The Story of O [Hardcover]

This is a unique and fascinating story of the unadulterated surrender of ones body mind and soul. That one, is a woman who is mysteriously named "O".

"O"s lover Rene, submits her to a strange house in which women are bound, blindfolded, and required to obediently do whatever they're told, for whomever tells them. The story is beautifully written, and really conjures up powerful mental images as you lose yourself in the story. I read this cover to cover on a three hour car ride, and it made the time pass far more quickly.Many debate over the authors true identity. Some think Pauline Reage is a man, but I can't understand why. There are so many details in this book that are clearly feelings of a woman, and the entire book is seemingly written from a womans point of view. I don't think a writer can fake that, especially in sexual matters.

Of all the books I've read in the classic erotica realm, this is among my top favorites. It ranks up there with "Erotica" from Anais Nin, and the more humorous "Tropic..." classics of Henry Miller. However, "The Story Of O" is far more powerful than the aforementioned due to the bizarre deviance of the erotic content. It's certainly not for everyone, but for those of us with an open mind, and a penchant for something wild and extraordinary, here's a story that will definitely satisfy in more ways than one.

THE STORY OF O is a truly special work of literary art. For many of us, this was our introduction into a world that we didn't know existed outside of our own twisted minds. It was the first sign that we weren't freaks, or at least there were other freaks in the world, and we weren't alone.

There are aspects to this tale that may shock some people, or leave them with an unpleasant feeling after finishing it. And because of this, I believe it is important to understand why this book was written. THE STORY OF O was written by a French journalist named Anne Desclos (Dominique Aury) as both a love letter and the answer to a challenge by her boyfriend. He was an admirer of De Sade's erotica, and claimed that a woman could not write good erotica.

In the tradition of De Sade, she wrote a story of a young woman's descent into sexual degradation. O falls deeper and deeper until she reaches bottom and there is nowhere left to go, nothing left to do. What makes it truly stand out from De Sade and other male authors is the utterly feminine twist to the story: it is not lust that drives O down this path, but love: her love for Rene, at first, and later for Sir Stephen. O is a metaphor for Desclos' love for her lover, the whips and chains symbolize the strength of her devotion to him. The ending represents her fear of her lover tiring of her and abandoning her for a younger woman. (This is a very simplified explanation, there are several excellent essays of the various interpretations of the symbolism in this book, and can be found by doing a search for `The Story of O'.)

Desclos' lover was so impressed by her story he encouraged her to seek publication. And so she did, using the pseudonym, Pauline Reage. The novel was a near instant success, and for forty years no one knew the true identity of the writer and there were countless theories and rumors. Credit was given to numerous authors, some of them men. Just before her death in 1998, Anne Desclos revealed that she was the mysterious Pauline Reage.

When I first read this novel I had very strong mixed feelings about it. On one hand I was entranced by it. It was incredibly hot, but it was also elegant. This was not pornography meant to be read once and thrown away. The elegant prose, and unashamed, cultured voice told a story of a love so deep death was preferable to its loss, while simultaneously teasing with taboo elements `good' people did not speak of.

But I hated the end. O's masters didn't deserve her. I wanted to rewrite the ending, make O kick those jerks to the curb and run off with her girlfriend. And it disturbed me, because I've known women in my life that would go that far to keep a man from leaving, and they always ended up betrayed and abandoned in the end, too. THE STORY OF O inadvertently illustrates a terrible truth of womanhood, and it's easy to forget that the author wasn't trying to make a statement. She was merely telling a story, not advocating abuse or codependency.

TSOO is an erotic fantasy, nothing more. You'll get the most enjoyment out of it if you just allow it to be what it is and try and avoid reading into it any deeper messages. And if it's still not your cup o' tea, well, that's fine, too. I'm sure there are countless other books that will be. For the rest of us, this book is something special and will always be treasured despite, or maybe because of, the controversy surrounding it.

A few years ago just prior to her passing, Ms. Reage finally revealed herself - even offering interviews. What she has created, what she has defined and brought into the open for our age (opening the door in the 1950's,) we cannot easily repay. Before her work, there were no publications in the genre save the puerile, repetitive musings of de Sade: "Justine" and "101 Days." Ms. Reage changed this. She re-invented it. She brought it forth from the darkness. Just, for example, in creating the "chateau" device - seemingly obvious, even simple - yet it remains the most copied to this day. But chiefly, I believe, she brought a feminine wisdom to the characters, seeing actions and intent - bereft of particulars, specifics or trivia - through O's eyes as only a woman could. If you read it, take careful note not only of the symbolism of O's name but of how she is an anywoman, she has no physical characteristics save those shared of all women. I cannot do justice to Story here, but it is, truly, literature.

The submissive emerges as human for the first time in O. In the Story Reage gave reign to the freedom of mind inherent in humanity. And it is because of that that O is able to desire her freedom's diminishment for - and all the while despite - herself. Indeed, she completes her own submission - not merely because she has in her possession the freedom itself to relinquish - which de Sade's heroine's did not - but as party to her own subjugation she proves her worthiness to be possessed, affirms her subjugation, gives to her masters a freedom that is inconceivable in lieu of her consent.

When Ms. Reage still sought anonymity, it was written that the Story, like O, would stand naked before her judges. Sadly, Ms Reage's apologetic noises about Story's harshness and its unlikeliness, I believe, directly contrive to render Story's criticism a certain chic-ness in the community - criticism most undeserved: Especially when Story is appreciated in its context.

With this book Ms. Reage provided a defining statement for what would become today's D/s.

Story is not a classic. It is THE CLASSIC.