Time-Travel and Being Honest to a Work of Fiction

[jlv230]

No: HPFGUIDX 132210

> Richard Jones::
> I think it is clear from four things JKR says in the POA that 
under 
> her theory we can change history:
> 
<snip>
> 
> Just looking at the actions and skipping what the characters say 
is 
> one way to proceed.  In the "real world" that might work, but my 
> concern is that JKR's is a work of fiction, and if we do look only 
at 
> the actions and ignore what the characters say, then we are 
ignoring 
> a big chunk of what she actually created.  Even if we can come up 
> with a good theory that fits the limited part we choose to look 
at, I 
> can't help but think that we are imposing a theory on her story 
that 
> isn't hers if we have to come up with ways to explain away the 
rest 
> of what she wrote.
> 
> In other words, even if we can come up with a theory that fits 
part 
> of what she created, it is just that — a theory that only fits 
part 
> of what she created.  That is, even if our theory fits the action 
> part, it doesn't explain what she created if we still have to 
dismiss 
> everything the characters say.  The theory doesn't really cover 
all 
> that the author presented.  And if looking at JKR's complete 
account 
> presents problems for time-travel, well we're stuck.  We can't 
> say "But if we only look at part of the story, there are no 
> problems."  We have to go with all that is given.  (And there 
still 
> are problems: I have not seen any "history cannot be changed" 
> theories that explain how Harry got past the Dementors. Some 
people 
> in effect just say "Don't worry about it!" which is no explanation 
at 
> all.)

JLV:
Can't help it, sorry guys
 I really think the "history cannot be 
changed" idea does explain how Harry got past the dementors 
perfectly. In fact the whole dementor incident is the neatest bit of 
evidence we have /for/ the "history cannot be changed" idea. The 
problem is merely that it is a bit *too* convenient, but it's better 
(in my opinion) than logical inconsistency. Contrivance in plot I 
can forgive more easily than absurdity.

> Richard Jones:
> It is true that we can't always trust what the characters say — 
they 
> have been wrong.  But it always something we learn later that 
shows 
> they were wrong.  I can't see how anything could change what the 
> characters said in the POA episode — e.g., is JKR going to have 
> McGonagall or Hermione or someone else say that they were mistaken 
> about time-traveling wizards killing their former self, or have 
> Dumbledore say that we don't have to be careful about our actions 
> during time-travel because we really can't change what is going to 
> happen anyway?  Any theory that requires explaining away every 
single 
> syllable that JKR puts in her characters' mouths cannot be 
> acceptable.  Certainly until we are shown that the characters were 
> wrong we have to accept what JKR has her characters say on the 
matter 
> of time-travel at face value if we are going to honest to the 
story.
> 
> We have to be leery when people say that they know more about a 
topic 
> that a writer of fiction is writing on than the author herself.  
> Writers of fiction are not constrained by other people's 
theories.  
> We can't approach time-travel in the Potterverse based on quantum 
> physics or what we have read in sci fi. HP is a work of fiction 
and 
> JKR is the only phyisicist in the Potterverse —  she can make up 
any 
> theory she likes.

JLV:
Eep – sorry! I tend to go overboard when I get enthusiastic. 
*blushes* I really got way too sidetracked with fabulous real ideas
 
My point was really that what is presented in the book does not 
imply that there was a `first time' that differed from the events 
given. Using real-life physics was really just supposed to 
illustrate that the events were possible and consistent and that 
this view was shared by some really great minds who would take 
everything into account and hence the events cannot be used to 
support a theory that something quite different *must* have 
happened `first time'. I think my enthusiasm made me lose the point 
entirely. I do hope you can forgive me!
 
> Richard Jones:
> The bottom line is we must take JKR at her word over someone 
else's 
> theory that requires dismissing what she has her characters say.

JLV here:
Of course you're right. JKR can do what she likes! I really didn't 
mean to say otherwise. But I think that's how it came out.

There is a caveat, however (how predictable!)
 Unfortunately the 
fact that this is fiction, and essentially that there are no rules 
at all, makes predictions about what is to happen very difficult. 
Because all the rules are JKR's own and can change at her will, she 
can decide to bring Sirius back to life if she wanted, even if she 
repeatedly said she wouldn't. She can have Hermione calculate the 
square root of minus one if she likes. I just think that, if the 
past could change, she could re-write the beginning, having 
Dumbledore kill Voldemort before Harry was ever marked – sacrificing 
his life for Harry. I only suppose that the reason why no-one has 
done this is because they *can't* rather than *shouldn't*.

Obviously, in the interest of plausibility JKR doesn't want to break 
the rules of logic too much. She treats magic like a science or 
skill – it has certain limitations which she establishes in the 
narrative to prevent anarchy. Without limitations, people could do 
*anything*. If anything could happen, why am I here trying to guess? 
Why have wasted my time? Do you see my problem.

Unfortunately if the comments made by Harry and Hermione are true, 
they render the time-travel absurd – like in pretty much all time-
travel fiction. I'm (obviously) the sort of person who is very 
nitpicky about logic. This group thrives on excellent logical 
discussions as well as wild speculation – that's why I love it so 
much! I think I just *want* to believe that Hermione was wrong 
because it makes the story `plausible' to me – in fact it makes it 
astonishingly clever considering JKR is unlikely to know much about 
the subject (she freely admits maths isn't her thing!) Hermione's 
comments ruin it for me and I can only hope she was wrong or just 
using imprecise language (change, as I have stated before, is a 
terrible word that eats up its own definition of we try to define 
it). I hope JKR realises that she would, in my opinion, be opening a 
can of worms if she allowed the past to be altered
 but that's up to 
her and I'll have to take it on the chin if that happens to be the 
case.

There are obviously an infinite number of theories that fit the 
events in PoA, especially if we don't consider logical consistency a 
criterion. I personally like mine because it is logically coherent. 
I don't like theories that aren't (I ask what is the point of 
reasoning about contradictions – anything follows from a 
contradiction!). But, as you so say, it is not my world JKR is 
describing
. The only thing I can object to is accusations that 
the "history cannot be changed" idea is not a candidate on the 
grounds of logical consistency
 but that is pretty much it.

I *will* try to stop my enthusiasm overcoming me on this one in 
future – but I hope some of you found it as interesting as I did!

JLV xx

P.S. I think that time travel is impossible! Can you believe that? 
Unfortunately, I just don't know why
 does that make me irrational?