Thoughts in response to and documenting of the reading of Perec, G 1975 “An Attempt at Exhausting a Place in Paris.”

Perec, G 1975 “An Attempt at Exhausting a Place in Paris.” (translated by Marc Lowenthal, 2010) Wakefield Press, USA.

I would suggest that Perec has in fact illumninated instead of exhausted a place in Paris. 

An account of obserevations made in Saint Sulpice.

Read over three days as with the 3 days of observation recorded in the book.

Day 1 of reading,

Fascinating,

The ordinary and its continuous pathways of life. There is a hint of endless narratives, as if you could drop into any of the observations and be carried away but their currents.

Reminds me of the “Divine Comedy.” By Dante Alighieri, c 1308 – 1321. but more relatable. An epic poem about the static journey through ordinariness. Like a vision of purgatory, the recording of observations freezing the action of transience in place, the observations neither here or there, not a beginning or ending but just a flash of passing stories as they unfold unaware of being viewed or recorded.

Moments of personal reflection, discovering his true calling being (ticket collector for the paris city transport authority), I enjoy these moments of personal interjections, the text is not just merely observation it is brought to life by these personal interjections, I suppose a testament to Perec’s skill as a writer but also as a man himself, a likeable character. Drawing you in as if you are there with him. I have chosen not to look at any images of Saint Sulpice, allowing the writing to function alone and I have already created an image in my mind, this image would be ruined if I were to look at a photo of the place. Should I look after finishing reading and reflecting? It would be interesting to see what would happen by looking, would my own imagined place be totally destroyed by reality? And would it severe the connection I have built in reading?

I keep returning to the thought that with every recorded observation, how many other events have been missed? They definitely happened but by not being recorded they do not exist in the account, so like the physical sense that it would be impossible to repeat and see those missed observations , the fact that it isn’t recorded also suggest that they did not occur. But what if something significant was missed, that could of potentially changed the whole direction of the preceeding observations, even the smallest observation could have a direct influence on how things would go on. Therefore the uniqueness of this account is quite significant. It is perecs experience and his observation and recording are his alone, the book is a record of Perecs’ very self observing, not just a series of disconnected events.    

Can a place truly be exhausted when all of the unobserved that happened will never have the opportunity to be observed. This notion feels quite significant. It reflects chaos theory or the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. There is too much information and limitations on the amount of information we can collect that we are never able to truly describe a thing or predict its outcome. This would suggest that the notion of ordinary is flawed. If we can literally not fully know anything, everything is to an effect unusual or unrecognisable. It is our limitations that necessitate the subscription to the notion of ordinariness.

I find that as I come to the end of the first day, I am returning to a thought that I frequently have when in transit, particularly by train or car but also by plane to a certain extent. When looking out of the window, I see the landscape flying past and I consider how I would like to be standing in that field, or by that river, or living in that house. I move freely and at the pace I would normally move if I were there but I am also speeding along across the landscape ( Einstiens theory of relativity, tram visualisation.) and I may never have the opportunity to go there and though physically I am there, I have no point of reference for where it is other than that fleeting amount of time in enclosed transit. If I were to find this place and visit it, would it be as I hoped it would be or does the motion of the train have an intrinsic part to the desire?

This disconnection feels very strange, to be somewhere, to be there but not be there at the same time. At rest sitting on the train, as if sat in one of these fields but also travelling at high speed.

Day 2 of reading, reading day 2.

Perecs’ transformation of thought in the interim between day 1 and 2, what has caused him to lose interest in buses? Was it his realisation of his true calling? These changes are identifiable in his attempt to identify changes in the landscape, is he the same person. What has happened to him in the unobserved.

Observer obsereved by observers observing the observer, tourists.

What tourists find fascinating is also mundane to the inhabitants.

Day 3, read two days after reading day 2,

Is reading the book effecting the way I am making notes?

Just read doors of perception.

Each of the observations could be the first lines of a novel.

Page 42, “Moments of emptiness.”

Page 46, “ By looking at a single detail....of church....could be anywhere...austria...where I have never been.

How much should I observe and document?