I really liked the way this novel addressed memory. Usually novels that are auto-biographic in nature, or talk about childhood, highlight memories and seem to be fluid in the way memories are explored and described but Perec did a really good job of focusing on the gaps of memory, and how sometimes memory is only a step away from imagination.

I really liked the two(major)-part story structure, and I liked the way that the stories were told interfering with each other, which I felt captured the theme of the novel of the nature of memory, and how W, though fictitious, shares the same place-holder as Perec’s recount of childhood, sometimes flowing into each other (I think there’s a part in the childhood where W is directly mentioned as a figment of imagination). I thought this was a very refreshing way of telling a story, with the narrator acknowledging the gaps in memory and just ‘jumping’ around rather than explaining their history.

I read about the context of the novel (and the last chapter), which outlines W as being based on Nazi Germany and the SS. I thought that was a very interesting way to capture that history, and because I read another blog mentioning trauma and memory, I can see how the novel could also potentially be commenting on how trauma affects memory, or creates gaps or fictions that either block memory or replace it such that it can more easily be re-visited.

I liked the novel’s uniqueness though I did sometimes find myself getting lost in the childhood chapters as I felt things were very dis-jointed (minus a whole other story happening in between). Overall, I thought this was a unique way to explore and portray memory and I enjoyed the read.

My question is: What did you think of W, do you think it was an effective part of the story? If so, what did it achieve?