Georges Perec’s postmodern novel W, or the Memory of Childhood is a very interesting story about the author’s life in Nazi-occupied France. Other than being a very interesting semi-autobiographical recount of the main character’s memories (or lack thereof), I really enjoyed the concept of duality in the story. The juxtaposition of two parallel narratives was slightly confusing at first. Once I got used to it, though, it really helped me to feel involved and understand the different facets of the main character’s experiences. The distinction between the two narratives is also made very clear by the author’s stylistic choices. What stood out to me was Perec’s skill in portraying past events that actually occurred versus the fantasy world invented by himself as a child. The parts of the novel where he is describing his actual memories are often backed up by evidence. Since the author doesn’t have much recollection of his childhood memories, he resorts to pictures, documents, and factual information to reconstruct his past. When he wrote about W, on the other hand, the narration is a lot freer and less “strategic” – even though the memories of W are the clearest ones. This reminded me of Aragon’s Paris Peasant and how specific accurate details are used in contrast with a surrealist narrative. Although the contrast in Perec’s novel can be interpreted in different ways, I liked the concept of duality as the reader is able to see a bigger picture by looking at two sides of the same story.
Another aspect I found interesting is the one of translation. We have talked about how translation can be somewhat problematic in literature, and I think the title of this novel can work as a perfect example of that. In French, the title of the novel is W ou le Souvenir d’enfance, which is read as “double-v” and sounds like “double-vie”. When translated to English, the pun doesn’t work and there is no meaning of a “double life” expressed in the title, so the translator had to add a paragraph explaining this at the beginning of the book. I think the author’s intention when writing the novel might have been to summarize the essence of the book in its title while also allowing the reader to discover this hidden meaning later. The “organicness” of this author-reader interaction gets lost in translation here, and it’s fascinating to see how the message of literature can altered when works are translated in other languages.
My question to the class is: what might have pushed Perec to include the “double-vie” pun in the title? Was it just a postmodern stylistic choice or is there a particular message that he tries to convey to the reader right from the start?
– Bianca
I also think that translation is interesting and how there are things that are lost or specific to a language. Perec likes punning, which is in the postmodern style of writing, but also I believe that the gaps and silences can be filled with meaning as the reader moves through the stories. In turn, the story of the island W is an alternative autobiography of a person who has no memories of his childhood and involves criticism of modern societies (so it is not only punning or wordplay but also a political commitment, as Jon puts it in the lecture).
Hi Bianca, I really enjoyed reading your post, i thought your insight was really interesting. To answer your question, I think that Perec uses the pun of double-vie to introduce the parallel stories he writes about. Also, I would add that he does this in a fairly implicit way so that the reader can discover what it means.