Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA)-getting LONG

[tylerswaxlion]

No: HPFGUIDX 112450

I'm having fun with this discussion, even if I have trouble making it
clear!

> SSSusan here:

Karyn says:
> >>>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?<<<

No.  Time happens once.  Individuals who use time-turners experience
the same period twice, only being aware of the doubling in their
future forms.

Again, Beaky never died.  It's not a case of "correcting something
that just happened."  H&H always were there twice.  From H&H's point
of view, Beaky "died", and from their POV, the same "time" happened
twice--i.e., the 6:00 hour happened twice for them.  H&H are 3 hours
older than the rest of the world.

Dumbledore doesn't send H&H back to save Buckbeak--b/c Buckbeak didn't
die.  He tells them they can save "more than one innocent life"--he
knows they saved Beaky--the first innocent--and he's hoping that they
will also be able to save Sirius.  It's tricky and precise writing.  

> 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].<<<
> 
> 
No, it doesn't matter when you go back, or how far back you go.  If
you are successful in your attempt to go back in time, you did it in
the past.  TIME HAPPENS ONCE, TIME-TRAVELLERS HAPPEN MORE.  

That's why Harry knows he can cast the Patronus in his "future"
form--he knows he "already" did it.  His past self saw his future self
do it.  But the time difference between Past!Harry and Future!Harry
only exists for HARRY--as far as the universe is concerned, there's
only one time where the Dementors attack and Harry is victim and
victor.

There is never a ***time*** where Harry is killed/kissed by the
Dementors.  If he were, he'd never be able to go back in time and
prevent it.  There are not multiple timelines that cancel each other
out.  Time happened.  

The paradox of experiencing the same time twice--one before
another--is something ONLY the TimeTraveller is aware of, (and, of
course, the reader.)

It only seems like he was attacked *before* he rescued himself from
Harry's perspective.  From Sirius' pov, (supposing he wasn't
unconscious) he would have seen Harry with his weak patronus failing
and Future!Harry with his killer Patronus at the same time.


> 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.

No one gets to decide what's "significant" because it doesn't matter.
 Nothing, significant or in-, can be changed.

It doesn't matter how far you go back or if the TT has limitations. 
***If you weren't in the past twice (or more) the "first" time events
happened, you won't be able to be there the "second" time--i.e. when
your Future!Self visits the past.***  Because the EVENT doesn't happen
twice (no first and second time), the Traveler just experiences the
same TIME more than once.

EVENTS don't happen twice--the PERSON is there twice.  And
it's ONLY from the Time-traveller's perspective that events happen
more than once--a first and second time.
> 
> 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.<<<

I disagree.  JKR shows that the timeline didn't change.  Hermione is
warned b/c time-travelling is not safe, and she shouldn't attempt to
change time b/c it's not possible.

Hermione has to be warned and special dispensation has to be given b/c
damage is happening to her.  She is aging faster--she is reliving 1 to
3 hours a day for the whole school year, which has to be draining on
her.  She can't really ever catch up on her sleep (I'd go into detail,
but this post is already getting massive)  

Again, you can't go back and change things--and if you try, you will
fail--but what methods the timeline/universe may use to keep itself
together may be damaging to the Future!self.

When Hermione hears that she missed Charms, she nderstood that she
couldn't change it.  No matter how much she Time-turned, she'll never
be in that Charms class--BECAUSE SHE WASN'T THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED. 
Remember, there's no first, second, fifteenth time for anyone else. 
They live it once.

It's quite possible that off-screen Hermione tried to make that Charms
class, but we know she never succeeded, and never can succeed, 
because we know she wasn't in Cheering Charms class.

Warning her not to try to change the past also fits in here--if you
miss Cheering Charms, no matter how ofter you TT, you won't get in. 
But you will live extra hours, aging faster than normal, all for
wasted effort. 

> 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.  


No.  Not "two time-threads".  Only one time-thread.  Two Harrys and
two Hermiones.  From H&H's pov, they live the time twice.  From
everyone else's pov, H&H are there twice.

>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.

But they're wrong!! ;^)
 
> 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 the really bad time-travel stories out there that are
full of holes, even if they are entertaining.

Except for the line about a future self being able to kill a past self
(not logically possible) JKR's timeline holds fast--no plot holes.

Well...I have one question about Hermione's comments about missing
Charms, but let's not go there right now!
> 
> 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.

The Trio only hear the axe fall.  They don't see it.  If they'd seen
it, they'd know Beaky wasn't dead.  When we're shown the axe falling
in both the book and in The Medium That Shall Not Be Named, we see
that it doesn't hit Buckbeak.

The Medium That Shall Not Be Named could have been edited
differently--showing the Trio thinking Beaky killed and then
immediately cutting to the reality of the ace hitting nothing--a
"meanwhile back at Hagrid's..."  The book could have been written that
way, too.

But the drama of thinking Beaky dead would be removed much too early,
then.  We lose the tension of thinking justice has gone awry.  The
fact that the MoM and Fudge are more concerned with appearences than
with facts isn't rammed home as hard as with the failed murder of an
innocent pet.  It gets the point across much stronger by showing Fudge
willingly went through with it.

Time travel isn't necessary for this type of effect.  The same effect
could have been achieved if, say, a Pretend!Lupin had rescued Beaky. 
The Trio would still think Beaky was dead, not knowing that the axe
hit nothing.  Not until Pretend!Lupin revealed the rescue would they
know Beaky was alive.  And Cuaron and JKR wouldn't show that
immediately.

It's just that it wasn't a Pretend!Lupin who saved Beaky.  It was
Future!Harry

> 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.

Well I'm enjoying it, even if I'm not converting anyone to my beliefs!

-TL