Time-turning as literary device (was: Just a comment about Lupin's malady)

[iamvine]

No: HPFGUIDX 109634

SSSusan previously stated:
> > > I actually kind of *like* 
> > > the thought that Fred could pretend to be both himself & George 
> > > while George goes off to do something. :-)  On the other hand, 
> > > wouldn't that break DD's "rule" that the person doing the time-
> > > turning can't see himself?

Then Eleanor said:
> > Yes, but I don't see that that rule is absolutely necessary.  The
> > crucial thing is to not contradict what happened the first time.  If
> > you saw yourself, then when time-travelling you must let yourself be
> > seen again, and you must do the same thing.  This could be hard.  If
> > you simply keep out of your other self's way, you have fewer
> > obligations and more freedom.

SSSusan then replied:
> No problem that your response is late, Eleanor; I'm behind again, 
> too.  Anyway, I guess my question is, are you *hypothesizing* that 
> the rule isn't an absolute necessity?  (That "they're more like 
> guidelines," to draw a phrase from Pirates of the Caribbean.)  Or is 
> there something in canon which makes you pretty certain that a TT!
> character can see him/herself without problem as long as their 
> actions are consistent?  Because I guess I took the warning more 
> literally.  

There is canon - Harry sees himself, and that turns out fine - though maybe only because 
he didn't know it was him.

In the m*v*e there's a lot more contact between past and future selves - the stone-
throwing, Hermione catching a glimpse of herself, her werewolf howl to distract Lupin, and 
maybe some other things, I don't remember.  With the stone-throwing, you can see 
Hermione thinking: Why aren't we leaving?  Oh, because someone's got to throw stones 
through the window first.  Oh, it must have been me.  I'd better do it then.  She doesn't see 
herself that time, but she still has contact with herself.  If she'd kept to the law, and _not_ 
thrown the stones because she knew she wasn't supposed to interact with herself, she 
would have changed the past.

> PLEASE forgive if this is movie contamination, but as many times as 
> I've read the books, I have two little kids and so have seen the 
> movies multiple times, too.  Does Hermione in canon!PoA say they 
> CAN'T see themselves, and then uses the example of what would Harry 
> think if he barged into Hagrid's hut and saw himself (that is, he'd 
> think he was mad)?  If that's not canon, then I don't have as much 
> problem with your statement that the rule isn't absolutely 
> necessary.  If it *is* canon, then I guess my objection still stands.

Yes, that's in the book.  Page 291-292, UK edition.  But look at it carefully.

Hermione: "We're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws!  Nobody's supposed 
to change time, nobody!"

And Dumbledore says on page 288, "Miss Granger, you know the law - you know what is 
at stake ... you - must - not - be - seen."

It's a wizarding law.  Not a natural law but something the Ministry of Magic came up with.  
That makes me suspect it a little.  We know Ministry laws can be ... overenthusiastic, 
sometimes.  It's possible to break a law and have it turn out okay.  The law is a guideline 
which you might get sent to Azkaban if you are caught breaking.  Sometimes breaking the 
law is a good idea, in the same way that defending Dudley from Dementors is a good idea 
in book 5.

But it's not really clear.  What does this law say?  That you mustn't change time, or that you 
mustn't be seen?  If you are doing something illegal, it makes sense to stay hidden, for 
reasons quite unrelated to time travel.  But if you are seen, does it matter whether it is by 
your past self or by someone else, as long as you don't change the past?  I think the law, 
or rule extrapolated from the law, against being seen by yourself is because it's assumed 
that if you do see yourself you must be changing the past.  This is not necessarily true - 
see examples above.

Something else from that quote of Hermione's: She thinks she and Harry are already 
breaking the law.  She talks as if they are going to deliberately change the past.  And she 
talks about people who did change the past, even killed themselves.  I'd really like to 
ignore this whole speech, because without it, the story is a lot simpler.  Time travel stories 
normally work in one of two ways.  Either travelling back in time always changes the past - 
by putting an extra version of you in it - or you can't change the past at all, because your 
past self was there all along.  In the first scenario, you can't meet your future self.  Since 
Harry did, it looks as if PoA uses the second scenario.  But then we're told that you actually 
can change the past if you try???  Then we must be in some weird third scenario with rules 
that I don't understand.  I suspect that Hermione, the Ministry of Magic and JKR are just as 
confused about it as anybody else.  Maybe there's one set of rules if you stay in my "fluid 
area" and another set if you leave it.  Hmm.

Eleanor