"The Story of O"

[Handley_Page]

BDSM is it not a word now either!

Sure, it's a word. It's a set of phonemes that means something.
The practices that separate BDSM from the general run of things.

I rather think it's called a "Glyph", as opposed to a "phoneme".

I believe that, to most people, a "word" is a combination of letters which is demonstrably "pronounceable" and usable in a wider conversation.

In this case, "BDSM" is the combination of letters; no more.

It's meaning is understood by sundry practitioners and others, but it ain't, I contend, a word that you could say; "I'll BDSM you tomorrow" (and that, I fear, is in the face of the horrible habit of using a noun as a verb), nor is it a noun that you could say "I'll go to the BDSM".

As it has, therefore, no 'position' within the usual words for words, I contend it is best not regarded as a word.

It's an interesting problem though.

 

[MBgirl]

For some reason, my ultra vanilla ex owned a copy. I'd read it while he was at work and fantasize about him giving me even a simple spanking (let alone half the other things I read in the book that I was curious about.) But alas, my begs and pleas couldn't even muster a mere spanking out of him.

Anyway, I loved the book. Though perhaps my opinion of the book is biased, due to it helping cultivate my curiosity of BDSM.

 

[midwestyankee]

I rather think it's called a "Glyph", as opposed to a "phoneme".

I believe that, to most people, a "word" is a combination of letters which is demonstrably "pronounceable" and usable in a wider conversation.

In this case, "BDSM" is the combination of letters; no more.

It's meaning is understood by sundry practitioners and others, but it ain't, I contend, a word that you could say; "I'll BDSM you tomorrow" (and that, I fear, is in the face of the horrible habit of using a noun as a verb), nor is it a noun that you could say "I'll go to the BDSM".

As it has, therefore, no 'position' within the usual words for words, I contend it is best not regarded as a word.

It's an interesting problem though.

I'm into BDSM. How is this syntactically different from "I'm into gymnastics."? Does the combination of what you want to call letters and that Stella insists are phonemes work within the syntactic structure that I just created? Is there any confusion caused by this sentence outside of the fact that BDSM, like gymnastics, is an umbrella term that can be understood in a variety of ways?

I ask because language works on multiple levels. For a sentence to work, its components must be words.

 

[Noor]

I'm into BDSM. How is this syntactically different from "I'm into gymnastics."? Does the combination of what you want to call letters and that Stella insists are phonemes work within the syntactic structure that I just created? Is there any confusion caused by this sentence outside of the fact that BDSM, like gymnastics, is an umbrella term that can be understood in a variety of ways?

I ask because language works on multiple levels. For a sentence to work, its components must be words.

You can find gymnastics in the OED

 

[Stella_Omega]

I rather think it's called a "Glyph", as opposed to a "phoneme".

I believe that, to most people, a "word" is a combination of letters which is demonstrably "pronounceable" and usable in a wider conversation.

In this case, "BDSM" is the combination of letters; no more.

It's meaning is understood by sundry practitioners and others, but it ain't, I contend, a word that you could say; "I'll BDSM you tomorrow" (and that, I fear, is in the face of the horrible habit of using a noun as a verb), nor is it a noun that you could say "I'll go to the BDSM".

As it has, therefore, no 'position' within the usual words for words, I contend it is best not regarded as a word.

It's an interesting problem though.

It's a noun that names an activity, or group of activities. Like "tennis" or "sex" Neither would you say "I'll tennis you tomorrow" or "I'll go to the tennis." Or "I'll sex you tomorrow" or "I'll go to the sex."

We have a few other words in our language without vowels or only with a demi-vowel; "Rhythm" for instance. I'm too tire to think of anything else right now though -- because I engaged in BDSM this evening.

I would say it's become a word. It has a widely known meaning, a consistent usage, it's pronounced "beedee-essem." And it will be added into the OED some time in the near future. Happens pretty often, actually.

 

[laceNlthrgrrl]

You can find gymnastics in the OED

OED is 'nill,dearest!

BDSM is lovely acronym that covers so many nuances altogether. Can't we agree that an acronym has some validity in usage? (thinking fondly, here, of some boys from Virginia who taught me about SNAFU.)

 

[midwestyankee]

OED is 'nill,dearest!

BDSM is lovely acronym that covers so many nuances altogether. Can't we agree that an acronym has some validity in usage? (thinking fondly, here, of some boys from Virginia who taught me about SNAFU.)

Some words are nouns; some are verbs. In usage, some words are acronyms, like SNAFU. "My squad would have been here earlier but for a SNAFU." If it works like a word, it's a word. even if it takes the lexicographers a while to get around to granting it official status.

One might as well argue that "refudiate" isn't a word simply because its originator is politically unwelcome to us. Or that a mispronounced or misspelled word is not a word. After all, folks around here use "dominate" as a noun quite often even though it's not ordinarily accepted as a noun. Yet no one argues that it's not a word in those sentences in which it's used.

 

[latendresse]

fiction

I agree with velvetcrush.

"L'Histoire d'O" is beatifully written, and you need to learn French and read it in French to see that. The translation is quite good, too. French women writers tend to write very good erotic novels.

(I haven't read 50 shades in full but I've sampled a bit, and I venture to say that it can't match the Europeans.)

But back to 'O': it is one of the most erotic things I've ever read. For those armchair critics, I think you need to try writing an erotic novel, to see what an achievement that book was, and how avant garde it was at the time of publication. That is why the author never published under her own name, it was only many years later that her identity came out.

Paulene Reage as we now know her to be, is up there with Anais Nin, another very wonderful erotic writer (also a woman).

For those who find it mushy or sentimental I am quite shocked.

Are you saying you like the cold, hard logical world of group sex explored in Catherine Millet's book? It was called "La vie sexuelle de Catherine M" (The sex life of Catherine M).

I'd love to hear someone else's view on the Millet book actually. I also found it a complete turn on, way more than any pornographic film, because books and writing tend to engage your mind far more than a film ever could.

Having said that, I did like the film version of Story of O...!

But surely Paulene Reage's book was much more erotic than Millet's?

What is erotic and shocking about O is that it positions the reader squarely into the mind of the submissive and charts her journey from wide eyed innocence to some very broad extremes. The journey is always in tension, there is always a recollection of the person she was before, so there is something to keep everything in perspective. Perversion without a relative comparison to 'normality' no longer remains perverse, kinky, or exciting.

It's just the same as an alcoholic. After a while, the alcoholic is so drunk he becomes quite sober in his very drunkenness. He has normalised being drunk and it becomes boring.

To be really drunk, you need to be a teetotaller most of the time, then slam back a few quick beers ...

For the same reason I thought Millet was less exciting and more logical than Reage, and Reage was more imaginative and erotic. Millet just hits an extreme and stays there. For Reage the journey remains shocking every step of the way, she always reminds us that this is perverse in relation to something else (to O's original innocence). Millet, or M, just goes way into orbit from the beginning and stays there. She doesn't reveal much of her emotions at all. It is distanced and logical.

It's just the same with modern porn films. They are crude and logical. The only limit they explore is what you can do to a body (how penetrate it). Instead of putting it in relations which are unexpected according to plot (ie relations between people). It's why I love 70s Italian and French porn films the most.

Anyway, I'm raving now... I didn't mean to write an essay.

Would like to hear other views on this.

 

[Cattypuss]

For those who find it mushy or sentimental I am quite shocked.

Are you saying you like the cold, hard logical world of group sex explored in Catherine Millet's book? It was called "La vie sexuelle de Catherine M" (The sex life of Catherine M).

I'd love to hear someone else's view on the Millet book actually.

I've read both books in French (I have a degree in French and I lived and worked in France for two years, so my French is pretty fluent - or at least it was at the time when I read the books).

I found the Catherine M book to be horny as hell and fairly well written. I found the Story of O to be boring as hell and badly written.

These things come down to personal taste usually.

 

[desertslave]

latendresse, thank you for mentioning Millet. I've never heard of the book, so now I have to read it, of course.

My first master let me read his copy of "O" about 33 years ago. We had several discussions about "can that really be done?" and why. It gave me insight about where he wanted to take me--not exactly to the same place in the same ways, but the sense of and reason for surrender and submission was true.

I had the hardest time keeping my mouth open (just as an exercise, he didn't especially care about that, but he definitely made his point). To this day, when I'm in a very submissive/needy headspace, I'll catch myself tightening my mouth and feel guilty as hell.

 

[Stella_Omega]

For the same reason I thought Millet was less exciting and more logical than Reage, and Reage was more imaginative and erotic. Millet just hits an extreme and stays there. For Reage the journey remains shocking every step of the way, she always reminds us that this is perverse in relation to something else (to O's original innocence). Millet, or M, just goes way into orbit from the beginning and stays there. She doesn't reveal much of her emotions at all. It is distanced and logical.

Wow, that's so strange to read!

Maybe it was the translation I read, but there was absolutely zero intimation of O's feelings in any way.

I think the closest thing that I remember reading, was something to the effect that "O would have sold her own mother to make the whippings end, but she felt great afterwards"

And I don't remember anything about O's original innocence either.

Paulene Reage as we now know her to be, is up there with Anais Nin, another very wonderful erotic writer (also a woman).

chacun à son gout

 

[desertslave]

And I don't remember anything about O's original innocence either.

Wasn't that the entire point of taking O to the chateau to begin with? Remy wanted her to be trained because she was inexperienced.

 

[CutieMouse]

Wasn't that the entire point of taking O to the chateau to begin with? Remy wanted her to be trained because she was inexperienced.

"Inexperience" re: submission does not = "innocent". It's been a few years since I read it last, but from what I remember O & whatever his name was were already lovers? She never struck me as blushingly virginal; just unaccustomed to bondage, gang bangs & whips...

 

[Stella_Omega]

IIR, the driver stops on the way to the chateau, pulls her out of the car and fucks her. it doesn't seem to bother her.

When she tells Remy about it, he says the guy didn't have permission to do that-- he laughs at the joke that she didn't know, and let him do it.

That was kind of hot in a non-con way. But it sure didn't sound like innocence.

 

[latendresse]

More on O.

I don't understand your comment StellaO. Maybe we read books very differently.

There is so much narrative given over to O's inner feelings / thoughts you almost drown in it.

I have not read the book in years, so I did a quick online search. I came on Chapter 3, the opening section of it (see here):

The modest air Jacqueline assumed - closing the door to the mirrored make-up room where she dressed and undressed - was in fact clearly intended to inflame O, to instill in her the desire to force the door which, had it been left wide open, she would never have made up her mind to enter. That O's decision finally came from an authority outside herself, and was not the result of that basic strategy, could not have been further from Jacqueline's mind. At first O was amused by it. As she helped Jacqueline arrange her hair, for example, after Jacqueline had taken off the clothes she had posed in and was slipping into her turtle-neck sweater and the turquoise necklace the same color as her eyes, O found herself amazingly delighted at the idea that the very same evening Sir Stephen would be apprised of Jacqueline's every gesture - whether she had allowed O to fondle, through the black sweater, her small, well-spaced breasts, whether she had lowered her eyelids till those lashes, fairer than her skin, were touching her cheeks; whether she had sighed or moaned. When O embraced her, she became heavy, motionless and seemly expectant in her arms, her lips parted slightly and her hair cascaded back. O always had to be careful to hold her by both her shoulders and lean her up against the frame of a door or against a table. Otherwise she would have slipped to the floor, her eyes closed, without a sound. The minute O let go of her, she would again turn into ice and snow, laughing and distant, and would say: "You've got lipstick on me," and would wipe her mouth. It was this distant stranger that O enjoyed betraying by carefully noting - so as not to forget anything and be able to relate everything in detail - the slow flush of her cheeks, the smell of sage and sweat. Of Jacqueline it was impossible to say that she was forbearing or that she was on her guard. When she yielded to the kisses - and all she had so far granted O were kisses, which she accepted without returning - she yielded abruptly and, it seemed, totally, as though for ten seconds, or five minutes, she had become someone else. The rest of the time she was both coquettish and coy, incredibly clever at parrying an attack, contriving never to lay herself open either to a word or gesture, or even a look which would allow the victor to coincide with the vanquished or give O to believe that it was all that simple to take possession of her mouth. The only indication one had as a guide, the only thing that gave one to suspect troubled waters beneath the calm surface of her look was an occasional, apparently involuntary trace of a smile on her triangular face, similar to the smile of a cat, as fleeting and disturbing, and as uncertain, as a cat's. Yet it did not take O long to realize that this smile could be provoked by two things, and Jacqueline was totally unaware of either. The first was the gifts that were given to her, the second, any clear evidence of the desire she aroused - providing, however, that the person who desired her was someone who might be useful to her or who flattered her vanity. In what way was O useful to her? Or was it simply that O was an exception and that Jacqueline enjoyed being desired by O both because she took solace in O's manifest admiration and also because a woman's desire is harmless and of no consequence? Still in all, O was convinced that if, instead of bringing Jacqueline a mother-of-pearl brooch or the latest creation of Hermes' scarves on which I Love You was printed in every language under the sun, she were to offer Jacqueline the hundred or two hundred francs she seemed constantly to need, Jacqueline would have changed her tune about never having the time to have lunch or tea at O's place, or would have stopped evading her caresses. But of this O never had any proof. She had only barely mentioned it to Sir Stephen, who was chiding her for her slowness, when René stepped in. The five or six times that René had come by for O, when Jacqueline had happened to be there, the three of them had gone together to the Weber bar or to one of the English bars in the vicinity of the Madeleine; on these occasions René would contemplate Jacqueline with precisely the same mixture of interest, self-assurance, and arrogance with which he would gaze, at Roissy, at the girls who were completely at his disposal. The arrogance slid harmlessly off Jacqueline's solid, gleaming armor, and Jacqueline was not even aware of it. By a curious contradiction, O was disturbed by it, judging an attitude which she considered quite natural and normal for herself, insulting for Jacqueline. Was she taking up cudgels in defense of Jacqueline, or was it merely that she wanted her all to herself? She would have been hard put to answer that question, all the more so because she did not have her all to herself - at least not yet. But if she finally did succeed, she had to admit it was thanks to René. On three occasions, upon leaving the bar where they had given Jacqueline considerably more whisky than she should have drunk – her cheeks were flushed and shining, her eyes hard - he had driven her home before taking O to Sir Stephen's.

 

[latendresse]

Yet more on O v the others.

Cattypuss: Thanks for your input and I'm glad you were able to read these in french. If you read Millet in french then you are better than me. Noone is doubting anyone's prerogative for an opinion, particularly on matters of eros. But I'm very curious to know why you find O boring as hell. And badly written.

You are quite right, Millet's book is well written. In fact I think you are less complimentary than you should be. I was astounded by the logical purity and analytical force of her writing. In that sense she outpaces Reage one million to one. I never doubted Millet as a writer you'll notice. I actually felt she was comparable to Collette, Sagan (orthodox writers, but I feel I am able to make a comparison), in her ability to analyse eroticism. And yet there was something cold.

By contrast, Reage's romanticism and her lyricism on balance make her book (to me!) more enjoyable.

I'm keen to know which books (erotica) that you say are great, if the reference points for this discussion for you are only middling, or in O's case, rubbish.

I came across O when I was 14, I was at a dinner party, with friends, and some older people who owned the place had this on their shelves. I surreptitiously made a note of the title, and then hunted it down in the library. I have happy memories of those times.

 

[latendresse]

for desertslave

If anyone reads O or any other book, or even rereads O, as a result of this discussion, then it was a good discussion! Very glad to be of service d/s and I hope you post your review of Millet here.

latendresse, thank you for mentioning Millet. I've never heard of the book, so now I have to read it, of course.

 

[Cattypuss]

But I'm very curious to know why you find O boring as hell. And badly written [SNIP] Reage's romanticism and her lyricism on balance make her book (to me!) more enjoyable.

Ah. Well I'm a francophile but there is one thing that pisses me off big-time about the French - the way they are incapable of writing fiction without making it all flowery and self-conscious. I like my language plain - I find it more elegant and more honest and more expressive that way (in good writing). I also dislike English-language writers who write in anything but elegant, simple language. That's my personal taste and may explain why I found the Millet book a lot less tedious and annoying that the Reage book.

I'm keen to know which books (erotica) that you say are great, if the reference points for this discussion for you are only middling, or in O's case, rubbish.

.

I have never read any erotica that I would describe as "great" (when judged on the writing). The best I've read, and I would classify it as "good", is Nicholson Baker's 'The Fermata'.

Again, just personal taste.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thanks, LaTendress, I guess it's been a long time since I've read it myself.

That was hard to read on the technicality of no paragraph breaks. The internet, unfortunately, is rarely set up for reading ease, with decent spacing between lines and stuff like that. So, I skimmed a lot

But from what I read, I'd say that yeah-- there's a lot of inner life narration but it just doesn't feel alive to me. It's all told, in flat statements. I'm not sure how I would have treated that passage, but there's enough material in it for an entire novel all of its own-- if all of that were shown as action.

For me, her writing style just doesn't hold my empathy.

I would say though, that that entire style of as you say "analytical eroticism" writing does nothing for me. My own writing is much more graphic, far less philosophical. I'm more concerned with matters of identity as my context, and I guess- that's one reason why I write, because all those erotic novelists are not.

 

[Cattypuss]

Some of what Stella says has had me nodding vigorously.

All that "how O was feeling" stuff... would annoy me a lot less if the writer showed us how she was feeling (through O's words or actions) rather than telling us.

 

[Noor]

I agree with velvetcrush.

"L'Histoire d'O" is beatifully written, and you need to learn French and read it in French to see that. The translation is quite good, too. French women writers tend to write very good erotic novels.

(I haven't read 50 shades in full but I've sampled a bit, and I venture to say that it can't match the Europeans.)

But back to 'O': it is one of the most erotic things I've ever read. For those armchair critics, I think you need to try writing an erotic novel, to see what an achievement that book was, and how avant garde it was at the time of publication. That is why the author never published under her own name, it was only many years later that her identity came out.

Paulene Reage as we now know her to be, is up there with Anais Nin, another very wonderful erotic writer (also a woman).

For those who find it mushy or sentimental I am quite shocked.

Are you saying you like the cold, hard logical world of group sex explored in Catherine Millet's book? It was called "La vie sexuelle de Catherine M" (The sex life of Catherine M).

I'd love to hear someone else's view on the Millet book actually. I also found it a complete turn on, way more than any pornographic film, because books and writing tend to engage your mind far more than a film ever could.

Having said that, I did like the film version of Story of O...!

But surely Paulene Reage's book was much more erotic than Millet's?

What is erotic and shocking about O is that it positions the reader squarely into the mind of the submissive and charts her journey from wide eyed innocence to some very broad extremes. The journey is always in tension, there is always a recollection of the person she was before, so there is something to keep everything in perspective. Perversion without a relative comparison to 'normality' no longer remains perverse, kinky, or exciting.

It's just the same as an alcoholic. After a while, the alcoholic is so drunk he becomes quite sober in his very drunkenness. He has normalised being drunk and it becomes boring.

To be really drunk, you need to be a teetotaller most of the time, then slam back a few quick beers ...

For the same reason I thought Millet was less exciting and more logical than Reage, and Reage was more imaginative and erotic. Millet just hits an extreme and stays there. For Reage the journey remains shocking every step of the way, she always reminds us that this is perverse in relation to something else (to O's original innocence). Millet, or M, just goes way into orbit from the beginning and stays there. She doesn't reveal much of her emotions at all. It is distanced and logical.

It's just the same with modern porn films. They are crude and logical. The only limit they explore is what you can do to a body (how penetrate it). Instead of putting it in relations which are unexpected according to plot (ie relations between people). It's why I love 70s Italian and French porn films the most.

Anyway, I'm raving now... I didn't mean to write an essay.

Would like to hear other views on this.

I found the Millet book kind of dull, okay very dull, boring even.
Great detail on the mechanics of sex but beyond that it was crap.
Her intellectual reasoning for why she seemed to have a lot of bad boring sex was tedious. It wasn't just the lack of emotions but the lack of sensuality, personality, uniqueness, anything erotic, humor...
At one point, she writes ""For a large part of my life I fucked without regard to pleasure."
I don't understand why anyone want to do that. I'd rather wash dishes, and I HATE washing dishes.

 

[JoanneM]

A classic

The Story of O is an absolute classic, especially in the original French. You're seeing a pale imitation of its power in the English translation, though it's still very good. Reage was a professional journalist and novelist and she really knew how to write, it hasn't dated at all and anyone interested in erotica - or just good writing - should read it. It's sexy, scary and above all impassioned. She didn't write it for money but, as others have mentioned, as a plea to her lover and it shows. Maybe it appeals more to women than men, but it's one of the three or four erotic novels which has and will stand the test of time. Avoid the sequel though, because it's a poor retread of the original.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I am so loving the different opinions in this thread!

Welcome to the madhouse, JoanneM

 

[latendresse]

A like mind.

JoanneM, I was beginning to feel outnumbered, a lone voice in the wilderness! I'm glad there is another reader who is of like mind ...

What about the Millet book? And do you have any gems to recommend, since you liked O so much? I wonder if there is anyone who likes Anais Nin as much as I do? Or is that too vanilla for everyone?