If I were to pick a word that reflects this story, I would choose “remember”. The narrator uses the word remember consistently throughout this book to introduce his certainty about a specific memory, for example: “I have a vague memory” “I don’t have a precise memory” “I do not remember” “I can hardly remember”, all of which are evident on more than one occasion. There is so much fragility and uncertainty tied to the memories he discusses, while some also holding a clear sense of familiarity. His memory is clearly a source of frustration for him as he has unreliable and fragmented memories of his family or his childhood forcing him to imagine the gaps; “whom I imagine, rather than remember” (pg 94). I get the sense that the narrator has a weak sense of identity and this lack of memory for the significant events in his life causes him stress. He has no problem recounting the “statistical details” (pg 41) of his parents, these are the facts that he can count on. But, his lack of emotional attachments to memories with his parents was sad, and unfortunately, this was likely a common reality of children growing up during the war as their important developmental and familial relationships were disrupted by violence and displacement. 

The context of Nazi occupation and the second world war was important to consider as the narrator worked through his variable memories. He clearly experienced many tragic and traumatic experiences at a young age that he has now repressed, perhaps as a coping mechanism, relying on photographs, “statistical details”, and remnants of memories to form an understanding of his childhood. Given the volatility of the time, the censorship of names and true identities also adds to this confusion and uncertainty. For example, he mentions, “I could have been told that my father’s name was Andre, my mother’s Cecile and that we came from Brittany” (pg 35) reflects the way that the censorship of identity during that time would have been, and clearly was, confusing for a child. We can understand why the narrator’s blank memory is the result of trauma and while this is clearly a source of frustration for him, perhaps ignorance, in this case, is bliss? This is my question this week: Do you think that the narrator’s gaps in memory work as a form of protection and is a good thing or do you think that despite how tragic and traumatic his memories were that knowing is better than always wondering? 

Going back to our first lecture in which we discussed the purpose and meanings we attach to reading, I thought the narrator’s descriptions of books as a ‘material for rumination and of a kind of certainty’ (page 142) were interesting. The narrator expresses his love for reading coming from the certainty and reliability that books offer; unlike his memory that is fragmented and abstract. He describes the comfort he finds in rereading books, knowing that the book is ‘telling a story you could follow’ (pg 142), unlike his childhood that offers no linearity or logical order of events. This perspective of reading as a form of escape and comfort is similar to the meanings that Proust attached to reading. Nevertheless, I found it interesting to read Perec’s thoughts about reading, providing a sense of comfort through the reliability of the words. However, this book offers no reliability or certainty, providing us with no conclusive account of his childhood, reflective of postmodernist literature as variable.