Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Or maybe really old ones too? Something that you have half-forgotten yourself.

And how do they know the memory isn't bias? Not a lie like the first version they got, but bias. Humans remember stuff based on what impacted us most, our mood and perspective so a memory isn't necessarily true or false.

Alexandra Elend Wolf wrote: "Or maybe really old ones too? Something that you have half-forgotten yourself.

Possibly there's something to that. Ironically this one mentioned was the freshest memories that Dumbledore showed Harry.

Alexandra Elend Wolf wrote: "And how do they know the memory isn't bias? Not a lie like the first version they got, but bias. Humans remember stuff based on what impacted us most, our mood and perspective so a memory isn't necessarily true or false."

I agree. Though it seems in the series, as with portraits being accurate representations of personalities, that memories are records of fact unless they're tampered with. There would be no point in following a trail of memories toward solving a mystery if misremembering, forgetting, and bias had to be taken in account in every instance.

Jayson wrote: "Alexandra Elend Wolf wrote: "Or maybe really old ones too? Something that you have half-forgotten yourself.

Possibly there's something to that. Ironically this one mentioned was the freshest memor..."

Exactly. It wouldn't work in Rowling's world and, after all, they are kids books that aren't supposed to be so deeply considered. That being said, I would have appreciated more consistency and complexity in some of the plots. Like the memories here explained and the time travel that she uses.

I read that the Pensieve does not have memory bias; it shows an exact reproduction of what happened.

Audrey wrote: "I read that the Pensieve does not have memory bias; it shows an exact reproduction of what happened."

That makes no sense? Because if the person doesn't remember what happened exactly where would teh pensive put that memory from? And why wouldn't it do the same with a memory where the person wanted to lie about it?

It puzzles me, too, but that's what Rowling said. Like how Harry listened to James and Sirius talk after the exam even though Snape would not have heard them, yet it's his memory.

I assume Slughorn tampered with the memory after pulling it out of his brain.

Alexandra Elend Wolf wrote: "I would have appreciated more consistency and complexity in some of the plots. Like the memories here explained and the time travel that she uses."

I think that would be beneficial too. Though, look too deeply at certain aspects of the magical world and you might get hung up on the imperfections. Not everything looks better in HD, so to speak, and I suppose many things might seem less magical if subjected to greater scrutiny. Magic by definition defies logic, and while well-considered magical systems are great, they're never going to be perfect, in which case it might benefit the story to just gloss over minor flaws. With that said, I do agree with you that there is room in Harry Potter for greater complexity.

We're read it so many times, it's gotten a lot of scrutiny compared to some other books. But I don't mind letting things like that slide.

Audrey wrote: "I read that the Pensieve does not have memory bias; it shows an exact reproduction of what happened."

Here's how I logic it all out. I can accept that memories, in their pure form, can be accurate records of fact, in the same way that things that happen around us actually happen as facts, It's the human process of making sense of everything that applies bias and misremembering and etc. Once the memory is removed and separated from the human element, it's once again an accurate record of fact. Sort of like cleaning a window with Windex will remove the human element that dirtied it.

Alexandra Elend Wolf wrote: "That makes no sense? Because if the person doesn't remember what happened exactly where would teh pensive put that memory from? And why wouldn't it do the same with a memory where the person wanted to lie about it?"

I guess I would consider memories like files stored away in a filing cabinet. People, being imperfect, may misread them, forget where they put them, or may not have the capacity to interpret them correctly. But the memory itself, once removed from human fallacy, is just as good as it was when it was stored.

Audrey wrote: "I assume Slughorn tampered with the memory after pulling it out of his brain."

Dumbledore said that Slughorn did try to obliterate the memory, but that the real memory is still there beneath the alterations. So, in my file analogy, it'd be like redacting information on a photocopy, and giving it to Dumbledore, where the original still exists unaltered within Slughorn.

Audrey wrote: "We're read it so many times, it's gotten a lot of scrutiny compared to some other books. But I don't mind letting things like that slide."

Ultimately, there's a lot of good faith built up with the series, and I don't think people mind too much letting things like that slide.

Jayson wrote: "Audrey wrote: "I read that the Pensieve does not have memory bias; it shows an exact reproduction of what happened."

Here's how I logic it all out. I can accept that memories, in their pure form, ..."

I think that's what it's supposed to be like. I just wonder how far one can wander in the memory. A few feet? A few miles?

Audrey wrote: "I think that's what it's supposed to be like. I just wonder how far one can wander in the memory. A few feet? A few miles?"

Well, I'd assume it would have to be within visual and auditory range, regardless of whether the person in question was actively watching or listening. I'd think of it like a tape recorder. You'd need to be relatively close to a sound to record it onto a cassette, even with the best microphones.

Jayson wrote: "Audrey wrote: "I assume Slughorn tampered with the memory after pulling it out of his brain."

Dumbledore said that Slughorn did try to obliterate the memory, but that the real memory is still ther..."

That's a great way to see it. I suppose it could work. If you purposefully concentrate that file can be altered and impossible to clean-up, kind of like a redacted file, and you would have to go to the person for them to provide the un-redacted file.

Not everything looks better in HD, so to speak, and I suppose many things might seem less magical if subjected to greater scrutiny. Magic by definition defies logic, and while well-considered magical systems are great, they're never going to be perfect, in which case it might benefit the story to just gloss over minor flaws.

Yeah, you're right. Magic it's not supposed to be logical or believable but consistent on itself. It's just sometimes it's hard to ignore those details. At least the whole time-travel thing needs to be somewhat finessed for me in anything I read.

Alexandra Elend Wolf wrote: "Yeah, you're right. Magic it's not supposed to be logical or believable but consistent on itself. It's just sometimes it's hard to ignore those details. At least the whole time-travel thing needs to be somewhat finessed for me in anything I read."

I think the whole time travel thing was one of the big mistakes of the series. There's a lot of alternative creative ways to save the day in that book, and time travel just opened up a can of worms that's been left lingering ever since. It's the blame for The Cursed Child being as ridiculous as it was.

Jayson wrote: "Alexandra Elend Wolf wrote: "Yeah, you're right. Magic it's not supposed to be logical or believable but consistent on itself. It's just sometimes it's hard to ignore those details. At least the wh..."

Oh my God, don't get me started in the Curse Child. People say it works a lot better in the play but the whole plot is just... *sighs* Maybe if it hadn't been so rushed it would have been at least a bit better but it was just such a mess of a story.

Time travel is a real can of worms that most of the time is better left alone. Unless you want to expend a lot of time figuring it out and going over it because otherwise is better left alone.

Alexandra Elend Wolf wrote: "Time travel is a real can of worms that most of the time is better left alone. Unless you want to expend a lot of time figuring it out and going over it because otherwise is better left alone."

My opinion about time travel is that unless a book's specifically about time travel, it shouldn't be introduced as an element of the story. If it's just a plot device, then there's no real room to lay out and expound on the mechanics of it in any satisfactory way.

Having said that, The Cursed Child was more or less a time travel book, but it was one based on time travel in Prisoner of Azkaban. which was simply a plot device there. The Cursed Child didn't clarify or expand on anything, it just muddied the waters and confused things from earlier.

Jayson wrote: "Alexandra Elend Wolf wrote: "Time travel is a real can of worms that most of the time is better left alone. Unless you want to expend a lot of time figuring it out and going over it because otherwi..."

A sound idea indeed. Also, if you don't use the time travel ever again it really just makes the solution too convinient.

Alexandra Elend Wolf wrote: "A sound idea indeed. Also, if you don't use the time travel ever again it really just makes the solution too convinient."

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of deus ex machina. Either something's a regular part of the world or it isn't.