Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA)

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 112370

SSSusan here:
Okay, folks.  I realize that many of you will not care one whit about 
this, and of course you deleting or bypassing is for you.  But for 
those who're interested in time-travel or have been following this 
thread, variously labeled "Snape and DADA" or "Time-turning (was 
Snape and DADA)", I'm going to cut & paste blurbs from many people's 
posts, attempting to highlight both the explanations AND the 
questions which come from TT Nitwits like moi.  


In 112310 I (SSSusan) wrote:
>>>Okay. Now THAT'S where I lose it. How could time [1800, 1974,
whatever] already have happened **and** this individual "simply had
not, from their own personal, subjective point of view, *done* it
yet" *if* they did something important in 1800 or 1974?? How could
they have done it and also not yet know that they'd done it?<<<

In 112284 Hannah said:
>>>When Harry and Hermione went back in time in PoA, they didn't
*change* anything. The actions of time-travelled H and H occurred
parallel to those of first-time-round H and H. For instance, they
hear the sound of themselves in the wood, Harry sees himself across
the lake (but luckily thinks its his Dad). So when H and H left the
hospital wing, Buckbeak had already been saved. DD knew this,
although they didn't, and perhaps that helped him allow H and H to
do something so dangerous, since he knew they had *already*
sucessfully done it. Harry is able to produce the patronus because
he knows he has already done it. At the time he thought his Dad had
saved him, but that was because he was interpreting events wrongly.
Once he had time travelled and was standing on the other side of the
lake watching his past self get dementored, he then realised that
the spell he had witnessed was actually one his present self had
cast.<<<

And in 112285 PK wrote:
>>>JKR does not seem to be writing a universe in which one can
actually change the past. She took considerable pains in PoA to make
it clear that everything Harry and Hermione did after they went back
in time *had in fact already been happening while they lived through
that period for the first time*.

The line about it being dangerous to meet oneself, and wizards killing
their past and future selves, does seem to confuse the issue --
killing one's future self shouldn't actually present a problem of
feasibility in itself, but killing one's past self should be
impossible.<<<


SSSusan AGAIN NOW:
Note how both Hannah & PK agree that in JKR's view of TT, the past 
DOES NOT CHANGE.  Both of them (thank you very much!) did a nice job 
of explaining how it's the PERSPECTIVE and what the characters 
see/know which changes.  And thank you, PK, for acknowledging that 
that bit from JKR about meeting oneself & killing oneself does 
complicate things!  BUT... here is Chancie, asking the following 
question....

In 112302, Chancie:
>>>The only problem I can see with these type of theories is if Harry 
and Hermione didn't go back in time, then Buckbeak would be dead, 
Sirius would have been *kissed* by the dementors as well as Harry. 
But since they could go back in time and change events, Harry saved 
himself, Sirius, and Buckbeak.<<<


SSSusan AGAIN NOW:
Clearly, we're working with DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS of "changing time" 
or "changing the past," aren't we??  My natural tendency is to see 
things the way Chancie does, though the explanations that have been 
forthcoming from non-TT-novices have almost got me understanding
.  
Here are two examples from Tylerswaxlion which are helpful, I think, 
in seeing that the past didn't change.


In 112322 Tylerswaxlion said:
>>>If anyone from today went back and tried to send Tom Riddle to
Azkaban, they would fail. How do we know? B/c Tom Riddle didn't go
to Azkaban. The past doesn't change.

Suppose Dumbledore went back to convict/duel TR. This
Time-turning!Dumbledore would be going back b/c he knows how evil Lord
Voldemort is. Let's even suppose he was successful (though I believe
it would be impossible for him to do so) and had Tom sent off to
Azkaban before he killed Myrtle (though I don't know how long he'd get
for simply opening the Chamber).

But if he goes back, Lord Voldemort would never exist--admitedly, this
*is* the result we want--but that also means Voldemort would NEVER
commit the murders or start the war that is the very reason
Timeturning!Dumbledore goes back, i.e., if Voldemort never exists,
then the reason to go back in time and lock up Tom Riddle never
exists. CoS!Dumbledore ***never becomes Time-turning!Dumbledore***.
And if TT!DD doesn't go back, then who puts TR in Azkaban in the first
place? And if no one duels/convicts TR of crimes, then he opens the
Chamber, kills Myrtle, and LV comes to power.

The past only SEEMS to have changed in PoA, but Buckbeak was NEVER
executed. The Trio thought he was b/c they heard the axe fall, but as
we learn later in the book, the executioner was just tossing it away
in anger. The Trio couldn't see anything and MISINTERPRETED the
sound. Buckbeak had already escaped, though the past!Trio don't know 
it.<<<

And in 112327 Tylerswaxlion remarked:
>>>It's not a case of Harry going back in time and changing the past. 
HE WAS ALWAYS THERE TWICE. If Harry wasn't in the past twice, he never
would have cast the Patronus, and he would have died/suffered the
Dementor's kiss.

Dumbledore *seems* to send them back, but in reality, he's just
figured out what happened--*he* knows Beaky wasn't executed (though at
this point Harry still mistakenly believes he was) and now he's
figured out how Beaky escaped. He currently--as of that page--knows
Sirius is locked up but not guarded, and he HOPES that the kids can
rescue him. But he's already figured out that the kids have gone back
in time--b/c they must have let Beaky go.<<<


SSSusan AGAIN NOW:
Okay.  So has everybody got it now?  Understand that distinction 
between the past being changed and the past NOT being changed?  Well, 
it gets more complicated, I'm afraid, just as I thought I was getting 
a grasp on things.  Read on!


In 112328 Karyn suggested:
>>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the THING with the time-turners 
that you can't undo certain things? Like, you can go back and correct 
things that just happened, but you can't go back and kill LV, for 
example, because there are already so many consequences from him 
being alive?<<<

And in 112331 Chancie offered:
>>>The only rule I could see that could apply and make [sense] in 
this situation, is that the TT maybe only lets you go back in time 
during the current day. Hermione went back in time to her classes 
everyday, I don't believe there is any reference to her going back a 
few days in
time. This is the only thing I could think of that would make 
[sense].<<<


SSSusan AGAIN NOW:
Now, I find that I just can't go along with these two.  If we have to 
get into "CAN change that because 'nothing significant' came of it" 
vs. "CAN'T change that because it was important to future events," as 
Karyn suggested, I just don't see any way it would work (imho).  
Who's to "decide" what was a significant consequence???  And I just 
don't see why it would have to be the same DAY, as Chancie 
suggested.  It's certainly not at all what PK was describing to us 
yesterday--where a person can easily TT back to a point *before* s/he 
was even born.

And to complicate matters further, check this out.  

In 112343 Naama, responding to my question, wrote:
>>>SSSusan:  So, in JKR's version of TT, you can only go back and see 
things as they happened from a different perspective; you're not 
really CHANGING the events and doing them over. Did I at least get 
that much right??
Naama:
I don't think so <g>. If that were so, why was Hermione so seriously
warned against changing time? My understanding of JKR's form of TT
is that it *is* possible to change time.<<<


SSSusan AGAIN NOW:
See?  We're back to different definitions of what TT is, how it can 
or can't work.  Hannah, PK, and Tylerswaxlion all seemed to agree 
that I *had* gotten it right as to JKR's version of TT:  that the 
past doesn't CHANGE as a result of TT, but that the two time-threads 
co-existed all along, only one of the two "versions" of a person 
wasn't aware of the 2nd "version" being present.  Yet here we have 
others saying that's NOT the way JKR is doing it--that she IS using 
TT to change time/events/the past.

So perhaps *this* is why I object to the TT mechanism so much.  It 
was fun in PoA, and I loved how Cuaron interpreted it in That Medium 
Which Is Not To Be Named, but there seem to be so many alternative 
views of how it "can" and "can't" work in the Potterverse, that it's 
left being very complicated indeed!  Many people here seem 
comfortable with it, but even they disagree on what it means or how 
it works.  How's the average novice-about-TT like me to get it, 
then?  When you want to UNDERSTAND the story completely, it's 
frustrating.  

Not to mention what kids think of it.  I've explained several times 
to my 8-year-old daughter about how Buckbeak never did die.  But in 
her mind, he DID, and Harry & Hermione simply went back and CHANGED 
THE PAST so that he didn't die the second time.  Now, THAT much of TT 
I understand--that she is wrong about Beaky--but I can't seem to find 
the language to help her grasp it.

So, please, JKR, no more time travel unless it's NOT central to the 
climactic scenes of the series!!!

Siriusly Snapey Susan, hoping this was helpful to someone besides 
myself.