What would convince Harry/canned memories

[Lyn J. Mangiameli]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" <editor at t...> wrote:
> I had two questions. Why didn't Dumbledore just *tell* Harry why he could
> trust Snape? And how, now, can Harry possibly learn, and *believe in,* the
> reason Dumbledore trusted Snape? I think the only person who knew,
> Dumbledore, made it impossible for himself to tell anyone. I think it is
> only Dumbledore, still, who has a reasonable chance of making Harry
> understand. And I think it will still be Dumbledore who tells him.

Now Lyn (and further interspersed below),
Agreed, but for the" impossible" part.
> 
>snip> 
> 
> 
> (1) PUTTING A MEMORY IN THE PENSIEVE TAKES IT OUT OF YOUR HEAD. Canon
> supports this:
> 
> Dumbledore says in GoF: (p. 597) [Dumbledore is speaking]:
> 
>    "'I sometimes find, and I am sure you know the feeling, that I simply
> have too many thoughts and memories crammed into my mind.' ...
>    "'At these times,' said Dumbledore, indicating the stone basin, 'I use
> the Pensieve. One simply siphons the excess thoughts from one's mind, pours
> them into the basin, and examines them at one's leisure.'"
> 
> To me, this sounds like it's *removal* of a memory or thought, rather than a
> *copy.*
> 
> This is borne out by Snape's apparently "defensive" use of the Pensieve in
> OoP, removing memories so Harry cannot accidentally "see" them, and by the
> terms Dumbledore uses in reference to other people's memories in HBP:
> 
> (p. 363) Dumbledore, speaking of Morfin's memory, uses the term "collect."
> (pp. 489-491) Harry speaking to Slughorn, uses the term "give." This does
> not sound like a copy. This sounds like you take the actual item out of the
> person's head.
> 
> The obvious corollary I draw is: if it's not in your head, *you don't know
> it anymore.*

Lyn now:
Yes, but then there is this little problem of Slughorn's memory. DD has the one copy, but 
another unaltered copy still resides in Slughorn's head. Either this is a Flint, or memories 
can exist in both places if the owner so chooses.

<snip>

> > ONE--I think the reason Dumbledore never told Harry why he trusts Snape is
> that he *can't,* meaning he honestly is not able to. I believe he *doesn't
> know,* because he has taken that memory out of his head, 

<snip>

> Maybe Dumbledore wasn't making up his mind; maybe he didn't have that
> information to give. The timeframe of this exchange is that Dumbledore has
> called Harry to his office to go try to find and destroy a Horcrux. This is
> a time I would expect Dumbledore to have removed any memories that could
> endanger the cause. So he told Harry all he honestly could at that
> moment--and what he could tell him matched what Snape has told Voldemort and
> the DEs: Snape spun a tale of remorse and Dumbledore trusts him completely.

Lyn now:
But, at a  minimum, he still knew he had memories stored, and what they were (how else 
would one ever recover them, or go back to peruse them, and how else would Snape know, 
and he did indicate he knew, what Harry was seeing of Snape's own memories).   And it DD 
knew what that the reason was stored, and it likely was in his office as that is where all the 
other  memories have been stored, he could have pulled out the bottle right then and 
there, just like he did for the other  memories. Hence, I still believe there is much more to 
why DD doesn't let Harry know.

> 
> TWO--All this, then, means to me that there's a memory in a bottle somewhere
> that shows that ironclad reason that so convinced Dumbledore. I predict the
> existence of this, and that Harry will see it in Book 7, and it will show
> him the truth; in a form he cannot argue with, from a source he cannot
> disbelieve.

Lyn now:
I think a number of folks have speculated on this, I being one, and I agree this is a likely, 
indeed, the most likely, scenario.
> 
> When he sees it; what he has already done based on incomplete knowledge and
> belief of Snape's treachery; who may also see it--these are variables that
> have great plot and character potential.

Lyn now:

Indeed! (who regrets snipping so much of such a nicely argued post)