Snape-Quirrelmort Conundrum/Time-Turner and Free Will

[elfundeb at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 39904

Eloise, on Voldemort's view of Snape's loyalty in PS/SS:

You're right, of course. Even if he didn't understand the meaning at the time 
of the conversation, he seems to now. Although I think there's still a 
*little* ambiguity there.
But of course it meshes entirely with Voldemort's knowing that (presumably) 
snape has 'left him for ever'. Alhough.....Voldemort does say, 'I *believe* 
[my emphasis] has left me for ever', which leaves a little leeway there, I 
think.

Yes, there is some ambiguity, and as you point out, even at the graveyard 
Voldemort didn't know for sure about Snape.  And it wasn't just because Snape 
didn't show up because, like Crouch Jr., he could not have apparated out of 
Hogwarts to get there.  But, IIRC, this discussion arose out of the issue of 
whether Voldemort would have sent Pettigrew to Snape for the resurrection 
potion, and I think we seem to agree now that Voldemort suspected his loyalty 
too much at that point to have relied on him for the potion recipe.  

So his is where I've come out on the Snape-Quidemort conundrum:

1.    Voldemort suspects Snape's loyalty before the beginning of PS/SS.  I 
think he probably began to suspect Snape as soon as he learned that the 
Fidelius Charm had been put in place, because the existence of the charm 
implied that the "good" side had learned of the plan to kill the Potters, and 
Snape (under the double agent theory) would have had access to them.

2.    Snape suspects early in PS/SS not only that Quirrell is after the Stone 
but that he wants it for Voldemort.  So he uses very circumspect language 
with Quirrell; yet Quirrell understands perfectly well that Snape is telling 
him to leave the Stone alone.

3.    Voldemort does not reveal himself to Snape, but rather observes him 
carefully to gauge his loyalty.  He interprets Snape's actions in the same 
way that Quirrell does.  There's still some room for doubt because as a 
double agent, Snape may need to appear to be supporting Dumbledore in order 
to protect his cover.  However, the fact that Snape tried to thwart 
Quirrell's attempt to kill Harry should be very suspicious to Voldemort -- 
Dumbledore was not at that particular Quidditch match and nobody else seems 
to have noticed what Quirrell was doing.  So, at the end of PS/SS, Snape's 
loyalty is still in the *suspect* category.  And it remains that way at the 
end of GoF.

Eloise:

But you know what intrigues me? Why couldn't Quirrell get the stone out of 
the mirror, if he wanted it for Voldemort and not himself? 

My answer to this is that although Quirrell wanted the Stone for Voldemort, 
he also wanted to get it for selfish motives - by getting the stone and 
presenting Voldemort with the means of immortality, Quirrell hopes to gain 
favor from Voldemort, unlike Harry, who only wanted to prevent the Stone from 
falling into Voldemort's hands. He didn't want recognition or glory; he goes 
after the Stone because if Voldemort gets the Stone and rises again "there 
won't be any Hogwarts . . . .D'you think he'll leave you and your families 
alone . . . ." (ch. 16, p. 270 US).  It's not a perfect distinction, but 
their motives aren't quite the same.

Random Monkey asked, regarding my statement that:

>I don't think it's impossible for 
Harry to pick 
> up the Invisibility Cloak (that would perhaps fall into the same 
category as 
> killing one's own other self, which Hermione clearly states has 
happened)

She did? It sounded to me like she just thought it was a possibility. 
Can you cite the canon for me? 

In PoA ch. 21 (p. 399, US paperback) Hermione says, as part of her objections 
to Harry's suggestion that they just run into Hagrid's and grab Scabbers, 
"Professor McGonagall told me what awful things have happened when wizards 
have meddled with time. . . . Loads of them ended up killing their past or 
future selves by mistake!"

By this statement, JKR suggests that by traveling back in time it is possible 
for the time traveler to act inconsistently with known events, though she 
does not tell us what the consequences were, either for the time traveler or 
for the witnesses to the inconsistent events. This statement seems to support 
Random Monkey's first thesis of what the Time-Turner does:

There are two theories, that I know of. One is that if you see the 
future, you can change it. Therefore, if you go to the past, knowing 
the future, you can change the past, and, therefore, the future. This 
is a tough one, because it brings in all that "go back and kill your 
grandfather" type stuff.

But I think that what actually happens is more consistent with Random 
Monkey's second explanation of events:

Therefore, if you go back in time, knowing the future, you can't do 
anything. in fact, anything you do to try to change the future (or the 
past) will probably result in what you didn't want happening. For 
example: You see in the future that, let's say, the baby starts 
crying. You run upstairs and try to prevent whatever will make her 
cry, but on your way into her room, you fall and hit the floor, making 
a crash. The baby starts crying because you fell.

Setting aside what Hermione says she was told, which is inconsistent with 
this theory, everything about the nine-to-midnight events supports it.  
Everything happened at once, HH1 and HH2 were present in both versions of the 
events, and they did the same things.  There is only one history, in which 
HH1 and HH2 each were actors, and in which they brought about a single 
outcome:  Sirius and Buckbeak were freed, Pettigrew escaped, and Snape hung 
out at the Shack in Harry's invisibility cloak.

And this leads me to Eloise:

Who had a significant thought regarding the TT, whilst lying in bed listening 
to the Dawn Chorus this morning, but  can't remember it now! I know it was to 
do with its implications for free will. If I stop thinking about it, maybe it 
will come back. 

And Marilyn:

If someone decides that they intentionally want to see if they can 
screw with fate, i.e. Harry goes after the Invisibility Cloak, even 
though he thinks it was supposed to be picked up by Snape, as fate 
dictated the first time around, then would his memory suddenly change 
to fit with a history of the time in the SS without Snape sneaking 
in?  Or is fate of such a nature as something would prevent Harry 
from being able to get the cloak?  Hermione did grab him and try to 
stop it.  Maybe that was fate!

I have always rebelled against the idea of "fate" or predestination 
controlling our actions. And given the emphasis in canon on personal choice, 
I doubt JKR likes the concept of fate any better than I do.  I like 
Dumbledore's phrasing much better:  "The consequences of our actions are 
always so complicated, so diverse . . . ."  But I'm going to try, as best I 
can, to reconcile the concepts of fate and free will in the context of the 
Time-Turner.  

In the usual course of events, both in the Potterverse and in ours, time 
moves forward consistently from earlier to later, and we can look back but 
not forward.  So when a person becomes aware of a future event, it is said to 
be "fated" to happen.  Another way to look at this, however, would be to view 
history as already complete.  In other words, the concepts of "past" and 
"future" merely represent our limited ability to view history.  The concept 
of time travel in the Potterverse under Random Monkey's second thesis seems 
to take this view; it presupposes that what happens in the future (i.e., that 
Harry and Hermione will use the Time-Turner) already exists, because HH2 are 
present in the HH1 version of events.  So in one sense we are all 
"predestined" to do whatever will happen in the future.  However, all of that 
history will be created by individuals exercising their free will, so the 
fact that what will happen in the future is known does not negate the 
exercise of free will.

The only time free will might become lost is where a person travels through 
time, as Hermione and Harry do.  Because they already exist in that earlier 
time, and they are aware of the history of that time, they are forbidden to 
do anything inconsistent with that history.  Under Random Monkey's second 
thesis, it is literally impossible for HH2 to act inconsistently with the 
history that's been created already.  Nevertheless, Harry2 retains his free 
will to *attempt*  to meddle with history.   It's just that as events 
actually unfold, something will happen to prevent the event Harry2 sought 
from occurring.  But it isn't "fate" dictating events any more than any other 
event in history is dictated by "fate."  Knowing what will happen in the 
future may influence our choices, but they remain our own choices.  Maybe 
another way of looking at it is to consider time itself to be omniscient, 
i.e., it takes into account everything that has happened in the past and will 
happen in the future, so in the end everything will fit together like pieces 
of a jigsaw puzzle.  But we humans, limited in our understanding, cannot hope 
to understand how those pieces fit together.

What I like about Random Monkey's second thesis is that it makes history 
consistent.  So if Harry tried to run into Hagrid's to grab Scabbers, 
something would've happened -- maybe he would simply have tripped on a tree 
root and been knocked out -- to prevent the inconsistent history from 
occurring.  But Harry2 is still exercising his free will in deciding to try 
to alter events.  Or if they changed their minds about returning to the 
hospital wing, something would have occurred to get them there.  But that 
doesn't negate free will; its just an obstacle to the achievement of our 
objectives.

So what to make of Hermione's remark about people killing their present or 
future selves?  Or changing any event?  Is it a FLINT,  put into the text by 
JKR to keep Harry from doing things she didn't want him to do?  Or is that 
just something people are told when they're given a Time-Turner for its in 
terrorem effect?  I have no idea.

Perhaps what the Time-Turner experience is really teaching Harry is that we 
must live with the consequences of our actions, and that it is pointless to 
waste time regretting the things we might have done, but did not; instead, we 
should focus our energies on the choices we must make in the future, because 
in the normal course of events that is how everyone, including witches and 
wizards, must live our lives.

I've rambled on long enough now.

Debbie, thanking Eloise for prompting her to think about this



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]