Do you remember memories in a pensieve?

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

There are somethings in her world that we just have to take JKR's word for!

Some things?

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by willfitz

Some things?

Let's see: a number of things, quite a few things, everything?

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by Darksmith

Two questions then:
How far could you travel into the memory, meaning oculd you go to London if the memory was in Hogwarts?

I don't think so because you would not have 'occupied' that space during that moment. It's not that clear in the books but I imagined the memory as a sort of bubble with the person whose memory is was in the middle and everything inside that bubble being what's shown in the memory. For instance, when Snape's in the Great Hall taking his test the extents of the bubble, to me, would be the great hall. He wouldn't have the capacity to 'know' what was going on in the rest of the castle so if Harry ventured in to the entrance hall, for instance, the memory might start to fade out or blur or something.

Small thing you did not notice but your brain recorded I can accept, but people and things behind you ? No eyeS at the back of your head, unless you were cursed.

I've always had a problem with this point as well. How did Snape know what James was doodling on his paper if he had no memory of seeing it? To me, the only test paper that would have (or should have) had anything on it was Snape's because he didn't know what anyone else was writing. If Harry looked down at James's paper he should have seen a blank sheet of paper, IMO.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the only 'details' that should appear in a memory are the ones the rememberer (Snape) would have perceived himself. He wouldn't know what exact conversations people would have been having so in the memory he might either project some 'stock' conversations (like TV news programs have 'stock' footage) or conversations he assumes people might be having (For instance he might think James and Sirius only talk about their own awesomeness and swap stories glorifying in their egos) or if harry went to listen in on his mother's conversation with her friends he would have heard just random babble he couldn't understand (I am imagining the random babble to sound like the Swedish Chef LOL!!) because , from a distance, that's all Snape would have perceived the conversation to be - noise. In that respect, visiting other people's memories could be immensely entertaining =^D

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

I've always had a problem with this point as well. How did Snape know what James was doodling on his paper if he had no memory of seeing it? To me, the only test paper that would have (or should have) had anything on it was Snape's because he didn't know what anyone else was writing. If Harry looked down at James's paper he should have seen a blank sheet of paper, IMO.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the only 'details' that should appear in a memory are the ones the rememberer (Snape) would have perceived himself. He wouldn't know what exact conversations people would have been having so in the memory he might either project some 'stock' conversations (like TV news programs have 'stock' footage) or conversations he assumes people might be having (For instance he might think James and Sirius only talk about their own awesomeness and swap stories glorifying in their egos) or if harry went to listen in on his mother's conversation with her friends he would have heard just random babble he couldn't understand (I am imagining the random babble to sound like the Swedish Chef LOL!!) because , from a distance, that's all Snape would have perceived the conversation to be - noise. In that respect, visiting other people's memories could be immensely entertaining =^D

The following is what JKR believes about a pensieve (7/16/05, Melissa Agnelli of LeakyCauldron and Emerson Spartz of MuggleNet):

MA: So there are things in there that you haven't noticed personally, but you can go and see yourself?

JKR: Yes, and that's the magic of the Pensieve, that's what brings it alive.

ES: I want one of those!

JKR: Yeah. Otherwise it really would just be like a diary, wouldn’t it? Confined to what you remember. But the Pensieve recreates a moment for you, so you could go into your own memory and relive things that you didn't notice the time. It’s somewhere in your head, which I'm sure it is, in all of our brains. I'm sure if you could access it, things that you don't know you remember are all in there somewhere.

It may not make sense to us readers, but this is what she intended.

If the overheard conversation and actions between James and Sirius(SWM) just before they attack Severus are merely his "stock Marauders' conversations" then the memory is useless IMO.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

The following is what JKR believes about a pensieve (7/16/05, Melissa Agnelli of LeakyCauldron and Emerson Spartz of MuggleNet):
...
JKR: Yeah. Otherwise it really would just be like a diary, wouldn’t it? Confined to what you remember. But the Pensieve recreates a moment for you, so you could go into your own memory and relive things that you didn't notice the time. It’s somewhere in your head, which I'm sure it is, in all of our brains. I'm sure if you could access it, things that you don't know you remember are all in there somewhere.

There's a contradiction in this quote though. She says that a pensieve "recreates a moment for you, so you could go into your own memory and relive things that you didn't notice the time." but then almost immediately says that "things that you don't know you remember are all in there somewhere" in your head implying that you are somehow remembering conversations you never had the capacity to have heard in the first place. You didn't notice it at the time by somewhere in your mind you remember it? Contradictory statement. It's one or the other IMO: it's either a recreation or it's a remembered moment.

If the overheard conversation and actions between James and Sirius(SWM) just before they attack Severus are merely his "stock Marauders' conversations" then the memory is useless IMO.

The marauder's conversation isn't the important part of the memory, though. What happens from the time James begins bullying Snape to the moment Lily leaves the scene is what's important. Harry thinks his father's conversation is important because Harry never knew his father and this was an opportunity for him to hear his voice, watch his mannerisms, see what kind of guy he was but in the context of this being Snape's memory it's unimportant and could have been a 'stock' conversation.

Look at what they're discussing:
Remus being a werewolf - Snape knew this and might have expected them to brag about it to each other, not out of the realm of being a 'stock' conversation.
James and Sirius congratulating themselves on acing the test - Again, Snape knew (or perceived) their egos were overblown and these couple lines are also not out of the realm of being a 'stock' ego-boosting conversation
Sirius putting Peter down - Might have happened all the time in front of other students
Sirius commenting that he's bored - again, might have happened publicly all the time
Remus asking Sirius to quiz him on transfiguration - It seems Remus was likely the most studious type when it came to exams; James and Sirius claim the tests are easy and they could take them with their eyes closed, Peter might have tried to emulate the same casual indifference to the test and Remus was probably constantly playing catch up on work because of his condition.

They never discuss being animagi, something Snape didn't know about so this remains in line with how Snape finds out about this fact (probably sometime between the end of POA and the beginning of OotP) The only thing said in this conversation that could be considered 'not stock' is Sirius's comment that he wishes it were a full moon. But maybe Snape had over heard him express this desire before so it was added to the 'stock' material. =^/

My main objection to this topic, I suppose, is the use of the term 'memory' in the whole conversation. 'Memory' implies that only what one remembers could be seen and the fact that you can take these pensieve recreations and remove and return them to your own head makes me not trust that they are 'memories' but something else entirely.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

There's a contradiction in this quote though. She says that a pensieve "recreates a moment for you, so you could go into your own memory and relive things that you didn't notice the time." but then almost immediately says that "things that you don't know you remember are all in there somewhere" in your head implying that you are somehow remembering conversations you never had the capacity to have heard in the first place. You didn't notice it at the time by somewhere in your mind you remember it? Contradictory statement. It's one or the other IMO: it's either a recreation or it's a remembered moment.

With all due respect, I think you may be reading a bit too literally into this interview quote. Remember that JKR doesn't get an editor to proofread what she says before an interview.

However, that aside, I'm not sure why you feel that recreations and remembered moments are mutually exclusive. I think what she is saying is that a pensieve recreates the parts of your memory which you can't see in your head. When we call up a memory and relive it in our minds, we don't see a fully realized picture; really, it's just the main part (ie someone's face and the words they were saying at the time). What JKR is pushing is that we likely do remember more than we see in these situations, but inside the confines of our mind it is not efficient for us to realize all aspects of a memory at once. The pensieve provides the capacity to do just that- to step into the memory and witness all aspects of it as a third party without straining ourselves.

The marauder's conversation isn't the important part of the memory, though. What happens from the time James begins bullying Snape to the moment Lily leaves the scene is what's important. Harry thinks his father's conversation is important because Harry never knew his father and this was an opportunity for him to hear his voice, watch his mannerisms, see what kind of guy he was but in the context of this being Snape's memory it's unimportant and could have been a 'stock' conversation.

Look at what they're discussing:
Remus being a werewolf - Snape knew this and might have expected them to brag about it to each other, not out of the realm of being a 'stock' conversation.
James and Sirius congratulating themselves on acing the test - Again, Snape knew (or perceived) their egos were overblown and these couple lines are also not out of the realm of being a 'stock' ego-boosting conversation
Sirius putting Peter down - Might have happened all the time in front of other students
Sirius commenting that he's bored - again, might have happened publicly all the time
Remus asking Sirius to quiz him on transfiguration - It seems Remus was likely the most studious type when it came to exams; James and Sirius claim the tests are easy and they could take them with their eyes closed, Peter might have tried to emulate the same casual indifference to the test and Remus was probably constantly playing catch up on work because of his condition.

They never discuss being animagi, something Snape didn't know about so this remains in line with how Snape finds out about this fact (probably sometime between the end of POA and the beginning of OotP) The only thing said in this conversation that could be considered 'not stock' is Sirius's comment that he wishes it were a full moon. But maybe Snape had over heard him express this desire before so it was added to the 'stock' material. =^/

I agree completely. Well put.

My main objection to this topic, I suppose, is the use of the term 'memory' in the whole conversation. 'Memory' implies that only what one remembers could be seen and the fact that you can take these pensieve recreations and remove and return them to your own head makes me not trust that they are 'memories' but something else entirely.

Yes, in the books, memories are made to be some sort of metaphysical objects which reside in our brain, rather than just a neurological process. That said, this is a book about magic and magical people, so perhaps memories with wizards are different than memories with us muggles. What we do know, however, is that whatever those grey, wispy threads being drawn from the wizards' temples are, they are called memories in the books, so I will continue to refer to them as such.

[dukeatreides_iv]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

There's a contradiction in this quote though. She says that a pensieve "recreates a moment for you, so you could go into your own memory and relive things that you didn't notice the time." but then almost immediately says that "things that you don't know you remember are all in there somewhere" in your head implying that you are somehow remembering conversations you never had the capacity to have heard in the first place. You didn't notice it at the time by somewhere in your mind you remember it? Contradictory statement. It's one or the other IMO: it's either a recreation or it's a remembered moment.


My main objection to this topic, I suppose, is the use of the term 'memory' in the whole conversation. 'Memory' implies that only what one remembers could be seen and the fact that you can take these pensieve recreations and remove and return them to your own head makes me not trust that they are 'memories' but something else entirely.

i dont have a problem with it. we use a small portion of our brain. its very possible every sight and sound we see and hear is stored in our brain. we only have the ability to recall a portion of it. some can remember more than others. the pensieve allows one to see and hear everything originally seen and heard. there are people who if you give them a date from 15 years prior, can tell you the weather, the news and what was going on in their life that day. its all in there. the pensieve allows it to be seen and heard.

[njefros92]

Well people always remembered having the thoughts in a pensieve. And when people gave up thoughts for someone to use they didn't necessarily forget it. Like when slughorn gave harry the memory of him and Voldemort. He gave it up twice. The first time was just tampered with.

[William_Brennan]

My thoughts are that one recalls the central ideas of events, but the details are transferred to the Pensieve. One would remember, for example, the circumstances and outcome of Barty Crouch Jr.'s trial, but not who said what and who sat where. Since one would tend to forget these things, it is a good idea to put them in the P. for permanent storage and review. Otherwise, as discussed, D. would not have remembered what to show Harry, but if it is just complete copying, it would not relieve the packing of one's mind. The ability to review events in the third person also helps one make connections and note problems; why do you think sports teams review game film?

[JMUpotterfan]

I think one can still be aware of the thought or memory, but since they have removed it then they can't completely recall it. So they return to the pensieve as it were to revisit the thought. It is my opinion that this would satisfy the need to make room or clear your mind of the thought. I don't have a pensieve, but there have been times where I've forgotten things but still have a notion of what might have happened. So the thought is partially lost. Does that make since?!?

[ajna]

Or do you retrieve it and put it back in your head? I'm guessing you remember, but the details are preserved in pensieve form.

[wolfbrother]

Perhaps, the memory thread removed is a copy of your memory.

We could actually replicate this pretty well (excluding the 3D bit) in the real world if we could video record what we see. Imagine contact lenses with recording capability 24/7; you can rewatch your "memories" at a later date. We can already do this on a limited basis.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by njefros92

Well people always remembered having the thoughts in a pensieve. And when people gave up thoughts for someone to use they didn't necessarily forget it. Like when slughorn gave harry the memory of him and Voldemort. He gave it up twice. The first time was just tampered with.

Exactly. Just like Dumbledore remembers the memories he discusses with Harry about Voldemort. And just like Snape knew exactly which memory Harry was looking at in the pensieve in the dungeon. I think allowing access to a memory by magic (the way we see it with Dumbledore & Slughorn) is very much like files on a computer; you pull up the file, do a "save as" and give it a new name, and you've got another copy; the original is still intact.

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

Exactly. Just like Dumbledore remembers the memories he discusses with Harry about Voldemort. And just like Snape knew exactly which memory Harry was looking at in the pensieve in the dungeon. I think allowing access to a memory by magic (the way we see it with Dumbledore & Slughorn) is very much like files on a computer; you pull up the file, do a "save as" and give it a new name, and you've got another copy; the original is still intact.

Surely there's more to it than that. Perhaps I'm misremembering but I thought Snape (umm, Prof. Snape) removed his memories, not only to hide them from Harry, but also to keep them from Voldemort just in case Harry would invade Snape's mind as had happened before. Obviously Snape could successfully occlude his memories, but Harry wouldn't be able to do so.

And what would be the point of Dumbledore's removing his excess memories (IIRC) if they were still intact in his mind?

[EXPELIAMUS]

I like to think that it works this way: A copy of your memory leaves your brain. Then the original memory in your brain gets reduced to a much smaller size. This way, you still know the memory but you are allowed to store more things in the brain. It becomes so faint that no one else can read your mind to find it.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

Surely there's more to it than that. Perhaps I'm misremembering but I thought Snape (umm, Prof. Snape) removed his memories, not only to hide them from Harry, but also to keep them from Voldemort just in case Harry would invade Snape's mind as had happened before. Obviously Snape could successfully occlude his memories, but Harry wouldn't be able to do so.

And what would be the point of Dumbledore's removing his excess memories (IIRC) if they were still intact in his mind?

We don't really know why Snape had that memory in the pensieve, or if there were other memories in there as well (Snape does interrupt Harry's visit). It may have had nothing to do with Snape wanting to "hide" them at all. Perhaps in his grief over the loss of Lily, he looks at his memories to try to figure out where things went wrong between them. Maybe he just wants to see with his own eyes, Lily alive and better than an image in your mind's eye, or a picture. Perhaps he uses the pensieve as Dumbledore does, to look for patterns or connections not as easily seen otherwise, and details would be available that aren't otherwise as easily brought to the surface.

Also, Snape knew exactly what memories were in there (Dumbledore does as well for his own pensieve uses), which clearly suggests that removing a memory to view in the pensieve doesn't erase that memory in the brain. Also, Slughorn removed the memory about the conversation with Riddle, changed it. We don't know if Slughorn bottled it then and later gave it to Dumbledore, or put the changed memory back and then bottled it in Dumbledore's presence to try to give it more credibility (I'm guessing the latter). However, the original memory was unchanged in his brain either way, because it's intact and accurate when he gives it to Harry. These things suggest that the memories in the pensieve are copies of the original.

Originally Posted by EXPELIAMUS

I like to think that it works this way: A copy of your memory leaves your brain. Then the original memory in your brain gets reduced to a much smaller size. This way, you still know the memory but you are allowed to store more things in the brain. It becomes so faint that no one else can read your mind to find it.

I like your creative view; however if it were that easy to make memories faint and therefore unreadable by Legilimency, then why wouldn't Snape simply make them all faint instead of resorting to Occlumency which takes great effort and skill but still leaves you open to slip-ups, or having your memories read while you're unconscious?

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

We don't really know why Snape had that memory in the pensieve, or if there were other memories in there as well (Snape does interrupt Harry's visit). It may have had nothing to do with Snape wanting to "hide" them at all. Perhaps in his grief over the loss of Lily, he looks at his memories to try to figure out where things went wrong between them. Maybe he just wants to see with his own eyes, Lily alive and better than an image in your mind's eye, or a picture. Perhaps he uses the pensieve as Dumbledore does, to look for patterns or connections not as easily seen otherwise, and details would be available that aren't otherwise as easily brought to the surface.

Snape put three memories in the pensieve, but Harry was pulled out before he could see the rest. Putting those three memories in a pensieve was preparation for Harry's occulmency lesson so of course they were being hidden from Harry. And possibly Voldemort. Perhaps the two memories were conversations between Dumbledore and Snape discussing Order business, or overhearing the prophesy, or Snape warning Dumbledore about the Potters being targetted by Voldemort.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

Also, Snape knew exactly what memories were in there (Dumbledore does as well for his own pensieve uses), which clearly suggests that removing a memory to view in the pensieve doesn't erase that memory in the brain.

I think this is oversimplification, that you either know all of the contents of a memory, or none. I personally would separate one's knowledge from one's memory. If I read in the newspaper that Manchester United beat Swansea but didn't watch the game, I have that knowledge without having any memory of the game. I see this as the sort of state I would be in if I had watched the game, and yet removed the memory of it. I know that Scholes scored the first goal, though I can't bring any vision of the goal to my mind. I feel that there is a separation between knowing what happened and having memory of what happened.

And so yes, I think it is perfectly reasonable that Snape could remove the memories, and yet still be perfectly aware of what was in them. It just prevents others from viewing the scene themselves.

As for removing one's memories all the time as a defensive measure, that would, in my mind, remove one's humanity, essentially. Memories make us who we are. Besides that, I for one wonder if it is possible to simply get rid of memories. I think that, perhaps, Snape's head might be the safest place for his memories if he never wants anyone getting at them. If he were to store them permanently, he would need to watch over wherever they were stored constantly- it seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other to me.

[snapes_witch]

I don't think there is any danger of damage to his humanity when Snape temporarily removes those three memories in preparation for Harry's Occulmency lessons. Those two instances are the only times we know of him using Dumbledore's pensieve. He hasn't forgotten he had a friend named Lily, only that one instance of SWM and the two unknown memories. And of course there's no reason for him to forget that he put memories in a pensieve.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by willfitz

I think this is oversimplification, that you either know all of the contents of a memory, or none. I personally would separate one's knowledge from one's memory. If I read in the newspaper that Manchester United beat Swansea but didn't watch the game, I have that knowledge without having any memory of the game. I see this as the sort of state I would be in if I had watched the game, and yet removed the memory of it. I know that Scholes scored the first goal, though I can't bring any vision of the goal to my mind. I feel that there is a separation between knowing what happened and having memory of what happened.

And so yes, I think it is perfectly reasonable that Snape could remove the memories, and yet still be perfectly aware of what was in them. It just prevents others from viewing the scene themselves.

What about Slughorn's case then? Under your suggested circumstances, Slughorn should not have had the original memory intact, only the altered one. If he changed/removed parts of the memory and should only factual knowledge (or the altered memory) in his head, how is it that he can produce not only the changed memory, the but original one as well? Whether or not he put the changed memory back into his head, according to your theory there's no memory of the incident in there, just some facts. But clearly he delivers a whole original memory to Harry.