As I was reading W or the Memory of Childhood by Georges Perec, I found myself really interested in the form of the story as well as the content. At first it was very confusing and I had some trouble understanding it. However, in the end the whole story comes together in a way that is helpful. I felt that in the end I was reminded of The Life of Pi, in that the way sometimes people deal with terrible trauma is to create different stories. It is clear later though that the story of W is the story of the camps. For example, he recounts how “The first six months of novicate, however, are spent in handcuffs and leg irons, and at night newcomers are chained to their bed, and often also gagged” (p. 148). The images can be connected to the images that people have of the concentration camps in Europe, such as the shackles and being treated so cruelly. A few lines down he writes that people have to suffer “humiliation, insults, injustices, beatings” (p. 148). This also connects with the image many people have of the camps.
Another thing that was very interesting for me was the way that the stories connect with each other. I think this is kind of the way that memory works. Memories are not something that come out in neat boxes. Instead, they are mixed together with emotions, past stories, and even fantasies that we have. For example, as he remembers his childhood, he writes about the books he read. When he remembers The Three Musketeers, he does not just remember the story in the book, but also the way that he got the book and the memories connected with it (p. 153). The ending of the book shows how these memories are not just by themselves. He writes about the athletes in the same way he writes about the prisoners in the camps. The memories connect with each other and when he recounts them they are basically merged together. Lastly, even though the story was a way to deal with the trauma, for the reader it is actually darker and more disturbing to read about a childhood story that also shows the terrible things that happened.
The question I thought about was, could this book be seen as a kind of meta-book on what storytelling is and what goes behind storytelling?
I feel like this book is very off meta and unique and I think its really hard to pull of. What I’ve noticed is that people defenitely get confused when there are two stories so the author has to really transition and separate both well for it to work. I think Perc did an excellent job in doing so and created suspense in the process.
-xyrus ramos
I suppose this could be a meta-book in terms of storytelling. Personally, I like books in which I can immerse myself into the story’s scene – almost to the point where I forget I’m only reading a book. With the constant alternating narrative shifts in each chapter, this book didn’t have that effect on me. However, being fully aware while reading also allows us to take on a new perspective and look at reality through the lens of the narrative from the book, which also seems interesting.
Indeed, as you said, the memory may not only bring us that fragment, but the chain reaction, happiness, or sadness that brings when you think of these fragments. But it’s odd that the author’s description of the book doesn’t seem to have any emotional swings, like telling someone else’s story, and the absence of childhood memories doesn’t seem to cause pain. But as bystanders, we may need to stand from his point of view to truly appreciate the emotions he wants to express.
Hi!
The way you describe how the memories have merged and mixed together at the end really struck a chord with me because that is exactly how I felt at the end of it, just wasn’t able to exactly pin point it. I don’t think this book is much a meta book. That would’ve brought me further into the book, but I often found myself confused!
– Vidushi Singh
I had never really thought about how one of the narratives is fictional and its almost a way of coping with ones trauma; It is evident in other literary works, but WOW! I feel like it is totally applicable to this novel. With regards to the questions that you pose; I find them quite thought provoking. I might need a bit of clarification on what exactly meta-book means. I think that there were some parts that could be considered ‘meta-book’ esque, like the explanation of W, and the potential meanings behind all the places even though their titles are single letters. But on the other hand I find that these are all aspects of storytelling. Perec’s inclusion of aspects of his life seem like storytelling tools, which sort of run the line between autobiography and completely fictional novel. I would like to counter your original question with ‘is there a specific criteria as to how storytelling is done’? It’s kind of like your meta-book question, but does the question have to be answered by a meta-book, or is there a simple written answer? Perec’s novel is quite complex, and I don’t know if we can really take his novel and have it be a metaphorical book for storytelling. Yet, I think it is possible for a case to be made in defence for it.