D. H.

Lawrence (1885-1930) created two seemingly similar yet

antithetical characters in Ursula and Gudrun Brangwen in his novel
Women in Love (1921). While they seem close at the beginning of the
novel, the sisters' personalities become quite incompatible towards the
end.

Gudrun and Ursula start off in the novel on a bored note and discuss
the idea of marriage. In this discussion, Ursula comes across as a
dreamer of sorts, a romanticist, who believes that marriage is probably
the 'end of an experience' unlike Gudrun who is more pragmatic,
maybe even a cynic who believes that marriage 'is bound to be an
experience' even if an 'undesirable one'. They seem to differ in their
ideas about children. But at this stageeach other. In fact, Ursula , we
can still note that they have respect for each others' view and love
'have an unspoken bond between them when they discuss their
seemingly hopeless admired her (Gudrun) with all her soul'. And they
family situation with respect to the relationship between them and
their father, as 'being confronted by a void, a terrifying chasm'. We
sense that they understand each otherfrom the uncomfortable
direction of this conversation and, as they both wish to steer away
casually agree to go to the wedding. Right after this, we know Ursula
identifies with Gudrun's claustrophobia in Beldover and 'can feel her
suffering'.

At the wedding, we begin to see some difference of opinion. Gudrun

insists 'one must discriminate' between people who are exceptional
and 'little fools', while Ursula seems compelled to agree with her, even
when she was not 'in accord altogether'.

As the story progresses in the next few chapters, we find that Ursula is
a rather nave, unpretentious character who sees beauty in subtlety,
and for whom acquiring knowledge is not an insufferable quest. At this
point she has a dichotomous existence, one part hating Birkin, the
other sensing 'liberty and radiance', and clearly she is confused about
how she feels about the afternoon in the classroom.

Contrast this with Gudrun's character: she is somewhat rebellious in

nature, and questions the rights and liberties the norms of society
allow her (when she is envious of men that they can throw their clothes
off and jump into the water whenever they like). She also comes across
as the kind of woman who wishes to control and wield power over the
man she is attracted to, she also knows it is easy for her to achieve
this, considering her beauty and (seemingly convincing) confidence.
For her, not being able to wield power over the object of her affection
would be like a failure. Gudrun seems to be unconsciously calculative,
and strong headed, but she does display honesty in all that she feels.
She is probably as confused as Ursula, but in different matters -
regarding why she is where she is rather than who she is.

In 'Diver', we see the sisters in disagreement over the nature of Gerald

Crich's intentions when he pulled the trigger at his brother's head.
Gudrun, I think, intuitively defends Gerald Crich while Ursula does not
seem to do so. In addition, Ursula does not quite understand why her
sister sometimes has rebellious tendencies or what triggers them off.
However, by the end of the chapter they seem to conform to the idea
of standing as 'swans between geese' since the unspoken opinion
between them is that they are above the usual milieu of people in a
strange way, which they have not yet discovered.

In 'Coal Dust', we see the dichotomy in their opinions again. Gudrun is

enamoured and captivated by Gerald's performance on the horse as
much as Ursula is repulsed by it. Gudrun loves Gerald for the same
while Ursula is livid at his treatment of the horse and hates him. This
highlights another personality difference - Ursula is sensitive of other
people's feelings and respects them, even if they are below her level,
while Gudrun craves power and control over every possible being -
man or horse. This is probably why Gudrun is fascinated by Gerald -
because he embodies her innate quest for power over others. Ursula is
diametrically opposite - she abhors this.

On love, the sisters' views are quite different too. Ursula gives Birkin
the chance to express himself, argues with him and initially disagrees
with him because she cannot understand his quest for 'freedom
together'. However as their relationship develops and goes through its
highs and lows, they finally find each other, and she is ready to
'surrender' to him, in the figurative sense. Gudrun, however, seems to
give the impression of commitment to Gerald even though she is quite
unsure of herself. This can be best seen when she finally strays away
from him and has an affair with another artist, Loerke, whom she
thinks will appreciate her now reformed and clear perspective in life.
Gerald ultimately cannot accept this and commits suicide. It is clear
that the sisters' views on fidelity also differ.

The last word on love, however, is seen in the chapter 'Moony' when
Birkin comes to propose to Ursula. She does not reply immediately,
probably on account of the row with her father. At this point, she feels
in accord with Gudrun, when it comes to both of them against their
father and his ideology. But the crucial turning point in their
relationship is when Ursula and Gudrun discuss Birkin's proposal.
Initially, Ursula agrees with Gudrun, then as the conversation
progresses she finds herself beginning to disagree and finally begins
'to revolt form her sister'. This happens when she realises Gudrun does
not see people beyond her perspective, and has, in a matter of a few
sentences, managed to cross out Birkin completely - 'This finality of
Gudrun's, this dispatching of people and things in a sentence, was
such a lie'. This is where Ursula makes the decision to wed Birkin, in
one sense going against Gudrun and from this point their relationship
begins to move on two different tracks and they come to identify less
with each other and more with their lovers.

The final chapter of the story also highlights their differing views on
life, love and new beginnings. Ursula and Birkin are getting ready to
leave. Ursula and Gudrun have perhaps, their last meaningful
conversation. Gudrun cannot understand why Ursula needs to sever
her ties from everyone else. Ursula tries to explain to her, but finally
ends up telling Gudrun that if she fell in love she would understand.
This for Gudrun, seem to be the ultimate mockery of everything
between them, and their ties are more or less severed then. There is
an air of finality in this scene of the book. The last straw is Gudrun's
emotionless and frigid response to Gerald's death. This is when Ursula
realises that not only does she disagree with her sister, she is
disgusted by her behaviour.

Thus, in Gudrun and Ursula, D. H. Lawrence has created two

memorable characters, who while being related and seemingly similar,
grow into two diametrically opposite personalities.

Despite her yearning to be loved and her insistence on the supremacy

of love over the individual, Ursula is fearful that she will be consumed
by him, and she sometimes becomes aggressive in her resistance to
such envelopment. Lawrence cast Ursula as the
modern woman with grasping qualities of the modern cultural
degeneration. When Birkin comes to propose to Ursula and ends up
doing so with her father in the room, Ursula-- flustered, “driven out of
her own radiant, single world” by the unexpected proposal--cries out to
both men, “why should I say anything?. . . You do this off your own bat,
it has nothing to do with me. Why do you both want to bully me?”. Her
contrariness about whether she is the owner or the owned is succinctly
illustrated by a single sentence from her consideration of Birkin’s
proposal: “Let him be her man utterly, and she in return would be his

.” humble slave--whether he wanted it or not

Ursula tries to find the balance that allows her to be so close to Birkin
but not with the sacrifice of her independent soul This struggle to
achieve some equilibrium presages her modern womanhood.
“Balance--sexual or otherwise--is a key factor in any critical discussion
of the novel. Some form of balance is indeed the primary goal of every
character”. Not only Ursula and Birkin, but also Gerald and Gudrun
encounter the challenge of searching for balance in a male / female
relationship. Gerald, for example, is trapped in a deep-seated
perversion that might be related to a painful childhood memory—his
accidental killing of his brother. Unlike Birkin, Gerald does not entertain
lofty thoughts of spiritual or philosophical development and derives
most of his pride
rom his precarious position as an industrial magnate. He blindly
dedicates himself to the continuous mechanization of his family’s coal
mines. He takes over the prestigious
position from his rapidly aging father. But Gerald displays none of his
father’s Victorian benevolence. Instead, he sees his workers as
damned spirits, mere robots. Ironically, he establishes “the very
expression of his will, the incarnation of his power, a great and perfect
machine, a system, an activity of pure order, pure mechanical
repetition, repetition and infinitum, hence eternal and infinite”. Such
an individual, flagrantly ignoring the intrinsic dignity and personality of
others, cannot possibly hope to achieve true connection with another
human being, even in matters of simple friendship. A corrupted soul
from the start, he prevents himself from achieving what Birkin prizes
most: freedom for two. Gudrun possesses a degree of creative
potential, a sincere desire to lend her world a spiritual significance
beyond the merely sensuous side of life. But even her artistic
endeavors, especially her little figurines, bear the ominous mark of her
excessive willfulness, her tendency toward manipulation and
possessiveness. “From the outset of their relationship”, observes
Charles Rossman, “Gerald and Gudrun are locked in a struggle for
mastery over one another”. Thwarted and desperate, the combined
wills of Gerald and Gudrun soon manifest themselves as an extreme
lust for power and begin to usurp what little tenderness, love, and
humanity they share. The terms of their unspoken contract are, as
Lawrence says, diabolical: The bond was established between them, in
that look, in her tone. In her tone, she made the understanding clear--
they were of the same kind, he and she, a sort of diabolic freemasonry
subsisted between them. Henceforward, she knew, she had her power
over him. Wherever they met, they would be secretly associated. And
he would be helpless in the association with her. Her soul exulted.
Mutual repulsion between Gerald and Gudrun is an extremely
degrading process. Nothing less than pure challenge and needless
viciousness, Gerald and Gudrun’s doomed relationship is rooted in
infected
ground. Gudrun once declared her supremacy over Gerald when she
slapped him and said that she would strike the last blow in their
relationship as well as the first. Gerald’s
dominance over the maze and miners prompts the reader to conclude
that Gudrun will not win her battle for supremacy. Lawrence conveys
the colorful obscenities of their relationship, its corrosive willfulness
and violent possessiveness, in a series of powerfully dramatized
episodes. In the “Rabbit” chapter, Gudrun and Gerald express their
“mutual hellish recognition” after they are both clawed by the rabbit,
Bismarck . Gerald’s desire for domination and its link to violence
emerges when Winifred decides to “frame” another animal by drawing
it. When Gudrun tells Gerald, “We’re going to draw [the rabbit],”
Gerald replied, “Draw him and quarter him and dish him up” . Gudrun
smiles at
Gerald’s mockery and their eyes meet in the knowledge of their
inherent cruelty. They
give full expression to their mutual attraction to such power plays
when they try to remove the rabbit from its cage—another framing
image. Its frenzied opposition thwarts Gudrun’s attempt to capture, “a
heavy cruelty well[s] up in her,” which Gerald observes her sullen
passion of cruelty “with subtle recognition” . Gerald responds with
similar outrage when he tries to subdue the rabbit and, like Gudrun, is
scratched. This event turns out to be curiously ritualistic; once again
both lovers acknowledge their subterranean attraction and so reaffirm
the twisted pact between them: Gudrun looked at Gerald with strange,
darkened eyes, strained with underworld knowledge, almost
supplicating, like those of a creature which is at his mercy, yet which is
his ultimate victor. He did not know what to say to her. He felt the
mutual hellish recognition. Taking their lead from such dubious
currents of feeling, Gerald and Gudrun proceed to engage themselves
in a program of sexual warfare and violence, denying their potential
capacity for true connection. That Gudrun and Gerald unite at the end
of “Rabbit” chapter in “mutual hellish recognition” becomes an apt
metaphor for the complexity of male / female relationships. Gerald
desperately seeks out Gudrun as his primary source of verified
existence, his only source of working stimulation. Rendered helplessly
by his own emptiness, Gerald drains whatever sustenance he can from
Gudrun: “As he drew nearer to her, he plunged deeper into her
enveloping soft warmth, a wonderful creative heat that penetrated his
veins and gave him life again. He felt himself dissolving and sinking to
rest in the bath of her living strength” . Ironically, Gudrun also derives
a kind of passive pleasure from this strange experience: “and she,
subject, received him as a vessel filled with his bitter potion of death.
She had no power at this crisis to resist. The terrible frictional violence
of death filled her, and she received it in an ecstasy of subjection, in
throes of acute, violent sensation” . Both Gudrun and Gerald transform
their capacity for normal, healthy sexuality into lust and assertiveness.
In doing so, they make themselves into agents of death. “The
interchanges between men and Women in Women in Love,” as Wendy
Perkins observes, “are complicated by the historical moment of the
novel, an age where individuals no longer turn to society for advice on
forming relationships” . Perkins further remarks: “As Ursula, Birkin,
Gudrun, and Gerald struggle to gain knowledge of themselves through
contact with each other, they [re]evaluate gender roles, raising
questions regarding the contradictory impulses of domination,
submission, and equality and their links to human sexuality” . In the

,
industrialized atmosphere of England, Ursula, Gudrun, Birkin, and
dreary

Gerald all face the void of modern existence and turn toward
relationship with others for salvation. The process of discovering their
own needs as they explore unions with others involves complex
questions like “a struggle for consciousness, a search for definition”.
Lawrence didn’t tell his reader whether these characters find the
answer in their long years of struggling. Lawrence has shown in
Women in Love “that experience is equivocal, ambivalent, that there
are no clear answers or wholly adequate resolutions”. Asserting the
importance of representing the ambiguous nature of human
experience, Lawrence writes, “If you try to nail anything down, in the
novel, either it kills the novel, or the novel gets up and walks away
with the nail. Morality in the novel is the trembling instability of
balance. When the novelist puts his thumb in the scale, to pull down
the balance to his own predilection, that is immorality. . . . And of all
the art forms, the novel most of all demands the trembling and
oscillating of the balance” . To maintain the “trembling and oscillating
of the balance,” Lawrence leaves the four main characters, as Mark
Schorer puts it, “compounded of a double drive” and free in the plot to
choose between life and death. In the closing episodes, Ursula and
Rupert leave the Alps to choose life, while Gudrun and Gerald stay in
the mountains, engaged in a mortal content of wills. Gudrun is now
repelled by Gerald, who seems to her “like a child that is famished
crying for the breast . . . he needed her to put him to sleep, to give him
repose”. Gudrun rejects both the child-man she sees in Gerald and the
role of nurturer in which he has tried to cast her. For her everything
has become “intrinsically a piece of irony”. To replace Gerald she
singles out Loerke, a “small, dark-skinned man with full eyes, and odd
creature, like a child, and like a troll, quick, detached”. Spurred on by
her unfaithfulness and his gnawing lack of stability, Gerald becomes a
would-be murderer and attempts to strangle Gudrun. Failing to
exercise the full force of his will upon her, he ultimately embraces
death as his only recourse. Neither Gerald nor Gudrun is inherently evil
or demonic, but their unwillingness to define themselves against each
other prevents them from obtaining peace. Unable to approximate a
suitable degree of impersonal emotions, they helplessly witness the
disintegration of their relationship, permitting it to lapse into animal
aggression and violent sensuality. There is, as Eliseo Vivas claims, “a
kind of love between the two of them. But it would be no less
inadequate to call it ambivalent” . Langbaum ascribes the unbalance to
the underlying “hate’ in their attraction to each other. Schneider calls
it “a violent battle for survival, a war for supremacy, in which one of
the partners must be master and the other slave”. Unable to determine
the limits of their selfhood, of their physical and spiritual boundaries,
both Gerald and Gudrun forever deny themselves the invaluable
privileges of balanced love. Ursula’s marriage with Birkin seems a
model of domestic bliss in contrast to the relationship of Gudrun and
Gerald. It is when her openness to star equilibrium grows steadily,
Ursula “had learned at last to be still and perfect”. After they exchange
tender emotions in the quaint atmosphere of a local inn, they embark
on a refreshing drive through the dark woods of Sherwood Forest. Both
lovers seem to have experience of profound change. Yet the
indeterminate ending where Birkin suggests he needs a relationship
with a man to be satisfied leaves the question of marriage as a route to
self-fulfillment open. Barthes notes: “To interpret a text is not to give it
a (more or less justified, more or less free) meaning, but on the
contrary to appreciate what plural constitutes it. . . . [an ideal text
contains] a galaxy of signifiers, not a structure of signifieds”. What
Barthes said echoes Lawrence’s assertion that “the novel most of all
demands the trembling and oscillating of the balance”. Although Birkin
and Ursula reconcile their intimate relationship, they are not brilliantly
counterbalanced, nor do they achieve what Birkin emphasizes the star
equilibrium, drawn together by their gravity (love) and repulsed by
their inherent polarity (utter singleness). The real balance of male /
female relationship is thus left incomplete. The incomplete becomes an

. integral part of Lawrence’s artistry

In 1915, Lawrence published The Rainbow, a study of three

generations of the Brangwen family, some of whom we have met in
Women in Love. Although no more than a few Novel Club members
would be shocked by anything in The Rainbow, it was the subject of an
obscenity trial; it was banned, and all unsold copies of the novel were
seized and burnt. All this caused some difficulties in the publication of
the sequel to The Rainbow, so that our current volume, which
Lawrence had interestingly originally planned to title The Wedding
Band, was not to be published until 1920, by private subscription, in
the United States.

Lawrence is a remarkable prose stylist, and an enormously engaging

writer. There is hardly a page in Women in Love that is without
interest or charm. You can open it at random, and you will
immediately find yourself involved, impressed, and never, never bored.
If you underline the sentences that contain something remarkable,
whether in terms of prose style, striking images, felicitous language,
interesting ideas, striking or dramatic descriptions, et cetera, et cetera,
you will find that your pages have many more sentences underlined
than not, and it is above all this dramatic richness of the text that
makes this such a great novel. It is a long novel, but not a too long
novel, and a true Lawrentian might wish it even longer. Even the parts
of the book which might have been excised without too much harm to
its main structure, such as the description of the London demimonde in
“Crème de Menthe”, or the section on the death of Gerald’s father, or
the parts of the story concerning Winifred, are not unwelcome,
because they are every bit as absorbing as the rest of the text. Of
which writers can it be said that there is pure gold on every page?
Three that come immediately to mind are Shakespeare, Nabokov, and
D.H. Lawrence. This is a book that bears reading and rereading.

Despite its title, this novel is not exactly about women, and not exactly
about love. It is much more a book about men and hatred. If you will
circle the words “hate, “hatred”, and their Lawrentian corollaries and
variations like “rage”, and “opposition”, you will see that these terms
occur with alarmingly greater frequency in the text than the word
“love”. The closest thing we have to love, as the term is usually used,
is the relationship between Rupert and Gerald. Their genuine fondness
for one another is a refreshing respite from the strained mixture of love
and hatred that characterizes relationships between Hermione and
Rupert, Rupert and Ursula, and Gerald and Gudrun. One of the
saddest things in this sad book is that Rupert and Gerald’s relationship
is never realized, never is sexually consummated, never amounts to
much in the end. At the very end of the novel, we share Rupert’s.
Unfortunately, the closest Rupert and Gerald come to expressing their
homosexual love is the wresting scene in “Gladiatorial”. Looking
closely at this scene may illustrate the great and the not so great
aspects of Lawrence.

The two men have wrestled one another into joint unconsciousness. It
is meant to be dramatic, but it is really too silly to take seriously. And,
unfortunately, there is a certain amount of Lawrence that is hard to
take seriously, a certain amount of philosophizing and phrasifying that
lend themselves to parody. You will remember that in “Gudrun in the
Pompadour”, Halliday mockingly reads aloud from a letter from Birkin,
and an offended Gudrun walks off with the letter. Now presumably,
the point here is the vileness of the Halliday and Pussum crowd. But
consider what the letter says: “There is a phase in every race when
the desire for destruction over-comes every other desire. In the
individual, this desire is ultimately a desire for destruction of the self.
It is a desire for the reduction-process in oneself, a reducing back to
the origin, a return along the Flux of Corruption, to the original
rudimentary conditions of being. And in the great retrogression, the
reducing back of the created body of life, we get knowledge, and
beyond knowledge, the phosphorescent ecstasy of acute sensation.”
This sounds like a parody, and the reader may be tempted to be more
sympathetic to Halliday than to Gudrun here. And the reader might
ask himself: How can something this good be this bad?

The relationship of Rupert and Ursula is the most satisfactory, or

perhaps we should say the least unsatisfactory, of the relationships in
the novel. The two start with the usual Lawrentian hatred, rage, and
violent opposition of clashing wills, and somehow – we are not quite
sure how – make a transition to marriage, and, we presume, to a kind
of love, though not, to be sure, to a self-sufficient and complete kind of
love. At the very end of the novel, Rupert laments that he was not
able to find eternal union with a man, which, we presume, in
conjunction with an eternal union with a woman, would constitute
complete, real happiness. Given the difficulty of finding in this world a
single eternal union, much less a multiplicity of eternal unions, we can
see that there is a certain darkness to the Lawrentian universe.

That darkness infuses the tragedy of the life of Gerald Crich. It is

universally accepted that Lawrence means Rupert Birkin to represent
himself, but perhaps Gerald is an idealized Lawrence, or perhaps just
an idealized man. In any case, it appears that Lawrence is as
infatuated with Gerald as Rupert is. Gerald is handsome, strong,
athletic, self-assured, rich, virile, successful, and well bred. He is well
educated, well traveled, successful with women, and, judging from
Rupert, with men. We even learn, from an author whose interest in
women’s and men’s clothing has no bounds, that Gerald is well
dressed, down to his pearl studs and silk underwear. On several
occasions, we see more than a hint of sadism in Gerald; his treatment
of his mare inspires some of Lawrence’s most breathless prose:

“Gudrun was as if numbed in her mind by the sense of

indomitable soft weight of the man, bearing down into the living body
of the horse; the strong, indomitable thighs of the blond man
clenching the palpitating body of the mare into pure control; a sort of
soft, white magnetic domination from the loins and thighs and calves,
enclosing and encompassing the mare heavily into unutterable
subordination, soft blood-subordination, terrible.”

From the beginning, the relationship between Gudrun and

Gerald a deadly contest between their wills, filled with anger, even
hatred. When Gudrun strikes Gerald in the face in “Water-Party”, “…
she felt in her soul an unconquerable lust for deep brutality against
him.” And then Gerald “became deadly pale, and a dangerous flame
darkened his eyes. For some seconds he could not speak, his lungs
were so suffused with blood, his heart stretched almost to bursting
with a great gush of ungovernable rage. It was as if some reservoir of
black anger had burst within him, and swamped him.” How Lawrentian
can you get?
There is to be little development in the relationship from here on.
Gerald and Gudrun are locked in a struggle to the death. The change
of scene to the Alps seems to inspire Lawrence, and there is some
exquisite prose towards the end of the novel. Gudrun’s flirtation with
the strange artist Loerke brings matters to an intolerable intensity, and
the near murder of Gudrun, and Gerald’s suicide complete the sad
story of Gerald, a story which might well be viewed as a sort of
classical tragedy.

1. Which element was the most important to the development of the

novel? Explain why.The language was the most important element to
the development of the novel. The author uses words, which try to
capture the sub-conscious desires of his characters, the hidden
processes of their psyches.

2. Identify the elements of plot below. Justify your answer.A. initial

incident - As Gudrun begins to dance in the fields during the “Water
Party”, she un-inhibits and reveals her inner self in an unconsciously
suggestive exposure: her urge first to freeherself from repression, then
to express herself, and then with the arrival of the highland bulls,
define and asserts herself against the other, the male.

B. climax - The discussion between Gudrun and Gerald in which it is

clearly stated that they do not love each other. After this point, Gerald
is given into despair and kills himself.

3. Give an example of conflict. Identify the type of conflict and how it is

/ why it is not resolved.

The man’s hand coming down on the rabbit’s neck like a predator, the
scene with the mare being beaten and the scene with the highland
cattle set the tone for the struggles of the “human war”,the battle
between the sexes. In the first and second instances, the ‘male’ figure
proves predominant, but with the cattle, the ‘female’ figure proves
herself dominant.

4. Give an example of irony from the novel. Identify the type and
explain how or why it is ironic.

The ‘Water Party’ chapter proves to be very ironic. It is supposed to be

a happy and peacefulget together but it ends in tragedy with the
drowning of Gerald’s sister, Diana and the young doctor who tries to
save her.

5. Identify a flashback from the novel and explain the effect of the use
of this device.

Chapter XXIII, ‘Excurse’, begins by rediscovering the violence of

‘Moony’, in a flaming row between Ursula and Birkin over Hermione, as
well as other things. The engagement rings whichhe has brought
signify the commitment he wants, and being red, dark blue, primrose,
remind usof the lanterns and of the challenge to harmonize oppositions
in the human being and relationship.

6. Give an example of foreshadowing from the novel. Explain the effect

of the use of this device.

The title of Chapter XXIV, ‘Death and Love’ seems to foreshadow how
Gerald will go from hisdying father to kiss Gudrun under the bridge,
then from his father’s grave to her bed, but which actually suggests
that this pair of lovers will set foot on an opposite path through a
different way of love, leading to death. The contrasting emotions and
passions displayed suggest an instability to their relationship, which
ultimately ends in Gerald’s death.

7. From what point of view is the story told? What effect does this point
of view have on the reader? The story is told from the third person
point of view. This makes the story more realistic and believable,
convincing the reader of the instability and every changing attitudes of
the characters.

8. Describe the setting of the novel. During World War I in class ridden
England, where peopleare assumed to be as they appear.
9. Identify two major characters from the novel. For each character: A.
Identify the type. B. Give three quotes, with page numbers, which
illustrates the character.

Character one: Ursula Brangwen, the Idealist - longs for love from the
opposite sex, optimistic. A. “Ursula having always that strange
brightness of an essential flame that is caught, meshed,contravened.
She lived a good deal by herself, to herself, working, and passing on
from day to day, and always thinking, trying to hold on life, to grasp it
in her own understanding.” (p. 9)B. “She thought he (Rupert) seemed
to acknowledge some kinship between her and him, a natural, tacit
understanding, a using of the same language.” (p. 20)C. "The flickering
fires in his eyes concentrated as he looked into her eyes. Then the lids
drooped with a faint motion of satiric contempt. They rose again to the
same remorselesssuggestively. And she gave way, he might do as he
would. His licentiousness was repulsivelyattractive. But he was self
responsible, she would see what it was.” (p. 413)

Character two: Gudrun Brangwen, the Protaganist - anti-male, cynical

A. “Perhaps one doesn’t really want them (children), in one’s soul--only
superficially.” A hardness came over Gudrun’s face. She did not want
to be too definite. (p. 9)B. “One must discriminate,” repeated Gudrun.--
“But he’s a wonderful chap (Rupert), in other respects--a marvelous
personality. But you can’t trust him.” (p. 21)C. “She felt a new lease of
life was come upon her, and she was happy like a child, veryattractive
and beautiful to everybody, with her soft, luxuriant figure and her
happiness.Yet underneath was death itself.” (p. 467)

10. Give a one-sentence statement of theme for the novel.

Human beings portrayed as ‘civilized’ but who are not under their own
control, but are impelled by forces deep within them which are far
below the level of their consciouswill or choice, and how this effects
their outcome.

11. Identify one symbol from the novel and explain the symbolism. The
highland bulls are a symbol of the male; apparently strong but
susceptible todomination by the female (Gudrun).

12. Identify one allusion from the novel and explain the allusion. The
uninhibitted ‘dance’ is an allusion of the sexual freedom, which exists
throughout the novel.
13. Identify six different types of figurative language or literary devices
used in the novel. For each type: A. Identify type. B. Give a quote with
page number. C. Explain the effect.

1. A. Foreshadowing B. Gerald: “We’ve all got to die, and it doesn’t

seem to make any great difference, anyhow, whether you die or not.”
(p. 203) C. This reflects his indifference to life, which foreshadows his
eventual suicide in the snow.

2. A. Simile B. “Gerald, white like a presence in his summer clothes,

was following down the open grassy slope.” (p. 36)C. Expresses the
vulnerability of Gerald to the domination by Gudrun.

3. A. MetaphorB. “The two sisters were like a pair of scissors, snipping

off everything that came athwartthem; or like a knife and a whetstone,
the one sharpened against the other.C. Expresses at once the
similarity and contrast between the two sisters. (p. 51)

4. A. AllusionB. “Then he had been sent away to school, which was so

much death to him.” (p. 221)C. Represents his rebelliousness to
a
authority and his despair, which will be his downfall.

A. Flashback B. “It was a round opal, red and fiery, set in a circle of .5
tiny rubies.” “It was a rose-shaped, beautiful sapphire, with small
brilliants.” “It was a squarish topaz set in a frame of steel, or some
other similar mineral, finely wrought.” (p. 303)C. Chapter XXIII,
‘Excurse’, begins by rediscovering the violence of ‘Moony’, in a flaming
row between Ursula and Birkin over Hermione, as well as other things.
The engagement rings whichhe has brought signify the commitment
he wants, and being red, dark blue, primrose, remind usof the lanterns
and of the challenge to harmonize oppositions in the human being and
in relationship. 6. A. SymbolismB. “Gudrun was shocked by his
appearance, and by the darkened, almost disintegrated eyes,that still
were unconquered and firm.” (p. 285)C. Symbolizes the sickness of
their relationship and the effect it is having on him, he is sinking into
.despair
Plot

The action of the novel centers on the parallel courtships of Ursula by

the intellectual Rupert Birkin and Gudrun by the industrialist Gerald
Crich. These dynamics are complicated, however, by the strong
connection between the sisters, as well as the more ambiguous bond
between the two male friends. Although in Lawrence’s initial drafts
attribute an explicitly homosexual attraction to Birkin, the final version
proves more evasive, leaving only the subterranean suggestion of
Birkin’s earnest offer of sworn blütbruderschaft in the manner of
Germanic knights.[1]

Ultimately, the two relationships go in very different directions. The

initial strife between Birkin and Ursula over his lingering attachment to
the controlling Hermione Roddice is resolved by his eventual
willingness to break off their relationship, and Birkin and Ursula give up
their jobs as teachers to take up a more bohemian lifestyle. Gerald and
Gudrun begin on the firm ground of mutual sexual attraction, and their
bond intensifies when Gerald’s ailing father invites Gudrun to become
the art tutor for the family’s young daughter Winifred. But she finally
comes to find Gerald emotionally inaccessible and during a winter
holiday in the Tyrol abandons his intimacy in favor of a German
sculptor, precipitating Gerald’s suicide.

Characterization

Lawrence drew heavily on his friends and acquaintances in peopling

the world of Women in Love, often veering so close to outright portrait
as to alienate those displeased with their depictions.

Ursula and Gudrun were originally conceived as representations of

Frieda and her sister Else. Their youths are transposed, however, onto
the coal-mining town of Beldover, whose environs are accurately
drawn from Lawrence’s own childhood in Eastwood, Nottinghamshire.
Gudrun also owes something to Katherine Mansfield, as the incident in
Chapter 28 where Gudrun takes one of Birkin’s letters away from table
of mockers is based on Mansfield doing the same with a copy of
Lawrence’s Amours.[2]

The character of Birkin is very recognizably Lawrence himself in

philosophy and manners, but one sharp difference with Sons and
Lovers is the criticism and even outright mockery which the other
characters (and even the story itself) seem to treat him. Ursula in
particular emerges as a frequent counterbalance, as when Birkin tells
her that he is looking for a “strange conjunction…a pure balance of two
single beings:”
She looked at him. He was very earnest, and earnestness was always
rather ridiculous, commonplace, to her. It made her feel unfree and
uncomfortable. Yet she liked him so much. But why drag in the stars!
[3]
The figure of Gerald Crich is more of a composite. Structurally, he is
based on the industrialist Thomas Barber, who acceded to the
chairmanship of Barber, Walker & Co. at the age of 21 in 1897. Many of
the details of his characterization – the accidental killing of a younger
brother, the brutalization of a horse in Chapter 9, the death of a young
family member during a pleasure cruise in Chapter 14 – are taken from
his life. The source of the imagined intimacy between Birkin and Crich
is less determinate, although Lawrence’s friend John Middleton Murry
apparently believed himself to be Gerald’s original. [4]

Hermione Roddice seems to hybridize several women Lawrence knew.

The suffocating influence she exerts over Birkin recalls Paul Morel’s
relationship with Miriam, which Lawrence based on his own with Jessie
Chambers. But Hermione also strongly evokes Lady Ottoline Morrell, a
Bloomsbury hostess with whom Lawrence had an apparently
ambivalent relationship. Breadalby is certainly based on her home, and
her brother Alexander recalls Lady Ottoline’s husband Philip, also a
Liberal MP and pianist. Indeed, she had even given Lawrence a lapis
lazuli paperweight as a gift, an object which Lawrence reimagines as
the weapon with which Hermione clouts Birkin when he tries to
distance himself from her. [5]

Some minor characters were sketched even more directly from

Lawrence’s past. Will Brangwen has been often associated with Alfred
Burrows, the father of Lawrence’s former fiancée Louisa, who was in
fact a church organist and handicrafts instructor and apparently
disapproved of Lawrence. The London figures of Halliday and the
artist’s model Pussum were based on Philip Heseltine, better known to
posterity as the composer Peter Warlock, and the artist’s model Minnie
Channing, called “Puma” among her friends. [6]

In general, the major departure from Sons and Lovers is the emphasis
on bonds between characters of the same age, rather than
intergenerational relationships. Although Ursula finds herself seriously
at odds with her father over her marriage plans, there is no
emotionally domineering parent like Gertrude Morel, and while Birkin
does resemble Paul Morel in many respects, his background and family
are left completely unexplored.
Textual History
Both The Rainbow and Women in Love find their origins in a 1913 draft
called “The Sisters.” The next year, Lawrence would revise it further
into a novel entitled “The Wedding Ring,” which Methuen agreed to
publish in 1914. The outbreak of war late that year caused the
publisher to renege on the agreement, and Lawrence decided to
rework the source material, separating it into two novels. The Rainbow,
treating the early lives of the sisters, was suppressed shortly after its
publication in 1915 on grounds of obscenity. Lawrence then spent four
years revising the remainder of “The Wedding Ring” into a second
novel, shopping it to publishers without success until 1920, when
Thomas Seltzer published the first American edition. It was printed in
England the following year by Martin Secker. Although both editions
were based on the same copies prepared by Lawrence, the fate of The
Rainbow led Secker to limit his exposure by cutting sections of the text
which might run afoul of the censors. In fact, in the English second
printing, Heseltine’s threat to sue for libel resulted in changes to the
descriptions of Halliday and the Pussum, changing the one from pale
and fair-haired to swarthy and the other from red-haired to blonde[7]

Nietzsche in Women in Love

Lawrence’s Women in Love significantly reworks Nietzsche’s central

concept of the Will to Power. Lawrence saw modern literature as a
mode of representing the ‘fluidity’ of life in a way that could counteract
the rigid discourses of philosophy and religion.[8] His representations
of the Will to Power are therefore more nuanced and complex than
Nietzsche’s UberMensch, and attempt to recuperate a mode of
aesthetic experience from the framework of the will altogether.
Perhaps the most recognizable instantiation of the Will to Power in
Women in Love occurs in Hermione. Lawrence establishes through her
an emphatic rejection of the will as knowledge, thereby setting the
stage for the main characters to pursue more meaningful modes of
experiences in art and love. Birkin’s outburst couches Hermione’s
faults in very definite terms, that of the will and a manic desire for
power through intellectual control: “You only have your will and your
conceit of consciousness and your lust for power, to know.”[9] In the
moral and perceptual universe of this novel, Hermione commits the
cardinal sin of asserting her will through the intellect alone, thereby
denying her sensual and creative self.
Gerald, the industrial magnate, is also treated with the language of
asserting his will over the world, and over Gudrun. In the chapter Coal-
Dust, a roaring industrial train terrifies Gerald’s horse. As Gudrun and
Ursula look on, Gerald brutally controls the horse with sheer physical
domination, the expression of his inescapable “will.” The mechanical
subtext of the episode is blended with an eroticism we experience from
Gudrun’s “spellbound” perspective. This foreshadows a later, violent
sexual encounter in Innsbruck, where Gudrun’s withdrawal into
aesthetic contemplation prompts Gerald to unsuccessfully assert his
will over her.
Birkin and Ursula reject the “Wille zur Macht” as “base,” and Birkin
tries to educate Ursula into a different understanding of the will (a
“volonté de pouvoir”) as part of his vision of the ideal human
relationship as “a pure stable equilibrium” of individual wills, in which
neither fully succumbs or dominates.[10] Meanwhile Gudrun rejects
Gerald’s sexual will, and embraces what seems like a Will to Power as
Art, notably through eurythmic dance. Yet Lawrence seems to want to
shield art from an all-encompassing notion of the will. In Gudrun he
brackets off a mode of experience – that of aesthetic contemplation –
in which the will dissolves altogether.
The blending of philosophical concepts with literary innovation in the
novel performs the kind of fluid representation that Lawrence sought
to recuperate from the discourse of philosophy. Even as he rejects
intellectual experience on its own, Lawrence’s use of Nietzsche shows
that he saw philosophy as a fertile ground from which to structure his
literary representations of the quintessentially modern problems of the
individual’s relationship to others, and to a world of violent, industrial
.forces

Women in Love, a philosophical novel by D.H. Lawrence is clearly a

magnificent journey through the intellectual lives of its characters.
Indeed, there is a cognitive depiction of each character throughout
their relationships with one another. What's more, their dispositions
are further determined through the consciousness of the other
characters. As Women in Love is based wholly on human relationships,
it is interesting to note a type of bonding that occurs, especially
between the women. However, in some cases this bonding becomes
quite detached, causing a feeling of embittered resistance towards the
other. By closely examining the relationships between Ursula, Gudrun,
Hermione and Winifred, this process of womanly bonding and
separating will be revealed.

As the novel opens, we note a first illustration of bonding between the

Brangwen sisters, Ursula and Gudrun. While Gudrun sketches and
Ursula sews, they muse about marriage. As it seems, both feel a strong
inclination not to. On the other hand, both feel that they would miss
something of importance, should they not. Gudrun feels a strong sense
of boredom claiming that "Everything withers in the bud"(Lawrence, 8)
and Ursula is in a state of inertia feeling the "active living has been
suspended"(9). As the conversation on love and marriage continues,
we notice a love/hate dialogue between them. Gudrun is hostile
towards her "baffling" sensitive sister yet Ursula "admires" Gudrun
"with all her soul." Still, she feels a sense of suppression from Gudrun.
To break the tension, the girls decide to go and view a local wedding of
the Crich family, giving themselves a first glimpse of their future
relationships with Rupert Birkin and Gerald Crich. The walk they take
entails a frightening episode for the girls especially Gudrun. This is
emphasized by the nature of the common people and the town itself. It
was like "a country in the underworld", "The people are all ghouls, and
everything is ghostly" (11). Clearly both Gudrun and Ursula fear the
haunting, stagnant life they currently lead in the town of Beldover. As
Gudrun clings to Ursula for support, Ursula can "feel her suffering"
knowing in her own heart she feels a similar fear. Although both girls
share this sense of anguish, there is a strong contrast in the nature of
their suffering. Gudrun suffers because she can't stand the sight of
these ugly, insignificant people. Ursula suffers because she "was afraid
of the depth of her feeling against the home, the milieu, the whole
atmosphere and condition of this obsolete life" (11). Indeed, this last
instance conveys the separation within their bond, and begins to give
the reader an idea of their separate individuality.

As the novel progresses, so do our assumptions of the difference of

character between Gudrun and Ursula. Gudrun is an artist, which
makes her perceptions of people differ from Ursula's . Being an artist,
Gudrun views other people as "complete". In her mind they become a
model, something that she can imitate and capture on paper or with
clay: "Gudrun watched them closely, with objective curiosity. She saw
each one as a complete figure, like a character in a book, or a subject
in a picture, or a marionette in a theater, a finished creation"
(Lawrence, 14). This last statement reflects Gudrun's point of view. It
clearly portrays her broad sense of knowledge. Gudrun is able to
"know" and categorize people at face value it seems. Further, once she
has decided she has them figured them out, they lack any further
potential for her, therefore, they become neatly put away in her mind.
Certainly, Gudrun thrives on consuming knowledge. Moreover, she
lusts for power and control. We even learn this through her art, as we
watch her carve tiny figures that fit in the palm of her hand. In
addition, Ursula mentions that Gudrun enjoys looking at things through
the wrong end of the opera glass, causing them to appear smaller than
they actually are. Conceivably this contributes to Gudrun's desire for
power, as smaller things are much easier to control. During the
wedding, it seems that Gerald Crich has become victim to Gudrun's
powerful consumption as he is "unknown" to Gudrun. Indeed, this
probes Gudrun to uncover Gerald's hidden secrets, and harness his
power.
Gudrun's growing relationship with Gerald Crich brings us to discuss
another example of bonding that occurs between Gudrun and Gerald's
younger sister, Winifred. Winifred, the dearly loved "pet" of the
wealthy collier Thomas Criche is indeed a detached and demonic child.
According to the wish of the dying Thomas Crich, Gudrun becomes
Winifred's instructor. She eventually moves into a studio especially
built for Winifred and herself. Very much like Gudrun, Winifred only
pays attention to people who are worth her while. The many people
that cross her path are never "real" to her, only dull and insignificant:
"She would accept nothing but the world of amusement, and the
serious people of her life were the animals she had for pets. On those
she lavished, almost ironically, her affection and her companionship.
To the rest of the human scheme she submitted with a faint bored
indifference" (246).

Comparable to Gudrun, and her carved figures Winifred obtains a

feeling of power over those beings that are physically smaller than her.
What's more, her feelings towards Gudrun are quite profound, Winifred
accepts Gudrun as they "[meet] in a kind of make-belief world"
(Lawrence,246). She takes notice right away of the similar nature of
Gudrun's character to her own, thus they form a bond almost
immediately. The notion of this artistic bond is further ascertained
through Winifred's and Gudrun's first project. Gudrun suggests they
draw a portrait of Winifred's little Pekinese dog. The younger girl
squeals in sardonic delight and manages to create a cruel, waggish
likeness of the animal. Gudrun approves notably: "It was a grotesque
little diagram of a grotesque little animal, so wicked and so comical, a
slow smile came over Gudrun's face, unconsciously" (247). Here
Winifred has managed to reduce the meaning of her dog's existence to
nothing more than a diagram. Correspondingly Gudrun's art does much
the same, diminishing the subject's reality into something small and
insignificant. Clearly there is a strong bond between pupil and teacher.
It is not until the question of Thomas Criche's death arises that there is
a notable separation between the two. Winifred is very close to her
father and although she is a child, she realizes the consequences of his
illness: "..in her remoter soul, she knew as well as the adults knew:
perhaps better" (299). When Winifred probes Gudrun as to whether
she thinks her father will die, Gudrun is very honest and replies that he
is very ill. Although Winifred knows Gudrun speaks the truth, she
immediately opposes her reply, "triumphantly" mocking Gudrun. It
seems that Gudrun is overwhelmed with a discomforting feeling of
distance between herself and Winifred.

Another example of bonding and detaching occurs frequently between

the character of Ursula and her would be rival Hermione. Like her sister
at the Crichs' wedding, Ursula became attracted to Gerald's confidant
Rupert Birkin, the former lover of Hermione. Indeed, just as Gudrun
responds to Gerald, Birkin kindles a burning interest in Ursula.
However, Birkin does not fall victim to her but evokes a very real and
soulful emotion in Ursula. Unlike Gudrun's mindful perception of people
and the world around them, Ursula appears oblivious to categorizing
the nature of human beings. Rather than just perceiving them Ursula
knows people through their emotions and her own. She is naive and
perhaps innocent on the surface, but she holds a power in her
unconscious that each of the other characters lack. Because she de-
emphasizes the power of "knowing" she lacks the feelings of insecurity
about her "self" and its existence. Therefore, unlike the others, she
doesn't experience any feelings of annihilation. Ursula is a sharp
contrast to the character of Hermione, who holds an insecure
superficiality. In order to remedy her feeling of dissolution, Hermione
wants to "know" everything intellectually and control everything,
qualities that are equivalent to Gudrun's. Nevertheless, there are
instances when Ursula and Hermione bond significantly. However, their
repulsion and detachment from one another are just as vehement.

A first illustration of their bonding occurs in "Classroom".

Unexpectedly, Birkin has come to inspect Ursula's classroom. Ursula is
dreamily teaching a lesson on 'catkins' only to be interrupted by the
harsh mentality of Birkin, and his profound sense of being. Hermione,
still obsessively attached to her lover, has followed him on this
venture. Ursula, quite intrigued with Birkin, has ended up being a
spectator to one of their deep, heated rows. This chapter gives us a
deeper perception of Birkin's character. As he beats down Hermione
for lacking any real sensuality, his bitter and stubborn disposition is
revealed. Truly this nature of Birkin attracts Ursula, but at the same
time it repels her. As she probes him to explain his demonic notion of
sensuality, she is let down and confused. At this point Hermione uses
Ursula's and her "womanness" as an escape from Birkin's harsh
accusations by prompting her to agree, "what a dreadful Satanist" he
is (Lawrence, 44). It seems Birkin has lost his manliness as he feels:
"The two women were jeering at him, jeering him into
nothingness…….as if he were a neuter" (44). This bond between
Hermione and Ursula continues as shortly after Ursula consents to an
invitation to spend the weekend at Hermione's mansion. Although
Hermione knows that Ursula is her rival, she, "turns with a pleasant
intimacy to Ursula", and appears to be grateful for Ursula's acceptance
: "Hermione looked down at her, gratified, reflecting, …" (45).
Nevertheless, Ursula is eventually enraged with Hermione as the latter
expertly cuts off a later developing conversation between Ursula and
Birkin: "Birkin stopped short. A spasm of anger and chagrin went over
Ursula" (46). Hermione, to some extent has triumphantly regained her
control over Birkin and Ursula, thus the bond between the two women
is cut bitingly short. Furthermore, the actual bond itself could
contribute to the "woman bonding against man" motif. A universal
sisterhood as it were, that appears to continue throughout the novel.

Another example of this womanly bond between Ursula and Hermione

is found in the chapter entitled "Carpeting". Here, Ursula and Birkin
have moved to a more significant level of their relationship. After a
"courting" expedition in "An Island", Ursula decides to join Birkin to
view his new living quarters. To the dismay of Ursula, the dominating
Hermione has already arrived, forcing her control on her former lover's
living situation. Gerald Crich is present also to offer his assistance.
Eventually, all decide to take their tea down to the water and enjoy the
view. Ursula begins the conversation by expressing her dislike for
Gerald who, had cruelly dominated his female mare in her presence
the day before. During this conversation we witness Ursula's "blood
conscious" sympathy as she is able to truly feel sorry for the poor
creature. Further, she argues that although animals are not human
beings, they have significant feelings towards cruel treatment. Each of
the others disagrees, including Hermione, who feels that it is necessary
to dominate animals or "they will use us" (Lawrence, 143). Eventually,
the conversation shifts to the "will" of the animal and how it is
dangerous. Which prompts Hermione to reply that if we should learn to
use our will, "properly, intelligibly" our problems will be solved (143).
At length, this begins another heated disagreement between her and
the men, and more importantly between her and Birkin who is against
her every point. Ursula also begins again to dispute her point with
Gerald. It seems that Ursula and Hermione have begun to bond with a
certain sisterhood against the men.

This bond is subsequently demonstrated when Hermione, clearly fed

up, changes the conversation and appeals to Ursula to take a walk.
Looking at the flowers, the two talk of "womanly" things. As the men
stay behind, Hermione and Ursula continue to be "united in a sudden
bond of deep affection and closeness" (Lawrence,146). Despite the fact
that both women are the antithesis of one another, they seem to agree
on the idea that Birkin is far to analytical at times and, "can only tear
things to pieces" in order to have a greater understanding. They
continue the conversation and finally come to a kind of epiphany
together, by comparing Birkin's nature to "tearing open a bud to see
what the flower will be like,.." causing that nature to be destructive.
(146) Perhaps Ursula is able to bond with Hermione on the notion that
each man has defied her sympathetic "blood conscious" nature as well
as her womanhood. Conceivably, Ursula has related herself to the
female mare that was dominated by Gerald previously and was not
able to gain atonement for this wrong. She relates to Hermione as the
two balance together in a moment of control and domination over
Gerald and Birkin. Regardless, as soon as the two women realize that
they vehemently agree, each begins to distrust the other, in fact it
appears that Ursula is indeed repelled by Hermione: "As soon as they
were in accord, they began mutually to mistrust each other. In spite of
herself, Ursula felt herself recoiling from Hermione. It was all she could
do to restrain her revulsion" (147). Consequently, the bond is severed.

This last notion pertains to a final and most significant womanly bond.
It is between the Brangwen sisters during the chapter "Moony". At the
beginning of the chapter we note that Birkin has just returned from the
south of France. There he spent an isolated vacation, not notifying
anyone, even Ursula for that matter. Ursula began to lose hope in their
relationship and suffered severely. She is taking a walk, mulling her
whole idea of existence over in her mind when she stumbles across
Birkin. As he doesn't notice her, he begins a monologue, as it were,
against womankind. He begins by damning Cybele, the primitive
goddess of matriarchal fertility. He furthers his resentment by throwing
stones at the water, attempting to destroy the reflection of the
luminous moon. As Ursula watches from afar, she begins to grow
alarmed, frightened at Birkin's destructive nature. Eventually, as
Birkin's stones get bigger, we see her identify and bond herself with
the moon, the womanly "lunar" side of nature. As the moon's reflection
splits, Ursula suffers: "Ursula was dazed, her mind was all gone. She
felt she had fallen to the ground and was spilled out, like water on the
earth" (Lawrence, 260) Evidently, as Birkin tries to destroy the moon,
he is in fact destroying the ego and dominant female power of Ursula.
Ursula, "was afraid that he would stone the moon again" so she made
herself be known. Evidently, Birkin is trying to destroy something in
himself, as well as in Ursula, so that they can achieve "freedom
together" and share equilibrium through their relationship.

The next day involves a marriage proposal to Ursula, on behalf of

Birkin. Ursula is not present, so Birkin bestows the proposal on her
father. The men end up clashing bitterly. What's more, when Ursula
arrives, she is clearly unable to give "them" an answer. Here, Ursula
feels "bullied" into making a commitment, and refuses to reply.
Immediately we notice a change in the character of Ursula. She
becomes "hard and self-completed" (Lawrence, 275). Unaware of
anything else around her, she is almost mockingly triumphant,
retaining a hard shelled exterior. Evidently she is glowing in her own
self righteousness, "radiant and pure". However she is "mistrusted by
everybody", and "disliked on every hand" (275). As it were, Ursula is
becoming similar to the nature of her sister Gudrun. In addition, we
learn that nobody but Gudrun can relate to her in this state: "It was at
these times that the intimacy between the two sisters was most
complete" (275). Hence we notice their bond beginning to take place.
Perhaps this bonding occurs as a result of Birkin's destruction of the
feminine; the moon. Clearly, Gudrun disagrees with many of Birkin's
notions, and seeks to control the masculine. Therefore, it is easy for
her to lure Ursula into her world against man as Ursula's femininity is
now wounded. Much like the previous bonds between Ursula and
Hermione, Gudrun and Ursula are able to mutually chide against Birkin.

Ultimately, Ursula begins to miss Birkin's profound "quality of life". And

it seems the more Gudrun tries to convince her of Birkin's wrongs, the
more Ursula begins to retreat from her sister. Perhaps it is Gudrun's
nature of finality and completeness that makes Ursula pull away: "She
finished life off so thoroughly, she made things so ugly and so final"
(Lawrence, 277). Indeed, Ursula begins to feel that Gudrun' philosophy
of Birkin is definitely false: "This finality of Gudrun's, this dispatching of
people and things in a sentence, it was all such a lie. Ursula began to
revolt from her sister" (277). Hence, not only do we see their bond
dissolve, we see once again their contrariety of character, perhaps to
the farthest extent. In fact, we see Ursula take steps to "surrender" her
complete love to Birkin. Therefore, becoming his "humble slave" of
love and devotion, which is a notion that Gudrun would never consider
(278). However, ultimately, Ursula refuses to become Birkin's "slave"
and they achieve equilibrium.

Clearly, throughout D.H. Lawrence's Women in Love , we see an

intellectual depiction of each character's relationship with others.
Truly, these relationships include a significant amount of bonding.
Moreover, there is a type of womanly bonding between the characters
of Ursula, Gudrun Hermione and Winifred. At times this bonding
creates a certain intimacy between the women, However, they soon
become detached from each other reminding us of the differences in
nature and the separate individualities of the women in Women in
.Love