This paper examines how the narrators in Maggie Mitchell's "It Would Be Different" and Muriel Spark's "The First Year of My Life" use their pasts to provide significance to their present circumstances. Despite the narrators' vastly different ages during the events they recall—one an adolescent and young woman, the other an infant—both stories demonstrate how personal history informs present identity and future trajectory. The analysis explores the structural and thematic role of memory in each narrative, showing how Spark uses infancy and World War I observation to explain the narrator's present emotional restraint, while Mitchell uses a long romantic history to justify the possibility of reconciliation. Both works illustrate how past experience functions as essential context for understanding present meaning.
There is a substantial difference in the representation of the past of the narrator in Maggie Mitchell's "It Would Be Different" and that of the narrator of Muriel Spark's "The First Year of My Life". This difference is largely attributed to the fact that the former was a young woman—and in some instances an adolescent—in her past, while the latter was an infant. Still, the past of each narrator greatly informs their respective presents. It does so most eminently by affecting the ending of each story. Essentially, the past of the narrators provides a degree of significance for the endings of their tales.
In Spark's short story, the narrator recollects the first twelve months or so of her life. This recollection is predicated on the belief that babies are attuned to and can be cognizant of everything in the world (when they want to) and involves the narrator remembering numerous facets of World War I. The narrator also recollects the fact that she did not smile until her first birthday.
Although the vast duration of this work takes place in the past, with the narrator recalling various facets of her childhood ability to observe different things and grow, the first page and the last paragraph take place in the present. The narrator spends the majority of the first page introducing the idea that babies are aware of everything on the planet as a means of introducing her unusual tale of witnessing events in World War I and matters pertaining to it—as well as her tendency to refrain from smiling. Yet she spends the final paragraph explaining how a perverse sentiment from a famous personage was the cause of her first smile and is the cause of all her truly heartfelt smiles in the present. The work is satirical in this respect, but the narrator's past provides an explanation for present tendencies to smile.
The past of the narrator in Mitchell's work also informs the present, although the narrator spends more time in the present than the narrator in Spark's work does. The narrator principally recollects her romantic endeavors with a man during various stages of their relationship, which spanned her school days and actually persists in the present. Her memories indicate how much she is infatuated with this man, despite the fact that her primary memory is of him selecting a different woman to spend time with on one particular night—and the fact that he eventually marries her and becomes the father of his children.
Thus, one difference between the memories of this narrator and that in Spark's story is that the past spans a longer period of time in the former work. The narrator describes various stages of repeatedly encountering her lover, who spurned her. However, this tale concludes with the implication that the pair will reunite romantically. It is only because the narrator has informed the reader of her lengthy history with this man that such an ending is significant. She spends the duration of her remembrances emphasizing how much she likes this person and agonizing over his decision to marry another. Therefore, when he visits her in the present (which he has continually done), the reader is aware of the fact that not only will this man continue to impact the narrator's present, he will also play a role in her future. Without all of the narrator's recollections of the past, this development in her present and future would not have as much significance.
Both stories demonstrate a crucial literary principle: a narrator's recollection of the past functions as the essential framework for understanding the significance of present events. In Spark, the compressed timeframe of infancy becomes paradoxically expansive through the narrator's awareness of global events; this distance between narrator's knowledge and reader's initial expectations creates the satirical power of her final smile. In Mitchell, the extended chronology of romantic longing provides emotional weight to the possibility of reconciliation; without this historical context, the present-day visit would be merely an ordinary encounter rather than a potential turning point.
"Shared mechanism of past informing present meaning"
In summary, each of the narrators in these two stories utilizes their past to give their present a great degree of significance. In Spark's story, that present is the reason for her smiles; in Mitchell's story, that present is a renewed relationship with her erstwhile lover.
You’re 96% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.