by Priya Malhotra
Mira remembers her third birthday party as a scene of almost extravagant happiness. There was a cream-puff cake, tier upon tier of it, which in memory has acquired the architectural grandeur of a wedding cake. Helium balloons floated close to the ceiling, their ribbons dangling into the room. She remembers presents, noise, people fussing over her—the peculiar exhilaration of being three and understanding that, for one afternoon at least, the world had arranged itself around you.
Her mother remembers the same party.
Only she remembers a miserable child.
Mira’s father had been unable to attend. According to her mother, Mira spent much of the afternoon crying for him. The celebrated cake barely interested her. Neither did the balloons. What her mother remembers is trying to coax an inconsolable three-year-old into enjoying a party in which the absence of her father seemed to eclipse everything else.
Could one of these accounts simply be wrong? That strikes me as an overly simplistic question. Memory is not generally obedient to binaries such as right and wrong, particularly when what we are remembering is not merely an event but the way that event registered in a particular consciousness: what drew our attention, what mattered to us, what delighted or wounded us, and what barely registered at all.
Facts, of course, are another matter. Mira’s father was either at the party or he wasn’t. The party took place on a particular day and at a particular place; the cake had some ascertainable number of tiers. Where and when something happened, and often what happened, are not matters of personal interpretation. This becomes especially important when memory moves beyond private life into history, crime, politics or other consequential matters, where competing recollections cannot be allowed to replace truth.
But facts occupy surprisingly little of the territory we mean when we say, I remember.
In fiction, an unreliable narrator is usually taken to be one who conceals something from the reader. That is one kind, and the shallowest. But often unreliability arises because the narrator can give us only the world as he or she is capable of seeing it. Their account may be limited by vanity, loyalty, prejudice, innocence, emotional investment, or by things about themselves that they cannot quite recognize. The events may be recalled conscientiously; what remains partial is the consciousness through which they are recalled.
The Remains of the Day, for example, is narrated by Stevens, an English butler looking back upon a life devoted to service. His recollections are often precise, even fastidious, yet as the novel proceeds we begin to see limits in his understanding of his employer, of Miss Kenton, and of the choices that have shaped his life. The interest lies not in catching Stevens in a lie. It lies in noticing how a person can remember carefully and still understand selectively.
Memory, I have come to think, is the original unreliable narrator.
Not because it is forever fabricating the past, although it can certainly get facts wrong, but because there is no such thing as a memory untouched by the person who possesses it. We do not first experience life neutrally and then introduce subjectivity when we remember it. The subjectivity is there from the beginning. Two people can stand in the same room, hear the same conversation, witness the same quarrel, and already be living through different versions of the moment. Memory carries that difference forward.
This is what interests me about Mira’s birthday. The divergence may not have begun years later, when mother and daughter remembered the party. It may have existed in the original moments of the party itself. Her mother was watching an unhappy child and registering the missing father, the tears, the apparent failure of the cake and balloons to console her. Mira was inhabiting the occasion from inside a three-year-old mind, where misery and delight could coexist quite comfortably. Perhaps she cried bitterly at two o’clock and was enchanted by the cake at two-thirty. What lodged in her mother’s memory was the sadness; what remained in Mira’s was the spectacle.
Neither is necessarily a diminished version of the afternoon. Each memory preserves the form the experience took in the mind that lived it—what assumed importance, what receded, and what survived long enough to become part of the story later told.
I have often found that people who shared a moment with me remember it in ways that scarcely resemble my own version of it. One that comes immediately to mind involves a woman I will call Ruchi, whom I met at a party in Delhi shortly before I left India to study in America. She was a few years older than I was. I remember meeting her, faintly; for me, it survives as one of those minor social encounters that occurred and then largely disappeared into the clutter of the past.
Ruchi remembers it vividly.
Years later, when we were back in contact, she told me that meeting me had been painful. At the time, she was married to a man who was neither particularly kind nor loving, and his work had taken them to an obscure village in India. At the party she saw me preparing to leave for America and found herself measuring, perhaps involuntarily, my circumstances against her own. In her memory, I was setting off toward the glamour and possibility of New York while she was returning to the middle of nowhere with a distant husband and a life that felt terribly constricted.
An encounter that scarcely adhered to my consciousness lodged firmly in hers because it touched something already alive there. Significance is not distributed equally among the people who share an event. What glances off one person can penetrate another.
The same holds for patterns across many memories. Suppose a man recalls being excluded repeatedly—by siblings, friends, colleagues, lovers. Perhaps not every episode occurred as he remembers it. The pattern of recollection is telling nonetheless. It may point to an old wound, a dreaded expectation, a sensitivity in which certain slights lodge and contradictory experiences do not. Whether each incident happened as remembered belongs, perhaps, on a psychotherapist’s couch. The pattern is the thing that survives.
Our omissions can be as revealing as what we retain.
Nor does a memory stop changing once it has been formed. The consciousness that first experienced an event is only the beginning of the story; everything that happens afterward can alter the meaning of what came before. A conversation that seemed trivial at twenty can become important at forty. A parent remembered as unbearably controlling may look different after we become parents ourselves. A relationship remembered as happy may be recolored by something we learn years after it ends. The event itself has not changed. Its place in our understanding has.
Photographs can become part of this process too. We may look at the same childhood photograph so many times that eventually the image begins to furnish the memory. Do I actually remember the red dress, the lawn and the birthday cake, or have I seen the photograph so often that its contents have been absorbed into what I now call remembering? The photograph began as evidence of a moment; repeated over decades, it can become one of the materials from which the memory itself is composed.
This is why describing memory as merely fallible seems insufficient to me. Fallibility suggests a record that occasionally contains errors. Memory does something more complicated. It preserves experience selectively, and what it preserves can acquire different proportions and meanings as the remembering person accumulates more life. Later knowledge does not erase an earlier memory, but it can change the light in which that memory is seen.
Of course, I can still discover that a detail I regarded as factual was simply incorrect. Perhaps I was certain a conversation occurred in one restaurant and incontrovertible evidence places it in another. What unsettles me in such moments is not the restaurant. It is discovering how confidently I had carried a false detail. Certainty, apparently, is no guarantee of accuracy.
But that is fundamentally different from two people remembering the mood or significance of the same event differently. The first concerns a fact that can, at least sometimes, be corrected. The second begins with two consciousnesses having inhabited the same moment differently and then carrying different parts of it into the future.
This, I think, is why memory is so fundamental to a sense of self. It does not keep the past alive in any neutral or comprehensive sense. It keeps alive our experience of having lived through it: the things that impressed themselves upon us, the things we misunderstood, the things whose significance we recognized only later. An old humiliation may help explain what we are alert to now; an experience of tenderness may shape what we recognize as safety; a childhood fear can leave an emotional reflex long after the room in which it began has vanished.
Anaïs Nin wrote, “We write to taste life twice, in the moment and in retrospect.” I would remove writing as a requirement. Memory gives us that second tasting anyway, and often a third or fourth. But retrospect is never simply replay. Each return is made by a person who has lived longer and accumulated more experience than the person who last returned to it.
A perfectly objective internal recording would undoubtedly be useful. I would sometimes welcome the ability to rewind an argument and establish exactly who said what. But I would not exchange memory for it. CCTV footage could settle a factual dispute; it could not contain the peculiar importance an otherwise ordinary afternoon acquired for the person who lived it.
That is finally what links memory to the unreliable narrator. The narrator is inseparable from the telling. So too are we inseparable from what we remember. There is no pristine version of my remembered life from which I can remove my temperament, my loyalties, my injuries, my affections, my later knowledge—in short, myself—and uncover some purer, more authoritative version of the past beneath it.
Nor would I want one.
When someone remembers a shared experience differently from me, what interests me is not simply the contradiction. It is the glimpse into another interior life: the discovery that while I was living one afternoon, another person was living something adjacent to it but not identical, and that years later each of us carried away a different inheritance from the same few hours.
An objective record could tell us what happened. Memory preserves the experience from the inside: what we noticed, what we felt, and what stayed with us. It is the reason there can be as many remembered pasts as there were people present—and why, even when the facts are singular, human experience never is.
***
Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.