43 pages • 1 hour read
Pauline RéageStory of O
Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 1954A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Background
Genre Context: Sadomasochistic Erotica
Content Warning: This section of the guide discusses graphic sexual content, including discussions of bondage and sadomasochism.
The Story of O is a paradigmatic instance of erotica. While non-erotic literature tends to treat sex either indirectly or as secondary to other thematic concerns, erotica makes sexual content central. This is particularly true for sexual acts themselves. While standard literature often only hints at the details of sex between characters, if it occurs at all, erotica makes descriptions of sex explicit and crucial to the novel’s purpose. This is evident in the way characters are explored and developed in the Story of O. Specifically, the reader comes to understand who O is and what she wants without any personal context or history, nor does the reader gain character insight through accounts of the non-sexual interactions or experiences that she has in the present. Indeed, both non-sexual context and experience is mostly absent from O’s story. Instead, O’s character and story are developed through the sexual acts and power dynamics in which she is involved. O finds herself, and the reader finds O, through O’s exploration of what it means to be a sexual masochist.
Yet, for the same reason, erotica and the Story of O differ in important ways from straightforward pornography. This is because sex, and sexual arousal or gratification, is not an end in itself in erotica. While these lines can be blurred, the aim of exploring sex in erotica is not solely or primarily titillation, but to shed light on character dynamics or values through sexual content. The Story of O and Anais Nin’s A Spy in the House of Love (1954) are similar projects in this regard. Namely, both novels develop distinctive female characters through an evolving account of their erotic lives and relationships. Further, unlike non-erotic literature, this eroticism is not reducible to romance, nor is it ultimately subsumed in a romantic resolution. In fact, in both novels, and in erotica in general, one finds an implicit critique of ideals of romance and the hegemonic notion that these are desiderata for all.
At the same time, Story of O differs from A Spy in the House of Love or D. H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover (1928), for instance, insofar as it is concerned with a specific erotic niche. Distinct from these novels, and erotica in general, Réage’s novel looks at erotic life not as a whole, or in its usual forms, but exclusively as it pertains to sadomasochistic sex and sexual dynamics. In this way, Story of O closely resembles, and follows in the tradition of, the Marquis de Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom (1785) and Leopold von Sacher-Masoch’s Venus in Furs (1870). Like these novels, which both influenced Réage, it is the logic of sadomasochistic desire that interests her and that she sees as crucial to understanding human nature. Like these novels as well, then, the Story of O does not just aim to account for or describe an unconventional aspect of human sexuality. Instead, as with de Sade and Sacher-Masoch, it seeks—by exploring this apparent exception—to uncover something fundamental in us all.
Sociohistorical Context: Pseudonyms and Controversy
At first glance, the Story of O appears to be deeply ahistorical. Though written in 1954, the novel itself bears few marks of its time and does not even make clear the decade in which it is set. Reference to cars, telephones, and clothing styles indicate that the setting could be the 1950s. However, no cultural, political, or historical references appear in the novel to verify this claim. Neither O nor the novel’s other characters mention World War II or the Nazi occupation, which—if set in 1950s France—they must have lived through. Despite this meticulous and seemingly deliberate ahistoricity, Story of O is a product of its time in a more subtle way: The stated author of Story of O, Pauline Réage, was in fact a pseudonym for the writer Anne Desclos, a fact that she only revealed 40 years later. Likewise, it was only revealed in 2009 that the English translator of the novel, Sabine d'Estree, was the American publisher Richard Seaver.
In this way, the secrecy surrounding Story of O’s authorship and reception, if not the novel itself, directly reveals something about the time in which it was written. Specifically, it shows that in 1950s Europe, before the sexual revolution, attitudes toward sex and sexual exploration were highly restrictive. That Desclos and Seaver felt compelled to conceal their links to the novel for so long shows a fear of opprobrium for writing explicitly about unorthodox sexuality at the time. This would have been particularly true for Desclos at a time when “respectable” women were supposed to be demure regarding sex. One can see throughout the novel’s structure and content a concern with secrecy. Though Story of O plays with ideas of public exposure and shame, the action invariably takes place in settings well away from “normal” society, in remote dungeons, chateaus, and mansions. The ahistorical character of the novel, and the hermetic nature of the world it creates, is a way of keeping its exploration of sadomasochism safely within the confines of fantasy.
Still, these efforts have not ensured that Story of O has been free from controversy. In 1955 the French government brought charges of obscenity against the novel’s publisher and, though not upheld, banned publicizing or selling the book to minors until 1967. Likewise, the UK banned a 1975 film version of the novel by Just Jaeckin, a ban only lifted in 2000. In addition, Story of O has faced criticism from feminists. Susan Griffin, writing in Against Sadomasochism: A Radical Feminist Analysis (1982), argues that the novel glorifies the objectification and abuse of women. From a contemporary perspective, the Story of O faces a problem ironic and opposite to what was anticipated by earlier censors: Namely, the concern now is not one of readers being disturbed or corrupted by the novel’s content, but instead, the worry is that they may be indifferent to it. As seen by the popularity of E. L James’s 50 Shades of Grey (2011), the worry is that sex and masochism have become so familiar in modern culture that Story of O ceases to have any radical effect. However, it could also be argued that the absence of this “shock” factor might be positive; if sadomasochistic acts are no longer shocking, an appreciation of the novel is encouraged that extends beyond the thrill of the forbidden.
