*MY* confusion about the Time Turner

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 124004


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" <vmonte at y...> wrote:

> 
> vmonte responds:
> I know what you are saying, I'm not sure why Hermione would have 
> incorrect info though. You would think that she would be warned of 
> all the dangers associated with time travel (rather thoroughly) by 
> Minerva. After all, what a deadly weapon ... to give a student in 
> order to take more classes?! ...
> 
> Let's face it --- I hate time travel! Unfortunately, it's definitely 
> coming back.
> 
> Vivian

bboyminn:

It was indeed Minerva who told Hermione about time-traveling wizards
killing their past and future selves (Am Ed PB pg 399). However, that
doesn't mean it was true, and in that moment, (McGonagall talks to
Hermione) it doesn't matter if it was true. It was simply a teacher
warning a student of the potential serious consequences of misusing
the Time Turner. 

I think it is reasonable for McGonagall to have arrange the Time
Turner for Hermione. Hermione is a very intelligent and responsible
student, who McGonagall reasonably assumed could be trusted with this
responsibility. 

In addition, since Hermione signed up for every single available
class, it would be a chance for a Gryffindor to break the record for
most OWLs ever received. McGonagall might be strict, but she is not
above having a healthy dose of Gryffindor pride. So, I buy the idea of
McGonagall convincing the Ministry that the Time Turner would be used
by a responsible student under strict controlling guide lines.

To a point by a previous poster who claimed that time /couldn't/ be
changed. I'm not sure that's true, certainly time SHOULDN'T be change,
and certainly it is against the law to do so (Am Ed PB pg 398). But
the fact that they require a law prohibiting the changing of history,
implies that it is possible to do so; if it /can't/ be changed then
why have a law. 

Related to the concept of 'not being seen', I think that is more a
matter of common sense than a hard and fast rule, or an indicator of
disaster.

Take Hermione for example; in the normal course of her day, she is
traveling within a very short span of time. Given that, at any given
time, all existing versions of Hermione understand what is going on,
it wouldn't have been a problem if she had seen herself; both versions
would know and understand what was happening. 

However, if she is in a situation that allows her to see herself, that
also puts her in a situation where a third party could see both
version of Hermione, and that could certainly cause problems. That
would equally cause problems if a third party saw the second time
traveling Harry and Hermione skulking about the grounds.

So, Hermione seeing herself wouldn't be a problem, but as Hermione
points out, if a second Harry came bursting into Hagrid's, the first
/unknowing/ Harry would not understand it, and might do something
rash. Although, I seriously doubt the normal Harry would have killed
TT!Harry, he could have certainly stunned him, and that would have
completely screwed up the rescue attempt. So, reasonably, /unknowing/
Harry should not see TT!Harry.

As far as Harry seeing himself when he cast the Patronus that saved
himself (and Hermione & Sirius), I think the realization that HE cast
the Patronus and not his father would have created a sufficient rush
of joy that he would have had the necessary motivation to cast the
spell. Also note that from across the lake Harry was not under the
disabling influence of the Dementors. Given all that, I don't find it
all that amazing that he was able to do it.

Certainly, in that circumstance we can pile on the "what if's", but if
you are going to get into that, you might just as well say, 'what if
Harry had an extra glass of water, and was peeing behind the bush just
in that very moment when he should have been casting the Patronus'?
That unlikely scenerio makes just as much sense as any other 'what
if'. There are an infinite number of "what if's" that are all far more
unlikely that 'what did' happen.

Although I'm paraphrasing somewhat, I do agree with the person who
said that the Time Turner is not so much a problem in PoA, as the
events there are sufficiently resolved if you look at the information
and clues available in the book. The real problem is not its use in
PoA, but what its existence mean for the fictional world in general. 

Much like Veritaserum, people post here all the time with time travel
as the quick and easy solution for everything; why not go back and
save Harry's parents from Voldemort, why not go back and reform Tom
Riddle before he becomes Voldemort, why not go back and stop Tom
Riddle from being born, why not go back and save Sirius. 

These are the big problems regarding the Time Turner.

The situation is even more complicated because while a good guy can
time travel back to stop Voldemort, a bad guy can travel back to help
Voldemort. A good guy can travel back in time to save Sirius while a
bad guy goes back in time to kill Sirius years before he ever goes to
the Ministry. One wizard goes back in time to force the price of a
stock up while another goes back to force the stocks price down. 

In addition, all aspects of life and time are tightly and minutely
intermingled. A small change in the past could have unforeseen and
disasterous consequences in the future as can be witness in the recent
 movie 'The Butterfly Affect'. It's possible that a significant change
in the past, could have cataclysmic consequences; it could destroy the
present and future; it could be enough to cause the world to revert
back to the stoneage. 

In my opinion, the events of PoA are very consistent and easily
understood by anyone willing to look at the information available with
an open mind. 

But the greater, grander, broader, and deeper implications of the mere
existance of the Time Turner creates a tremendously unresolved
dilemma. If Time Turners exist, then why doesn't everybody use them
all the time to solve all their preceived problems?  Then again, maybe
that question is it's own answer.

I think JKR resolved the events of time travel in PoA very nicely. But
she has a LONG LONG LONG way to go in explaining how Time Turners fit
into the grander scheme of things. 

I could say more, but I won't (at least not for now).

Steve/bboyminn