The Story of O (please enter only if you have read it)

[Krinaia]

I recently stumbled across a bdsm reading list (perhaps provided by Wizard - thanks by the way) and decided to dive into it.

I've already become a fan of a trilogy entitled Kushiel's Dart, Kushiel's Chosen, etc... and found them a good read and also the slightly dark twist of sex found in Laurell K. Hamilton makes me a big fan..

Anyhow, I began with "The Story of O" having heard references to it numerous times. The translation I had, is perhaps incomplete ... the last chapter is excluded with a small paragraph in it's place explaining what happens it two different endings given to the story (sorry if i spoil it for someone) but one ending says he abandons her and in the other, he "allows her to die". Maybe it's just me losing something in the translation ... but it seems to me that in book both of the Masters/Doms are careless about their slaves/pets.

I just felt cheated by the ending. It seems the author spends all this time going into O's ability to lose herself in her love for her master and how she hopes and sees him falling in love with her. I'm a firm believer that all stories don't have to be wrapped up in pretty little endings but it just seems to negate all her growth that he just lets her die.

I'd like to hear someone else's thoughts on what this book says about submission/dominance. It left me with a rather sour taste ... and I'm still realtively unexperienced and new to the lifestyle. I'd especially love to hear what those with a few years behind them thought of this work.

 

[Marie Lavallois]

O

Hello SkylineBlue:

I've just recently read The Story of O also, and I believe that I have the same translation that you do, with the two incomplete chapters notated in a paragraph.

I am of two minds about the book. At first, I thought that it was awful, uninteresting, and burdened by vague descriptions. We read that she has been taken "fore and aft," but we don't get to experience the look and feel of Sir Stephen's cock.

But then, shen I finished it, I had to read it again.

Compared to today's erotica, its very tame, but it has all of the elements of BDSM literature, training, punishment, isolation, body modification, and the loss of the individual. It ends with her faceless and owned.

I thought more could have been done with the other female character, Jacqueline.

It left me with a sour taste also because O seemed to have no choice. If Rene had told her at the very beginning, "just say you want out and I'll arrange it," it would have helped me like it more.

Besides, I think willing submission is far more sexy. Its one thing to be kidnapped. But, if someone gives you an out and you don't take it, that's more interesting to me.

 

[Pure]

Hi Skyline,

you said,

Anyhow, I began with "The Story of O" having heard references to it numerous times. The translation I had, is perhaps incomplete ... the last chapter is excluded with a small paragraph in it's place explaining what happens it two different endings given to the story (sorry if i spoil it for someone) but one ending says he abandons her and in the other, he "allows her to die". Maybe it's just me losing something in the translation ... but it seems to me that in book both of the Masters/Doms are careless about their slaves/pets.

I just felt cheated by the ending. It seems the author spends all this time going into O's ability to lose herself in her love for her master and how she hopes and sees him falling in love with her. I'm a firm believer that all stories don't have to be wrapped up in pretty little endings but it just seems to negate all her growth that he just lets her die.

I'd like to hear someone else's thoughts on what this book says about submission/dominance. It left me with a rather sour taste ... and I'm still realtively unexperienced and new to the lifestyle. I'd especially love to hear what those with a few years behind them thought of this work.

There've been a couple threads** on this, and the story has its admirers (me; natalie nessus) and detractors.

I think the story ends, just before the final italicked statement about a mythic 'last chapter', etc. There is no last chapter. It's like those stories that say "from this point, the last pages of the diary are missing, though it's rumored that the author finally got out of prision"

I think, though, that she's headed in the direction of abandonment or death, as the final statement alludes.

====
Here are a couple thoughts. This is NOT the 'personal growth bdsm' that's talked about around these parts, mutual meeting of needs, gentle doms and princess subs. Affirmation of growth, which is what you feel the lack of.

The author was familiar with both Sade and religious writings, say, St. John of the Cross. In the latter, the devotee is to be annihilated in God. This is a certain type of mysticism that the author uses in her SM fantasy world.

In Sade, too, many of the subs/bottoms are purely expendable.

The point is that this is a fantasy, and making it too 'nice' would detract, like having a wicked witch of a fairy tale go to anger managment classes and open a day care.

Yes, the story is surprisingly chaste; no four letter words, no 'fuck me'; no 'steel ramrod cocks'. The book was not easy to publish as it was; Sades harder edge stuff was supressed for centuries.

For me the book has power.

It's obviously has much power in influencing porn and bdsm; look at the hundreds of stories that copy her; the joints called Roissy, etc. Lots of BDSM stories at lit. are essentially knock offs.

I'm not sure what exactly you're asking. If it's about choosing a "master" or self said "dom/me", I'd urge you to keep that a separate question. The novel is NOT a guide to choosing such a person. The person is not, and should not, be "Sir Stephen" or a clone--though many selfsaid doms use that name. Just as Sade's novels should be used to choose your playmates. Just as you shouldn't look for a romantic partner like Heathcliffe of Wuthering Heights.

Perhaps you can share some other impressions, and questions.
What did you think of the anal emphasis? Could the 'consent' arrangement exist in real life? (i.e., she consents overall, but her cries for help in any given torture are ignored; she re-consents , overall, at a couple points.)

Best,
J.


**
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6003369&highlight=reage#post6003369

Natalie Nessus quotes a couple poems by "Reage" (Aury):

https://forum.literotica.com/showth...67426&perpage=25&highlight=reage&pagenumber=2

 

[Pure]

Marie,

/Its one thing to be kidnapped. But, if someone gives you an out and you don't take it, that's more interesting to me./

O is not kidnapped, and she's given 'outs' a couple times. She gives explicit consent to some of the whippings AND consents that her cries be ignored during the episodes.

One out is when she is asked to transfer allegiance to Sir Stephen. She is not coerced or brow beaten.

Further, she has periods away from the Chateau and doesn't run to the police, but returns.

J.

 

[Krinaia]

I took up my reading for I am currently without further means of experiementation ... and I started this thread as another means to explore what I have gathered from my readings. Thank you for your comments, both of you ... you have given me something to chew on



Marie

- you said that you missed some of the descriptive nature which was not found in this book. I personally enjoyed that. I also enjoyed that O had no real name, she was just a letter. As if her persona was but an example. It wasn't so much about sex as about submission.

-I'm not sure why you think her submission was unwilling. She could have left at any time. He wasn't keeping her locked in a dungeon or a cabinet. She could refuse his calls, tells him to go to hell. She choose to submit because she loved him. When the two men brought her before them and made her repeat the contract for them ... she could have refused. It's just I think that sometimes her submission was so complete, that it feels as you say...



Pure -

I'm glad you told me that the last tid bit wasn't really meant to go with the story. I feel much better about the book the way it ended then without some mystery last chapter. In fact, I had enjoyed the book with the more open ending. It was only when I read that paragraph that I felt sour about the book. Perhaps that altered the story in a way the author had not intended?

I haven't yet read Sade but the library here has little to offer me so I'm going to some lighter reading before I tackle Sade.

There is a certain allure to the expendablity of submission. I suppose it's part of what calls many of us in... I myself have fantasies wherein I exist solely for another's pleasure and whim. In truth though, I would be unhappy with that sort of submission 24/7.

I tend to be a strong willed, opinionated person who has forced herself into a profession where egotism is not only expected it seems, but encouraged. When I allowed myself to admit my love of bondage, I soon found myself being pulled into dominance/submission. I find myself needing/wanting to allow someone else to take over when I leave the professional world and enter my private life. I find though that I need to know how far my submission will run for me - can I live without, do I need to submit my will on a daily basis even in the small mundane aspects of life?

I don't expect to form a picture of the perfect master from reading in books. Nor of the perfect submissive. Mostly I just hope to cause deeper reflection on what is blindly submitted and what is given as a gift. Is all submission BDSM? I don't think so. But can I take comfort in submission without the kinky sex? I'm not sure. Is it possible? I don't know. I enjoyed the book for these reasons.

I suppose the book is about a submission that is more complete and less complicated than real life would allow for most of us. One thing that strikes me is that there is never any reference to O's family. She is alone in the world except for Rene. Her heart is filled with love only for him though she lusts for others. When Sir Stephen takes her, she shares that love with him. It almost makes me wonder how easily she tosses around her heart though.

And it is interesting too how she thinks of herself as an insturment for which Rene can submit and express his love for Sir Stephen. The differences between the two men are worth investigating... Rene shares O but doesn't really seem to mark her as his own though he says he loves her. Sir Stephen though marks her as his before he shares her with others. Is one of them more in love with her because of his need to possess her? Or is it simply a difference in stating that possession as a sign of their dominance?

I found the anal emphasis interesting in the context of the time the book was written ... I'm not certain, having not been alive when the book was written (1950s correct?) but I would assume anal sex was even more taboo then than it is now. In some ways however, I think now it is more of daring risk and sign of submission to allow yourself to be shared what with our increased senstivity about STD's. I think the ways in which she was shared and passed around are very sexy but I would never ever allow such a thing. And though I once thought anal sex rather vile, I did submit to it as far as it was pushed and even learned to enjoy it immensely. But I can definitely see where anal sex was used to further debase her. Make her into the .... nameless slave she became or always was to begin with.

What did you make of her profession as a fashion photographer? Someone always behind the scene, someone whose goal it is to glorify others (both designer and model) ?

 

[Krinaia]

By the way, thanks for the links ... I hope a new thread on the subject doesnt get old

 

[Pure]

I did at one point compile a list of autobiographies of persons in SM and such.

It's at

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=4351988

I particularly liked "A taste for pain" by Maria Marcus. Many are available at amazon and Barnes and Noble. I haven't read most of the others, but I tried to get substance, not just some Master or Mistress's advertising (Xavier Hollander, Happy Hooker, type stuff.).

The question "Is all submission BDSM? I don't think so."

is not easy. "S" means 'submission' in part. But the quetion, is there always an eroticization of submission, seems to be answered in the way you answer it. After all, a marriage, in traditional Judaism, Chrisitanity or Islam has a husband/Master who is to be obeyed. When he wants sex, he gets it, and there is no concept of 'marital rape.' Judaic and Roman law gave virtual life and death power to a husband/household-head.

{{I tried doing a thread on 'vanilla dominance' which has some stuff:

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=168931&highlight=vanilla+dominance }}

BUT, in these alleged 'non sexual' dominatings, sex creeps in, if you read about children being caned, for instance; this is independent of the (conscious) intention of the caner. So all kinds of punishment and dominanting behavior can be, from the receiving end (at least), eroticized.

"O" was published in July '54, French; then '65 (I believe) English.
The author's identity came out about 7 yrs ago, iirc. in a New Yorker Interview/Story.

It's worth mentioning that Sadism and Masochism are live issues in the book. It's incomplete to think only in Dominance and Submission categories, esp when defined in the usually gentle caring ways they usually are, these days. Heck, gentle domination was on TV last night with a domme/wife using and ultrasoft whip to pleasure her husband. The instructress was a 'dominatrix' it was said, who'd now taken training and become a sex therapist! (topic: how to have kink to add excitement to your marriage.).

J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I am also a fan of this book and think it is far more powerful as lifestye fiction than the cheaper dime a dozen present day counterparts that rely on sexual expliciteness to sell the reader on it's quality. To me, most of those books lose the real connection to D/s and concentrate on sex which in many cases, the specific sexual acts could be performed in the vanilla world.

As Pure has stated, O is given opportunity to consent on more than one occasion, and her choice explains and demonstrates her level of submission. I think though the problem in understanding the ending, which I agree is sad but to me realistic to a degree, is that people equate O with the image and role of submissive when in reality IMHO she is a slave. As such it does an excellent job of portraying the reality of that position as understood by many slaves in that we give ourselves totally and unconditionally. In other words, we do our best and then some to fulfil the desires of our Master, at all times with their pleasure alone in mind regardless of our own. If we find pleasure in it sometimes, it often pleases our Masters, but is not the focus of the relationship.

In giving oneself so completely, slaves acknowledge their body no longer belongs to them, but becomes the property of Master. Some think this is easy to understand, but then expect a slave to have limits, or object if things go too far. That is more a submissive's right, not a slave who has no rights. In other words, if a Master trains their slave, then for whatever reason which they are not obligated to provide, decides to give away, abandon, or sell the slave or the slave's life is to end, that is as it will be. The slave belongs to the Master to do with what they will, and in no part has the right to think of themselves as an individual with choices. Those choices were made the day they agreed to become owned property of the Master. In 'O', this is demonstrated well, though without release, or the express instruction of her Mastr, she is not in a position to take her life which in reality belongs to him even ig he chooses to ignore her.

Hope that goes somewhat to explaining the thought process, and defines D/s in this context a bit. It is not a meaningless and cruel lifestyle, but is one which requires a lot more thought and understanding than some realise when they jump in all fours and commit to either role of submissive or slave without realising exactly what they are committing to is a bit more than just kink. The roles differ, and even in respective roles, the interpretations differ with the people involved.

Catalina

 

[Bikewer]

I first read "O" perhaps 30 years ago. I have since read a couple of different versions and translations. The book has a rather storied history, including the identity of the (supposedly female) author.

The last version I had, a few years ago, had a footnote to the effect that the publisher knew the identity of the author, but wouldn't tell. (teaser, titillation?)

Many have pointed out that the book "reads" like a male author, but who knows?

It has been banned many times in many places, as might well be expected. Now, you can get it any nearly any bookstore, or at Amazon.
Personally, I don't find anything very "deep" in the book. It is certainly erotic, certainly titillating. Certainly (as has been pointed out) the poor girl would have spent a lot of time in the hospital.....

It's still potently influential to the BDSM scene, and there are numbers of websites and organizations devoted to it.

 

[Pure]

Hi, Interesting material, Bikewer,

but,

//Many have pointed out that the book "reads" like a male author, but who knows?//

This should say,

At the time of its notariety, most critics, esp. women, thought that the book 'reads' as if by a male, because of its degradation of the female. [So much for that theory!]**Other (minority) disagreed, and pointed to the details of dress, furnishings, and such.

The author was interviewed in the New Yorker, and has the connections--mistress of publisher--and credentials--professional translator of poety--to be believable. I know of no one doubting her authorship, including the libraries. Her secondary more real name was Dominique Aury, and I forget her real name.

J.


**It was written to please her b.f., so maybe that's why it has a 'male' slant-- women writers *can* take their audiences into account and have 'passed' for male, often, e.g., Bronte sisters.

 

[SexyChele]

I read this book just over a year ago. While I can agree with both Pure and Catalina, I simply did not care for this particular tale. It just didn't "grab" me in the way that other books can and do. But hey, that's the great thing about books - they are subjective, and there is always some one who likes or dislikes them!

To my understanding (and I understand I may be completely wrong, here), the author had originally wrote this story for her boyfriend/lover/SO. It eventually found it's way to publication, and at that time this book was considered shocking. By today's standards, it is more tame.

I personally can't figure out the extreme popularity of the book, given that it always seems more people dislike or are disillusioned by it. Almost like everyone stating a particular book is a "classic" and therefore simply must be read, even though the majority don't like it.

But then, this is just my own opinion...

 

[Pure]

Hi Chele,

you said,
//I personally can't figure out the extreme popularity of the book//

Well, first, try to think of really well written (professional, literary quality) SM stories(novels). Now second, think prior to 1960. You will find your lists are VERY short. Post them, if you feel like it.

Go to a major library, and look for SM fiction; see what there is besides the Story of O.

This isn't to say you must like it; I never could get into War and Peace, or Ulysses or even Gravity's Rainbow.




PS It 'found' its way to publication since she was the publisher's mistress.

 

[A Desert Rose]

I personally can't figure out the extreme popularity of the book, given that it always seems more people dislike or are disillusioned by it. Almost like everyone stating a particular book is a "classic" and therefore simply must be read, even though the majority don't like it.

But then, this is just my own opinion...

I read it some time ago, and I still have my copy. But like you, I was not as impressed as I was told I "should" be. However, I'm glad I read it, as I am glad I have read most all the books I have.

Personally, I liked Memoirs of a Geisha much better.

Oh well, I am not very deep... I don't like foreign films, either.

 

[Krinaia]

Oh well, I am not very deep... I don't like foreign films, either.

I don't think you have to enjoy foreign films to be deep. There are differences to being cultured and having depth. You don't have to have one to have the other.

 

[A Desert Rose]

I don't think you have to enjoy foreign films to be deep. There are differences to being cultured and having depth. You don't have to have one to have the other.

I think you don't understand my tongue in cheek humor.

 

[Krinaia]

IAs Pure has stated, O is given opportunity to consent on more than one occasion, and her choice explains and demonstrates her level of submission. I think though the problem in understanding the ending, which I agree is sad but to me realistic to a degree, is that people equate O with the image and role of submissive when in reality IMHO she is a slave. As such it does an excellent job of portraying the reality of that position as understood by many slaves in that we give ourselves totally and unconditionally. In other words, we do our best and then some to fulfil the desires of our Master, at all times with their pleasure alone in mind regardless of our own. If we find pleasure in it sometimes, it often pleases our Masters, but is not the focus of the relationship.

In giving oneself so completely, slaves acknowledge their body no longer belongs to them, but becomes the property of Master.
Catalina

Do you think then that a slave's submission is deeper and more complete than that of a submissive?

I have to agree on reflection, I was reading the book as if O was a submissive, not a slave. It changes the concept quite a lot.

 

[Krinaia]

The question "Is all submission BDSM? I don't think so."

is not easy. "S" means 'submission' in part. But the quetion, is there always an eroticization of submission, seems to be answered in the way you answer it. After all, a marriage, in traditional Judaism, Chrisitanity or Islam has a husband/Master who is to be obeyed. When he wants sex, he gets it, and there is no concept of 'marital rape.' Judaic and Roman law gave virtual life and death power to a husband/household-head.

J.

When I posed that question I was thinking back to a conversation I had with my best friend a few days ago... She is not of the lifestyle in the least. She said that she wanted to find a man she could give her heart to, to release that control, to trust him completely and wholey with her heart. The similarities are clear I think between this sort of submission and that of some submissives. There are a lot of differences too, don't get me wrong. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is, can I find completion in a submission that is more of a vanilla flavor? No one can answer that for me, I know.

I am begining to think that the answer will be No. There is some part of me that wants to submit and be used in the ways of a submissive. It's not only about submitting my love, it's also about submitting my body as a symbol of that love. It's about giving pleasure through my submission and hopefully receiving pleasure in return.

 

[Krinaia]

I think you don't understand my tongue in cheek humor.

I did not hear the inflection of your type!

 

[catalina_francisco]

Do you think then that a slave's submission is deeper and more complete than that of a submissive?

I have to agree on reflection, I was reading the book as if O was a submissive, not a slave. It changes the concept quite a lot.

Not sure I totally agree a slave's submission is deeper or more complete in a general sense as I think in part it depends on the people involved, but in my understanding of my slavery where I have given away all right to myself outside my Master's wishes, it is very complete though a continual struggle to live it honestly, realistically, and without difficulty.

I think it is very subjective in both roles. As Master points out, to have a submissive/slave who in their vanilla life has never had a problem being very extrovert and openly sluttish in her public persona, is not going to be much of a challenge, nor require much submission on their part to now become that way because their Dominant desires it. In reality it is going to be catering to their personality, not challenging it. Is an interesting play on whose desires are met more, submissive or Dominant. In a small way this is touched on in O as well from memory.

Catalina

 

[BlueSugar]

I also read this book a few weeks ago (and started a thread about it) and since then I've read it twice more... why, I can't particularly say, but I did. It was dry until I read it the second time, it was less vague by the third time.
As much bad can be said about the book and its style of writing and description alone, it goes much much deeper then the usual smut/porno/stories we're used to reading. I actually enjoyed that there weren't any "throbbing members" "netherland boxes" and all that fogging up the story.

 

[Krinaia]

Sugar - I did a search, obviously not thorough enough - and then started a thread - like I said, I apologize for the repeats. I did however, go back and read through the thread you had started

Catalina - How very true! I know for myself, it's very difficult to display myself as an exhibitionist. Even allowing a man to get me naked took several tries and lots of persistence. Lol, thankfully he succeeded. I think part of why I am still searching for answers is that my master (no longer with him) was much more into pushing my limits of pleasure and not as much into pushing my ability to pleasing him. I think it would be interesting to have his opposite. For many reasons

 

[catalina_francisco]

Catalina - How very true! I know for myself, it's very difficult to display myself as an exhibitionist. Even allowing a man to get me naked took several tries and lots of persistence. Lol, thankfully he succeeded. I think part of why I am still searching for answers is that my master (no longer with him) was much more into pushing my limits of pleasure and not as much into pushing my ability to pleasing him. I think it would be interesting to have his opposite. For many reasons

So true. The rewards you feel through succeeding give their own version of pleasure which for me far outweighs conventional measures of bliss. To me it is how I grow no matter how sometimes at the moment I am silently cursing or doubting my ability to go where before I have feared to tread.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

Blue said,

/As much bad can be said about the book and its style of writing and description alone, it goes much much deeper then the usual smut/porno/stories we're used to reading. I actually enjoyed that there weren't any "throbbing members" "netherland boxes" and all that fogging up the story./

It hard to underestimate the importance of that factor. Most porn writer are *incredibly* lazy. The piling up of descriptions and four letter words may often give arousal, but cannot be read seriously a second time.

All really good writing has a creative element. In a sentence, the second half being sometimes a surprise. In a para, something not expected in the first sentences. In a new para sometimes something unexpected, relative to the old.

That avoids the utter boredom of most porn.

If you read sex scene in recent novels (of good authors) where explicitness is allowed you see the extreme care in selecting words, esp. adjectives, so that the scene has freshness, instead of the soporific quality of 99% of porn videos.


Lately I've been concentrating on reading the 'porn' or erotica writers that have actually written something else. That's a test of what I earlier called 'literary quality'.

Readers, please note how no list of extremely well written, even literary porn/erotic novels has shown up here. Yet.

J.

 

[Pure]

A couple good links

Basic facts

http://www.oraclutie.org/HdOFAQ.html

recent stuff

http://www.storyofo.co.uk/WhatsNew.html

Links with Von Triers movies.

 

[MissTaken]

I have been struggling with my response to your initial post since I read the thread last night.

It has been a while since I read "O" and when I did, I was brand new, no experience under my belt or anyone else's ! *smirks*

In any event, the lesson had to do with O's complete giving of herself to Stephen through her love for Rene. I was also expected to understand that my own self would be completely given to the Dominant assigning me this task. However, in hindsight, I feel that these lessons were shallow, at best.

Using my own mind and thinking, I came to the conclusion that O gave herself completely, no concern for the risks, physically or emotionally, but did so because she needed to. She didn't lose sight of her own needs and remained true to herself.

As Pure pointed out, she did have the opportunities to change her path, but chose not to. She was owned of her own volition and perhaps under her own terms...those terms being completely.

It would take a very courageous woman to live as she did and to carry herself as she did. I have read articles suggesting that O is not entirely about BDSM, but also is a link between BDSM and feminism. This is a difficult link to make and to be perfectly honest, Catalina is the only woman I know who can live as a submissive feminist.

The scene from O that most stands out in my mind was when she initially began noticing and flirting with Jacqueline. This she did of her own volition, without permission or direction from Stephen or Rene. I wanted to applaud her as I read, but realize now, that by and large, O's life and choices were about O, first.

I hope I am making some sense.

Oh, as for your prerequisite concerning having extensive experience in the lifestyle, I have only two years of muddied experience and know what I know well and what I don't know, well, I am not afraid to learn.

*warm smiles*