Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by lbrumfield
Story of O by Pauline Réage
2.0
Poorly articulated, very long review to follow. Yes, you should probably still read the book, because it will challenge you, and make you think, and that's a good thing. However, note the disclaimer at the end.
Many, many troubling questions. Yes, it breaks conventional boundaries, yes, it raises new and shocking ideas about sex and relationships, but somehow... there's just... something that feels unhealthy about O's relationships. Nothing wrong with any sexual lifestyle you chose, BDSM or plain vanilla, but O's motivations in this novel are what primarily troubles me. Do it because it feels good, do it because you want it, but don't excuse it with "love," particularly unequal, brainwashing love. Everything she does is championed in the name of love, save one short passage near the end when she revels in the pain of being tortured and humiliated.
As a sheerly practical consideration, this bothers me. Depending on another person for your entire motivation for life? Even the most progressive sex therapist would blanch. As a historical and societal consideration, I'm even more troubled. Women have been submitting in the name of "love" for as long as we've been convinced we were incomplete without a man. How much love can a master have for a slave if he commands her to kill herself, or abandons her without a second look? This isn't love, this isn't a healthy Sub/Dom relationship, this is the worship and ownership between a dog and its master. It doesn't actually mean anything, no matter how fondly the master looks upon the dog, or how pathetically the dog grovels. Is it good for O to be a dog? Is it good for anyone? A brand indicates permanent ownership, a responsibility to the branded, yet Stephen abandons or (effectively) kills O at the end of the novel. This goes against even the quotation in the front of the book, where a Sub demands that the Dom who has taken the role of a god actually live up to that promise. Wouldn't it make more sense for O to abandon Stephen once he has failed in his duties as a master?
Reage seems to champion submissiveness in women, painting the one female character who turns away from the idea of being a slave as a shallow, cheating, impersonal bitch, and when O explains her relationships with men as opposed to her relationships with women, she very firmly genders her actions -submissive with the men, and reveling in her power over the women. Sure, the book was written in the 1950's, but this doesn't seem to influence O's actions or choices.
Other reviewers have compared the book to the movie "Secretary," and while that movie does involve domination and submission, the main character willingly chooses and seeks her role as a "Sub." The master/slave relationships O experiences are completely forced upon her at first, effectively brainwashing her to the point where I don't think she's a completely sane, reasoning adult human. The invitation of the young girl to her "glamorous" life as a slave is even more disturbing.
I'm not one for censorship, but this may be one of the only books I would firmly remove from the hands of a young, impressionable teenager.
Many, many troubling questions. Yes, it breaks conventional boundaries, yes, it raises new and shocking ideas about sex and relationships, but somehow... there's just... something that feels unhealthy about O's relationships. Nothing wrong with any sexual lifestyle you chose, BDSM or plain vanilla, but O's motivations in this novel are what primarily troubles me. Do it because it feels good, do it because you want it, but don't excuse it with "love," particularly unequal, brainwashing love. Everything she does is championed in the name of love, save one short passage near the end when she revels in the pain of being tortured and humiliated.
As a sheerly practical consideration, this bothers me. Depending on another person for your entire motivation for life? Even the most progressive sex therapist would blanch. As a historical and societal consideration, I'm even more troubled. Women have been submitting in the name of "love" for as long as we've been convinced we were incomplete without a man. How much love can a master have for a slave if he commands her to kill herself, or abandons her without a second look? This isn't love, this isn't a healthy Sub/Dom relationship, this is the worship and ownership between a dog and its master. It doesn't actually mean anything, no matter how fondly the master looks upon the dog, or how pathetically the dog grovels. Is it good for O to be a dog? Is it good for anyone? A brand indicates permanent ownership, a responsibility to the branded, yet Stephen abandons or (effectively) kills O at the end of the novel. This goes against even the quotation in the front of the book, where a Sub demands that the Dom who has taken the role of a god actually live up to that promise. Wouldn't it make more sense for O to abandon Stephen once he has failed in his duties as a master?
Reage seems to champion submissiveness in women, painting the one female character who turns away from the idea of being a slave as a shallow, cheating, impersonal bitch, and when O explains her relationships with men as opposed to her relationships with women, she very firmly genders her actions -submissive with the men, and reveling in her power over the women. Sure, the book was written in the 1950's, but this doesn't seem to influence O's actions or choices.
Other reviewers have compared the book to the movie "Secretary," and while that movie does involve domination and submission, the main character willingly chooses and seeks her role as a "Sub." The master/slave relationships O experiences are completely forced upon her at first, effectively brainwashing her to the point where I don't think she's a completely sane, reasoning adult human. The invitation of the young girl to her "glamorous" life as a slave is even more disturbing.
I'm not one for censorship, but this may be one of the only books I would firmly remove from the hands of a young, impressionable teenager.