mmoa_writes

So cool... I'm thinking of calling mine 'Criteria', lol... Oh and this just in... David Thewlis was in Dragonheart? *squeals* I've now got to se that movie. And that's not all, folks, he did the Voice for 'The Story of Jesus the Miracle Maker.' Man, I'm having such a good day.

I have to admit, I haven't posted any Harry Potter musings for a long time, and I feel like a virgin bride on her wedding night as I type this entry, but here goes nothing. It really is just about the Pensieve and the continuous droning of various fans about it. So let me cut to the chase:

I cannot see it as working solely from one person's point of view. I think for me personally, the closest things I can compare it with is a floppy disc that we use to store work we've done on our computer. Now, say we have a virus on our computer that we don't know about (*hides*), when we next open the file on another computer, the virus, having infected that computer, will make it's presence known, if you see what I mean. We wouldn't have known it were there if not for the owner's superior virus scans etc.

That's how I see a Penseive working. You're not really seeing how someone interpreted a particular event inasmuch as you are simply seeing what they were privy to as well. After all, Dumbledore himself says that he uses the Penseive to examine memories that are too much of a burden to carry with him all the time (I will check up on his exact wording) which tells me that the Penseive is useful for getting a different perspective, and not another view of your own personal bias.

To be honest, it was the usual discussions about 'Snape's Worst Memory' which have got me started. The fans saying that the event wasn't as bad as Snape made it out to be because the penseive only shows your own personal view etc, seem to me to be trying to reaffirm thier black and white views of the characters in Harry Potter: James Potter, Sirius Black etc are 'Good' everyone else is 'Bad'. Now then, children, we call this Denial, with a capital D. Yes, I do enjoy reading Snape's character and yes I like reading good fanfic (of which there is a scarcity) about him but I am no illusionist to deny his sheer wankiness (for want of a better word), or to come out with something like 'oh, he so obviously uses uglifying spells so that he can mislead people/whatever', because that too is Denial. And, as someone who prides herself on being something of an analyst, that's the worst 'sin' I could commit against myself. Aside from shooting a Mockingbird, of course.

The fact is, James Potter and his pals were people. Inherently good, but only that. They weren't saints. Even Sirius agrees with this, however much he trivializes it and brushes it aside. The way the Marauders saw it, Snape was, to a certain point, fair game: Snape could do a bloody large amount of damage if he wanted to, and the Marauders could so the same. Maybe that wasn't necessarily true in the reality, but that seems to be how the Marauders saw it.

Well what do you expect? Boys will be boys.

And as adults, well, Snape hasn't really built a good case for himself, has he? (and that's what I love about him - he has the audacity to be a bastard despite the fact he should be some grateful and reformed character).

So yes, I do think that saying that a Penseive can only show memories from one point of view is ridiculous. Before I conclude, let me just state for the record why I hold that view: Memories don't work that way

Let me explain. Science has proven that memory is patchy. Inherently so. There is nothing we can do about it, and they are supposed to be that way because memories are only so useful as when they help us, perhaps to work out problems in a present secnario, or how to guage the reaction of a person we're dealing with. We might remember that a day was sunny, but maybe there were long periods of sunny spells, or perhaps it got a little darker in the middle of the day? Who knows? Who really cares? The brain certainly doesn't.

The sheer detail of the memories found in the Penseive suggest that they do not hold one person's perspective per se but show the memory in the environment the event took place as it actually was. If not, I'd be expecting white patches in the scenery where the event happened, because the viewer's memory didn't contain the correct information for what was there, or rather 2-D depictions because the person wasn't concentrating enough on what was around them. The person in question would also perhaps be unrealistically portrayed as few people see themselves as they actually are. Maybe not so much supermen or page three girls, but still enough for the difference to be noticeable.

So there you have it. My beautiful ramblings. Next up is Harry Potter himself, because I think it's about time I cut the kid some slack.

Something else, don't you find deep poetry hillarious when it's written by famous people? And someone had some pictures of a naked David Thewlis (lying next to a rather befuddled Leonardo di Caprio, lol), which I'm determined to find again. It's for research, *coughs* don't worry...

Wow. That was a long entry.

"Two weeks ago I was in a pink leotard being smeared with Nivea by three old men." Nyarrgh, I love that man...