I'm not sure of what I thought. I liked Lotto's bit a lot, and I liked him too. He was an idiot and a jerk, but he was nice and fun and optimistic. I also enjoyed his plays and storyboard, and wish there were more bits of them. 
 I didn't like Mathilde's bit quite as much, not because I didn't like her (because I did), but because it seemed too far-fetched. What is wrong with people with normal happy childhoods? Can we not be interesting? I am honestly more interested in reading about a woman who was raised by mediocre parents (with a mediocre job and a mediocre marriage) and just averaged at everything than to read about someone with her life history. I liked that all that she kept from Lotto (ALL OF IT) was for his benefit, so that he could be happier and believe in purity and stuff, and not so that he would think more highly of her, though. 
 I was quite annoyed by the brackets. What, were they supposed to be "the truth"? The omniscient narrator? then what was the other narrator? I liked them less because they showed up more in Lotto's bit. I thought the story would be about two POVs and how things are distorted by memories and lies and secrets, but it seemed like the book made me want to believe that Mathilde's side was a little bit truer--and this is supported by the fact that she had almost no in-between brackets asides (and that she could see inside Gwenie's brain???). 
 Some things were very poetic justice (especially as it had so much theatre meta--Roland!) but some others were too theatrical to feel even remotely true (Aurelie! the uncle! the private detective! Lotto's mom and her relationship with Mathilde!)