*MY* confusion about the Time Turner

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 123967


Tammy Rizzo wrote:
> HOW can anyone POSSIBLY be confused about the Time
> Turner? It's so simple and straightforward, after
> all. Everything happens as it happens, as it has
> always happened, as it will always happen; nobody
> changes anything, nobody *can* change anything--
> 'Time' only happens once, no matter how many
> times a character travels through it. All a Time
> Turning character can do is what he's already done,
> so what *IS* the big confusion? There is no 'first
> time/second time' of anything -- it's all THE ONLY
> TIME.
 
vmonte responded:
> I don't think it so simple. Even Harry and Hermione know that they 
> must go back in time during PoA to change events.

SSSusan
They didn't *change* events.  They went back to play their parts in 
what *already* happened the one & only time things happened.  If 
they really had *changed* things, you'd be saying that Buckbeak DID 
get executed and they went back and *changed* that.  But that's not 
the case.  The trio believed Beaky was killed, but he never was 
killed, because TT!Harry and TT!Hermione were there all along, 
removing him from the scene after the Trio got out of the way.

The PERCEPTION of the events changed for the Trio, but the events 
themselves remained unchanged.

JKR actually muddies the waters a bit when she "allows" Hermione to 
say, "There must be something that happened around now that [DD] 
wants us to change."  Similarly, Hermione's comment about lots of 
witches & wizards having killed their past AND FUTURE selves did a 
disservice to people's understanding.  

Rather similarly to the recent discussion of "willingly" 
vs. "unwillingly" in regards to Petunia, and how she could have 
unwillingly [grudgingly] but still willingly [voluntarily] taken 
Harry in, I think JKR is letting Hermione use a more "vernacular" 
definition of "change" [meaning, to cause something to be different 
than it would have been IF no TTing had happened], as opposed to the 
more standard sense in which most people would think of it [to cause 
something which DID happen to be REDONE in a different way].

Am I making any sense here? :-)

Siriusly Snapey Susan