Deconstructing O,

[pejanon]

So what pray tell is the story. Did you spend a goodly chunk of your youth in an English speaking country, attend an English only school, Oh god tell me you're not really from Quebec. Please do tell inquiring minds want to know.
Oh and O can wait a bit longer she's not going anywhere
Mad

So many questions … ahem, well …
I've lived in so many places that I don't remember just now where it all started. But I lived in Kuwait (much before shit started flying around) and in Pakistan (before shit started flying around THERE) but I lived in India several years/lifetimes (not much shit but some certainly, no avoiding that seems the stuff followed me, but such a fascinating place got to go back) And Bangkok, and Baghdad (shit-umbrella was not necessary at that time) and Lebanon and Sweden and Italy and … so many fascinating places.
Yes, High School at University of London (courtesy of British Council)
But that's NOT how I learned my meager English.
I learned it from James Bond.
Lo …
When I was a kid one of those Sean Connery movies came out and I was totally flummoxed and flabbergasted. I just HAD to read the books. So a picked Goldfinger - only available in English at that time - and it was mostly gibberish to me. But, I tried. I knew some textbook English - that kind where you eventually learn to read The Bard but if you talk to a 20$ working girl you end a paying 50$ for a hand job. And I had a crummy little dictionary. So I held my spinchter real tight and went to my schoolteacher for help. (NO it was NOTHING like that, stop snickering, she was a tough graying old lady.) She helped indeed. She gave me her very own M-W. Encyclopedic Dictionary - English-to English! - And some instructions. I was to keep reading no matter what, trying to get the gist (that's the word?). I was to use dict. ONLY five times per page but I could search it all I wanted to understand explanations. I got to call her ONCE a day to ask something and to use it wisely. (Latter she changed to four dictionaries but two calls, smart old cookie, thanks Mrs. G--.)
Well I did it. I took me maybe four month and that's eternity plus to a kid.
Latter I read all Bond books (today I read such books in under four HOURS). And I read umpimillion OTHER books on all manner of things wondrous. And movies. And whatever else came before my greedy eyes.
But first/last of all I met and loved/hated/fucked A LOT of people - that is the only way to learn.
So this was a true story (I swear to god) how James Bond and Mrs G-- taught me to LEARN. Grab a tiger by a tail, hold tight, and move forward until you are holding it by ears. (And no, I certainly do not hold englishtiger by ears.)

And my keyboard is steaming, hope this answer answers some unanswerable things.

Have fun!

[Mad Lews]

..........

[Mad Lews]

So many questions … ahem, well …
I've lived in so many places that I don't remember just now where it all started. But I lived in Kuwait (much before shit started flying around) and in Pakistan (before shit started flying around THERE) but I lived in India several years/lifetimes (not much shit but some certainly, no avoiding that seems the stuff followed me, but such a fascinating place got to go back) And Bangkok, and Baghdad (shit-umbrella was not necessary at that time) and Lebanon and Sweden and Italy and … so many fascinating places.
Yes, High School at University of London (courtesy of British Council)
But that's NOT how I learned my meager English.
I learned it from James Bond.

Ahm Pejanon,
It seems to me you visit a spot and shortly thereafter the shit flies. You do realize that Flemming was writing fiction right?

So I held my spinchter real tight and went to my schoolteacher for help. (NO it was NOTHING like that, stop snickering, she was a tough graying old lady.) She helped indeed. She gave me her very own M-W. Encyclopedic Dictionary - English-to English! - And some instructions. I was to keep reading no matter what, trying to get the gist (that's the word?). I was to use dict. ONLY five times per page but I could search it all I wanted to understand explanations. I got to call her ONCE a day to ask something and to use it wisely. (Latter she changed to four dictionaries but two calls, smart old cookie, thanks Mrs. G--.)
Well I did it. I took me maybe four month and that's eternity plus to a kid.
Latter I read all Bond books (today I read such books in under four HOURS). And I read umpimillion OTHER books on all manner of things wondrous. And movies. And whatever else came before my greedy eyes.
But first/last of all I met and loved/hated/fucked A LOT of people - that is the only way to learn.
So this was a true story (I swear to god) how James Bond and Mrs G-- taught me to LEARN. Grab a tiger by a tail, hold tight, and move forward until you are holding it by ears. (And no, I certainly do not hold englishtiger by ears.)

And my keyboard is steaming, hope this answer answers some unanswerable things.

Have fun!

Wow so many answers and intriguing details. Someone more discerning than I might have noticed that whilst imparting all this information you did manage to avoid answering the question originally posed.
"Fair enough but I would love to know what you claim as a native tongue"
Fortunately I didn’t notice so you don’t have to worry about me badgering you for more info.
Do Take Care
Mad

[pejanon]

Wow so many answers and intriguing details. Someone more discerning than I might have noticed that whilst imparting all this information you did manage to avoid answering the question originally posed.

Fortunately I didn’t notice so you don’t have to worry about me badgering you for more info.
Do Take Care
Mad

Well I'm certanly glad we've settled shit-flying issue.
Now, what's that cat up to now. Hey, O here kitty kitty ... damn, so elusive ...

Flemming was writting fiction???? WAAAAAH! You just punctured the pink bubble of one of my last illusions. And I tought that there was "still good in the world" ... well, screw him ... I'll settle for The Duke, he wasn't real was he?

Heve fun
Pej

[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.

[Mad Lews]

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

[Sir Lanceloth]

well i agree that rené was pathetic, i am not so sure about sir stephen. I kinda liked the way he trained O, and i didnt pity O but found her to be brave and strong. It is true that in the sequel sir stephen commits murder, O is degraded to an prostiture, but im just not convinced thats the right ending (yeah i want it my way ).

Perhaps the ending was just her (the author) way of excusing to the world... oh no ive made an hero of an submissive lol. Well in my world subs are heroes and heroines!

Yes they do treat her harshly, but isnt that what she wants? she does find out that she desires the whipping in the end, so why not give it to her? im running out of time, ill check back later. im sure we all can agree that it is an damn fine story

[pejanon]

Hi Sir L

well i agree that rené was pathetic, i am not so sure about sir stephen. I kinda liked the way he trained O, and i didnt pity O but found her to be brave and strong. It is true that in the sequel sir stephen commits murder, O is degraded to an prostiture, but im just not convinced thats the right ending (yeah i want it my way ).

Are you refering to Return to Roissy or Mad Lews of Sir Stephen's Confessions?
(Don't remember Return very well - always seen it as somehow fake, even if Reage did write it.)

Perhaps the ending was just her (the author) way of excusing to the world... oh no ive made an hero of an submissive lol. Well in my world subs are heroes and heroines!

Right on! That's it. Most of the best stories are about the subs NOT about the masters.
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 )

Have fun

Pej

[pejanon]

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.

And Hi slo18,
I almost agree with this. It's not very popular view, Sir Stephen (one of the guys whose names you can't remember .) being such a grand-meister and all.

If you do take your time to reread it you will certanly see other aspects of the story! That's why it is so intiguing and more than worth all the reports! Right on!

Have fun,

Pej

[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.
posted by mad lews (yes I still havent figured out how to do the qoutes thing)

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

[Mad Lews]

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.
Mad

[Sir Lanceloth]

Hi Sir L



Are you refering to Return to Roissy or Mad Lews of Sir Stephen's Confessions?
(Don't remember Return very well - always seen it as somehow fake, even if Reage did write it.)

i referred to the published book. The first chapter and the second ("return to the chateau" and "the story of O").

To the peoble commenting that Sir Stephen just left her. I must say that the ending of the story seems wrong to me, and as if it was just thrown in at the last moment as an apology (you cant make an happy ending to something so vile). Think about it, sir stepehn had sent her to marie for further training, then upon achieving that goal he just dumps her after she is just the way he wanted her to be. That doesnt make sence to me. Also the ending isnt writen as an story, just as two or three sentences which shortly describes what happens. Not alone that, there is also more than one possible bad ending.

I think she (the author) felt the dilemme the filmproducers felt when they made "the secretary". They had a lot of problems getting support to the film. The reason was that when peoble asked: when does she get cured of this? They replied "she doesnt", which im afraid doesnt fitt well with "normal peoble".

So because im not really convinced of the ending, in either book, i will not judge the characters from the ending given. Instead i will judge them from what they did in the first book "the story of O" before the ending. And from that i dont hold any "grudges" against sir Stephen, but do find rené to act a bid odd by just giving her away like that.

just me substituting reality for my own image

[Mad Lews]

Right on! That's it. Most of the best stories are about the subs NOT about the masters. 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.

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 )

Have fun

Pej

Yup strange...
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?
your registered madman
Mad Lews

[pejanon]

zzzzz... hrmpf? oh O? Ok ....

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.

Yes - I would like to see some comments from that perspective, too.


However it seems to me that many of the best BDSM books were written by subs anyway (real or I-wish-I-was or just in fantasy).

AND - at the moment I cannot remember good story/novel dealing with in depth profile of Dom/mme.. (ok, bring on stick and stones ...) O is certanly NOT one of those.

Wish someone would prove me wrong on this.

Yup strange...
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?
your registered madman
Mad Lews

Well - i write A LOT of things.... So....

Mad - you story makes perfect sense (sensible? Well... ) However - you KILLED O! In my book one does not do that to such characters! Why didn't you kill Rene for example: Sir S wants to stick it to him but cannot so - he kills him and Rene is happy to take it? Or, he offers substitute? (They use O as substitute anyway)

Oho! Real strange book! Make you think REAL strange thoughts!

A note on Sir S dumping O - actualy it isn't so rare (in fiction al least). THE TRAINING itsef is main objective - onc its done - new one starsts.
Often the books will use the first trainee as as help in training novices - but the lane line stays...


romantic wildman and aspiring madman

Pej

[masterk]

Does anyone know where I can buy the DVD in the UK?

[masterk]

Does anyone know where I can buy the DVD in the UK?

[Mad Lews]

Does anyone know where I can buy the DVD in the UK?

I guess not, sorry

[Nikita]

I guess not, sorry

*snicker* Try eBay.

[Mad Lews]

Actually Amazon.com.UK has it for between seven and twenty pounds
http://www.amazon.co.uk/

[Satan_Klaus]

It has been said before that the men of 'the story of O ' are a sad lot and the reader feels pity for O because she is left in the end. But maybe that is one of the main points why O captures the mind of the dom reader. For me, the protection instinct is a strong factor in my D/S thinking (Even if it is myself who put the girl into her helpless position in the first place). So because there is no man in the story who will protect and take care of O, the reader is enthralled to do so himself in his mind.

Satan_Klaus

[Mad Lews]

It has been said before that the men of 'the story of O ' are a sad lot and the reader feels pity for O because she is left in the end. But maybe that is one of the main points why O captures the mind of the dom reader. For me, the protection instinct is a strong factor in my D/S thinking (Even if it is myself who put the girl into her helpless position in the first place). So because there is no man in the story who will protect and take care of O, the reader is enthralled to do so himself in his mind.

Satan_Klaus

You may be on to something, the instinct to protect the "damsel in distress" may not be so far removed from a desire to see distressed damsels, even if one must apply the switch themselves. (Or in Rene's case have someone do it for him whilst he watches)

[gagged_Louise]

Psychologists have sometimes suggested that the damsel-in-distress fantasy theme is somehow based on the Oedipus complex: the bound woman represents Mom whom the boy is trying to win over and protect from his evil father. Now, the point whether the oedipal fixation actually exists, and in what sense, is a critical bone of contention among psychoanalysts too, and in any case that theory doesn't explain why girls feel thrilled by seeing bound and helpless women on tv and so on.

I think you're on to something in that Story of O invites an instinct to protect her, even if it's a hopeless one, but the way the story is told it also invites identification with her. What O feels when she's bound, whipped and used is never described, so if you're a sub you're compelled to imagine for yourself her pain and the way her mind and soul turns to find release in being used and tortured.

[Mad Lews]

Psychologists have sometimes suggested that the damsel-in-distress fantasy theme is somehow based on the Oedipus complex: the bound woman represents Mom whom the boy is trying to win over and protect from his evil father. Now, the point whether the oedipal fixation actually exists, and in what sense, is a critical bone of contention among psychoanalysts too, and in any case that theory doesn't explain why girls feel thrilled by seeing bound and helpless women on tv and so on.

I think you're on to something in that Story of O invites an instinct to protect her, even if it's a hopeless one, but the way the story is told it also invites identification with her. What O feels when she's bound, whipped and used is never described, so if you're a sub you're compelled to imagine for yourself her pain and the way her mind and soul turns to find release in being used and tortured.

Dear gagged_Louise,

You present an interesting interpretation of the DID reflex most males exhibit. Males do tend to interact in a hierarchical manner while females prefer (dare I say) bonding. This means that “normal” male maturation involves a testing of one’s place in the hierarchy, usually by rebelling against the patriarch at some point. I suspect that has little to do with the matriarch in most cases.

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.

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.

Mad Lews

[tessa]

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.

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 ). 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

[Mad Lews]

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

[tessa]

I thought I posted to this already. Goodness, I can be such a blonde sometimes. ~slowly licks at the chocolate off the candy as I compose myself~

She absorbs the needs of others and finds comfort and purpose within them

I think what you said here, Mr. Mad, Sir, is exactly why O is discarded so often. It is draining (no pun intended, but double entendre welcome) to be the focus of and source for such need. If the others had not stepped back away from her, she would have used them up as completely as she was used, just in a highly different and concentrated form.

(Why did that last part make me think of dishwashing liquid? )

Not so much a flaw of O's as it is an intensity of being that is difficult for others to sustain? Just my thoughts.

tessa

[Mad Lews]

I thought I posted to this already. Goodness, I can be such a blonde sometimes. ~slowly licks at the chocolate off the candy as I compose myself~



I think what you said here, Mr. Mad, Sir, is exactly why O is discarded so often. It is draining (no pun intended, but double entendre welcome) to be the focus of and source for such need. If the others had not stepped back away from her, she would have used them up as completely as she was used, just in a highly different and concentrated form.

tessa

Lost in thought here,

Hey Tessa,

It struck me as you commented, I've always felt O was fatally flawed and that was why the story couldn't be finished and I was searching high and low for that flaw. I think mayhap we've nailed it here. O is a Succubus! A creature brought to life by the needs of others who then drains them of their needs and lusts leaving them (in Rene's case) a shriveled husk or (in Sir Stephen's case) hopelessly infatuated and unable to pull away.

I must ponder this a bit more.

Yours
Mad Lews

[gagged_Louise]

Interesting Lews, this would imply that O could be seen as almost a femme fatale - if the story hadn't been overtly about BDSM (and if you're right, and you could well be) the interplay between her and the men would have had something of that "dangerous and beautiful woman" motive in it. Lawrence Durrell's Justine has a kind of similar angle to it: the glorious and mysterious woman comes across as a Goddess of eastern sensuality dangling the romantic young writer Darley at her fingers, while he thinks she is more or less the prisoner of her high-status marriage, but as the book and its sequels move on it turns out she may have had other motives for the affair....hmmm...

[storyofO]

is there something like a roissy anywhere?

[Ozme52]

Presumably so... websites too. Google roissy for starters.