Talk: Mnemone Radford

Memory Modifying Charm vs Memory Charm

She was not stated to make the Memory Charm, she was said to have created the Memory Modifying Charm. While semantically speaking, it would be correct to say that let's say a Muggle who were made to forget seeing something magical had his or her memory 'modified', to modify something, if we use a straight forward definition, means to 'make partial or minor changes to (something).' The Memory Charm doesn't change anything, it removes it, it erases memories. For this reason, it would seem that what the Memory Modifying Charm actually is, is the correct name for this spell. Tfoc (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"Miss Dursley has been punctured and her memory has been modified. She has no recollection of the incident at all. So that's that, and no harm done." - this is one of many examples of Obliviate being described in the books as being used to 'modify' one's memory. Also, Radford is described as the very first Ministry Obliviator. Doesn't exactly leave room for doubt that the Memory Charm and Memory Modifying Charm are one and the same. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  13:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

If you re-read the very first couple of sentences in my previous post, I think you'll find that I've already addressed this, Sirius. And not for nothing, but the concealment of any magical community would be completely unattainable with Memory Charms alone. It'd be sort of like when Ginny was possessed by Tom Riddle in the second book, where she was left with big blank periods where you don't know what you've been up to, or find herself somewhere and not know how she got there; only on a massive scale that couldn't be adequately explained away. There necessarily would have to be situations where an Obliviator implanted a false memory in the head of a Muggle; such as when a Muggle is injured by magic and is taken to St. Mungo's for treatment, and upon being released after they recovered; yes, they would have their memory of their stay erased, but to avoid the predicament above, they would also have to modify his memory so that there is a feasible excuse for why he is standing outside a department store they've never seen before in the middle of London; hours after they were supposed to have been elsewhere. Under such circumstances, it would be a matter of practical necessity to actually modify his memory so that the Muggle believes, for instances, that he lost track of time perusing the shelves at a nearby library and was now looking for a cab to take him where he actually is supposed to be. Also, Obliviator is a job title. There is nothing to suggest that she didn't invent the "Memory Modifying Charm", earned recognition of it, which made the task of employing people to have the concept of having Obliviators on payroll feasible for the Ministry, and because she could use that as well, she was hired as the first one. The second book was already published by the time "Wizards of the Month" became a thing, if I'm not mistaken, meaning Rowling had already established the name for "Obliviate". The Memory Charm. If she meant the spell Radford invented to be the Memory Charm, why on Earth wouldn't she have called it the Memory Charm? Tfoc (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing in canon connects Mnemone Radford with the spell used by Tom Riddle to make Morfin Gaunt believe he was the killer. It's too tenuous. This is the only mention ever of Radford in any canon source. Literally all the information we have. There is no point speculating. We literally do not know anything more about her. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  20:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Who's speculating? All I did was walking you through the thought process that prompted me to point out an apparent discrepancy on one or more wiki pages. And the discrepancy, Sirius, is that Mnemone Radford is credited with the creation of the Memory Modifying Charm, not the Memory Charm, yet the two is treated as though they were the same spell without that being conclusively verified. Tfoc (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The 'Memory Modifying Charm' has also not been conclusively verified to be the False memory charm, so what exactly is your aim here? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  20:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

That just assuming it is the Memory Charm when A) it's not been established as such, B) it has a different name, and C) by virtue of which it could very well be a different spell, such as for example the false memory charm, is presumptious? Tfoc (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Out of the false memory spell and obliviate, obliviate is the only one described in the books as modifying someone's memories. Also, in the first Fantastic Beasts film, a tier-one canon source, an unidentified hobo was about to say to policemen that he saw Newt's creatures destroy a building, Newt used Obliviate to make the hobo remember it as a gas explosion instead of the creature. Memory modifying. Your argument was that the definition of modify is to 'make partial or minor changes' to something, well yes, but such changes could include removing bits. "The Memory Charm doesn't change anything" - the Memory Charm does change the target's memory, by removing some bits. 'Memory modifying charm' could equally easily apply to either spell, but for the fact that the sole piece of information we have about Radford simply describing her as the inventor of Memory Modifying Charms and the first Obliviator makes it make a lot more sense if it is describing Obliviate. But hey, it does say 'Memory Modifying Charms' in the plural, perhaps she invented both. We simply do not know for certain. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  21:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

He didn't use the Memory Charm on the hobo, he used the Confundus Charm. But you're right, it does say in plural, I missed that. Good eye. :-D Tfoc (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

According to the hobo's article, it was obliviate. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  20:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Turns out neither of us are correct. I was certain Newt muttered 'Confundo' as he walks past, but in the script, he merely takes advantage of how the No-Majs are all has their backs to him, looking at the policeman, and discreetly points his wand at the hobo without anyone noticing, and in the movie, he swipes the air next to him as he pass by, and there is this smoke-like veil that the hobo breaths in, just how like the Imperius Curse is depicted in DH P2. The Confundus Charm, though. Given the effect, and its use on Fletcher by Snape, and given who Newt is, it's more likely the Confundus Charm than the Imperius Curse, mind.Tfoc (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Recap

So, I just looked at this image again, and it occurred to me that it reads "Memory Modifying Charms", plural. If we accept erasing someone's memory as modifying it, but also akcnowledge that to modify means to change something, now I'm understanding this to mean she invented both the Memory Charm and the false memory spell, and that "Memory Modifying Charms" is the collective term/classification of them. What do you guys think? Tfoc (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The information we have on the subject (that image and that image alone) is insufficient to say that for certain. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  18:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I should have been clearer about what I meant: The fact that it reads "Memory Modifying Charms", plural, implying it's more than one spell and might be those two spells we know of used to modify memories as opposed to only one, is that sufficient to merit a BTS mention? Tfoc (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

A BTS mention for sure, yes. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  18:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

BTS edit:

It can't be a mistake because a mistake is an accidental inconsistency, like a knight's horse changing gender between books in GoT, or if let's say Harry observed an ugly old ring reminicent of a sea-shell on Umbridge's right hand during the first DADA lesson, and within the same timespan, she is seen fidgiting with that same ring on her left hand. That's a mistake. A retcon is a change in existing material, and Rowling wrote the Wizards of the Month indexes. Then, years later, she revised canon by introducing a piece of new information that imposed a different interpretation on previously described events. In this case, when the Ministry of Magic existed and when Obliviators would (or could) be hired. Even if she had forgotten the dates and contradicted the Radford blurb without realizing, that's still a retcon, even though she would've made it unwittingly. Tfoc (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say it still remains a contradiction, not a retcon. Like you said, retcon should be about a different interpretation, but there's no other way to explain the numbers 1562 and 1649. We know that in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald McGonagall appears and this seems to be a retcon to me, because although what the appearance contradicts are her being a Transfiguration student of Dumbledore or her sentence to Umbridge stating how many years she has taught at Hogwarts, those are not unachievable through other, though unconventional, measures, like using a time-turner just like the BTS section there says. But with the Radford case here, both information are fixed numbers. There's no way out of this without either of them being a mistake. MalchonC (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking, a retcon is a contradiction, it'sjust a specific type of contradiction. And please don't get too hung up on the word "intepretation". As for the different intepretation I alluded to, I was referring to how Radford's Wizards of the Month blurb idirectly stating that the Ministry of Magic existed and that it was employing Obliviators by 1649, which was rendered a canonical impossibility in light of the new information released describing the Ministry was established in 1707, and the Statute of Secrecy being formally enforced as of 1692. The new intepretation is: The former conclusion is no longer valid, as it was retconned. Radford was featured as the "Wizard of the Month" on Rowling's site on February 1, 2007, and the seventh book was released on July 21, so it's the more recent source, and it says that the Statute of Secrecy was signed some forty years after Radford died, which was when the services of an Obliviator would be recquired. Tfoc (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think a retcon would typically be stated for the same target, like if JKR says Radford was still working for the Ministry in 1710, then no doubt the old information is wrong. She just says the Ministry was founded in 1707, it's a different matter than (although not irrelevant to) Radford herself. If JKR hasn't acknowledged this mistake either directly or by just presenting the correct info for the same target, then I wouldn't think of it as a retcon. MalchonC (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, the date of the Statute of Secrecy has been known since at least Quidditch Through the Ages was published in 2001. I wouldn't call this a retcon, since the term is normally reserved to deliberate changes to more important, established plot points (i.e. McGonagall's age) to increase further creative freedom. This doesn't seem to be the case, however, since the inconsistency does not seem to serve the purpose of changing things at all (as you point out, JKR never acknowledged it by later changing the dates of the Statute of Secrecy, for instance). This is much more easily explained away as one of Rowling's infamous "Oh dear, maths" moments — and there are quite a few of them concerning the chronology of the Ministry alone (there are a few other wizards who lived before 1707 and yet supposedly interacted with the Ministry, such as Balfour Blane or Dymphna Furmage; the Ministry supposedly sent a delegation to William III and Mary II at some point in c. 1690; there are a couple of pieces of legislation from before 1707 and yet attributed to the Ministry, like the Wand Ban or the Werewolf Code of Conduct; there are also the almost humorously wildly inconsistent dates of Burdock Muldoon and Elfrida Clagg). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That is certainly the reason for deliberate retcons, but any change done to canon that changes something previously established would technically speaking be a retcon. As for Rowling abitrarily changing McGonagall's age like she did, that's less a retcon and more accurately described as a shameless sacrifice of her own inteigrity as an author for the sake of cheap fan service. Alas... I am not gonig to quibble over trivialities or semantics, though. If you want me to revise my edit on the BTS section and remove the note about the retcon, I'll do it. Tfoc (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Technically speaking, a retcon is a literary device. Which are, by definition, deliberate. An "accidental retcon" would be best described as... a mistake. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)