through three generations-alternating voices of three generations of Brangwen women. Despite the complexity of this novel however, each of these three women are given their space to dictate the path of their own rainbow. The word "journey" itself is repeated frequently enough, and the torch of change is constantly being passed along. The journey traces from the Polish widow to her Brangwen husband, her daughter to another Brangwen, and eventually the "heiress" of Brangwen memories-Ursula. The mother-daughter loop itself is a symbolic journey as the understanding of love is inherited. As a novel focusing on the very nature of relationships and their connection to love, to sex, and to God, The Rainbow captures the pain and anguish of each woman as they come to possess the fruit of union with a man. And as the daughter gains voice over the ailing mother, the readers come to see how much time leads the mind towards something new. All characters seek illumination of love, and different from conventional romance novels, The Rainbow traces not the journey of one person, but the journey of an understanding. Anna Brangwen, the daughter of Lydia Lensky, finds a lover with whom she develops "a sensuality violent and extreme as death" (280), a relationship that ends in great fecundity. As her fresh and wishful perspective fades, her eldest daughter, Ursula commands the pace as she comes to possession of passion. Through her youthful flirtation with Anton Skrebensky, Ursula grows to be an emotional teacher eager to share her passion, only finding herself shut down by reality into "a hard, insentient thing" (445). Her meager knowledge of love leads her to a physical and emotional affair with Skrebensky as both grope for the truth behind relationships. But this truth is too grand for both of them as they yield to the tempting nature of passion, and let love pass by. But does the journey stop there? "The primeval darkness falsified to a social mechanism" (499) is indeed the chimera that propels all characters towards the light of human affections. During a time of great changes, men and women cannot help but clang to one thing that seems unscathed-this primordial sense of protection in the bodies of opposite sex. But this need fades so fast as they probe deeper into the soul in search of the amorphous answer that leaves them sleepless. Just as the sun penetrates through the seductive veil of mist, the characters reach a point where physical relationships is a concrete something that does not satisfy. But while they reach in the darkness of lust for the light of emotional union, all falter just as the beautiful array of colors fade away. The sunshine never fails to reach earth, but it never fails to trick wild hearts into the trap of a surreal realm of love-the paradise beyond the rainbow.
Rating:
Summary: Truimph of Ursula
Review: The Rainbow by D.H. Lawrence is a fascinating saga of three generations of Brangwen family. I should have read this book before "Women in Love". Although there is no connection between the two. Numerous characters come and fade away making room for our protagonist, Ursula Brangwen. She is the quintessential Lawrence character, also appeared as Paul Morel in "Sons and Lovers" and Gudrin in "Women in Love". They attain everything they desire and yet reject and abandon what they seek to soar even higher. They surely triumph and that is the beauty of all his creations. I guess if all stories end up "lived happily ever after", then nobody would have heard of Shakespeare. It must have been a shock to the early 20th century readers of the beautiful lesbian liaison of Ursula and her teacher, not to mention numerous premarital sexual romps with Anton Skrebensky. Lawrence exquisite and poetic prose make it exhilrating and yet sensual. I guess he kept all the graphic detail for "Lady Chatterely's Lover". It is a great book with chock full of unforgetable charectors in the rich tradition of Dickens and Hardy. I
Rating:
Summary: Rainbow rainbow rainbow
Review: This book is an odd case. I found it to be very campy (the title is an unintentional tipoff), and yet at the same time the psychological makeup of just about every one of these characters was very real. D.H. Lawrence really probes the every nuance of the mind, even if he is a bit repetitive. His symbols, metaphors & similes (esp. light and dark and flowers and birthing and fire and weather and animals and....just about all of them, should I keep going?) seemed a bit clunky, but always literary.
In the spectrum of the rainbow, Lawrence's prose style tends to favour the purple. This can make for some quite unfortunate, laughable passages. It's like the Romantic poets, and the way they get all worked up into a frenzy-- but without the lyric beauty. Lawrence is just TOO over-the-top to be taken seriously (at least by me). Very heightened emotion; these folk in 'The Rainbow' feel intensely, and Lawrence wastes no opportunity to tell the reader just what everyone is feeling. So... I like it? I guess. It's hard for me to tell.
|
