Anne DesclosReviews

Reading 1001, this was free on audible Play so decided to listen. Did not know it was erotica until I started it. This was written by a female under the pen name Pauline Reage. Perhaps it explores the concepts of freedom verses slavery. Not recommended.

Story: 5.5 / 10
Characters: 7
Setting: 8.5
Prose: 7.5

This book is not about sex, although there is plenty of it, and mostly of a completely unerotic nature. Rather, it about the complete and voluntary handing over of a beautiful woman's will to others. That she also hands over her body is important, but also incidental. The book's spare prose and haunting atmosphere, so French, are beautiful.

The buzz around the 50 Shades phenomena still hasn't subsided. There's now a magazine dedicated to the series and a new book due out in December. I didn't really want to read another book from this series but I thought I'd delve into the genre again and decided to read The Story of O. This book shows how S&M is definitely not something new. The book is over 50 years old and in my opinion is far superior to 50 Shades of Grey, which at times read like a silly soap opera. I'll never fully understand why women will willingly submit themselves to such debasement but The Story of O does gets much more into the psyche of the character than 50 Shades, so I do have a somewhat better idea of how and why this alternate lifestyle continues to persist.

Awfully sad and bleak story about a woman whose only desire is to be enslaved. Not your typical BDSM story, I think. All O wants is to have a man love her, even if that love means whipping, branding and sharing her with his 20 closest friends. In the beginning I felt bad for her, but wondered how she could be so vacuous and accepting of what her lover did to her. I also was amazed at her sexual stamina, as she was interested in both men and women, even after being taken repeatedly, she was still able to get aroused for the next man.
I can see why women wanted this banned and called it the objectification of their fair sex. I felt repulsed at O's lack of action, as she just PUT UP WITH everything that the men wanted her to do. All she wanted was to be loved, and once she knew that, everything was fine for her.

As I finished the story, all I could think of was "What a relief", as I can get back to characters with self respect, and gumption.

The thing that I learned from this book is how to get into the mind of people who love so much that it destroys them, that do anything their lover asks without questioning if their love is returned and to what extent one might go to prove their loyalty. It all ends badly and it is an example to be avoided. Also I got a glimpse of how eroticas were written last century and how french literature affects the text. Can't say I liked this book but I also don't regret reading it. That's why I'll give it three stars out of five.

Misogynist pornography! Why do seemingly intelligent people continue to justify works such as this as somehow revolutionary, anti-establishment and "liberating". This is an account of a women giving up all her integrity - bodily, psychological and spiritual integrity - to a succession of men (and one woman) and it attempts to persuade us that this is somehow liberating for her. Please will people begin to recognise such works as what they are; i.e. attempts to persuade women that subjection to men is their natural desire.

makes a good companion to the novel and a great erotic coffee table book.

The quintessential S&M story, although perhaps a little more theatrical than reality. There is an entire group or society involved in this, a bit like in Ninth Gate or Eyes Wide Shut.
I have to say that it was a lot less uncomfortable a read than i expected. I mean even Fanny Hill was a difficult read for me but this was much less so.
I think the main difference is the consensualness of the proceedings. O isn't tricked, intimidated or emotionally manipulated into agreeing with what is done to her. She seems intelligent, stable, financially independent, and is even shown to be something of a predator herself on occasion.
The sex in this book is blunt but not graphic, or perhaps graphic but not detailed.
Its not about sex its about control and need. Sometimes O's suppression of self for something outside herself takes on an almost religious nature. Its a really interesting character piece.
Also now that i think about it, it's also not about pain. Much of S&M revolves around getting pleasure from experiencing pain but that never happens to O.
She likes the pain inflicted on her only in so much as it makes her feel like she is under another persons control. Its a subtle but important difference between this and other S&M stories.
O's journey of self discovery, for want of a better term, is complete by about the 3/4 stage of the book. After that it felt like there wasn't really anywhere else for O to go.
The story ends abruptly and unfinished with only a note to reveal O's possible fate.
However i think it was a good idea to end it then as the plot looked like veering into some questionable areas which would have undermined the clearly consensual nature of the rest of the story.

I didn't especially care for this book- not because of the explicit, erotic content; I came to this book fully cognizant of what I was going to be reading. Rather, I disliked the writing style (although, granted, perhaps something was lost in translation from French to English.) I kept thinking of "Fanny Hill" as I read this book, mainly because of the sometimes stilted tone, but also because of the disconnect I felt with O. There are some impressive psychological undertones to the story, and I can certainly see why this book is considered a classic, particularly when it comes to erotica. Unfortunately, as with many classics (I'm looking at you, "Madame Bovary"), I found myself disinterested and pleased only when I reached the end of the novel. (I will say this: what an ending! It will definitely stay with me - I still can't shake the memory of the final paragraphs of "The Grapes of Wrath.")

It is difficult to rate a book that I read more than 20 years ago. My memory of it is of being chocked more by O’s submission than the sex and the slashing. I probably should read it again before rating it but, although so much of it has stayed with me over all these years, I don’t feel compelled to do it. Not because of the subject matter per se, but because I believe it is a book that probably didn’t age well. Women sexuality and identity were very different in the 1950’s Europe when and where this book was written than it is now. We have come a long way, babe – I want to believe anyway.

It is though a classic of the genre, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in erotic literature.

Perhaps the best known erotic novel.

I think all I need to say about this is that 'I can see why it was banned'. Unfortunately, there's no real story to it exactly, just a kind of view of our protagonists daily life which consists of nothing other than a constant round of sado-masochism. Still, at least I can say I've read a banned book now :0)

O is the slave of Rene who then passes her on to Sir Steven, his friend. O is taught how to be obedient to these men but these men are irresponsible. I know people in the lifestyle and as the reader described the two endings for the story abandonment would not occur to the Masters. A responsible Master cares for his slave.

I did like the beginning as it told the history of The Story of O as well as what critics have said. I liked O, Ann Marie, and Natalie. Hated Jacquelinn from the beginning--she was a user. I came hate Rene and Sir Steven for their lack of caring for O (physical as well as emotional.) It is a story of its time but this is not the way a responsible pairing occurs.

This is an infamous bdsm book which since its publication in the mid-fifties has caused much controversy and is one of the canonical “banned books”. I found it to be pretty tame, though, in this current era that is both post-sexual-revolution and during-limitless-internet-porn.

The book’s main character is O, a young Parisian woman, whose name may stand for Object or a cry of pain/pleasure, or a female orifice of your choosing. Her boyfriend takes her to a Château in Roissy, outside of Paris, where she is to be cultivated into a sex slave: the Château is run by an organization of libertines (male and female) who train up young girls as unquestioning sex puppets to fulfill all their bdsm needs. O completes her training and upon her release back into her old life she becomes a permanent member of an exclusive underground club: any Roissy libertine will recognize a ring she must wear at all times and may do with her as they please. Many of her subsequent experiences only serve to further dehumanize her, but O is an exemplary sex slave and tries her best to be eager to obey, for that is what her owners expect, and she is no longer her own person. She settles into this life with nary a wrinkle.

In the second part of the novel, which may or may not have been written by the original author, more attention is given to world-building and the logistics of the libertine Château at Roissy.

This book was weird, and hard for me to get a grip on, and I think that is largely because of two reasons. One is that the book is merely a series of highly unrealistic sexual fantasies. From the first page O is entirely without a will of her own: she mechanically goes along with everything and becomes a keen, even proud sex vessel for her owners to utilize in whatever way they see fit. This is only heightened by the burning desire of some of her female friends to be subjected to the same treatment: some profess to be jealous of O and to want to be (more) like her. The narrative does not spend nearly enough time on O’s psychology to maintain much of a pretense at not being a dom’s fantasy as viewed through a sub. There’s no real plot, either, merely a series of sexcapades that highlight different aspects of what it means to be someone’s property. In other words: the book is not aimed at a mainstream audience, who might expect more in the way of psychological realism, and explaining its fetishes to outsiders is not one of the things it sets out to do.

Secondly, the erotica/porn in question doesn’t fit at all under vanilla conceptions of “sex”: it’s mainly about displays of dominance (or lack thereof) and unquestioned obedience; about libertines’ free use of their slaves, and the slaves’ fervent collaboration in recruiting aditional attractive females for their masters’ cults. Most of the sex is centred around beatings with paddles and suchlike, sometimes to the exclusion of all else; frequently it’s all about observing how one’s sex slave pleasures others. If that is not your thing, or if that doesn’t really qualify as “sex”, then an understanding of this particular set of fetishes remains intellectual, at a distance.

Instead, this book’s central driving force is an almost programmatic desire to depict a corruption of Innocence, an erasure of independent will, and to see a vanilla mind-set brought low. Qua novel it isn’t very good, because of the lack of psychological credibility and no sustained plot to speak of. In terms of shock value… Well, of course it’s about female objectification, and it glorifies complete and enthusiastic subjugation of women by domineering men. But there is so much of that in our society, a lot of it much more insidious than this. Also, the book is actually pretty obviously a collection of sexual fantasies, which I tend to be pretty forgiving of, rather than real-life circumstances, so yeah.

And finally, I found this book to be curiously dated. Its transgressions seem to target a society where ubiquitous internet porn is not a thing, which of course is only natural for a book written in the 1950s, but it went beyond that: often I felt as though Histoire d’O might have been set in the era of Marquis de Sade (a major influence on this book, or so I’m told); I was honestly surprised to see people driving cars.

In all, this book is not a good novel, as such, and its stream of improbable fetish scenes becomes fairly humdrum after a while. Reading this book felt more like an intellectual exercise in anthropology than something to enjoy, even vicariously.

The characters are pornographically vapid without the candor or pulse of real porn. Unreadable.

Story of O is certainly a seminal novel of its type, supposedly the first book to be written by a woman in emulation of de Sade's novels. Despite the subjugated female protagonist (typical of de Sade), the focus has more in common with Leopold von Sacher-Masoch's Venus in Furs, where there is no sadistic sermonizing from the dominating characters, just unembroidered imperatives. The sense of contract and continually rising stakes are vivid. De Sade never lets the reader lose sight of his ideological preoccupations, but I found any such message here to be ambivalent at best. Reage does little to manage the reactions of the reader, who may be titillated, engrossed, or horrified by the sequence of events.

Other readers seem to have made more of the character Rene than I was able to find here. He is important in that O's affection for him serves as a principal motivation in the first parts of the book. But she does indeed transcend that affection through her experience of her "condition." And it's hard for me to imagine any reader being seriously sympathetic to O's initial devotion to Rene. He is drawn sparsely and unflatteringly.

There is little in the way of graphic detail regarding the many sexual acts in the story, so that the reader's imagination is enlisted in the erotic effects. What particulars of sex acts there are mostly fall in the early parts of the book. Reviewers often accordingly judge the middle and end to have become "slow." And yet I found that they tended to accelerate in terms of the shifting of personal relationships and the psychological transformation of O. Few readers seem to remark the somewhat predatory lesbianism of O, which is so pivotal to the central sections of the book, although hardly any fail to react to the body modifications of corseting, piercing, and branding.

The end of the book is abrupt and unconventional. A metafictional epilogue glosses two versions of a "suppressed" (unwritten, I surmise) concluding chapter which would have completed the plot. But "The Owl" which serves as the actual last section is unconcerned to resolve any of the tensions developed in the book. Instead, it sets them on a pedestal for a final appreciation.

My expectations were way off the mark because I didn't really understand the genre prior to reading this. I found it interesting in the same way I found documentaries about serial killers interesting -- you can watch it (read it) once, but after that I've no inclination to see it again.

Per poterlo capire, questo è un romanzo che va affrontato con la mente aperta. Perché parla di scelte, non sempre comprensibili e non sempre neppure concepibili, ma senza dubbio scelte, libere e consapevoli. È stato già detto tutto sulla trama (la violenza, l'annullamento totale della persona, in questo caso la donna, la mancanza di dignità eccetera eccetera), meno spesso si precisa che, prima di ogni nuovo gradino di violenza e di mortificazione, ad O viene chiesto, esplicitamente, se vuole. E lei vuole. È per questo che trovo un po' strumentale il collegamento al tema "violenza sulla donna", perché per come la vedo io qui si parla di una cosa un po' diversa.
Ho preso il romanzo come un'opera di narrativa: prendo per buono quello che mi viene raccontato. Senza sovrastrutture. E allora mi accorgo, come già suggerito dalla prefazione, che la storia è pervasa di pudore. Mi accorgo che non ci sono solo scene di sesso particolare e di violenza (raccontate muovendosi sempre in maniera impeccabile nel campo minato delle numerose possibilità di scadere nel volgare e nel pecoreccio), ma c'è anche una parte introspettiva in cui è la protagonista a parlare di sé, a cercare di spiegare quello che a molti di noi sembra inaccettabile: raggiungere l'apice del piacere all'apice del dolore; il sollievo procurato dal rendersi un oggetto. Il mondo è bello perché è vario: e in questa varietà alcune persone provano piacere a sottoporsi ad umiliazioni; altre a infliggerle. Non è una cosa semplice, e trovo che l'autrice abbia fatto un bel lavoro. Persone così esistono da sempre, là fuori. Penso che Histoire d'O racconti bene, in maniera anzi molto femminile, che cosa provano queste persone e cosa sta dietro a una scelta ai più incomprensibile. E tanto mi basta -scusate se è poco- per farmi apprezzare un'opera di narrativa.

Příběh O. byl napsán v padesátých letech 20. století. Je to tedy dílo současné a tak se nabízí otázka, PROČ se stalo „kultovním“ (ať se nám ten pojem líbí, či ne)? Vždyť padesátá léta - to je vlastně dneska a v současné době vzniká přece spousta pornografické a erotické literatury různé kvality! A dokonce díky surrealistckému zájmu o bizarní představy a temné hlubiny lidské duše vzniká i spousta filosoficko-uměleckých děl, která se věnují sexuálně-perverzní tématice! Tak proč se „slečna O.“ stala tak vyj��mečnou? Možná je to tím, že to není žádné vysoké umělecko-filosofické dílo, které by čtenářům bránilo v poklidném čtení; a ani nesklouzává k laciné, prvoplánové pornografii.
Kdo je tedy slečna O. a co tak zajímavého prožívá? O. je moderní, dalo by se i říci „emancipovaná“, žena. Pracuje jako módní fotografka, je spolčenská, jinými slovy: není to žádná domácí puťka. Z náznaků i vytušíme, že je v mnoha ohledech femme fatale. Avšak této vampýřici lámající srdce nejednomu muži, přesto jeden chlápek přistřihne křidélka. Tomu se ona plně oddá a chce být pro něj „ta nejlepší“. Zkouška její oddanosti nastává, když ji on vezme do zámečku v Roissy, kdese octne v prapodivné společnosti. Při popisu tohoto společenství by bylo nejvýstižnější říct, že „to byla taková zednářské lóže“ - ač sotva se tomu podobá. Každopádně Roissy je místo plné tajemství, tajných symbolů, záhadné hierarchizace a prapodivné pospolitosti. Muži i ženy zde nosí předepsaný úbor a na veřejnosti se prokazují zvláštním symbolem (možná právě díky Příběhu O. vzniklo to „ghetto vyjímečnosti“, které se jeví tak typické pro naši BDSM komunitu;-)) ). Na tomto místě je O. vržena do náruče chtíčů zvrácených deviantních můžů, kteří ji týrají - ať už tělesným mučením, či sexuálním zneužíváním. Avšak zjištění, že do tohoto poníženého stavu ji uvrhl její milý, ji nutí překonat samu sebe a zalíbit se mu víc, než kdykoliv předtím, nezklamat ho. Těší ji, že je jeho nástrojem, že ho může potěšit svou pokorou a ochotou. Že je hodna toho, aby jí věnoval všem těm chtivým mužům.

I po propuštění z „vězení“ v Roissy však O. není svobodná - prsten se symbol musí nosit „nafurt“, smí se oblékat jen do určitých typů oděvu a má předepsaným způsobem sedět, chodit atp... Tímto se podle mne Příběh O. vymyká běžné erotické produkci - v první části se i přes „zednářský“ charakter společenstva neděje nic „vyjímečného“: kapitola odehrávající se v Roissy je jen popisem mnohdy i originálního mučení, týrání a sexuálního ukájení. Oproti tomu však období „na svobodě“ již popisuje jinou stránku. Zatímco v Roissy neměla O. svým způsobem na v��běr, venku je však její postavení evidentně její volba. Na první pohled je volná - pracuje, smí se chodit bavit, ale skrytě je uvězněná stejně jako v Roissy. Nikdo nevidí, že pod oblečením nemá spodní prádlo, že sedí s rozevřenými stehny a její tělo nese stopy po bičování; ani symbol na prstenu není nezainteresovaným znám. Avšak člověk s věcí obeznámený ví, v jaké pozici se O. nachází. Je to vlastně taková dvojí hra.

Příběh však graduje - René, milenec O., jí věnuje svému nevlastnímu bratru siru Stephenovi, se kterým O. dojde ještě dál: kvůli němu si tvaruje pas mučícím korzetem, nechá si vypálit cejch s jeho iniciály a na genitálie nasadit prstenec s jeho monogramem. Na konec - když ji Stephen chce opustit - spáchá sebevraždu.

Autorčin milenec v doslovu uvažuje o štěstí nalezeném v zotročení. A přesně to JE O. - mladá sebevědomá žena, která se našla v roli poslušné a oddané subinky. Ne, O. není masochistka - ano, nechává se mučit a je šťastná, když ji její milý týrá (či nechává týrat), avšak bolest je bolest a to je pro ni nepříjemné. Na bičování apod. se těší, ale už samo pomyšlení na to utrpení ji děsí. Mučení bere jako „dar“ - jako výraz úcty, který se jí dostává tím, že je hodna toho, aby se jí její Pán věnoval. Proto spíš než přijetí bolesti je pro ni důležité přijímání této pozornosti, kterou jí její Pán tímto uštědřuje.
Krom toho, že O. je ideálním prototypem oddané subinky, je také jakousi konsenzuální obětí. Vždyť to, co s ní muži např. v Roissy dělají - jak ji trýzní a przní - to není nepodobné děsivým zážitkům takové Sadeho Justýny. Avšak při čtení Justýny sice pociťujeme rozkoš z hrdinčina utrpení, avšak zároveň máme přitom pocit určité nepatřičnosti - „vždyť ta dívka je nevinnou obětí!“ , vnucuje se nám neodbytně sociální cítění. Na proti tomu sice O. trpí stejně drasticky, nicméně ona sama k tomu dáva souhlas: několikát se v Příběhu O. zdůrazňuje, že O. může kdykoliv ze vztahu odejít a své otrocké postavení tak zrušit.
Dále je „Óčko“ taktéž dost dobrým popisem vývoje D/s vztahu: subinka nalezne v podřízené roli své osobní štěstí a vyvine se z ní silná sebevědomá osobnost; navíc postupem času si nechává líbit víc a víc ujetostí. Také konce vztahů s Reném i sirem Stephenem jsou nabíledni: René je sice ten, kdo ji Stephenovi předá, přesto je to ONA, která ho opouští. René ji totiž nemůže dát to, co ji dává sir; on už ji nemůže více nabídnout, nemá tolik „síly“ , aby ji dále formoval. A kam to až může dospět? - v druhém případě, kterým je vztah O. a sira Stephena, ji Stephen vytvaruje přesně do podoby, jaká se mu líbí a vyhovuje mu.
Takto bychom měli celkem klasický příběh, ale Óčko jde dál - autorka nám nabízí dva alternativní konce: v jednom se vztah O. a Stephena dovrší přímo finálně fatálně a v druhém? V té dojde k totální dekonstrukci celé nastolené mystiky Roissy! Nebýt toho, tak i přes to, že knihu beru i jako zajímavou, vzrušující inspiraci, bych jí 5 hvězdiček nedala.

Interesting idea, but the poor writing ruined it for me.

Was zeer verrassend dit deeltje te vinden in een 2e hands winkeltje. Opnieuw jammer dat het zon dun boekje is. In een zucht en je bent er doorheen. Ben oh zo blij dat ik het tegen gekomen ben, en kan het zeker aan een ieder aanraden.

Dit boek kan niet missen. Het is gewoon een superaanrader!. Was verbaasd dit boek tegen te komen in een 2e handwinkeltje. Wist niet eens dat er een 2e deel bestaat, want je hoort er eigenlijk niets van. Ik vond het opnieuw super jammer dat het maar een dun boekje was, die je eigenlijk in een zuch uit hebt.

Denk wel het mooiste boek dat ik in dit genre (tot op heden) heb gelezen. Het heeft diepe indruk gemaakt en zeker de moeite waard om ook de film te kijken. Je kunt je helemaal inleven, jammer dat het zon' dun boekje is, voor mij had het nog wel wat dikker mogen zijn.

Zoals meestal is het boek mooier dan de film. Intenser. Je kunt je echt verplaatsen in de story. Heb het boek in 1x uitgelezen. Het blijft boeien, zelfs nadat je het verhaal eigenlijk al kent van de film.