*MY* confusion about the Time Turner

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 124110


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb" <elfundeb at c...> wrote:

 
> > Laurasia asked:
> >
> > Why is there no unanimous understanding
> > of Potterverse Time Travel?
> 

bboyminn:

Actually, there is, if you are willing to see it the way it was
intended, or seems to have been intended.

> And answered:
> > The problem, I think, is choice.
> >
> > ...edited...

> Debbie/elfundeb:
> 
> I must confess that I wonder sometimes about our assumption
> that the books are full of freewill rhetoric.  "It is our choices,
> Harry, that show who we truly are, far more than our abilities."  He
> doesn't say that we become who we are through our choices, ...
> 

bboyminn:

Notice that Dumbledore's quote doesn't say our choices DICTATE who we
are, it simply says that the choices we make show more about our
character than abilities that may or may not be used. 

Phrased alternately; it's how we choose to use our abilities far more
than the mere existance of those abilities the INDICATES (not
dictates) who we are. 

Let's not blow this up into more than it is.


> Laurasia:
> > But she doesn't. Instead JKR shows us Hermione hiding behind
> > Hagrid's Hut pleading with Harry that he *CANNOT* burst in and 
> > seize Pettigrew! Why is Harry's freedom of choice so resolutely 
> > BLOCKED? 
> 
> Laurasia:
> > The only way we can see effect *before* cause is if Time is
> > predefined. If Time is fixed then order isn't important....

> Debbie/elfundeb:
> 
> ...This perspective makes arguing about free will vs.
> predestination is about as fruitful as arguing about how many angels
> can dance on the head of a pin.
> 

bboyminn:

I'll tell you what block Harry from running into Hagrid's and it
wasn't law, fate, or the Powers of the Universe. Simply, it was common
sense.

Hermione gave Harry a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why he
couldn't go bursting into Hagrid's. Harry listened to it, and it
logically made sense that the Harry currently inside Hagrid's would
totally freak-out if another Harry came bursting in ranting and raving
about Scabbers killing his parents.

I might just as easily ask why I don't run out into the middle of
traffic, or why I don't run into the kitchen and chop my hand off.
Why? Well, you can be sure it's not the force of the Powers of the
Universe or Fate; common sense tells me that neither one of those
would be a very wise or fun things to do.

It's not the law of time travel that stops Harry, it's the common
sense and logic of Hermione's explanation. Using that common sense,
Harry made a very definite choice.

> 
> SSSusan wrote:
> > 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.

> Debbie/elfundeb:
> 
> Clearly these statements, and the one that "we're breaking one of 
> the most important wizarding laws!  Nobody's supposed to change 
> time, nobody!" that cast so much doubt about what's really 
> happening.  It makes me wonder whether JKR fully understands the 
> principles she uses.
> 

bboyminn:

This is a common fandom trap; one we all fall into. We are so
desperate the make sense of things that we take general statements,
and try to make them absolute. But people rarely if ever speak in
absolute statements. Much of what we get from what people say to us,
we draw from context.

So, when Hermione wonders what they are suppose to 'change', she is
simply choosing the simpliest and most direct way of making her
meaning known within the context of the moment. 

She is simply wondering out loud what it is that Dumbledore wants them
to DO, and 'change' is a simple, shorthand, in context way of saying
it. Much easier to say 'change' in a general context, and get on with
it, than to sit for half an hour trying to determine what would be the
exactly correct and perfect word to use.

There is no inconsistancy between Hermione's use of the word 'change'
in 'what are we suppose to change', and her use of the word 'change'
in 'we aren't suppose to change anything, it's against the law'. The
context is very different in those two statements; one is general, the
other is specific.

> 
> Sandra wrote:
> > There's been lots of comments about the Time Turner, and it all 
> > boils down to one major flaw - how could a future version of 
> > yourself go back in time to save a terminal tragedy happening to 
> > yourself - all on the same night?
> > <snip>
> > >It simply doesn't work, and I think people are beginning to see
> > that.

> Debbie/elfundeb:
> 
> I wonder if my ease of mind about how JKR handled the time-turner 
> ... arise from the fact that I've read little, if any, fantasy 
> literature and therefore have not seen time-travel in fiction 
> before (though I have seen movies with time-travel elements).
> ...edited... 
> 

bboyminn:

Well, I've already said it repeatedly. You only run into problems
resolving PoA time travel if you start at 9pm and let your analysis
travel back in time. JKR dropped clues that indicate that
TimeTraveling Harry arrived in the timeline at 6pm and was therefore
there to save himself. Cause and effect; cause-Harry arrived at 6pm,
effect-he was there to save himself at 8pm. 

If you must start at 9pm when Harry started time traveling, then you
have two cause-and-effects; cause#1-Harry travels back in time at 9pm,
effect#1-Harry arrives in the same timeline at 6pm; cause#2-Harry
arrives at 6pm, effect#2-Harry is available to save himself. 

>From the hints and clues in the story, time only marches forward. Six
o'clock in the afternoon only occurs once. It's Harry and Hermione
that occur twice at 6pm.

As long as you try to work two timelines, or try to work backwards,
you are doomed. As soon as you accept one forward moving timeline,
your headaches go away.

PoA time travel can be resolved within the span of that one book. It's
 the larger implication of Time Turners that has me worried.


> Finally, Betsy wrote:
> 
> > The big question I've had was how Dumbledore was aware of the
> > possibility that Buckbeak escaped through time manipulation.  I
> > wonder if one of his many office gadgets alerts him to Time-Turner
> > use (handy to regulate a student's use of such a device) and that
> > cued him in to keep an eye out for irregularities.

> Debbie/elfundeb:
> 
> Dumbledore knew that Buckbeak had escaped because he had gone with 
> Macnair to Hagrid's hut for the execution.  He also knew that 
> Sirius' only avenue of escape from the locked room was through the 
> window, which meant he had to escape by air.  And he knew Hermione 
> had a time-turner.  Dumbledore simply put two and two together ...
> 
> Debbie

bboyminn: 

On this last point, I agree with Debbie/elfundeb. I really don't buy
the idea that all-wise all-knowing Dumbledore had this planned from
the very beginning. I think Dumbledore is very preceptive and very
wise; enlightened, but not all-knowing.

Point of illustration, there are hints that Dumbledore can see through
invisibility cloaks, but I'm not sure that's true. I think, again,
that he is extremely preceptive and sees tiny details that other
overlook as being too mundane to notice. Like the sag of the floor
boards, movement of grass, the presences of body heat, sound of
breathing, the scuff of a shoe, perhaps minor visual aberrations cause
by the Cloak, etc.... To those who minds are clouded by the mundane,
these little clues would pass unnoticed, but someone who's mind is
clear and aware, like Dumbledore's, would certainly pick them up.

Regarding the events of PoA, I think Dumbledore is picking up bits & 
pieces of information, and clues as he goes. It is only in the last
moment, when it all falls together, that he realizes what must be done.

Just a few thoughts.

bboyminn