In defense of time travel in PoA

[jonathandupont at hotmail.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 27625

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Allyse <allyse1138 at y...> wrote:
 
> Rather than quoting here and there, I will merely summarize and say 
that 
> several people have grumbled at Jo's use of time travel in POA as 
an 
> unsatisfactory plot device. Since I find Jo's use of the Time-
Turner 
> delightfully well-plotted, I am going to step out of my usual 
lurkdom and 
> natter away at you all. :)

Well, personally as I started the current discussion, I have to point 
out that my objection is not how well plotted it was – I thought it 
was really extremely well – but the whole concept being suddenly 
sprung on us (why I think it's the biggest Deus Ex Machina in the 
series). We did not know about time travel being able to exist before 
(Hermione's strange timetable could have other explanations – there 
is this little thing called magic, you see) and then it is suddenly 
sprung on us as a solution to a problem. The fact that it doesn't 
solve everything perfectly is IMO mute.

> There seem to be two basic objections to the Time-Turner:
> 
> 1. If time-travel is so risky, why is Hermione allowed to use it at 
all?
> ...
> Hermione *could* use the 
> Time-Turner for classes, because it was on a very small scale and 
the 
> changes hadn't taken place yet. Anything bigger - anything more 
dangerous - 
> falls prey to the risk of being seen, of blowing the space-time 
continuum 
> out the airlock, or whatever metaphor you care to employ.

Why take the risk at all? The point about time travel is that the 
smallest change can mess up everything. Anyone seen the Simpsons 
Halloween episode where Homer goes back in time, steps on a 
butterfly, and thus destroys the human race (or something like that).

 
> 2. If time-travel is *not* so risky, why is Hermione only permitted 
to use 
> it for her classes? Why wasn't it used to save Harry's parents, 
Cedric in 
> the graveyard, and any other tragedy that occurs in the wizarding 
world?

> Those of you of a more scientific bent than me can actually name 
the 
> following theory, which I can only describe: Time travel, parallel 
> universes, what-have-you can be compared to a cat locked in a box. 
A single 
> bullet is fired at the box. Is the cat inside dead? Is it wounded? 
Did the 
> bullet miss it entirely? Once you open the box (and get very, very 
> scratched), you'll know; but until then, all those possibilities 
exist.

> It seems to me that Jo's usage of time-travel fits that theory. 
Until the 
> "box" is opened - Buckbeak's death witnessed, Sirius' soul sucked - 
the 
> possibility exists that the outcome can be different. That's why 
the time 
> window for action is so compressed. Actually, Dumbledore *does* 
already 
> know that Buckbeak escaped; the box is closed for Hermione and 
Harry, but 
> not for him. Perhaps that's what made him realize that Harry and 
Hermione 
> *need* to go back in time and do what they've already done.

Um... do you mean Schrödinger's cat? For everyone who doesn't know 
it, it was a theoretical example used to mock quantum physics. The 
basic idea is simple – a cat is placed in a sealed box with a 
radioactive element which has a half chance of decaying in an hour 
and a Geiger counter. If the element decays then the counter detects 
it, a poison is released and the cat is killed. Thus there's a truly 
random half chance of the cat being killed. The point is – after an 
hour, if you don't open the box, is the cat dead or alive? The 
typically confusing answer is both. But that only works until someone 
observes it  – as far as I know, you can't have two different 
observation windows or whatever(?).

We also come upon another little annoyance of time travel here – the 
fun of paradoxes. What dictates when time *needs* to be changed. Fate?

> Which leads me to the second time travel theory that is employed 
here, and 
> my personal favorite in regards to PoA: You can't change the past 
with time 
> travel, because if you have, it's already happened. Hoist on your 
own 
> petard, and all that. Jo uses this so tightly that it makes me grin 
every 
> time I read it. The first time Harry and Hermione go through those 
three 
> hours, the changes they will make when they go back in time already 
exist.

Unless you go back in time, and make the changes so that your past 
self believes that's what has happened. But then new you won't feel 
the need to time travel. And everything will go back to how it was, 
and so new new you / old you will time travel to change stuff... and 
etc.
 
> I do hope the Time-Turner never shows up again; it was tightly 
plotted 
> here, and well done, but I can easily see it becoming a crutch (can 
anyone 
> say Polyjuice?). For PoA, though, it is highly satisfying to me. 
And I'm 
> sticking by it. :)

> Allyse

I agree with the "tightly plotted... and well done" bit, but to me it 
still seems like too much of a cheat. Time travel is for sci–fi (and 
fan fiction) – or at least series where we've heard of it before. 
Just imagine what a cheat you'd feel it would be if at the end of 
Return of the Jedi (Star Wars) Luke goes back in time and changes 
stops Anakin turning to Darth Vader – or Harry stopping Tom Riddle, 
if you want a more canon–like example.

Jon