Verbal data generated in a large textual data base, facilitated examination of abuse memories. We focused on stories rather than categories of cognition, levels of consciousness, and fragmentation of identity. The narrative methods included close reading for prominence of context, and language patterns used in survivors’ telling the past stories of abuse and its aftermath. Here close reading refers to Barthesian discourse analysis, focused on subjective meaning. The memory patterns seen in this study are distinctive, but needn’t be seen as damaged or distorted. Traumatic memory has in the past been pathologized in conceptualization of dissociation as immature and/or dysfunctional. We considered that clinical pathologizing can be a secondary trauma visited upon abuse survivors in that healthcare providers lose the narrative thread in algorithmic, one-way communication involved in diagnosis. Memory and remembering, viewed from a narrative perspective is a set of non-linear dynamics and that occur and recur. Memories surface, and resurface; even in stories of more successful survivors. Some remembering is “fractionary,” lacking rich detail and placement in temporal and geographic context. Some memories emerge as only a sense of dread, or a visual flash. One participant narrative revealed chronological, continuous, contextualized recall of abuse events throughout her life. The majority reported a variety of patterns. Five types of remembering are described, differentiated on the basis of contextual elements available in the story told about that memory. These narrative patterns challenge extant conceptualizations about trauma and memory, including that memories of abuse need to be re-experienced, reinterpreted and/or reduced via desensitization. We hope to stimulate dialogue about narrative based interventions.