The two short stories: When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine and Nobody Said Anything have different narrative elements that cause the message of each of the stories to be revealed differently. The main similarity between the two is that both stories are told in first person – in the point of view of the person that “loses their innocence”. However, the time and order in which the stories are told are unalike, causing audiences to read and understand them differently. When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine is told in retrospect, as the narrator reveal’s her story of the past. She tells her story when she is older, after she loses her innocence, giving her an advantage to insert different events and instances in relation to her story that enables her to let the reader’s understand it easily. The narrator uses this advantage; describing multiple mini-stories of the different moments she had that linked to her main point, showing the process of the gradual realization. Contrasting, Nobody Said Anything is told just as the main character comes to his realization. This story is told in the span of one day, as the narrator describes many insignificant and trivial details that do not aid in telling his story (such as packing a sandwich). He does not have the advantage that the previous narrator had, as he was just describing his day, not knowing that he would come to a realization by the end. It limited him by not already knowing that he would come to realize something, meaning he did not have examples of other instances that can support his story.

The contrasting narrative element gives Nobody Said Anything a disadvantage, as it is more difficult for a reader to understand the story, forcing them to read carefully to understand how he came to his realization. Meanwhile, it is much easier to read When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine, as the narrator was able to reveal her message by