What would convince Harry/canned memories

[Lyn J. Mangiameli]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" <editor at t...> wrote:
> Amandageist originally:
> > > (1) PUTTING A MEMORY IN THE PENSIEVE TAKES IT OUT OF YOUR HEAD. Canon
> supports this:
> 
> Lyn answered:
> > 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.
> 
> Amandageist responds:
> I'd think it would be that Slughorn gave him a "construct" memory--a fake
> one, made from the real and then (clumsily) readjusted. He retained the real
> one and gave a fake one. This is me winging it, but so much canon supports
> the memory being "removed" that I think adjusted memories may be separate
> items, provided under false pretenses.

Lyn now: 
This strikes me as a plausible explanation, but not without some complications. If the 
Pensieve reveals, as JKR now indicates, the entirety of the events that took place at that 
moment (a neuropsychological impossibility, by the way), then the events exceed one's 
memory. So, one wonders, does it require a Pensieve to edit a "memory." Of course if their 
are multiple Pensieves and more capable editors, then the who reliability of the Pensieve 
goes down the drain. 

At another level, I still find the broad idea of memories being removed in their entirety 
troublesome, though I agree with you at a more specific level. As we all know, we have 
memories of memories, and our memories are located in a larger context that is often as 
revealing of content as the specific memory itself. Of course JKR doesn't have to follow real 
world phenomenon in her story.  Associating this to some canon, we have the scene in 
Snape finding Harry with his head immersed in the Pensieve (OOTP, pg 649 Scholastic HB): 
"Amusing man, your father, wasn't he?"said Snape....

This implies that Snape either 1). knew exactly the content of the memory that Harry had 
just experienced, or 2). retained enough of the context of the memory that even without 
having access to the specifics, he understood the theme and general content. In either 
case, it would seem to me that this would make the Pensieve a poor means to hide 
necessary information (say from Voldemort), for to sufficiently remove the target 
information would require such additional large scale memory/experience removals as to 
undermine the person's ability to retain a sense of self and action.    
> 
> Amandageist originally:
> > > 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 responded:
> > 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.
> 
> Amandageist now:
> I'll grant there's more. Even given that, though, I can think of at least
> two reasons not to stop right then. One, and not least in my mind--if it
> involved Snape, Harry is in no state to hear it right then. He's in a state
> of very high dudgeon, having just found out about Snape reporting the
> prophecy to Voldemort. Not the most receptive time; he cannot be objective
> about Snape when he's calm. Two, there's a time factor. Dumbledore had
> summoned Harry to his office to accompany him going after the Horcrux; Harry
> ran into Trelawney on the way. There may not be *time* to uncork the bottle;
> so Dumbledore asks for Harry's trust on that point.
> 
> Did that answer well enough?

Lyn Now:
Amandageist, I find your arguments almost always to be thorough, and enjoyable for me 
to read.  I think where we agree on this, FWIW, is that DD had other reasons not to reveal 
the information to Harry.

Back to Amandageist's most recent response:
> 
> I also YM'd with Nora last night, and had a couple more thoughts:
> 
> Nora said that most of the "Snape in deep cover" theories are predicated
> upon the Order and Harry not knowing what Snape is up to--if they knew,
> Snape would be in trouble. If this is true, *then* any posthumous revelation
> on Dumbledore's part would break the cover, as Harry is not likely not to
> share.
> 
> To which I responded: I think the content will be such that Harry will
> (a) immediately understand why D didn't say, and
> (b) immediately wish he himself still didn't know, and
> (c) realize why he can't tell anyone else, putting him in the same position
> D was in.
> 
> And Harry knowing, with his lousy skills at Occlumency, is a definite
> danger. Making my old prediction of a scenario where he must trust Snape to
> shield him from Voldemort in a confrontation, even more likely.
> 
> Cool.
> 
Lyn now:
Yah, I think this is way cool and I personally would like to see it come out that way.