"bone of the father" (WAS: back to the future theory)

[errolowl <nithya_rachel@hotmail.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 53143



Interesting theory! Nice work so far Nobodys-rib, Tanya, and Fred. :)

In post #53301, nobodysrib proposed a back to the future theory  
about Harry traveling back in time to kill Riddle, thus killing  
Voldemort 

Tanya added her own theory: 

My theory is that Harry is actually "the stranger. The teenage boy, 
dark-haired and pale" that Frank Bryce sees on the day of the Riddle 
Murders. <snip>
Why would Harry go-back in time to this particular event? 

Fred comes in on cue:

Now we all know that for V to come back, he needs 3 things, <snip>1)
Bone of the father, unknowingly given <snip> 
"UNKNOWINGLY GIVEN"? What would happen if before he died, Mr Riddle, 
the father, knew his son was coming back for the bone?  Well, it is 
no longer "unknown" if the person knows about it in  advance, is it? 
And, Harry really doesn't have to change anything,  have to worry 
about having the future altered in any way by doing  this. 
 <snip>  it would also explain the twinkle in Dumbledore's eyes after 
seeing  the cut on Harry's arm. Because, I'm sure he knows exactly 
how that  spell works, and when he is sure of which spell it is, he 
has an  extremely odd thought. "What if Harry can change one thing in 
the events that preceded all of this? What if Harry goes back  
before 'V' kills Mr Riddle,  and told him of the coming situation?  
Could this act, would this act, change things still to come?"  And 
that, IMO, is what the "twinkle" was, an idea.


Nobody's rib:

I really want this theory to pan out, but I am worried about one 
thing: as Harry is telling the story, Sirius keeps trying  to 
interrupt, but Dumbledure shushes him.  Dumbledore is moved to  
interrupt only after Harry  tells of being cut by Wormtail:
 "Sirius let out a vehement exclamation and Dumbledore stood up so 
quickly that Harry started.  Dumbledore walked around the desk and  
told Harry to stretch out his arm... [description of Harry's  
arm]  '[Voldemort] said my blood would make him stronger than if 
he'd  used someone else's. <snip> And he was right - he could touch 
me without hurting himself, he touched my face.'"  And it is only 
after  this information that "For a fleeting instant, Harry thought 
he saw a  gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes," GoF, 
pgs 695-6.
 
So I worry that if our bones theory is accurate, that we would have  
read about Harry describing the bones, after which Dumbledore would  
have had his Look.  There are so many other themes and storylines 
having to do with the blood that I fear the blood part was the most 
important here.  


Me:
I tend to agree with Fred here – Dumbledore did not necessarily
react to the "blood" part (That was Harry's
interpretation) DD reacted at the first indication of *which precise 
spell* Voldmort had used, and it excited him so much that he went 
over to look at the evidence (Harry's arm). He then gets excited 
about the possibility of a loophole...but not for too long. By the 
time he gets back to his side of the table, he has realized that the 
gains from that maneuver cannot be too drastic. Voldmort has already 
risen again, and no one should change established events -even with 
time travel. (Timeturner!Hermione couldn't go back to her missed 
class once it had already been noticed that she had missed it) The 
loophole can help make the spell less effective/ defective but
that's all. Dumbledore is back to looking old and weary.

But even the slightest loophole needs to be exploited, so somebody 
has to go back in time and chat up Riddle Senior. Now why doesn't 
Dumbledore send say, McGonagall, at that very instant to accomplish 
that? Why wait until the next book/ the end of hols? 

Could it be because Dumbledore needs to investigate the possibility 
of fitting his scheme into the constraints of time-travel? (These 
constraints have been brilliantly argued over the Shrieking Shack 
episode – I'll have to unearth the links). Dumbledore will
have to make sure that whoever goes back is not noticed as being out 
of place – that person *should not be seen* as Hermione keeps
telling us unless that person has already been seen and mistaken for 
someone else (Harry seeing himself). Once Dumbledore hears that Frank 
mentioned an unknown dark boy, he'll know its ok to send Harry
– because paradoxically, it means Harry has already been there.
Then again, maybe he needs this time for something else, `cause 
Dumbledore already appears to know all ... he did know what should 
happen to help Sirius escape
even before he had sent H/H back in 
time. (When he kept McNair busy in Hagrid's hut giving H/H the
time to get Buckbeak to safety, he knew 3 hours before the events 
unfolded didn't he?)

This brings us back to the discussion on the nature of time
travel...Did DD think up this scheme at the moment of the
"gleam" or had he set this up beforehand, Magic Dishwasher
style? If he just thought it up, how come it had already happened? 
(the stranger had been noticed already). If he set it up long ago,
there's a whole lot more to be puzzled through – and it
should be 
right up the alley for those MD service people.

Stacey protests:
Thematically it would be bad because it is contrary to what we know 
of life. While JoAnn's subject matter is certainly in the realm of 
magic, her themes are those that are concrete to what we experience. 
By using the time-turner solution for the end of Voldemort is to send 
the message that problems can be solved simplistically by going back 
in time and changing them which we know not to be true. This would 
drive a wedge between our identification with Harry and would 
ultimately be detrimental to the story. Or at least that's my humble 
opinion.

Me:
I agree with Stacey too. While this theory is Bangy and very 
possible, it sends out mixed signals about what is right and what is 
easy. But then, so did the end of PoA. However, this could be a 
learning tool for Harry on right vs easy. What if it's an idea
that occurs to *Harry* independently, and he sets about doing it 
without conferring with Dumbledore? And the ambiguous consequences 
could be instructive. If this is the case, Dumbledore's gleam
might be because it just struck him about what was likely to happen 
(even know-it-alls have to have moments of realization) and he's 
excited even if for a very short while.

Errol