out of the mouths of babes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo18
I did a book report on the story of O way back in highschool for the life of me I cant find it anywere. I remeber that when I read it I felt an odd combination of disgust and pitty and envy for O. disgust at the fact that she refused to put her safety as a priority pity that in the end ( my copy didnt include a fulltelling of the ending only an over view of one of the alternets) she is abadaned at the chatue(sp?) and envy that she had found her idealized Master. I also found that neither of the males int the story ( cant remeber either of there names maybe i ought to re read the story) to be at all likeable or to have any redeaming charicteristics. to abadon a slave after puting so much time and effort into makeing her into someone who at least to my mind could no longer fend for herself struck me as compleatly with out heart. half way though the story i was so disgusted with her treatment at there hands that I wanted I threw the book across the room and wanted to tear the pages out. but oddly couldent seem to stop reading. so in the end while I may of hated the story it did it its job and kept my attetion enthraled. sence then i have called it a story I hated to read but couldent stop myself. and thats most likely why i havent read it sence. I dont want to finish it and cry for her. and incase any of u are wondering my book repot got an F the teacher latter pulled me aside and explaned that report was fantatic worth an A but that the materal was to adult for someone of my age. :hairpull: thats what i get for being a precosis 17 year old.
Dearest slo18,
Not that seventeen is a babe, though I'm sure you were/are in the colloquial sense.
Good lord a High School book report. That had to take guts, no one has that much youthful naivete, admit it you were toying with your English teacher.
To the point. You did have it 90% right back then. O was an object to be pitied, Sir Stephen was despicable for being unwilling or unable to fulfill O's needs, and Rene was just pathetic and weak. O was perhaps not quite as hopeless as your first reading suggested to you but like any tragic heroine in a bloody romance she was locked into her fate by her very nature.
Maybe if you could find the time and were so inclined you might reread the story. It's relatively short. I'd be interested in how your perceptions have changed now that you've been exposed to other material in the realm of BDSM literature.
Yours truly, Mad
how to use the nifty quote thingies
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo18
ok yeah I was haveing some fun with her she was so prim and propor and after the einglish teacher i had for the last year and half who was much more fun and open I was used to a much more open and free exchange of ideas. einglish class with him ( first teacher ) often turned into a debate on ethics or a discussion on philosphy. I also liked the fact that he didnt care so much about a persons spelling as he did the ideas that person expressed. I hope it made her blush.
I think I will read it again. it only took me a day to read it the first time
Just hit the reply buton inside the messege box you're replying to. The box will come up with the message inside quote boxes you just add your responce below and people will be impressed that you know your way around a thread. :cool:
Mad
Dustin off this ol' thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by pejanon
Right on! That's it. Most of the best stories are about the subs NOT about the masters. :D Pej
I couldn't agree more. subs are much more interesting than Masters. Then again it could just be that we're more interested in subs. I suppose to get a real perspective you'd have to ask some subs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pejanon
I was always found suprising views that saw O as a victim. From the point of storytelling at least, O is the ONLY REAL character in the book - "tragic heroine in a bloody romance" - as some like to put it.. Everthing is happening because of her, not the other way around.
At Roissy she is just 'made' to ah, participate. Then when Rene turns out to be a wimp he is, up pops Sir S.
THEN when he cannot take her further - her comes Anne-Marie et cetera. In a way O is USING them.
Even in Lews Sir Stephen's Confessions O FORCES Sir S to do what she wants. We might not be happy about her choice but it is certainly legitimate one.
(Strange book, isn't it? No matter how much you analyze it - it turn yet another cheek. And I'm not sure we can agree completely - THAT'S why it's so good :D )
Have fun
Pej
Yup strange...:confused:
It has always been my contention that in an exchange of power the giver (the sub.) maintains control over the relationship with the receiver (the Dom.) So it's natural (to me) that O would control the ending of her relationship with Sir Stephen. That is why I tried (with mixed results) to show the story as Sir Stephen's failure, not O's triumph.
Did you even remember writing this Pej?:p
your registered madman
Mad Lews
For the sake of forgiveness and frustration's end
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mad Lews
The ‘instinct’ to protect the weak, is at its root quite possessive, (at least speaking for myself) though gentlemanly behavior and chivalrous codes try to mask this. From the basic biological POV the male’s only claim to his progeny is through possession of the woman that bears them.
This is a rather fascinating idea to me. I have never heard it presented quite like this. I do appreciate it. And it comes from you, Mr. Mad. I do enjoy what comes from you. :)
Quote:
The thing about O though, the reason I started this thread, oh so very long ago, is that I sense she is flawed, deeply and fatally, and that is the reason the story had no workable ending. I’m just not sure what that flaw might be and I’m very open to suggestions.
Dare I have one? A suggestion, that is. I'm not referring to that chocolate candy sitting so invitingly on my kitchen counter. I'm not. I'm not. I'm NOT!!~sighs~
I read "O" several years ago, when understanding any of my basic wants and desires was impossibly elusive. I do remember feeling greatly frustrated while reading it, feeling as if O was not being utilized to the fullest extent possible, leaving her as frustrated as I felt. And then the ending...I think I threw the book across the room upon completing it. It just wasn't right to leave a reader so lost in a moment. But reading your words, Mr. Mad, the thought that O was just too flawed for the author (whomever she may or may not be) to be as lost for an ending as I was in it, well, that makes sense to me. Perhaps the author, not being flawed deeply enough, had no way to complete the character of O herself, therefore leaving the ending of the book flawed in it's own irreprable way?
You did say you were open to one, although I'm not at all sure if what I had to say is suggestion or not.
But (and isn't there always one?), this tale stays with me, frustrated bugger that it is. Here's the reason "O", the story, is forever in my mind-
She ceased resisting and, crestfallen at the idea of having been found wanting in the presence of Sir Stephen, she repeated, this time almost in a whisper:
"It's not true, I swear it's not true."
Without uttering a word, without so much as a glance at Jacqueline, Sir Stephen made a sign to Rene to let O go, and to O to go into the other room. But on the other side of the door O, who was immediately wedged against the wall, her belly and breasts seized, her lips forced apart by Sir Stephen's insistent tongue, moaned with happiness and deliverance. The points of her breasts stiffened beneath his hand's caress, and with his other hand Sir Stephen probed her loins so roughly she thought she would faint. Would she ever dare tell him that no pleasure, no joy, no figment of her imagination could ever compete with the happiness she felt at the way he used her with such utter freedom, at the notion that he could do anything with her, that there was no limit, no restriction in the manner with which, on her body, he might search for pleasure. Her absolute certainty that when he touched her, whether it was to fondle or flog her, when he ordered her to do something, it was solely because he wanted to. Her certainty that all he cared about was his own desire, so overwhelmed and gratified O that each time she saw a new proof of it, and often even when it merely occurred to her in thought, a cape of fire, a burning breastplate extending from the shoulders to the knees, descended upon her. As she was there, pinned against the wall, her eyes closed, her lips murmuring "I love you" when she could find the breath to say them, Sir Stephen's hands, though they were as cool as the waters of a bubbling spring on the fire coursing through her from head to toe, made her burn even hotter. Gently he released her, dropping her skirt down over her moist thighs, closing her bolero over her quivering breasts.
"Come, O," he said, "I need you."
I didn't understand much at the time (still don't :o ). But I understood this.
Completely.
Thanks Mr. Mad, for the gentle push in this direction. In the spirit of coming clean (which is a difficult thing for a woman like me to do ;) ), I saw this thread the very first week I joined up here at the Forums. I was much too much of a newbie to even attempt a posting. Actually, I still feel that same way. But desirous necessity is quite the motivator.
Always a thrill, Mr. Mad. (Lews, you certainly make that so as well.)
tessa :wave:
a time for forgivness will follow.
A cool wet tongue crosses her burning cheeks. A kiss planted on the heat draws an involuntary shiver. Why? Why would he who causes pain then heal her throbbing bottom? He feels no need to explain to her; maybe it's simply because he enjoys seeing her tremble.
tessa,
Go ahead and have that chocolate (ONLY ONE!)
I understand your frustration with the characters. They are all flawed as real characters should be. That isn't really my problem with the book. What you have pointed out is (I think) one of O's strengths. She absorbs the needs of others and finds comfort and purpose within them. Yet like a used sponge she is being constantly discarded by those who should cherish her. My immediate question is why? If it were just happenstance I'd say it was her choice in partners (and yes she always had a choice.)But it's a list of every significant person in her life. All use and discard her; Rene, Jacqueline, Anne Marie, eventually Sir Stephen and (in one or maybe both endings) even herself. I've come to suspect the flaw is O's. Then again it might just be hard to write a "Happily ever after" ending for a book on BDSM and a life of sexual slavery.
Your thoughts...
Mad
