It took me a while to get used to how the chapters alternate between autobiography and fiction, but I did end up enjoying this novel. I liked Perec’s writing style, in particular, and I appreciated how he was able to make use of the more mysterious parts of his own life while also giving an element of mystery to the fictional situations.

The mixed levels of clarity in Perec’s autobiography definitely spoke to me. As Perec sorted through details clearly remembered and others nearly forgotten, I think I noticed that sense of guilt or complicity mentioned in the lecture, and something about it really made me consider the role of memory in the lives of Jewish people (including myself). I have no idea how much of a connection Perec maintained with his heritage or what role Jewishness played for him in writing his autobiography, but I know that I sometimes do feel guilty for not holding more memories of my family’s history. At the same time, I can imagine that living through the Holocaust might make a person want to forget about their heritage, which could then bring an entirely new level of guilt.

Although we do not immediately see how dystopian the island colony of W truly is, even the early descriptions of it reminded me of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. I think this is probably because each society was created with the intention of representing – at least in the mind of a certain person or group – the utopian: organization, peace, and higher morals of some kind. However, if the intentions ever were entirely pure, there is soon evidence to suggest that the ideals of focus have been taken too far: “organization” is maintained through cruel and isolating laws; “peace” is only a response to an atmosphere of brutality and fear; and “morals” are nothing but an excuse for enjoying absolute control over the lives of other humans. By the end of Perec’s novel, the similarities between W and the concentration camps are undeniable.

Overall, I found W, or The Memory of Childhood quite striking and quite sad. Something that I’m still trying to make sense of is the idea of “silent resistance,” as discussed in the lecture. Is one part of Perec’s novel more of a resistance than the others, perhaps partially hidden in that way? Or is the resistance in the entire work, performed simply by sharing the stories of experiences that some would rather ignore?