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

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 112456

Two quick comments on this one, and that's IT!! :-)

SSSusan earlier:
>> 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 
person wasn't aware of the 2nd "version" being present.<<
 
Tylerswaxlion:
> 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.


SSSusan now:
I didn't explain well, though I really do understand what you mean.  
I was recalling how one poster had explained it--to think of one 
big, long thread representing all time, and then there'd be this 
little thread which separated off for a time, representing H/H's 
doing it twice.  Poor use of terminology on my part, I suppose.


SSSusan earlier:
>> 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.
 

Tylerswaxlion:
> 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.  


SSSusan:
Oh, believe me, *I* understand that Beaky never died and that the 
axe simply hit the pumpkin or stump or whatever it really was in 
canon.  I explained all that EXACTLY to my daughter--that it's off-
screen, but when we hear that "thwack" it's really just the 
executioner smacking down his axe out of frustration.  She STILL 
doesn't "believe" me.  It's not my understanding that's the problem 
(THIS time!); it's finding the language to help an 8-year-old [a 
quite bright one, too, I might add] grasp a concept which requires 
abstract reasoning which her brain [or most other 8-year-old brains] 
isn't really yet able to handle.

Siriusly Snapey Susan