Paradox of Time Travel in PoA - Before & After

[Sandra Collins]

No: HPFGUIDX 136689

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "davenclaw" 
<daveshardell at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" 
<bboyminn at y...> wrote:
> 
> > Remember, that at the time that Dumbledore makes his 
point about
> > needing 'more time' /Sirius has NOT been saved yet/; that 
occurs in
> > the future.
> 
> Since he runs into the kids as soon as he leaves the room for 
them 
> to time-travel, I get the impression that while he is saying this 
to 
> them, TT!they are in the middle of saving Sirius.
> 
> > There is nothing Dumbledore can do about saving Harry;
> > somehow that worked itself out. 
> 
> Here's my problem: in order for Harry to survive the Dementors, 
his 
> time-travelling self had to be there.  But his time-travelling self 
> was only able to be there because he time-travelled.  But he 
can't 
> have time-travelled without being saved... so how does he get 
the 
> opportunity to time travel in the first place?
> 
> The consequences of simply saying that time never occurred 
in a 
> different way severely contradict everything that JKR put into the 
> mouths of McGonagall and Hermione.
> 
> - davenclaw


Sandra writes

Hi Davenclaw,

You are so right on this point. I've been making it for a while and 
some people go along with it, others block it out, and some get 
cross. If Harry was saving someone else's life, ie if only Sirius 
was there being attacked and Harry saves him with a Patronus, 
then I think it's okay (for that particular section). I don't 
understand why so many people can't see this very simple, but 
very large, plot hole. You can't save yourself from being killed, if 
the only reason you survive is because a 'post-death' you went 
back! It makes my head spin that not only was it not dealt with by 
an editor, but it also made it onto film!

Sandra