“Irreplaceable” is dubious as well. Are we, nevertheless, going to see it replaced, and in less time than forever? Only you know that at this point, but if so, the sentence is wrong. On the other hand, if the sentence is literally true, it seems a gratuitous spoiler to reveal it, a random grabbing of a fact out of the narrative future and thrusting it in front of the reader.
The narration has largely been from Harry’s point of view, and so if Harry thinks that it’s gone forever, that’s a reasonable thing to state.
Also, a line like that one can be fine if it’s just pointing out a connection that the audience should have made already. For instance, if we were talking about Harry losing his virginity, it would be okay to point out that some part of Harry’s innocence had been lost forever (he can’t un-lose it).
If a male who just lost his virginity is obliviated about that particular fact, is any part of his innocence lost?
Not in the emotional and psychological sense that ‘innocence’ is sometimes used. However sometimes ‘innocence’ is (or, particularly, has been) hijacked for a more crude but less literal meaning. Like ‘know’ or even just ‘powder my nose’. That kind of trivial boolean innocence is lost.
Hmmm. Now I’m wondering whether obliviation could be exploited to enhance the experience of early (but not technically first) sexual encounters. If one maintained the changes to confidence and presumably sexually relevant skills but also maintained the excitement, anticipation and perception of novelty of the first time...
Sort of implemented in John C. Wright’s Orphans of Chaos:
My guess was this: He wanted this to be his first kiss. At the moment, it was. If the experiment worked, and he got his memory back, this memory would still contain, nevertheless, in all innocence and all solemnity, love’s first kiss.
Restoring the exact brain state is probably overkill.
I’d expect resetting to their previous values the connection-strengths in the portion of the conceptual activation network centered around to restore what I understand by “innocence” in this context.
In fact, it might be sufficient (assuming you didn’t have the old values lying around to support a real reset) to just lower those connection-strengths by a constant factor. Which would perhaps be installing a new innocence rather than restoring the old one, but not only do I suspect it would be very hard to tell the difference, I’m not actually sure the distinction means anything in the first place.
Anyway, perhaps I’m just being pedantic. But it seems worthwhile, in a community that is often concerned with mind-as-algorithm rather than mind-as-attribute-of-brain, to acknowledge the distinction.
As long as I’m here, I should mention a third approach: activating an additional node that inhibits . A lot of real-world attempts at preserving innocence seem to operate this way, although it seems to me that the result is nothing at all like the innocence they purport to preserve.
Ah. I guess the laws of narrative causality demand that Draco Malfoy actually be a female 13 year-old rapist pregnant with Harry’s baby. Given what he’s up against, Harry really needs to be as fully-qualified a protagonist as possible.
I wonder if Dumbledore was the one who arranged it...
The narration has largely been from Harry’s point of view, and so if Harry thinks that it’s gone forever, that’s a reasonable thing to state.
Also, a line like that one can be fine if it’s just pointing out a connection that the audience should have made already. For instance, if we were talking about Harry losing his virginity, it would be okay to point out that some part of Harry’s innocence had been lost forever (he can’t un-lose it).
If a male who just lost his virginity is obliviated about that particular fact, is any part of his innocence lost?
Only if he develops a rash, or his T-cell count falls.
Not in the emotional and psychological sense that ‘innocence’ is sometimes used. However sometimes ‘innocence’ is (or, particularly, has been) hijacked for a more crude but less literal meaning. Like ‘know’ or even just ‘powder my nose’. That kind of trivial boolean innocence is lost.
Not necessarily, if Obliviate doesn’t literally restore your brain to the exact state it was in before the period in question.
Hmmm. Now I’m wondering whether obliviation could be exploited to enhance the experience of early (but not technically first) sexual encounters. If one maintained the changes to confidence and presumably sexually relevant skills but also maintained the excitement, anticipation and perception of novelty of the first time...
Didn’t Madonna have a song about this?
Sort of implemented in John C. Wright’s Orphans of Chaos:
Good book?
Eh. Not so much that I feel compelled to read the third one.
Restoring the exact brain state is probably overkill.
I’d expect resetting to their previous values the connection-strengths in the portion of the conceptual activation network centered around to restore what I understand by “innocence” in this context.
In fact, it might be sufficient (assuming you didn’t have the old values lying around to support a real reset) to just lower those connection-strengths by a constant factor. Which would perhaps be installing a new innocence rather than restoring the old one, but not only do I suspect it would be very hard to tell the difference, I’m not actually sure the distinction means anything in the first place.
Anyway, perhaps I’m just being pedantic. But it seems worthwhile, in a community that is often concerned with mind-as-algorithm rather than mind-as-attribute-of-brain, to acknowledge the distinction.
As long as I’m here, I should mention a third approach: activating an additional node that inhibits . A lot of real-world attempts at preserving innocence seem to operate this way, although it seems to me that the result is nothing at all like the innocence they purport to preserve.
I suppose that would depend on how one defines virginity. And innocence, for that matter; the two need not be synonymous.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AManIsNotAVirgin
Ah. I guess the laws of narrative causality demand that Draco Malfoy actually be a female 13 year-old rapist pregnant with Harry’s baby. Given what he’s up against, Harry really needs to be as fully-qualified a protagonist as possible.
I wonder if Dumbledore was the one who arranged it...
Males don’t get raped. At least not till 1992. There will be a trope for that too.
Sorry, what’s meant by this?
This trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeIsOkWhenItIsFemaleOnMale and this movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclosure_(film) Which brought the topic of males getting raped into the realm of the acceptable legal topics. Obviously it is not okay to rape anyone, but in many cases males have problems getting heard when it happens to them. Same goes for domestic violence.
Edit: added 2 missing words
Huh. I initially upvoted assuming it was a reference to some law passed in the UK.