Question about Pensieve memories - Secondary Memory

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 186036

> > "clcb58" wrote:
> >
> > Does extracting a memory for Pensieve viewing erase the memory
> > from the mind or just make a copy of it? Does anyone remember
> > canon examples to support either theory?
> >
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> <big snip> 
> 
> I think if you place a single first-hand solitary memory in
> the Pensieve, the event is gone from your mind, but that does
> not mean your knowledge of the event is equally gone. You have
> a host of secondary memories to remind you that the event took
> place. <snip>

Mike:
Then there's the most important memory duplication of the series: Dumbledore's memory of the Trelawney prophesy. This memory was put into the globe that was stored in the Hall of Prophesies and still remained in DD's head for retrieval to display to Harry. Certainly those prophesies contained true Pensieve-style memories since actual people came out of the broken ones, not just their words. And yet, Dumbledore was still able to have Trelawney emerge out of the Pensieve, not just her disembodied voice.

What I'm saying is that it appears that extracting a memory to any container does not appear to also remove the memory on any kind of permanent basis.

So how do we explain Snape's Occlumency extractions? Well, how about this: If one removes the memory, the freshness is gone but Steve's "secondary memory" survives. In the fullness of time, that secondary memory grows and is able to partially, if not completely, replace the original memory with sufficient detail so as to be displayed again in the manner which DD did with the Prophesy. But there was not sufficient time for this to happen in Snape's case with the Occlumency lessons. Which is why Snape waits till the very last moment to remove his memories, so as to not give them time to regenerate.

YMMV,
Mike, who has always enjoyed trying to parse out the mechanics of JKR's magic