Time-Travel- it's Narrative Function

[sevenhundredandthirteen]

No: HPFGUIDX 79045

This is a follow on from my last post (#79043) in which I presented 
both sides of the 'Which type of Time-Travel is JKR using?' from the 
point of view that both are possible. Instead of trying to convince 
you of which one is better, I merely presented the possible narrative 
functions of both.

And *NOW* I would like to take the opportunity to show you why I 
think the 'it happened once' theory is much more likely that the 'it 
happened twice' theory.

My original distnctions between different types of time-travel was as 
such:

>On one hand there is the internally consistent singular time-line 
theory. This theory says that time occurs only once and that Harry 
>really did see himself across the lake casting the Patronus.

>On the other hand there is the multi-occurring time-line theory 
(also 
known as the `it happened twice' theory). This theory states that 
time occurs many times, the first time without the time-travellers or 
>their actions in it, the second time with them.


Alas, there is no undeniable evidence for what type of time-travel 
JKR is using. 
However, there is much evidence to support the singular time-line 
theory in PoA. It goes as follows:
 
PoA Chapter 15 `The Quidditch Final'
`Hermione, why didn't you come to Charms?'
`What? Oh no!' Hermione squeaked. `I forgot to go to Charms!'
`But how could you forget?' said Harry. `You were with us till we 
were right outside the classroom!'

This quote is used to show that because Harry and Ron noticed that 
Hermione wasn't in Charms she couldn't go back in time and go to the 
class. Once she missed it she couldn't go back and change the way the 
events unfolded. That is, because time occurs only once, no matter 
how hard Hermione tries she will never make it back to Charms, as the 
historical event, as recorded by eye-witnesses (Harry and Ron) does 
not include her. Theoretically she could borrow Harry's invisibility 
cloak and attend the class... So long as Harry and Ron didn't *see* 
her there.

If time occurred as proposed by the multi-occurring theory then 
Hermione could go back in time and change the way the events unfolded 
so that the event of `Harry and Ron noticing that Hermione was not 
there' would be replaced with one in which Hermione was. Alas, this 
is not what happens. We are left to assume that going back in time 
does not allow you to change time. The premise of the multi-occurring 
time-line is that you have to change time- that is, you replace the 
version without you there with the one where you were there.

PoA Chapter 16 `Professor Trelawney's Prediction'
`They skulked in an empty chamber off the Entrance Hall, listening 
until they were sure it was deserted. They heard a last pair of 
people hurrying across the Hall, and a door slamming.'

As compared with:

PoA Chapter 21 `Hermione's Secret'
`He was standing next to Hermione in the deserted Entrance Hall 
<snip> 
`In here!' Hermione seized Harry's arm and dragged him across the 
hall to the door of a broom cupboard; she opened it, pushed him 
inside amongst the buckets and mops, followed him in, then slammed 
the door behind them.'

This suggests that Harry and Hermione were there all along. Even 
though at this point in the text (Chapter 16) we aren't even aware 
that Time-Travel exists there are still the effects of what the time-
travel will ultimately bring about. That is, we see the effect before 
the cause. This suggests that we have an internally consistent time-
line where past-selves can be affected by their future-selves. It 
suggests that these people are interacting on the same singularly 
occurring time-line.


PoA Chapter 16- 17
`There was a jumble of indistinct male voices, a silence and then, 
without warning, the unmistakeable swish and thud of an axe <snip> 
Then, behind them, they heard a wild howling.
`Hagrid,' Harry muttered.'

As compared to:

Poa Chapter 21
`There was a swishing noise, and the thud of an axe. The executioner 
seemed to have swung it into the fence in anger. And then came the 
howling, and this time they could hear Hagrid's words through his 
sobs.'

Important note here, the quote from the narration `and this time they 
could hear...' This suggests that what we are seeing is the same 
event but from a different point of view. That is, the narration 
suggest that Harry and Hermione experience the same event of Hagrid 
howling with joy at Beaky's escape, except, the second time from a 
better perspective where they can obtain a better understanding of 
how the event actually unfolded.

PoA Chapter 21
`We were walking down to Hagrid's three hours ago...'
`This _is_ three hours ago and we _are_ walking down to Hagrid's,' 
said Hermione. `We just heard ourselves leaving...'

Hermione seems to have accepted that we are working on a singular 
time-line... She tells us all that the events we are witnessing are 
the actual events. Therefore, when Harry casts his Patronus later on 
we are _still_ witnessing the actual events.  The comment `This _is_ 
about an hour ago, and we _are_ about to be soul-sucked by Dementors' 
would be equally applicable. Therefore, when Harry casts his Patronus 
he really does see himself from the opposite side if the lake.

PoA Chapter 21
'Looks even worse from here, doesn't it?' said Harry, watching the 
dog pulling Ron into the roots.

Same as above. Harry's comment suggests that this is really a 
singular time-line. The quote `from here' suggests that only his 
perspective has changed, and that they are at the actual event.

PoA Chapter 21
`But who conjured it [the Patronus]?' <snip>
`I think it was my dad.'

And:

PoA Chapter 21
`There was a bush at the very edge of the water. Harry threw himself 
behind it <snip> A terrified excitement shot through him – any moment 
now - <snip> But no one came. Harry raised his head to look at the 
circle of Dementors across the lake. One of them was lowering its 
hood. It was time for the rescuer to appear – but one was coming to 
help this time –
And then it hit him – he understood. He hadn't seen his father – he 
had seen _himself_ `

And:

PoA Chapter 21
`Yes, <snip> _I_ saw me but I thought it was my dad!'
<snip>
`I knew I could do it this time,' said Harry, `because I'd already 
done it...'

These quotes again suggest that Harry had actually seen himself. The 
only way that he could actually see himself is if we have an 
internally consistent time-line where time occurs only once. He has 
accepted that he is currently interacting with the events he 
experience earlier from another point of view and actually ensuring 
that they happened accordingly. 

Of course, it is entirely possible to try to explain away all these 
quotes if you were looking at them from a `it happened twice' point 
of view.  You could say that HRH hearing a pair of footsteps in the 
hall was just a coincidence, that Buckbeak really was executed and 
the similarities between both accounts of the events was just chance, 
etc, etc, etc. Alternatively, you could argue that JKR is just 
throwing a red herring at us, and she wants us to believe that an 
internally consistent time-line is occurring just so that when she 
shows us that it's actually the `it happened twice' version it has a 
bigger impact. HOWEVER, to accept the 'it happened twice' version of 
events you are asking for too many coincidences, IMO. And, if you ask 
me, JKR has no reason to trick us all into thinking that Time-Travel 
occurs one way, only to confuse us all and contradict herself. To me, 
that is not an exciting plot twist- it's annoying and the easy way 
out.

Although, there are harder things to explain away than those quotes 
which can be perhaps interpreted as 'coincidiences'. The biggest 
problem that I have with the `it happened twice' theory is that the 
very notion of changing time has hugely less impact. Consider this 
quote:

PoA Chapter 21
`Hermione,' said Harry suddenly, `what if we – we just run in there 
and grab Pettigrew –`
`No!' said Hermion is a terrified whisper. Don't you understand? 
We're breaking of on the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's 
supposed to change time, nobody!'

This clearly demonstrates that changing time is an extremely 
devastating thing to happen.
However, in the multi-occurring time-line, changing time becomes an 
ordinary by-product of travelling through time. According to 
everything that we've been shown about time-travelling in HP, 
changing time is a HUGE deal. It's a CATASTROPHIC deal. It's so 
important that it's one of the most important wizarding laws! Why 
this doesn't gel very well with the `it happened twice' theory is 
that in that version of events you *have* *to* change time. The whole 
point of the `it happened twice' theory is that it happens once 
without the aid of the time-travellers, and once with it. That is, 
they change time and that's their point. 

In contrast, the whole point of the internally consistent singular 
time-travel theory is that going back in time you *don't* change time 
at all. Therefore, trying to change time in an internally consistent 
time-line is much more cataclysmic. It causes an impossible paradox, 
which, if forced to occur would essentially bring on the end of the 
world. Whereas, in the `it happened twice' theory you can just keep 
going back in to time to fix whatever you're done wrong. There become 
lesser repercussions of changing time, because someone can always go 
back in time to fix it. That is, if Harry did get soul-sucked in PoA, 
Dumbledore could always send Ron (or someone) back in time to stop it 
happening. Dumbledore could go back in time at the end of OotP and 
stop Sirius falling through the veil. Whereas, in the internally 
consistent singular time-line things happen and no matter how hard 
you try you can't go back and change them. That is, your actions have 
consequences, because you can't undo them.

So, if you want to support the `it happened twice' version of events 
in PoA, there are several questions that you must answer:

Why is there such a big deal made over `not changing time?' That is, 
If it's a multi-occurring time-line, then changing time is the whole 
point.  Why is "one of the most important wizarding laws" devoted to 
stopping people changing time? Why are time-tuners even allowed if 
they change time?

Who cast the Patronus the first time?

Where was s/he the second time? Or, Why didn't s/he try to cast the 
Patronus the second time?

How did s/he change their appearance to resemble James Potter? Or, 
How did they make Harry have a `vision' of James Potter over the lake>

What is the point of  Harry casting the Patronus if he doesn't have 
to?

If Harry can change time and suffer no consequences, why not just 
send one version of himself back to use Buckbeak to rescue Sirius, 
and another version of himself to catch Wormtail? Why not run back 
into the Time Room at the Department of Mysteries to see if he can't 
find a suitable time-turner and save Sirius's life? Why doesn't 
Dumbledore go back in time and get rid of Riddle while he still can?

And, as far as I'm aware, there is no canon to support the 'it 
happened twice theory' at all. Rather, people choose to support it 
not because it is proven in canon, but because they would like the 
outcomes it could provide (as in, Lupin is James or Snape Saved 
Harry). That's completely legitimate, as I said in my previous post 
(#79043) I accept that the 'it happened twice' theory has great 
potential to develop into something exciting. 

So, if you want to accept the `it only happened once' theory of time-
travel, then you don't have to do any work. JKR and I have done it 
all for you. However, if you want to support the `it happened twice' 
theory then you've got some work to do... Oh, and please, support 
the `it happened twice' theory if you do. I'm only saying that *I* 
don't agree with it. I've conceded above that it is entirely possible 
(however unlikely, IMO).

~<(Laurasia)>~