A Desert Rose
Simply Charming Elsewhere
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Posts
- 13,997
MissTaken said:
Oh, hold the phone.....
well, nevermind.
;-)
The Story of O (please enter only if you have read it)
- Thread starter Krinaia
- Start date
Oh, hold the phone.....
well, nevermind.
;-)
Chicklet
plays well with self
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2002
- Posts
- 12,302
My Opinion
The Story Of O really depresses me. When I read it I was in a slump for a week. I warn people that it's not a cheery book when I lend it out...i like it, I think that it's powerful, but I also think that it's very, very sad.
To me, it feels like Rene is abandoning O. I feel that she is so lost in pleasing him that she loses track of herself, of her own needs, of her own desires, and to an extent that's exciting...but to completely seriously give up your whole self to someone you don't particularly like to please someone who is ignoring you...that depresses me.
Chicklet
The Story Of O really depresses me. When I read it I was in a slump for a week. I warn people that it's not a cheery book when I lend it out...i like it, I think that it's powerful, but I also think that it's very, very sad.
To me, it feels like Rene is abandoning O. I feel that she is so lost in pleasing him that she loses track of herself, of her own needs, of her own desires, and to an extent that's exciting...but to completely seriously give up your whole self to someone you don't particularly like to please someone who is ignoring you...that depresses me.
Chicklet
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
MissTaken said:
LOL...thanks for the compliment Miss T though to be fair I am sure more exist. I am sure some of the so called feminists I worked with previously would not see my life as feminist oriented, especially since I have committed sacrilege and married. What they fail to realise at the deepest levels of their lives, and not just in their continued preaching from texts without thought to the actuality is that feminism has always been about women making the choice that fits them. If marriage is the woman's choice, be it for legal or personal reasons, it does not have to continue to be defined by the patriarchial benchmarks but can be owned by women in their own reality. To me living with a man you are not married to does not make you a feminist, unless you choose it for your own reasons, not those related to a male dominated view. Nor does making continual bad taste jokes about men, punctuating your conversations daily with man hating statements, and belittling the men in your life to prove to other women who wears the pants make a feminist, just a sad human being in need of a reality check IMHO.
As such, it is also how I see my role as slave. I lived a life before where I overcame many obstacles most don't, and then dared to excel and build on my victories and overcome the insecurities fed to me by those around me all my life....interestingly the feminists I was surrounded with kept telling me I should fall and that it would be far more acceptable for me to have a breakdown and/or seek the help of others, and let my personal issues stop my ability to work appropriately in a professional manner, and the best one was that a true feminist would openly display her vulnerability and fail often just so others could feel less inferior about their own abilities!!
That experience, the knowledge I can survive alone and flourish, allows me to have the strength to give up my power to the one I deem worthy of it, and more than capable of using it to it's best advantage for both of us, not to mention one who shows his love and respect in so many ways every day. He does not need to crush me to prove his power, nor hide his true self from my eyes and heart.
IMO in some part I see O in this way also as she was successful and did not need a man to complete or rescue her, but she chose to give the power in her life to another in her submission. Each challenge thrown at her she overcame and survived, which is another reason I find the suggestion she would take her life as unlikely. Like all of us she may have needed time to adjust to the new paths given her, but she was always a survivor, just as she craved the treatment she endured, loving it and hating it at the same time but always thriving in it.
Catalina
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Catalina said,
//Like all of us she may have needed time to adjust to the new paths given her, but she was always a survivor, just as she craved the treatment she endured, loving it and hating it at the same time but always thriving in it.//
That's an interesting point, and there's some evidence of it. I can't quote the passage exactly, or find it just now, but it says, about half way along the process "Some may have noticed a change in O. Her eyes were clearer and she seemed more assured of herself, in a quiet unassuming way."
Missing, however, in the discussion, is of the religious dimension and parallels of the book..
Your statement,
//Each challenge thrown at her she overcame and survived, which is another reason I find the suggestion she would take her life as unlikely.//
misses this, imo. The book states that O says (to Sir Stephen, about to leave) that she "prefers to die." Any number of religious folk, in a particular kind of situation---when vital concerns cannot be realized; when only compromise of principle is possible, or catastrophic plunge into unending degradation. Picture a nun banished from her nunnery who sits out in the cold until death takes her.
I think the author felt the elaboration of the two alternatives would be a bit boring; left at Roissy w/o Sir Stephen; allowing herself (O) to die when he leaves. The point is that Sir Stephen has never promised anything; he's bound to nothing (committment to he). Again, think of a believer and God. The believer says "I love you; I devote myself; do with me what you want." If God 'says'-- go and help the plague victims (knowing you might only live a year-- the believer does not complain.
Even the most famous of Christian complaints: ' My god why hast thou forsaken me' is a mark of intensity, not a shirking from what's required.
J.
//Like all of us she may have needed time to adjust to the new paths given her, but she was always a survivor, just as she craved the treatment she endured, loving it and hating it at the same time but always thriving in it.//
That's an interesting point, and there's some evidence of it. I can't quote the passage exactly, or find it just now, but it says, about half way along the process "Some may have noticed a change in O. Her eyes were clearer and she seemed more assured of herself, in a quiet unassuming way."
Missing, however, in the discussion, is of the religious dimension and parallels of the book..
Your statement,
//Each challenge thrown at her she overcame and survived, which is another reason I find the suggestion she would take her life as unlikely.//
misses this, imo. The book states that O says (to Sir Stephen, about to leave) that she "prefers to die." Any number of religious folk, in a particular kind of situation---when vital concerns cannot be realized; when only compromise of principle is possible, or catastrophic plunge into unending degradation. Picture a nun banished from her nunnery who sits out in the cold until death takes her.
I think the author felt the elaboration of the two alternatives would be a bit boring; left at Roissy w/o Sir Stephen; allowing herself (O) to die when he leaves. The point is that Sir Stephen has never promised anything; he's bound to nothing (committment to he). Again, think of a believer and God. The believer says "I love you; I devote myself; do with me what you want." If God 'says'-- go and help the plague victims (knowing you might only live a year-- the believer does not complain.
Even the most famous of Christian complaints: ' My god why hast thou forsaken me' is a mark of intensity, not a shirking from what's required.
J.
pussykattlove
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Posts
- 118
Part 2
in all of the posts i have seen for this thred i noticed no one mentioned the sequal to the story. 'Story of O: part 2' ,writen by the same authur, lets you know what happens to O and what she desides to do. i am a very big fan of the first book and fell in love with it the first time i read it. for thoughs who feel the same, if you ever deside to read the second book, my friends and i foound it lacking somthing we just could not put our finger on. for thoughs who have read the second book myabe you know what i'm talking about and you could tell me what you thought was missing.
Kat
in all of the posts i have seen for this thred i noticed no one mentioned the sequal to the story. 'Story of O: part 2' ,writen by the same authur, lets you know what happens to O and what she desides to do. i am a very big fan of the first book and fell in love with it the first time i read it. for thoughs who feel the same, if you ever deside to read the second book, my friends and i foound it lacking somthing we just could not put our finger on. for thoughs who have read the second book myabe you know what i'm talking about and you could tell me what you thought was missing.
Kat
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Re: Part 2
Maybe there is a fake copy out there because to my knowledge there was only ever the original book, though a couple of translations exist. Written by Dominique Aury under the pen name of Pauline Reage, the true identity and gender of the author was secret until shortly before her death when she revealed the truth.
During an interview Dominique was asked about the alternative endings. She replied:
I didn't know how to end it, so I left it open. Why not? I am not a novelist, you know.
Catalina
pussykattlove said:in all of the posts i have seen for this thred i noticed no one mentioned the sequal to the story. 'Story of O: part 2' ,writen by the same authur, lets you know what happens to O and what she desides to do. Kat
Maybe there is a fake copy out there because to my knowledge there was only ever the original book, though a couple of translations exist. Written by Dominique Aury under the pen name of Pauline Reage, the true identity and gender of the author was secret until shortly before her death when she revealed the truth.
During an interview Dominique was asked about the alternative endings. She replied:
I didn't know how to end it, so I left it open. Why not? I am not a novelist, you know.
Catalina
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Pure, I have to thank you for as many times as I have read and skimmed the book, I have never noticed the religious element. I lways knew it was a religious experience of my youth when I read this book some 30 years ago, now it is official. So now I just want to get enough people interested in following this religion. of course there will be necessary donations and worship, so then we can begin to build our temple. Will you subscribe and help write the passages for contemplation by the flock please Pure?
C
C
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
A couple notes:
To Pussycat: There is a second book with some excerpts of Aury, marked as follows (roughly) " these are not a continuation, and are mostly inferior to the original". IOW they are pieces--for reasons of quality or story-- not used in the final assembly of the novel. They are bits of story, and that's why they don't make sense. They're interesting as are rough drafts of an author's work.
{ADDED: Pussycat, I've looked over --re acquainted myself with--the second book, and have revised the above assessment in a later, separate message.}
Oct 2)
As Catalina states, the novel has an indefinite ending, on purpose; but it was an ending.
Aury made a living translating (literary) religious poetry. She also wrote some poems now posted on the net, and even in these parts, by nessus.
There are attempts at setting up an order and self announced 'priests' purporting to be connected to the book.
-----
Here is one religious ref., of many in the book:
"As a child, O had read the biblical text in red letters on the white wall of the room in Wales where she had lived for two months:
IT IS A FEARFUL THING TO FALL
INTO THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD
"No, O told herself now, that wasn't true. What is fearful is to be cast out of the hands of the living God. Every time Rene postponed or was late to a rendezvous with her... O was prey to a dual feeling of madness and despair." (p. 96 paperback)
To Pussycat: There is a second book with some excerpts of Aury, marked as follows (roughly) " these are not a continuation, and are mostly inferior to the original". IOW they are pieces--for reasons of quality or story-- not used in the final assembly of the novel. They are bits of story, and that's why they don't make sense. They're interesting as are rough drafts of an author's work.
{ADDED: Pussycat, I've looked over --re acquainted myself with--the second book, and have revised the above assessment in a later, separate message.}
Oct 2)
As Catalina states, the novel has an indefinite ending, on purpose; but it was an ending.
Aury made a living translating (literary) religious poetry. She also wrote some poems now posted on the net, and even in these parts, by nessus.
There are attempts at setting up an order and self announced 'priests' purporting to be connected to the book.
-----
Here is one religious ref., of many in the book:
"As a child, O had read the biblical text in red letters on the white wall of the room in Wales where she had lived for two months:
IT IS A FEARFUL THING TO FALL
INTO THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD
"No, O told herself now, that wasn't true. What is fearful is to be cast out of the hands of the living God. Every time Rene postponed or was late to a rendezvous with her... O was prey to a dual feeling of madness and despair." (p. 96 paperback)
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Catalina,
you said in part and maybe tongue in cheek,
//So now I just want to get enough people interested in following this religion. [of the Story of O]//
This is tricky. Sade, of course--one source for Aury-- had no religion, was an atheist materialist. Suitably 'dark' version of the Protestant (see Bonhoeffer) or (better) Catholic God (as in Augustine) seems apt: ever read Simone Weil, andalmost Catholic? She has the right idea, that far from God, skewered (crucified) on the point of a nail, we find him; a kind of antithesis to the material world in which his absence is suffered and worked out.
You've heard the term 'deus abscondita', the God who's absent or hidden.
---
as to the passages for contemplation. i'm unequal to writing them, but suspect that I could help polish the rough translations from the Dutch originals.
J.
you said in part and maybe tongue in cheek,
//So now I just want to get enough people interested in following this religion. [of the Story of O]//
This is tricky. Sade, of course--one source for Aury-- had no religion, was an atheist materialist. Suitably 'dark' version of the Protestant (see Bonhoeffer) or (better) Catholic God (as in Augustine) seems apt: ever read Simone Weil, andalmost Catholic? She has the right idea, that far from God, skewered (crucified) on the point of a nail, we find him; a kind of antithesis to the material world in which his absence is suffered and worked out.
You've heard the term 'deus abscondita', the God who's absent or hidden.
---
as to the passages for contemplation. i'm unequal to writing them, but suspect that I could help polish the rough translations from the Dutch originals.
J.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Pussycat and others,
Just on note on "pt 2" (alleged) of the Story of O.
I found it lying around and it consists of two sections. The first is a rather interesting one about how Aury wrote "story of O", except it's kind of novelized as "A Girl in Love." It's true, for instance, that Aury picked 'reage' out of a register. Hence some critics' attempts with that word are silly. She says where 'Pauline' came from.
The second section IS as PussyC said, further develoment, but it's fragments, as if Aury was trying diferent lines of continuation,
* but dropped them all.* One line was to have O fall for someone other than Stephen, and then have Stephen accused of that person's murder. A bit melodramatic.
In the end, we must assume all the fragments were rejected as continuations. The Story with its indefinite 'end' does end in about the right place. My evidence, her statement at the beginning of the second section:
"The pages that follow are a sequel to the Story of O. They deliberately suggest the degradation of that work, and cannot under any circumstances be integrated into it."
Thanks for bringing up this work. If you read this sequel, do you agree about the degradation.?
Best,
J.
PS. Note that "Aury" is itself a chosen (assumed) name of Anne Declos. (see the links I posted).
Nice summary, critique, and bio by sympathetic female reviewer:
http://www.bookslut.com/columns/0603/marquise.htm
Just on note on "pt 2" (alleged) of the Story of O.
I found it lying around and it consists of two sections. The first is a rather interesting one about how Aury wrote "story of O", except it's kind of novelized as "A Girl in Love." It's true, for instance, that Aury picked 'reage' out of a register. Hence some critics' attempts with that word are silly. She says where 'Pauline' came from.
The second section IS as PussyC said, further develoment, but it's fragments, as if Aury was trying diferent lines of continuation,
* but dropped them all.* One line was to have O fall for someone other than Stephen, and then have Stephen accused of that person's murder. A bit melodramatic.
In the end, we must assume all the fragments were rejected as continuations. The Story with its indefinite 'end' does end in about the right place. My evidence, her statement at the beginning of the second section:
"The pages that follow are a sequel to the Story of O. They deliberately suggest the degradation of that work, and cannot under any circumstances be integrated into it."
Thanks for bringing up this work. If you read this sequel, do you agree about the degradation.?
Best,
J.
PS. Note that "Aury" is itself a chosen (assumed) name of Anne Declos. (see the links I posted).
Nice summary, critique, and bio by sympathetic female reviewer:
http://www.bookslut.com/columns/0603/marquise.htm
Last edited:
pussykattlove
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Posts
- 118
i do agree with you and thank you for the link. i also want to know if anyone knows if there is a movie. i've herd there is but just haven't had time to check!
Kat
Kat
It's been made into a film at least twice, and probably more. I've seen the original theatrical release, and I believe there was one that was done as a European miniseries, and was available on several tapes.
Dunno about availability now, though.
Dunno about availability now, though.
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
pussykattlove said:i do agree with you and thank you for the link. i also want to know if anyone knows if there is a movie. i've herd there is but just haven't had time to check!
Kat
Yes, but like so many books to movies, it was not great. I actually threw it in the trash when I moved which for me is usually a no-no. It is widely available on video, and I daresay now DVD.
Catalina
lark sparrow
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Posts
- 1,715
I think I only read it about half-way through... then moved on to Pat Califia and others... am I bad for entering thread?
lark sparrow said:I think I only read it about half-way through... then moved on to Pat Califia and others... am I bad for entering thread?
I didn't want someone who wishes to read the book to enter, see comments I made and feel cheated for knowing how the book ends before they have read it. Unless you're one of those naughty people who skip to the end and read the last chapter half way through the book .... i bet you are
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Actually, the 'ending' is not *that* exciting or surprising. Indeed, one reader whose address I posted thought the novel lost steam after the first section.
There is a real problem *where* to take this story-- i.e., what ARE the limits of sadistic degradation.? (Is a "secretary" style ending plausible.)
Any opinions form readers and writers? Skyline?
Take into acct that the novel is *not* particularly psychological; i.e., there is not a lot of focus on O's thoughts, and little on her feelings (I think this is to allow for reader projection)-- this narrows the scope, since physical punishment and degradation can only go so far-- the branding, the iron rings, etc.
I can't vouch for this, but iirc correctly, O is rarely if ever described as 'coming' (occasionally there are brief refs. to her pleasure, iirc) Why would the author do that? Or, why wasn't that incorporated into her degradations?
I** the concept simply that to torture someone you *don't' have them coming much? (as in the old joke: masochist: beat me; sadist: NO!)
J.
{{**Corrected}}
PS. If any of you have read Sade's novels, you see a similar problem. In a given novel, there are limits to sadistic or torture acts, even given the adding in of incest, coprophilia, etc. The only way to keep a novel going is through *elaborate* scenes, i.e, have 100 virgins get reamed, instead of 5, etc. This has been labelled *multiplication,* and one sees it in porn stories, as a way of keeping them going.
There is a real problem *where* to take this story-- i.e., what ARE the limits of sadistic degradation.? (Is a "secretary" style ending plausible.)
Any opinions form readers and writers? Skyline?
Take into acct that the novel is *not* particularly psychological; i.e., there is not a lot of focus on O's thoughts, and little on her feelings (I think this is to allow for reader projection)-- this narrows the scope, since physical punishment and degradation can only go so far-- the branding, the iron rings, etc.
I can't vouch for this, but iirc correctly, O is rarely if ever described as 'coming' (occasionally there are brief refs. to her pleasure, iirc) Why would the author do that? Or, why wasn't that incorporated into her degradations?
I
J.
{{**Corrected}}
PS. If any of you have read Sade's novels, you see a similar problem. In a given novel, there are limits to sadistic or torture acts, even given the adding in of incest, coprophilia, etc. The only way to keep a novel going is through *elaborate* scenes, i.e, have 100 virgins get reamed, instead of 5, etc. This has been labelled *multiplication,* and one sees it in porn stories, as a way of keeping them going.
Last edited:
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Pure said:
There is vague reference, often in cloaked language, one time being of her shame at submitting to a stranger's oral attentions and at having groaned unwillingly in pleasure in the presence of Rene. Also a most memorable instance is on her consenting to belong to both Rene and Sir Stephen:
"But Sir Stephen's hands opened her womb, forced apart her buttocks, penetrated, released her, seized her again, caressed her until she gasped out her sighs, quaking with pleasure and humiliation, and spent, and undone."
Catalina
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Pure said:
There is vague reference, often in cloaked language, one time being of her shame at submitting to a stranger's oral attentions and at having groaned unwillingly in pleasure in the presence of Rene. Also a most memorable instance is on her consenting to belong to both Rene and Sir Stephen:
"But Sir Stephen's hands opened her womb, forced apart her buttocks, penetrated, released her, seized her again, caressed her until she gasped out her sighs, quaking with pleasure and humiliation, and spent, and undone."
Also following this scene, or more at the end of it, Sir Stephen tells O he recognises in her, her wantonness, and her need and desire to yield to others, though he doubts Rene realises in sending her to Roissy and entering slavedom he is in fact rewarding her. This I think is a wonderful classic example of debates on other threads as to submission, and just what drives submission. and the argument some submissives uphold that they do it without any desire whatsoever to fulfil their own needs. Without some level of desire, even if only to please which in reality is the submissives desire, there would be no motivation to submit....this is the labyrinth we live and thrive within, the psychological puzzle which jumps up to bite you at every turn.
Catalina
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Catalina,
I think those are good points. Since I read the book first 25 years ago, parts are dim. I recently read a harsh critic who claimed that O had no orgasm, or intense pleasures, and hence was a poor model for an erotic slave/sub.
From your examples, and the quote, I think there is pleasure, but-- as in the whole book-- *chastely described*. I think we who watch Hollywood films made after WWII are not used to this at all.
What the novel does, is, with certain details minimized, evoke imagination. The opposite of the porn-ist who would have to tell up how long Stephens cock was, how it compared to Rene's-- narrower, but longer--how many times her cunt twitched at orgasm and so on.
J.
I think those are good points. Since I read the book first 25 years ago, parts are dim. I recently read a harsh critic who claimed that O had no orgasm, or intense pleasures, and hence was a poor model for an erotic slave/sub.
From your examples, and the quote, I think there is pleasure, but-- as in the whole book-- *chastely described*. I think we who watch Hollywood films made after WWII are not used to this at all.
What the novel does, is, with certain details minimized, evoke imagination. The opposite of the porn-ist who would have to tell up how long Stephens cock was, how it compared to Rene's-- narrower, but longer--how many times her cunt twitched at orgasm and so on.
J.
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Pure said:
True, though I sometimes think the less graphic descriptions, or perhaps graphic in other ways, are more tantalising and successful in conveying the feling that others, and most definately Sir Stephen, were indeed significantly more endowed than the semi-submissive Rene. And I agree, the mind grows dim of every minute detail...must revisit myself as I haven't seriously done that for a couple of years.
Catalina
Pure said:
I don't think more is needed, personally. I think perhaps the story got too complicated when she started incorporating the vacation with Jacqueline and Rene and the little sister. But I do see the importance of the little sister. I remember I had some very stringent teachers in high school.
Off the subject for just a moment but ... I once missed a question on his test because I missed the importance a small charcter. That character appeared for all of two paragraphs of one page of the book (To Kill A Mocking Bird) but her impact and role in the story was vital none the less. Because I didn't take note of her, I missed half a letter grade off that test (as did many others
). The character was the only example of black on white racism in the book (if you're curious - I forget her name - sorry, it was years ago though)Back to the subject. I can see where that person perhaps felt the author lost steam but I think she was trying to show opposing sides to O with the characters Jacquline and the little sister. I think J. was O's oppostie in that O took pleasure in pleasing others and beingpleasing whereas J took pleasure in being adored and by surrounding herself with people who admired her. The little sister was so eager to become like her role model, O, she was ready to blindly accept submission whereas O had a much greater working knowledge of what it was she was submitting herself to (she didn't know exactly that she was going to be branded but she had a much better working knowledge of such things... if you see what I mean). This is the reason I think that Sir Stephen disallows the young girl from participating directly in any of the sexual escapades.
I'm not sure the book was about pushing the levels of degradation... perhaps only in breaking O down to that basic level she has achieved at the end. "secretar" style endings are nice and pretty but aren't always real but that's what happens whne you make a film and have to pay the production costs ... you make the story as appealing to the mainstream as you possible can that way Blockbuster will put it on the shelf.
Last edited:
wolf2002
Moderator
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Posts
- 1,500
I thought the missing last chapter of the book is a brilliant trick of the author. It leaves the reader even more disturbed, confused, and personally I love that in a book. The story of O lacks any moral, it doesn;t judge, just describes... somehow you keep hoping that it will all be explained in the last chapter and then... nothing.
In my opinion O is very destructive. It must have someting to do with her past, but this isn;t explained. (maybe she lost her religion, hence the several links to religion?)... what she seeks in her submission is to forget, to be numb, oblivious... in the end she doesn;t seem to care anymore, she doesn;t sit up straight (the scene where Jacqueline betrays her), she doesn;t care that the outside world treats her like a monster... I could imagine very well that she chooses to die in the end....
It is stated above that O grows in her submission, but I feel that she diminishes herself... it turns out she doesn;t give a fuck about Rene (nor Jacqueline), and I can hardly imagine she loves Sir Stephen. Her only concern seems to be to get rid of herself.
Another disturbing thing about the book is that it lacks love, or even respect between the characters. Do Rene or Sir Stephen care for O? Only like they take care for a toy, to bend it but not break it... yet. Does O really care about them? I doubt it, although she says she does. Like in De Sade's noves, the subs are completely unimportant, they are all toys...
Of course I know stories like this could be very real. But when I look at the people on this board, both Doms and subs, the vast majority would agree that some sort of love or care between a Master/Mistress and slave should exist.
Actually I am curious. Would anybody here secretly desire to be in O's position? Do you envy her?
Wolf
In my opinion O is very destructive. It must have someting to do with her past, but this isn;t explained. (maybe she lost her religion, hence the several links to religion?)... what she seeks in her submission is to forget, to be numb, oblivious... in the end she doesn;t seem to care anymore, she doesn;t sit up straight (the scene where Jacqueline betrays her), she doesn;t care that the outside world treats her like a monster... I could imagine very well that she chooses to die in the end....
It is stated above that O grows in her submission, but I feel that she diminishes herself... it turns out she doesn;t give a fuck about Rene (nor Jacqueline), and I can hardly imagine she loves Sir Stephen. Her only concern seems to be to get rid of herself.
Another disturbing thing about the book is that it lacks love, or even respect between the characters. Do Rene or Sir Stephen care for O? Only like they take care for a toy, to bend it but not break it... yet. Does O really care about them? I doubt it, although she says she does. Like in De Sade's noves, the subs are completely unimportant, they are all toys...
Of course I know stories like this could be very real. But when I look at the people on this board, both Doms and subs, the vast majority would agree that some sort of love or care between a Master/Mistress and slave should exist.
Actually I am curious. Would anybody here secretly desire to be in O's position? Do you envy her?
Wolf
