Why the time turner stinks

[msbeadsley]

No: HPFGUIDX 79786

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Deirdre F Woodward" 
<dwoodward at t...> wrote:

> Here's why the time turner stinks.
> Presuming there isn't only one time turner (and if there is, why 
> does McGonnegel have it?) 

I was under the impression (as of PoA) that McGonagall *got* it only 
to pass on to Hermione for her use with her studies and (as of OoP I 
thought) that it must have come from the MoM, DoM.

> then why doesn't Lord Voldemort have one?
> Or better yet, why hasn't Dumbledore or someone else gone back and 
> killed pre-powerful Voldemort?

How and where would Voldemort get one?  He was a little under the 
weather, and then, once he had his body back, he couldn't even manage 
to get the *prophesy* out of the MoM, and *it* (quite literally) had 
his name on it.  And regarding the pre-emptive strike on Voldemort:  
if you go back and kill the arch villain before he *becomes* the arch 
villain, haven't you murdered an innocent man?  At that point, he 
hasn't yet *made* the choices which will later warrant executing him.

I wonder if maybe someone did try to kill Tom Riddle before he became 
Voldmort, and that's part of how the WW is in the mess it's in now.  
And I wonder if the "unspeakables" spend part of their time cleaning 
up temporal (time-mucking) messes.

> I know the whole "time turner is powerful magic and you mustn't 
> misuse it" but that's hooey -- McGonnegel gave it to Hermione to 
> affect future events (Hermione's education), and Dumbledore allowed 
> Harry to use it to change just happened events (Harry's death by 
> kissing -- now there's a death!). 

I doubt that the MoM would have allowed Hermione to possess one if 
Voldemort had already been re-embodied.  The MoM was completely 
wrapped up in the search for Sirius Black; as a matter of fact, one 
of the arguments McGonagall might subtly have used to get it could 
have been, "What if he (Black) gets Harry?  At least if Miss Granger 
had the time turner she/we could turn back time and save Harry."

> So if it's ok to let Harry save himself from the dementor, surely 
it would be ok to turn back time when Voldy starts making his killing-
you-all-I-am-evil-leader moves? <snip>

When Harry saved himself (and Sirius and Hermione) from the 
dementors, it was a case of "easier to get forgiveness than 
permission," in other words, do what seems to need doing now and 
explain later, rather than trying to get authorization ahead of 
time.  And the differences in Dumbledore's (he who primed Harry and 
Hermione to save Sirius and Buckbeak) philosophies and the Ministry's 
(which was eager to execute both "criminals") are legion and legend; 
whether or not "it's okay" depends on whom you ask:  Dumbledore or 
the Ministry.

> The more I think about the time-turner, the more the time turner 
stinks.

Actually, in general I agree with you; too much potential for _deus 
ex machina_ (which I will explain if anyone asks).  But I think 
Rowling has handled it (time travel) as well or better (so far) than 
a lot of long-time writers in the SF/Fantasy field (later Heinlein 
leaps to mind).  So far, I don't have a problem with how she's used 
it.