blog#8 – the burden of Names —
Georges Perec’s book ‘W, or The Memory of Childhood’ was by far the book with the most interesting formatting. (Out of the books that I’ve read for this class anyway). The two parallel stories and the switching back-and-forth took a lot of getting used to, and admittedly, I still don’t quite understand the vast amount of contexts and sub-contexts that Perec writes about and around. Perhaps this is a book meant to be digested and not simply consumed, I feel it would be a missed opportunity to give it a second read in the future. Especially since I was astonished at how many connections I made myself, I’m sure there are even more metaphors and prose meant for the bigger image that I’ve completely missed. Though I do think something can be said for what the reader is able to glean from the text, and what they ‘miss’. What connections did you make? Did you think any of those connections where intended by Perec (or not)? Perec gives a lot of room for interpretation, in fact I would say he does not simply give that room but he pushes the reader to discern their own conclusions and connections.
“To mark the end of” as “to give a name too” – this gradual unravelling.
– Georges Perec; W, or The Memory of Childhood
I often felt like Perec indirectly makes the reader another character. (Similarly to Clarice Lispector’s ‘The Passion According to G.H.’, but she does it in a much more explicit and direct sense). The narrator often admits that he himself cannot remember much, if anything at all, from his childhood. Often stating “I have no childhood memories at all” or “this is what I saw”. But I think the point that first edges the threshold between involving the reader is when the narrator acknowledges the ‘universal rule’ of having to describe himself as a character, and his basic information, features, and background. Perec abides by such ‘universal rules’, but simultaneously breaks them in the same action. He breaks them by simply acknowledging them, but I think in doing so, in naming these universal rules, it almost belittles their mystic agency.
I think names and identity is also a theme – and at times, a tool – used by Perec beautifully. He displays the burden of names in his fragmented stories as well as the power of withholding. Perec masterfully showed the depths of names, living memory, vestige, and identity – by withholding.
4 replies on “blog#8 – the burden of Names —”
I love this idea of names. It makes me think of something said in the last class, where repeating something implies it is important. I think this same idea applies to names, where naming something (or specifically not) also implies a level of importance. For example, withholding my name (as he does at times) gives the name importance. Why isn’t it allowed to be known?
Hello,
I think much of the story is told in what we, as readers, “miss.” I found the fragmentary nature of the piece intriguing, as much like Proust’s “Combray,” the hints strung me along, wondering where the narrative was going. Nothing is outright revealed. Ambiguity, therefore, is the cornerstone of the uneven narrative.
Hi,
Great post. “Perec gives a lot of room for interpretation, in fact I would say he does not simply give that room but he pushes the reader to discern their own conclusions and connections.”
Right, Perec stimulates an active reader, with clues, things that are not said, gmimicks, etc. I recommend the video of conversations that contributes some discussions along these lines (if you have not seen it)
Hey Jasmine,
On the topic of interpretation I do find that this books alternating narrative makes you think for the connections between them. I feel that even if you get confused there’s still this sense of trying to make the stories fit together somehow. In that way, the dual narratives almost force a reader into trying to fit the pieces together despite the spaces they fit in not always being crystal clear. Definately warrants a re-read!