Thoughts on Perec’s W or The Memory of Childhood

This week while reading “W or The Memory of Childhood” by Georges Perec, I felt as if I was reading someone’s personal diary mixed with some odd dark version of the Olympics. I found it a bit difficult to follow the two narratives (especially with the copious amount of footnotes) but as the book went on, I found myself quite immersed in the two worlds.  

Despite the title, the narrator expresses “I have no childhood memories” (pg.6), however the autobiographical part of the book reads as a desperate attempt to salvage and revive them. The memories he has seem to be the only thing left of his identity because he is constantly on the run for safety., “…living another illegal existence, with another fragile alibi, with another fabricated past and another identity?” (pg.11). He doesn’t seem to have much to live for, with all his loved one’s dead, and is more surviving day to day as a ghost. Other than his memories of the past, as readers we don’t know many objective facts about our protagonist.  

Unlike in Proust’s “Combray”  or Laforet’s “Nada” where objects or places trigger certain memories, Perec seems to go out of his way to explain that physical spaces or objects do not. When reflecting on photographs, he simply describes what is pictured and nothing more. From one of the photos explaining that “of all my missing memories, that is perhaps one I most dearly wish I had” (pg.49). When visiting Rue Vilin where he lived in Paris, he explains that he doesn’t remember which part he lived in, and he hasn’t attempted to go inside any of the dwellings “since I am in any case convinced that it would do nothing to revive my memories” (pg. 48). When I read this, I was doubting the narrator’s intentions of not revisiting the place in which he grew up. Does he really think it would not revive his memories or is he too traumatized to face them? I think trauma is an important aspect of our protagonist’s narrative due to the historical context he’s grown up in and being a low-class Jewish child. I’m not a psychology major but I think that a main trauma response is to just black out those memories. It made me wonder is this what the narrator is experiencing with his so called “lost memories”? Do we trust the accuracy of our narrator despite the trauma that may affect the story? Does it even matter?  

Thoughts on María Luisa Bombal “The Shrouded Woman”

In The Shrouded Woman the story of our protagonist Ana-Maria is one of reflection on her life through the eyes of her corpse. She walks the reader through memories with people close to her throughout her life. Unlike our previous texts, I really found myself getting lost in the text. Right from the beginning, I felt transported into Ana-Maria’s shoes by the narrator with the eerie feeling prose. The way the author described the simplest things like opening your eyes with two or three lines of incredible figurative detail was captivating and made me want to read more.

I found it really refreshing to see death written differently as Ana-Maria is accepting and reflecting on the people around her saying their final goodbyes. “…she takes delight in submitting herself to the gaze of all, so perfectly still, serene, and beautiful.” (page 158) I found this closing sentence of chapter 2 a lovely example of this. Instead of presenting death as a dark disruption and chaos, through Ana-Maria’s eyes it’s seen more as a calm acceptance of life and reflection. Although she never seems quite content and faces hardship, conflict, and feelings of jealousy, this perspective gave me more insight into Ana-Maria because it seems as if she was able to somewhat accept death. Because she is also writing as a dead narrator, everything she says seems more intimate and personal. Perhaps she knows that her words will not be heard by anyone else which provokes genuine retrospection and emotions not censored by judgement from those around her. This made me wonder how the text would differ if she wasn’t writing as a corpse and had the opinions of others at her disposal. How do you think the thoughts expressed would change (or if they would at all) if Ana-Maria was writing as a living person? Because after all, books are written to be read, right?

When Ana-Maria begins talking about the men in her life she gives them a lot of space. I think this speaks to the role of woman at the time and how their worth and ability to take up space was determined by the men in their life. The women in the story were often pit against each other through envy. This archaic idea of woman constantly being jealous of one another was frustrating to read and I could feel that frustration coming from the author. No ones seems to be happy in their life which adds more significance to Ana-Maria narrating as a dead person.

Overall I thoroughly enjoyed this read and I can’t wait to hear everyone else’s thoughts! 🙂

Spam prevention powered by Akismet