Hey all,

I just wanted to get a random sample of what people thought amnesia was. No googling or swotting up required. I pretty much know all I need to know about it, but what I want to know is what YOU think it is and how it manifests itself.

Cheers

Geoff

I'm no expert (and do you truly understand how crippling it is for me not googling for info when I don't consider myself well informed?), but I'm aware that there are different kinds of 'memory loss'. Suppression of bad memories, permanent short term memory loss (as seen in the quite awesome Momento film), etc.

Amnesia, as far as I'm aware, is a condition usually brought about by physical trauma (usually head related), that causes the brain to displace a random chunk of memories.

Of course, you'll now tel me I'm completely wrong, and amnesia is something more related to those rare 'conditions' where your memory or ability to recognise things that should be familiar just fails, or something.

Now, I'm off to google.

Hmmm, i'd say there was physical amnesia, caused by an injury to the brain, and psychological amnesia, caused by a traumatic incident.

I'd say either condition could be permanent or temporary.

Manifesting itself as either a section of time or random memories being complete blanks and maybe recovered by a trigger eg smell or a word.

How did i do?

Casey

Hi IB, Casey

Not too bad to be honest. I'm having a bit of a 'mare at the moment as some people who've been reading my work think that my portrayal of amnesia is unrealistic. From what I can gather their knowledge of amnesia seems to be based on the 'amnesia' portrayed in films, which is often very far from the truth.

I've actually tried to write it from a realistic standpoint but the thought suddenly occurred to me that most people preconceived idea of what amnesia is would render my realistic description as unrealistic.

Coincidentally I've just finished a Stephen King novel in which he wrongfully refers to multiple personality disorder as schizophrenia, which is a totally different condition altogether. Every time I came across it I kept being pulled out of the story wondering why he hadn't checked his basic facts beforehand.

Geoff

I've actually tried to write it from a realistic standpoint but the thought suddenly occurred to me that most people preconceived idea of what amnesia is would render my realistic description as unrealistic.

Sorry, I haven't the faintest idea about amnesia, beyond it being used as a weak plot device (unlike you, Geoff, who're obviously taking it seriously!). But does it occur to anyone else that this statement - it has its equivalents in historical fiction - says something very odd and interesting about how people relate to facts in fiction?

Emma

It is a complete nightmare Emma,

But I've come across this many times before in other books and discussions. Some writers even allude to it in their writing.

One that sticks in my mind is in Murakami's Kafka on the Shore when a Japanese character in his thirties refuses to believe that Japan was ever occupied by American forces.

I guess it has strong links to the Movie Myths post started by CarolineSG. How do you go about handling it though/

Geoff

Well, I know of an English Heritage house where EH knew - from the wife's letters - that the early nineteenth century drawing room was painted in purple with the mouldings picked out in gold. But the curator said, 'We thought it would look awful, but even more seriously, we couldn't do it because no one would have believed us'.

Luckily they discovered that the owners soon changed to something paler and plainer and more like our image of early nineteenth century taste; the owners didn't like purple and gold either.

Emma

But isn't there some part of you that wants to reach out and say look this is the truth. This is how it really happened! This is really how it is.

I remember doing some history coursework for GCSE and I decided to research American history. It turns out that most cowboys were were actually black because the reality of the work was more or less one up from slave labour and was the kind of life that most people simply couldn't hack. They never carried guns in holsters on their thighs because the guns were so heavy they would chafe your thighs to pieces. Along with other details like the fact most guns particularly revolvers were so inaccurate you literally had to be standing within 20 feet of your target if you had any hope of hitting it.

Occasionally you may see an accurate portrayal of this but just think of the countless films and books that totally rewrite history.

But isn't there some part of you that wants to reach out and say look this is the truth. This is how it really happened! This is really how it is.

Yes, but if half the visitors will either explicitly think that EH are ignorant, and the other half will have an uneasy sense that the house isn't 'authentic', then what's a curator to do? I'm intrigued by the extent to which the National Trust/English Heritage project is in a way creating fiction.

And as a historical novelist I have a more problematic relationship to historical fact than I used to think I did.

Emma

Reading through your post I suddenly had a strange vision of an Orwellian take on the National Heritage constantly rewriting history. Or maybe it's a coverup like in Robert Harris' Fatherland!

There could be a novel in there somewhere. Then again maybe not.