《Women in Love》是一本由D. H. Lawrence著作，Wordsworth Editions Ltd出版的Paperback图书，本书定价：29.85元，页数：464，特精心从网络上整理的一些读者的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。

　　《Women in Love》精选点评：

　　●第一次读很引人入胜，劳伦斯对男女关系、人人关系和生死的思考不正是我想说却不知如何说的么？所以艾略特和里维斯都承认他是个genius。

　　●Frankly, I hate his writing style.

　　●看得我心塞，you are a sullen, sullen boy...

　　●地铁上看完。1.号称是“恋爱中的女人”，但男人戏份很重 2.与其说是恋爱不如说是谈哲学 3.彪蹄欺诈也就算了，作者大段的电波虽然确实不可或缺，但读起来还是有点操蛋 4.回头看完前言，认识提高很多 5.读完确实感觉有升级 6.下次还是选一本轻松点的地铁读物

　　●充满哲学思辨 是这本书最吸引我的地方

　　●由于英文水平的局限，读来很辛苦，还是能感到劳伦斯的安逸美好的文字功力。跟着劳伦斯去到一百年前的英国年轻人谈生活，谈追求，谈爱情，谈生死的生活里

　　●读了好久好久的书啊。Exhausting experience. Truly...

　　●我真的看的太痛苦了。。。

　　●很喜欢劳伦斯的思考，好像很酷，又有一点悲观love is special

　　●看电视剧才更明白这些主角男女的立场和想法，但不管是隐形同性恋的挣扎、还是害怕陷太深而不敢爱的临场退缩，都可能是充分迎合了当代口味的简化误读，因为原文真的有更多内心层次，多到常令我不置可否、困惑不解的地步。我不相信纯粹是劳伦斯太隐晦、太急切要藏匿真意。也可能真受限于我的英语水准，反而只为无数佳句吸引折服。但评判作家功力，很少只以句为单位来看吧。

　　《Women in Love》读后感(一)：空

　　D.H.Lawrence写女人是为了写男人。Women in Love算是其中的代表。书的第一章就描写了两位男主角之间超越友情的感情。“他们眼中的火花...他们压抑着，不敢让这份感情超过友情的范畴...”

　　书的前半段是作者借着叛逆的男主角一号的嘴批判工业革命资本主义婚姻，以及他渴望通过婚姻来摆脱自己存在的无意义的矛盾。

　　后半段则是通过妹妹意外死亡、父亲（榜样）的离世和恋人的离去来引发男主角二号，一个在机械化以前拥有最安全的价值观—人的价值在于其能产生的物质价值，即彻底的异化—的富家子弟的崩溃与自杀。

　　而两位女主角，书名中的Women，只是这两位男主角生命历程中的伴侣和配角，她们的自我暧昧不明，在整本书中想法混沌，没有成长。

　　在得知二号的死讯后，一号痛苦到极点，这时已经是他妻子的妹妹问他—你有我还不够吗？

　　他回道：不够。我和二号的感情是和你不同的。我两者都想要。

　　这也是全书的基调—女人是男人借以成长变化的工具。男女之间的情感永远比不上男人之间的心灵连结。女人不可能在理性思想和政治层面理解男性。

　　Women in Love应该相当合马列主义拥趸者的口味。这里没有性别，只有阶级。

　　《Women in Love》读后感(二)：原来劳伦斯他早已参透和和谐社会的本质！

　　wordsworth edition,1999,p197,我惊异的发现了如下文字

　　He(Gerald) abandoned the whole democratic-equality problem as a problem of siliness.What mattered was the great social productive machine.Let that work perfectly,let it produce a sufficiency of everything,let every man be given a rational protion, geater of less according to his functional degree of magnitude, and then ,provion made, let the devil supervene, let every man look after his own amusements and appetites, so long as he interfered with nobody.

　　o Gerald set himself to work, to put the great industry in order. In his travels and in his accompanying readings, he had come to the conclusion that the essential secret of life was harmony.

　　最后一句话才是亮点，harmony,the secret of life.看到这里当时我就震惊了 当然劳伦斯当年是怎么不会想到，80年后，“harmonious society”在中国意味着什么，但因为浸淫在harmonious society这多年，我对这个词太敏感了。劳伦斯，神一样的劳伦斯，用这段文字对正在中国进行的和谐社会进行了最直白的阐释。奥威尔写一九八四的时候想的只是英国社会主义的危害，但他精准无比描述不啻是对文革的预言。恋爱中的女人当然不是以政治论述见长，但我还是觉得这段文字是对中国的社会现状的语言。劳伦斯他老人家说的明白，harmony means not taking democray into consideration。各人得到他的ration, 不管多寡吧大家都是社会机器的一部人，只要机器运转良好，各人的意志是不必考虑的。

　　劳伦斯有很多偏见和谬误，但是很多时候他对社会走向有惊人的洞察力，不得不佩服。

　　《Women in Love》读后感(三)：Women in love-关于爱，放逐和绝望

　　这本书我还剩一个结尾没有读完。

　　Gerald的死已经让我非常难过，书中借Birkin的所见描述这位被Gudrun认为带有强烈的manly conceit的角色的死亡，他就像是睡着了，蜷缩着，变成很小的一团。记得开场Laurence 如此描写他：

　　The clear northern flesh and his fair hair was glisten like a sunshine refracted through crystals of ice.

　　这是在最开始Gudrun在Gerald妹妹婚礼上看到的他。完美的外表，光芒四射，在女人的想象里，这个男人的图腾是一匹年轻的狼。从一开始对他的着迷到后来的恐惧，讨厌他无形的掌控，在一丝丝愧疚中，将这个已经对生活感到疲倦的mechanical man 推向了绝路。

　　我始终不认为Gerald是真的想自杀，他向山顶走去，倒像是想一直走下去，走到自己的应许之地，那个地方，没有Gudrun这样的女人，没有什么工厂，也没有童年开枪射杀弟弟的阴影。在那里，他不需要理解女人，也不需要逃避父亲。正因为这条路没有尽头，所以他不必被宣判一个诸如：we’re done之类的结果，他只要一直走下去，就会有希望

　　。

　　可是，世间始终不存在这样一条路，如果偏要有的话，那终点只能是死亡。

　　关于这本书的感怀太多，没有所谓的好人，没有所谓的坏人，书中所有人都是在希望为自己的观点自圆其说，都是在自己的欲望和困惑中不断挣扎。甚至是我好感最少的人物Gudrun也不过是有时在为自己而矫饰罢了，我甚至觉得，她或许觉得这甚至不是什么掩饰，这就是她想要的生活。

　　最喜欢的一段是Birkin和Gerald两个人摔跤，Birkin瘦弱但是步伐出乎意料的敏捷，两个人打了赤膊，在英国的背景下做着异国的柔道，最后气喘吁吁，倒地不起。黑暗和眩晕中，一方甚至摸索起另一方的手。噢，他还活着。那一刻，我觉得他们两个人是相爱的。这两个男人，虽然彼此之间常带着嘲笑挖苦的口吻，有时甚至带了点contempt，但是他们最了解对方的痛苦、弱点，也最尊重对方作为人的价值。如果说Birkin和Ursula的结合是Birkin喜欢异性，希望生活中能有一个柔软的理解他的，不同于Hermione 的那种to know is you的所在；那么他和Gerald之间的友谊则是完全不同的两个人却可以相互理解的精神伴侣之间才有的情感。

　　因为爱，所以最后见到Gerald的遗体时才会有那样深切的痛楚，好像是自己在忍受死亡的折磨，死神拖走自己一半的灵魂。

　　《Women in Love》读后感(四)：An Ironical Equilibrium In Lawrence’s Women In Love

　　In his subtle and complex Women in Love, Lawrence portrays the evolvement of two romantic relationships of the Brangwen sisters. The tale is divided by the contrasting interactions between two couples: while Gudrun Brangwen succumbs to her sadist lover Gerald Crich, her elder sister Ursula ceaselessly strives for supremacy with Rupert Birkin. The dynamic between the latter couple is manifested in their constant arguments over the issue of love. However, I sugget that Rupert Birkin and Urusla Brangwen fail to resolve their conflicts through verbal interactions and fall into an inevitable irony.

　　While Lawrence names his book Women in Love, it is possible to summarize the story with one subtitle: Men out of Love. The two male characters in the book each exemplifies an aspect of love: while Gerald Crich indulges in sexual pleasures, Rupert Birkin claims that he pursues an absolute equilibrium in a relationship. On the surface, Lawrence denounces Crich with a tragic death while awards Birkin with a desirable marriage with Ursula. However, a marital bond does not suggest a realization of Birkin’s romantic ideals. As Philip Hobsbaum points out in A Reader’s Guide to D. H.Lawrence, the opal ring that Birkin gives to his bride symbolizes fidelity—a notion incompatible with Birkin’s strong advocacy for spiritual independence in a romantic relationship.

　　In fact, Birkin’s pursuit of an ideal unity of love is constantly defeated in his interactions with Ursula. At the same time, Ursula faces emotional paralysis as well. The frustration of their struggle is well represented in Chapter XIII, where Urusla determinedly tries to extract loving promises from Birkin.

　　In order to force Birkin to confront her, Ursula deliberately creates a scenario for them to be alone together. This little trick suggests her predetermined insecurity about his affection.

　　irkin answers, “Best to read the terms of the contract, before we sign.”(130)—in fact, on their contract of romance, the couple have utterly different definitions of the word love. While Birkin tries to explain his mistrust of love itself, Ursula interprets it as his incapability to love her. True communication is lost in their back-and-forth conversations over the issue, resulting in exhaustion and bafflement:

　　“I can’t say it is love I have to offer—and it isn’t love I want. It is something much more impersonal and harder—and rarer.”

　　There was a silence, out of which she said:

　　“you mean you don’t love me？”

　　he suffered furiously, saying that.

　　….

　　“…But we want to delude ourselves that love is the root. It isn’t. It is only the branches. The root is beyond love, a naked kind of isolation, an isolated me, that does not meet and mingle, and never can.”

　　“And you mean you can’t love？” she asked, in trepidation.

　　….

　　“But how do you know—if you have never really loved？” she asked.

　　“ it is true, what I say; there is a beyond, in you, in me, which is further than love, beyond the scope, as stars are beyond the scope of vision, some of them.”

　　“Then there is no love,” cried Ursula.

　　….

　　Then she half rose from her chair, saying, in a final, repellent voice:

　　“Then let me go home—what am I doing here？”

　　While Birkin gives speeches about his mistrust in love as a “root” of life, Ursula simply filters out his logic, only focusing on his failure to meet her standard of love. Throughout the conversation, she experiences a roller-coaster of feelings: fury, trepidation, and self-doubt (“what am I doing here？”). Later in the conversation, Birkin’s persistence in rational discussions stirs up agitation in Ursula as she mocks him of being “purely selfish” and “conceited”. Although Ursula’s indignation enables her to temporarily overpower Birkin, it is essentially a sign of defeat in her persuasion. Having failed in reasoning, Ursula is left with no alternatives but to appeal to emotion.

　　On the part of Birkin, it is ironical that his persistence in discussion becomes shaken. When their topic shifts to the physical attraction of love, he “began to look at her simply and naturally.” (126). He is aware of her physical appeal to him and is “almost afraid of the mocking recklessness of her splendid face”(131). After Ursula’s outbreak of indignation, Birkin gives up communicating with her and sustains conversations only half-heartedly, at the same time secretly “chuckled within himself” about her seemingly naïve and destructive sentiments. Although Birkin sets out with a strong intention for communication, up to this point, he is completely frustrated in his attempt.

　　In general, a split of psyche which exists in Ursula and Birkin has caused complete failure in their communication, forbidding spiritual unity of the two persons. The outbreak of negative sentiments reflects their incompatibility as a couple. However, the two are able to remain pacific, and even a bit playful when their topic switch to marriage. The brief glimpse of harmony suggests: to both characters, marriage is a negotiable topic and an attainable state which does not require an absolute equilibrium. The fact that Birkin and Ursula are able to discuss marriage when they fail to discuss love foreshadows the irony of their later marriage.

　　Irony is also present, although more subtly, in the episode with Mino the cat. After witnessing a tomcat cuffing a wild female cat, Birkin tells Ursula that the cats are “on intimate terms”(127). Quite obviously, the couple sees the cats as their doubles: like Birkin lecturing on Ursula, Mino the cat tries to establish a relationship with the wild cat by teaching a harmless lesson.

　　laced in a passive position like the female cat, Ursula accuses the Mino: “I don’t like you. You are a bully like all males.”(127). Out of defence for Mino as well as for himself, Birkin responses: “He is not a bully. He is only insisting to the poor stray that she shall acknowledge him as a sort of the wind. I am with him entirely. He wants superfine stability.”(128).

　　Although Birkin claims to be an advocate for equilibrium and “superfine stability”, he still expects Ursula to acknowledge her fate of being submissive in their relationship, just like the wild cat who gets hit and played on. Furthermore, he fails to acknowledge the fact that Mino is driven by an animal impulse to mate, just like he is drawn to Ursula’s biological attractions. When he shows disgust against Gerald Crich’s bullying of a mare, he praises Mino’s bullying as an act to “bring this female cat into a pure stable equilibrium, a transcendent and abiding rapport with the single male.”(128). Unaware of his hypocrisy, Birkin renders this episode ironical.

　　According to F. H Langman, an important thesis of the novel is “the impossibility of a fully satisfying relationship between people placed like Birkin and Ursula in a social and religious vacuum”. Although uninformed of this despairing impossibility, Ursula and Birkin are inevitably aware, but choose not to acknowledge their incompatibility. As is displayed in the end of the chapter:

　　he put her arms round his neck. He enfolded her, and kiss her subtly, murmuring in a subtle voice of love, and irony, and submission:

　　“Yes,- my love, yes, - my love. Let love be enough then. I love you then- I love you. I’m bored by the rest.” (132).

　　Works Cited:

　　Hobsbaum, Philip. A reader’s Guide to D. H. Lawrence. New York: thames and Hudson, 1981.

　　Langman, F. H. Critics on D. H Lawrence: readings in Literary Criticism. Ed W. T. Andrew. 81-87

　　Lawrence, D. H. Women in Love. London: Penguin, 2002.