[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Problems at the end of GOF!!

[Sue Wartell]

--- Vivamus <Vivamus at TaprootTech.com> wrote:

> 
> The logic is actually quite consistent; it just
> requires a little
> non-sequential thinking to put it together.  

Sue now:

Vivamus, thanks for your explanation, which I found
very well explained.  I agree with you.  The rules in
POA are internally consistant, in my view.

They also consistant with the standard constraints put
on time-travel in most science fiction, in my
experience.  There are always constraints on the ways
in which you can interact with the past.  The most
common constraint is that you can't change the past,
either because you risk wiping out your present/future
(so there are strict rules forbiding it), or because
time is very resiliant (so that if you eliminate
Hitler, some other evil person comes to power and
wreaks similar distruction and death.)  The exact
rules depend on the universe in which they are
operating.  The reason for the limitation is similar
to the reason that magic always has limits or a cost. 
If there were a character with absolute power/ability
to fix anything and everything, without consequences,
you wouldn't have much of a story.  

The other variety of time-travel science fiction I'm
familiar with has good guys running around undoing the
harm the bad guys are trying to do.  Those usually
depend on some variation of the resiliant time
constraint, so they just have to nudge things back
into the right direction.

Now if you want to argue about whether the time turner
as a plot device worked in the context of the Harry
Potter stories, that's different.  It didn't bother
me, but tastes vary.  I've read a variety of
time-travel stories, and am willing to buy it in the
same way that I'm willing to buy owl post and flying
broomsticks and dragons and thestrals and lots of
other stuff.


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com