I agree with Aestrix about the first question, with three additions: 1. Some people would pay to get rid of memories; I’m kind of surprised Isabella didn’t buy more stuff or at least mint stuff for that reason. 2. The OTC should have tried harder to ensure the regulations about customer confidentiality were handled.
I interpreted the answer two the second question the opposite to how Aestrix did: she slid off the cover of the box and let her hands fall on the coins.
EDIT: The main part of the author interpretation of the second question is something I thought about, even though I did not comment on it. I wasn’t sure I believed that interpretation, but I thought it likely.
I wrote a short story!
Re: I wrote a short story!
I agree with DanielH. Although, if Eva wants to buy Isabella's memories from OTC, I see no reason why that should be disallowed.
-
PlainDealingVillain
- Posts: 622
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 10:15 pm
- Pronouns: he etc.
Re: I wrote a short story!
I think that, if that year was unique rather than (as seems likely) one of several, Isabella is being short-sighted and not understanding how her experiences made her who she is. Yeah, she hated it, but it's entirely plausible to me that memories of being the victim there are a large part of what's keeping her approximation of morality intact. Dr. Realist is making his case very badly, but I think he's basically correct.
On the other hand, that's 100% in character and not the most dangerous thing one of your Isabellas has done to acquire power without considering the potential consequences.
On the other hand, that's 100% in character and not the most dangerous thing one of your Isabellas has done to acquire power without considering the potential consequences.
Re: I wrote a short story!
In response to 1: Isabella wants to be rid of her memories, but she's also casually paranoid. She doesn't want to give this strange shopkeeper any indication that she's willing to buy essentially random junk - then the offer might dissapear.DanielH wrote:I agree with Aestrix about the first question, with three additions: 1. Some people would pay to get rid of memories; I’m kind of surprised Isabella didn’t buy more stuff or at least mint stuff for that reason. 2. The OTC should have tried harder to ensure the regulations about customer confidentiality were handled.
I interpreted the answer two the second question the opposite to how Aestrix did: she slid off the cover of the box and let her hands fall on the coins.
EDIT: The main part of the author interpretation of the second question is something I thought about, even though I did not comment on it. I wasn’t sure I believed that interpretation, but I thought it likely.
Regarding 2: OTC could definitely have better security procedures in place here, but then the latter half of the story wouldn't happen. Therefore for metanarrative reasons they will not have said security procedures. :P
PlainDealingVillain wrote:I think that, if that year was unique rather than (as seems likely) one of several, Isabella is being short-sighted and not understanding how her experiences made her who she is. Yeah, she hated it, but it's entirely plausible to me that memories of being the victim there are a large part of what's keeping her approximation of morality intact. Dr. Realist is making his case very badly, but I think he's basically correct.
On the other hand, that's 100% in character and not the most dangerous thing one of your Isabellas has done to acquire power without considering the potential consequences.
Author Interpretations Again
That said, I'm glad you felt strongly enough about the piece to have Opinions! :3Re: I wrote a short story!
I agree with Dr. Realist that people should consider more than they do when giving up memories, although not entirely for the same reasons as he gives. I think it is ultimately Isabella’s choice and that in this case she probably made the “right” one, but I also agree that Dr. Realist did not make the case well.
I like Realist more than he deserves because when I first saw him he was being unequivocally helpful in a way that I think more people should be, but I am slowing adjusting my liking of him down.
What are the OTC’s regulations on memory privacy, anyway? Who are they meant to protect? Presumably somebody will get to view those memories, and get to describe their contents or show them using a Pensieve as if they were their own; are the regulations to protect the future buyer instead of the seller?
To what extent is Dr. Realist correct that losing memories will change who somebody is in the present, anyway? Different fiction gives different answers to those sorts of questions, and real life gives few answers because we don’t have the relevant technology. Do you mean to imply that Dr. Realist is right about the empirically testable statements, or leave it ambiguous, or what?
I like Realist more than he deserves because when I first saw him he was being unequivocally helpful in a way that I think more people should be, but I am slowing adjusting my liking of him down.
What are the OTC’s regulations on memory privacy, anyway? Who are they meant to protect? Presumably somebody will get to view those memories, and get to describe their contents or show them using a Pensieve as if they were their own; are the regulations to protect the future buyer instead of the seller?
To what extent is Dr. Realist correct that losing memories will change who somebody is in the present, anyway? Different fiction gives different answers to those sorts of questions, and real life gives few answers because we don’t have the relevant technology. Do you mean to imply that Dr. Realist is right about the empirically testable statements, or leave it ambiguous, or what?
Re: I wrote a short story!
A: Not fully explored so far.DanielH wrote:I agree with Dr. Realist that people should consider more than they do when giving up memories, although not entirely for the same reasons as he gives. I think it is ultimately Isabella’s choice and that in this case she probably made the “right” one, but I also agree that Dr. Realist did not make the case well.
I like Realist more than he deserves because when I first saw him he was being unequivocally helpful in a way that I think more people should be, but I am slowing adjusting my liking of him down.
What are the OTC’s regulations on memory privacy, anyway? Who are they meant to protect? Presumably somebody will get to view those memories, and get to describe their contents or show them using a Pensieve as if they were their own; are the regulations to protect the future buyer instead of the seller?
To what extent is Dr. Realist correct that losing memories will change who somebody is in the present, anyway? Different fiction gives different answers to those sorts of questions, and real life gives few answers because we don’t have the relevant technology. Do you mean to imply that Dr. Realist is right about the empirically testable statements, or leave it ambiguous, or what?
B: Realist is correct about the facts so far as the evidence he has seen has shown him. (He comes from a universe with a virtual reality that allowed people to suppress memories. It was A Problem.) Is he correct in general? More doubtful.
-
PlainDealingVillain
- Posts: 622
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 10:15 pm
- Pronouns: he etc.
Re: I wrote a short story!
I think that you as the author have a lot more certainty than Isabella does as a person how losing those memories would change her, and getting rid of extremely formative experiences (because I'm pretty sure traumatic is a subset of formative) has extremely high variance in how it will change you. It could be a big improvement, but it could also be like Gandhi taking murder pills. And I think she's being insufficiently scared by the possibility she's taking murder pills.
Re: I wrote a short story!
B. Do you mean that other forms of memory suppression/removal might affect who-people-are differently and he isn’t considering this, or that he is correct about the facts of memory suppression even in the OTC case but overgeneralizing the problems? I expect you mean the second one, but I’m not sure.
I ask because in some works of fiction, removing memories explicitly does not remove the effects those memories have on who people are. In my own way of thinking about it absent other details of the memory removal, the extent to which the removal of a memory removes the effect varies greatly by which memory and which person.
On a completely different note, are these memories a new currency, or do I seriously misunderstand Udi or Buddhitanka?
I ask because in some works of fiction, removing memories explicitly does not remove the effects those memories have on who people are. In my own way of thinking about it absent other details of the memory removal, the extent to which the removal of a memory removes the effect varies greatly by which memory and which person.
On a completely different note, are these memories a new currency, or do I seriously misunderstand Udi or Buddhitanka?
Re: I wrote a short story!
I assumed the memories were Buddhitanka. Although the crystal storage device thing seemed more like the Ka aesthetic.
Re: I wrote a short story!
As you've said, considering the possibility she might be wrong is not one of Isabella's strong suits.PlainDealingVillain wrote:I think that you as the author have a lot more certainty than Isabella does as a person how losing those memories would change her, and getting rid of extremely formative experiences (because I'm pretty sure traumatic is a subset of formative) has extremely high variance in how it will change you. It could be a big improvement, but it could also be like Gandhi taking murder pills. And I think she's being insufficiently scared by the possibility she's taking murder pills.
C: He happens to be correct about the facts, but it's by chance, not because he's gone and investigated people who sold memories to OTC.DanielH wrote:B. Do you mean that other forms of memory suppression/removal might affect who-people-are differently and he isn’t considering this, or that he is correct about the facts of memory suppression even in the OTC case but overgeneralizing the problems? I expect you mean the second one, but I’m not sure.
I ask because in some works of fiction, removing memories explicitly does not remove the effects those memories have on who people are. In my own way of thinking about it absent other details of the memory removal, the extent to which the removal of a memory removes the effect varies greatly by which memory and which person.
On a completely different note, are these memories a new currency, or do I seriously misunderstand Udi or Buddhitanka?
D: They're sensory stones, the Sensate method of memory storage and retrieval. They're not actually BT or Udi. Eva wears a small one habitually as a pendant. She's also probably breaking so many regulations by not converting directly to BT.