Time Travel in PoA

[David Burgess]

No: HPFGUIDX 57774

<quote who="HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com">
> Mycropht wrote:
>> > I call my theory "Not Really".
>> > I don't see her returning to that particular Deux Ex Machina to
>> > "solve" her overall story.  At least I hope not.
>

I mostly agree.  In fact, I think it's done everything it needs to in the
story, so there's little reason (that we know at this time) to drag it out
again.  One thing I disagree with, however, is that this isn't really
"Deux Ex Machina".  The time turner is introduced much earlier in the
story; in fact, it is repeatedly hinted at during the entire story.  Now,
if "Gandalf" were to suddenly show up at the end of the story, wave his
staff, and scare off the Dementors, then I'd agree with your DEM
statement.  What happened here is that a previous foreshadowed plot device
is revealed to Harry at the end which explains not only the mystery of the
rest of the story, but also provides a method to solve several otherwise
intractable problems.

> Dan replied:
>> I'm right there with ya! I was actually quite disappointed when she
>> introduced the time travel bit in the first place. It opens up too many
>> problems and introduces the blatantly obvious question: "Why didn't
>> McGonagall or DD just jump back in time to save the Potters?"
>>
>> Once you go down that "time travel" road you have a hell of a time
>> keeping things in check.... [snipped some of Dan's discussion]
>>
>> I honestly think it would have been better if JKR just hadn't gone
>> there.
>
> Lissa replied:
[...elided...]
>
> Rowling controls the flow of her story.  None of these plot situations
> required time travel *at all*.
>
> I have to ask again, why oh why oh *why* would she introduce it?
>
> She's built amazing suspense in the other novels without resorting to
> time tricks.  I don't think you can legitimately argue she used such an
> extreme plot device just to generate a little tension.  Or, well, maybe
> you can... (smiles)  I just think it'd be silly.

I think I disagree with your premise.  She spends the whole story building
up to the use of a device that at least three of the characters
(McGonagall, Dumbledore, and Hermione) all know about, but Harry (and
hence us) do not.

>
> I guess what I'm trying to point out here is that JKR's use of time
> travel in PoA almost mandates that the device play a crucial role in the
> series.  Otherwise she's done the equivalent of putting a big old ocean
> liner in her story--a ship so ugly and cumbersome that no reader can
> ignore it--then using it to move a passenger from one dock to another
> about two hundred feet away.  Okay, it's not *impossible* that she
> pulled time travel into her series just for its use in PoA and will
> refrain from employing it again.  It could be a red herring.  But if it
> is, it's the most swollen and silly bird of that species that I've
> encountered in all my years of reading fiction.
>
> I think it's more absurd to conclude that Rowling is *not* going to make
> serious use of time travel in the series than to conclude that she is.
>

I think I disgree completely with this last statement and with Dan's last
statment.  My opinion on this is that Rowlings introduced the time turner
to do three things:

1)  Introduce a device that allows her to explore the concept of being in
two places at the same time, primarily to work Hermione's character
development.

2)  Give us a way for Harry to win in the end, while appearing to be in
mortal danger.

3)  Reinforce what she says in interviews about James and Lily being
really, truly, completely dead.

Of these, I think the third is really critical, but the other two are
still important.

WRT the "ocean liner" comment, I think the "big trip" isn't coming, but
it's already happened.  For a moment, just a moment, there was some hope
in the reader's mind that James was alive and had conjured the Patronus
(true "deux ex machina", since James would have suddenly appeared to save
the day).  Once we figure out what Harry has (that it must have been him
that conjured the Patronus) then the static timeline is maintained.  Since
this is canonical, I think that we should assume that Harry's observation
on time travel is correct, and that there is but one static timeline.

We have two interpretations of the way time works in canon.  The first is
Hermione's, where it's possible to go back and change the past.  Her
admonitions from McGonagall seem to be the seed of this theory.  On the
other hand, we never actually see her change time; we only see evidence of
her being able to be in two places at the same time.  The second is
Harry's, who realizes that what has happened in the past has already
happened and can't be modified.  As I said above, I think this is probably
what JKR is actually going to define as the rule for this Potterverse.  In
fact, Hermione explains that Harry can't burst in on himself because he'd
freak out and probably curse himself.  No one points out that since they
didn't see each other the first time, they wouldn't be seen the second
time.  It isn't until Harry is explaining how the fully functional
Patronus shows up that we get the idea that Harry has figured it out.

Aside: Who wants to bet the screen writer can't help but have Hermione, in
the movie, bump into herself at least once during the school year with
Harry and Ron standing around?

My interpretation of Hermione's comment is that the information is
second-hand, at best, and urban legend at worst.  McGonagall (who was the
keeper of the TimeTurner) could have introduced these dire warnings as a
prophylactic against improper use.  We don't get any kind of detail; what
we get is something more like an urban legend warning (like the stalker
with the hook).  My sense of the whole thing is that Hermione has been
using it all year without realizing that she isn't changing the past -
she's just in it.

I seriously doubt that this multiple parallel universe thing is going to
pan out.  While JKR does seem to have a keen eye for classical
genre-related stories, I don't get the sense that she has been introduced
to most of these theories.  Of course, I could be wrong.

On to the rest of the theories (that aren't actually part of the quote,
but play in):

- I have suggested several times that Harry is his own ancestor (or
descendent, depending on your perspective).  I usually do this to point
out how patently absurd I think the entire discussion is.  The "where did
the first one come from" paradox is just too hard to explain.  Think about
the ring in that old Christopher Reeves movie.  Also, this introduces just
a little too much Oedipus into the story (and everyone remembers how well
that one ended?)

- The time turner works by hours.  1 turn = 1 hour.  Turning back time far
enough to be at the scene of Lily and James' death would require a power
drill at least.  Going back a couple of hours is OK; going back a week
would require a couple hundred turns: a month is over 700.  If we assume
that it works on even a 2 turns per second basis (for which there is no
canon), you'd have to turn the thing constantly for over 5 minutes to go
back that far.  Talk about carpal tunnel syndrome! :-)


-- 
Dave Burgess
Bellevue, NE 68123