Memory Charm / The Egg Problem / FB

[archeaologee]

No: HPFGUIDX 39069

Reading this post reminded me of a few things - now please forgive me 
as the cannon is many miles from me so I'm operating on memory here.

> I believe that a person under a Memory Charm doesn't KNOW the stuff 
> concealed under that Charm, so Imperius or Veritaserum would get 
the 
> same result as asking about something the person never did know. 


In Stephen Fry's book "the liar" (good read - but not for the 
squeamish) there is device that forces you to tell the truth.  
However it describes lies as threefold... first - moral lies, you 
know the answer but are concealing it, for example did you cut down 
the cherry tree, ans. no george did it.

Then there are lies of ommision "what is the french for apple" 
ans. "I 
don't know".  You may well have been told that it is pomme, probably 
we all were exposed to this knowledge at some point, but we don't 
recall it.

thirdly - falshoods that you believe to be true.  Something that is 
not so but you have been told is and you believe it.  
Interestingly you may well be able to tell yourself something until 
you belive it to be true and this may act the same (i.e. the 
classic 'just william' example where he convinces himself that a cat 
broke the greenhouse window and not him - to the extent that he is 
visably and moraly scandalised when he is accused of it. His reaction 
is just that of someone who saw the cat do it for real)


>From the description in GoF of Barty Crouch under veritaserum he was 
only responding to the first type of lying.  He was compelled to tell 
what he knew to be true.  Not all that he knew (this would take 
forever) nor would it be possible for him to say where 'you know who' 
was if he had been told falsely.  The compulsion to bare all is the 
same for imperius, you want to comply - I want to remember the 
subjenctive of the verb continuo, I can't - but I'm fairly sure I was 
taught it.

In all the debate on these things there seems to be little focus on 
how subtle lying is, and how variable memory.  To drag a little 
philosophy of mind in - how do we know\remember something in the 
first 
place.  And if these potions\curses work on the mind then which part 
of the mind.

Just a thought.

> MAYBE the sound of the Egg is like the appearance of a Boggart. IE 
to 
> each listener it sounds like whatever is most repulsive to that 
> listener.

No, the egg sounds like underwater singing - otherwise how would the 
seperate champions all reach the same conclusion.  It's just that 
things sound odd in a different media (star trek three - the voyage 
home anyone? - you know the one with the whalesong)

> FB itself states that it is a 'definitive guide' to magical beasts. 
> "The first edition of Fantastic Beasts was commissioned back in 
1918 
> by Mr. Augustus Worme of Obscurus Books, who was kind enough to ask 
> me whether I would consider writing an authoritative compendium of 
> magical creatures for his publishing house..... The rest is 
> publishing history. FANTASTIC BEASTS is now in its fifty-second 
> edition." 

This is the most powerful argument IMO that the books can't be used 
as a good resource.  They arn't complete.  Things luipn brings in to 
DaDa don't appear in the book (a smidge of indulgence for one who has 
been so cruely seperated from his cannon as well as FB and QTTA and 
can't remember which ones).

The last one is just a pedant's gripe, they are very useful for 
fleshing out the potterverse and may well give examples of things we 
will see more of (or for the first time) later - but as a difinitive 
resource, err no.  I don't think they defend against yellow flags 
either, but don't respond to that as we'll be here all night.


Please take all of this with a pinch of salt, Stephen Fry isn't a 
psycologist and his opinions on lying are just that - opinions.  But 
may have some significant implications.

James,

xxx