Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

[leah49]

It would have been suspicious for Mrs. Figg to break her leg and then have it get better so quick. I think that she'd have to endure the Muggle treatment to play the part of a Muggle. She wasn't just a Squib living among Muggles. She was put there for the purpose of watching Harry. If there's anything suspiscious surrounding her, making her look like she could be magical (which a Squib is not but they are from that world) she could lose the chance to watch Harry.

[zombi]

Okay, this MUST be a frequently asked question, but I must not be adept at finding it:
The Time Turner.

All they used it for is extra classes? Really? Why not go back in time and stop Tom Riddle from being born? Or stop him at the orphanage? Any number of times? In fact, think of all the things that could be managed with such a device. What gives?

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by zombi

Okay, this MUST be a frequently asked question, but I must not be adept at finding it:
The Time Turner.

All they used it for is extra classes? Really? Why not go back in time and stop Tom Riddle from being born? Or stop him at the orphanage? Any number of times? In fact, think of all the things that could be managed with such a device. What gives?

We've all seen, read or heard of stories where time-travel nearly goes horribly wrong, and it is based on always the same concept - if you go back in time and change something, you can never know what the consequences might be. If someone went back and stopped Voldemort from being born, any number of people might die or simply cease to exist.

It's a logical paradox, though. Once they get to the point in time where Voldemort has been around on and off for the last couple of decades, it is not possible for someone to go back in time and fix it so he isn't born, because it would mean that it had already happened, which of course is impossible because Voldemort was born.

[MrSleepyHead]

Originally Posted by zombi

Okay, this MUST be a frequently asked question, but I must not be adept at finding it:
The Time Turner.

All they used it for is extra classes? Really? Why not go back in time and stop Tom Riddle from being born? Or stop him at the orphanage? Any number of times? In fact, think of all the things that could be managed with such a device. What gives?

This is a great question with no clear answer (and one that has caused much controversy).

JKR said this about the Time-Turner, when posed a similar question:

'Harry Potter: A Blue Peter Special.' Blue Peter (CBBC), July 20 2007. GJ: Great stuff, fascinating. Even Lucy's come back... Ally, what's your question? Ellie: Why didn't Harry use the time-turner to save his parents? JKR: Oh, that's a very good question, that. But it would take us into "Terminator" territory, if you've ever seen the "Terminator" films... but never mind. Well, the time-turner was a very difficult invention for me, because it created as many problems as it solved. And anyone who's read Order of the Phoenix may have noticed that during the climactic scene in which they chase through the Ministry of Magic, they shatter all the time-turners, thereby preventing them using those in the future. GJ: Great question, Ellie, and thank you to all of you. We'll be getting some more questions later on, but for now, thanks very much. JKR: Thank you!

Of course, this does not give a very clear answer as to the question, "Why?"

I think the best explanation is that it would be too complicated, too risky, and ineffective. Firstly, traveling through time to stop Tom Riddle being born or to stop Voldemort killing James and Lily would be immensely complex. One would have to travel through years of time, and that wizard/witch would have to remain largely hidden in order to not effect anything other than what they desire. It is the idea of the "butterfly effect," where the smallest action during time travel could and would have huge repercussions in the "current" time.

Of course, those ideas assume that the time travel had never been completed before. However, I think JKR presents time travel as a cycle. There are past and future selves, and probably different tiers of each of those. Therefore, each time one has time traveled, his or her past self had already traveled, and the past self before that one had also time-traveled, etc. It is a time loop that assumes the time-travel is eternally occurring and has continuously occurred in the past.

Therefore, if Harry chose to time-travel to prevent Voldemort from killing Lily and James, the stories would not change. That is because Harry's past (and future) selves would have already time-traveled, and that time-travel still resulted in the stories we know. Therefore, Harry could not change the past even if he did time-travel because the past is predestined for the future that he just left. He would not be able to change the scenarios because his past self had already tried (in the same way) to change that scenario (and, obviously, been unsuccessful).

It is confusing and is certainly not the only explanation, but I think it is the best explanation for why the Time-Turner was not used more frequently, and why JKR avoided the time paradox by destroying the Time-Turners in OotP.

Several threads on CoS are devoted to this topic; albeit they are slightly inactive, but perhaps this discussion could reawaken them:
How were Harry & the others saved the first time before using the time turner in POA?
Can you go forward in time with a time turner?
Questions about time traveling

[Gwendolen]

Originally Posted by zombi

Okay, this MUST be a frequently asked question, but I must not be adept at finding it:
The Time Turner.

All they used it for is extra classes? Really? Why not go back in time and stop Tom Riddle from being born? Or stop him at the orphanage? Any number of times? In fact, think of all the things that could be managed with such a device. What gives?

I don't think you can make anything happen that didn't already happen.

Hermione and Harry didn't change anything that happened when they went back. Everything happened exactly as it had the first time. The only difference was that the second time they knew exactly what was going on. As Harry said, he knew he could do the patronus charm because he'd already done it.

If you did change anything, you'd be in trouble, because the first timeline has to lead to the point you used the time turner.

[zombi]

Thanks, all. This is a subject of playful debate for my husband and I, so I thought it should be the first thing I discussed. Wish I'd come here earlier! Anyway, time travel is a beloved subject among science fiction writers as well, and I've seen lots of people's ideas about how it turns out.

It makes the most logical sense to assume the timeline works on the assumption that any time travel is taken into account in the most present lines of events, leading us to the logical "this is how the story turned out regardless" sort of view. I agree with you, Mr Sleepyhead, that JKR's presentation of her timeline is circular and allows for the time travel to have necessarily taken place already because of how things turned out.

Time travel stories usually resolve with one version or another of the Grandfather paradox, which falls in line with you, willfitz -- The grandfather paradox is a proposed paradox of time travel first described (in this exact form) by the science fiction writer René Barjavel in his 1943 book Le Voyageur Imprudent. The paradox is this: suppose a man traveled back in time and killed his biological grandfather before the latter met the traveler's grandmother. As a result, one of the traveler's parents (and by extension the traveler himself) would never have been conceived. This would imply that he could not have traveled back in time after all, which means the grandfather would still be alive, and the traveler would have been conceived allowing him to travel back in time and kill his grandfather. Thus each possibility seems to imply its own negation, a type of logical paradox.

And Gwendolen, your point follows JKRs presentation of circular time really well, so thanks!

(:

OH! I wanted to also say that it's very clever of JKR to destroy all the time turners later in the series to avoid any further use of them. The Time Turner is one of the things in the HP world that brings up a lot of questions, I think, just because a lot of people's (mine, obviously) first reaction is to say OBVIOUSLY, just do X!

We also have not discussed the idea of parallel universes being created by use of a Time Turner to, say, go back and get rid of Tom Riddle to begin with. If we went by the multiverse theory, it's possible that such a change would have just created an alternate timeline in which events were different, leaving the timeline where things were the same to be, well, the same. Right?

[SNet]

Time travel theory is so complex, but really the short answer is this:

If Tom Riddle was never born, who knows what would've happened? Time travel is too complex to mess with.

[Nnylarak]

In addition, one of the problems with using Time Turners to change the past is that you can't know exactly what point in time to change. If we want to stop Voldemort's reign, do we stop him from being born by making sure his parents never get together? Or do we maybe keep his parents together and prevent him from being sent to the orphanage? Do we go back to the night in Godric's Hollow and warn Harry's parents in order to keep them alive? There is rarely one exact moment that we can trace back to, and by diverting one bad instance, you may inadvertently be creating an even worse situation.
For example, even when Harry and Hermione went back to save Sirius, they were winging it. Harry didn't know he was going to cast the patronus until he realized that he had already cast it. That's why I think Time Turners are too dangerous to use on a large scale- it's very difficult to form and carry out a plan.

[Wab]

As a plot device time travel is tricky and best not looked at too closely as with the Terminator. If people had managed to stop Judgement Day Kyle Reese would never of been sent back to save and warn Sarah so Judgement Day would have happened.

As for questions like why not stop Voldemort? Who's to say that the result wouldn't be worse?

[horcrux4]

When Dumbledore told Hermione to use the Time Turner he knew she had already done so. When he left Hagrid's hut he (and Fudge, Hagrid and McNair) had all seen that Buckbeak was missing. Had Buckbeak been killed by McNair (as the Trio assumed he had been but didn't see it) then when Hermione went back to save him there would have been 4 people in the present who had seen Buckbeak dead. That would have created a paradox. Of course Buckbeak could have broken his chain and flown off, but so long as no-one had seen Buckbeak dead, there would be no paradox if Hermione rescued him.

By the same token, if someone had gone back in time to save Lily & James, there would have been all the people in between the time they died and the time someone went back to account for. If Harry had gone back to save them, then the Harry in the present wouldn't have been the same Harry, as his experiences would have been different, so he wouldn't have needed to go back. The trouble with going back in time is that the present has to remain where it was when you left it.

I think my brain just leaked out of my ears.

[zombi]

Originally Posted by horcrux4

When Dumbledore told Hermione to use the Time Turner he knew she had already done so. When he left Hagrid's hut he (and Fudge, Hagrid and McNair) had all seen that Buckbeak was missing. Had Buckbeak been killed by McNair (as the Trio assumed he had been but didn't see it) then when Hermione went back to save him there would have been 4 people in the present who had seen Buckbeak dead. That would have created a paradox. Of course Buckbeak could have broken his chain and flown off, but so long as no-one had seen Buckbeak dead, there would be no paradox if Hermione rescued him.

Really good point!

By the same token, if someone had gone back in time to save Lily & James, there would have been all the people in between the time they died and the time someone went back to account for. If Harry had gone back to save them, then the Harry in the present wouldn't have been the same Harry, as his experiences would have been different, so he wouldn't have needed to go back. The trouble with going back in time is that the present has to remain where it was when you left it.

I think my brain just leaked out of my ears.

Also true. Time travel stuff does makes your head hurt just thinking about it! You have all made really great points, thanks.

Of course we have not address multiverse theory at all, which would be like... whoever uses Time Turner to do X and then the timeline that follows is separate from the timeline that they were in before they used the Time Turner, sort of. Going into parallel universes takes it all way outside of the scope of whatever happened in the books, though, because it sort of negates it all by saying "but then an alternate universe was created in which totally different things happened, but this universe existed simultaneously with the other, 'original' timeline which we happen to be able to read". So I'm negating myself here, in the end, aren't I?

[Gwendolen]

Originally Posted by zombi

Really good point!
Of course we have not address multiverse theory at all, which would be like... whoever uses Time Turner to do X and then the timeline that follows is separate from the timeline that they were in before they used the Time Turner, sort of. Going into parallel universes takes it all way outside of the scope of whatever happened in the books, though, because it sort of negates it all by saying "but then an alternate universe was created in which totally different things happened, but this universe existed simultaneously with the other, 'original' timeline which we happen to be able to read". So I'm negating myself here, in the end, aren't I?

With an alternate timeline I think you'd create a loop, like knitting. If Harry went back 72 years to give little Tom Riddle more hugs (let's be positive) it wouldn't change anything that Tom Riddle did the first time, it'd just mean an alternate 72 years would start in which he didn't do them. Harry wouldn't be changing his past, he'd be starting a new future.

I don't think it's people seeing Buckbeak dead that would create a paradox, it's him actually being both dead and alive at the same point in time. If it's just seeing him dead that counted it would imply nothing happens until someone sees it happen.

The time turner relates to the theme of free will and choice. The second time through the loop, could Harry have chosen not to save Buckbeak, or was it inevitable because it had already happened?

I think the same question applies to the prophecy - was it inevitable that the events would happen because Trelawny had already seen them happen? If so, did the characters really have a choice?

It's just as well the time turners were destroyed. We already have a paradox where Tom Riddle is dead but not dead, having another one where he was born and not born would stretch the fabric of reality to breaking point.

Before the stock of time turners was destroyed, does it create any plot holes where someone could have used a time turner, but didn't?

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by Gwendolen

With an alternate timeline I think you'd create a loop, like knitting. If Harry went back 72 years to give little Tom Riddle more hugs (let's be positive) it wouldn't change anything that Tom Riddle did the first time, it'd just mean an alternate 72 years would start in which he didn't do them. Harry wouldn't be changing his past, he'd be starting a new future.

I don't think it's people seeing Buckbeak dead that would create a paradox, it's him actually being both dead and alive at the same point in time. If it's just seeing him dead that counted it would imply nothing happens until someone sees it happen.

The time turner relates to the theme of free will and choice. The second time through the loop, could Harry have chosen not to save Buckbeak, or was it inevitable because it had already happened?

I think the same question applies to the prophecy - was it inevitable that the events would happen because Trelawny had already seen them happen? If so, did the characters really have a choice?

I think that for the prophecy, Dumbledore and the rest of canon, to me anyway, seems to indicate that nothing is set in stone, but rather that most prophecies are in some way sefl-fulfilling (Voldemort's actions with regards to Harry were motivated entirely by the prophecy itself, and Harry wouldn't have ever had the ability to destroy him without the prophecy). With time-turners, we don't really know what would happen if a person created a paradox. The thing is, at the moment you go back, you do have a choice, but if you want to get back to the future successfully, there is only one path.

It's just as well the time turners were destroyed. We already have a paradox where Tom Riddle is dead but not dead, having another one where he was born and not born would stretch the fabric of reality to breaking point.

Well, the Horcruxes are more of a quasi-science than a paradox, but point taken. I think that bringing time-travel into the series may have been a bad idea, so its minimal use is for the best simply so that more plot holes and logical flaws can be avoided.

Before the stock of time turners was destroyed, does it create any plot holes where someone could have used a time turner, but didn't?

The thing is- in order for the time-turner to work, you have to know that nothing you are planning on doing will change what you or anyone else already knows.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by willfitz

The thing is- in order for the time-turner to work, you have to know that nothing you are planning on doing will change what you or anyone else already knows.

True; although only in the context of JKR's use of the one timeline theory.

I also think that although Hermione & Harry did the time-travelling, it was Dumbledore who was the initiator of the action...

"How extraordinary," said Dumbledore. There was a tone of amusement in is voice.

Dumbledore recognized that time travel had likely been used, and that as he noticed it, he must be involved in causing it to happen (although not personally). It was then simply a matter of Dumbledore recognizing the proper moment to jump in.

[zombi]

Originally Posted by Gwendolen

With an alternate timeline I think you'd create a loop, like knitting. If Harry went back 72 years to give little Tom Riddle more hugs (let's be positive) it wouldn't change anything that Tom Riddle did the first time, it'd just mean an alternate 72 years would start in which he didn't do them. Harry wouldn't be changing his past, he'd be starting a new future.

How multiverse theory works depends on what kind of multiverse we're talking about, which obviously makes this really hazy to start out with, but, we'll go with it for the sake of discussion and because it's fun! If we have different universes, everything in those universes exists simultaneously with that which exists in the universe we experience. It doesn't alter our reality to have those other universes exist -- in fact, it probably wouldn't mess with our reality at all, because we'd not know of them nor the goings-on inside them. You're right, Gwendolen, to say that HP wouldn't be changing the past but starting a new future if it DID work that way.

So, obviously JKR's Time Turner doesn't work on multiverse levels, because it is used in the books to move around in a space-time set that is all connected, and it does not seem to allow the user to move between universes at all, right?

This is a really good point:

The thing is, at the moment you go back, you do have a choice, but if you want to get back to the future successfully, there is only one path.

Though like the others it does rely on a one timeline/universe theory.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by zombi

This is a really good point:

Though like the others it does rely on a one timeline/universe theory.

Cheers. At this point, I start to think that the less logically we think about things here, the better. The whole business of time travel relies on people having only one possible course of action. This is why I find it to be one of the weaker parts of the HP books.

[LordGellert]

First of all, I'd like to say hello to everybody. I'm obviously new in this community, but I've been reading it for a few weeks. Sorry for all my spelling mistakes, I'm Spanish and I've registered here to learn more about Harry Potter but also to go deeper in learning the English language.
I have some questions and doubts. However, I am not sure if they must be posted here, so if I am wrong, someone please tell me and I will replace it where it has to be.
The first one is something I didn't catch very well in GoF: if someone has Polyjuice Potion, does he acquire the skills of the other? Or on the contrary he only gets his bad things? I am based on GoF, where Crouch Jr. loses a leg and an eye when becoming Moody. Also, in DH, the 7 Potters have to use glasses as Harry does, and even Hermiones says Harry sees terribly. My point is, if someone transformed into Sirius, would he get the ability to turn himself into a dog? Or had someone become Lupin, would he "have problems" in full moon nights?
Also, now that you speak of Time Turners (sorry if some names are wrong, I have only read the Spanish edition), why are some objects imposible to repair using Reparo, such as wands? Could an expert magician such as Dumbledore or Ollivander have reapired Harry's wand, or are they imposible to reassemble?
Lastly, why don't people in the WW duplicate things in order to sell them? For example, the Weasleys could buy a book for school and duplicate it lots of times so they wouldn't have to pass them between brothers.
Sorry if the post is too long, and I hope these things will make you think!

[zombi]

Originally Posted by willfitz

Cheers. At this point, I start to think that the less logically we think about things here, the better. The whole business of time travel relies on people having only one possible course of action. This is why I find it to be one of the weaker parts of the HP books.

I agree that time travel is usually a weak device to employ, mainly because it raises so many darn questions. It's not usually worth it to try and figure out exactly how it would work, because it requires so much "what if" navigation.

As for LordGellert's question about Polyjuice Potion:

if someone has Polyjuice Potion, does he acquire the skills of the other? Or on the contrary he only gets his bad things? I am based on GoF, where Crouch Jr. loses a leg and an eye when becoming Moody. Also, in DH, the 7 Potters have to use glasses as Harry does, and even Hermiones says Harry sees terribly. My point is, if someone transformed into Sirius, would he get the ability to turn himself into a dog? Or had someone become Lupin, would he "have problems" in full moon nights?

I think there is a different between physical attributes, as in the case with Moony, and actual skills, as in the case of Sirius and being an Animagus.

The Polyjuice Potion allows the user to assume the physical attributes of someone else -- so, if that person were missing a body part, the Potion user would be too. Of course, they are not really missing the body part because when the potion wears off, it comes back. It is like how the hair might be shorter or longer depending on how the target looked, if that makes sense?

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by LordGellert

Lastly, why don't people in the WW duplicate things in order to sell them? For example, the Weasleys could buy a book for school and duplicate it lots of times so they wouldn't have to pass them between brothers.
Sorry if the post is too long, and I hope these things will make you think!

This is an interesting topic which I particularly enjoy. My take on it is that if you can't actually imagine every detail of what you are duplicating, or you don't know how something would be made, you likely aren't going to be able to duplicate it. I'd say that, for a book for example, if you tried to duplicate it without actually knowing what is written, you'd be likely to end up with just a blank book.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by willfitz

This is an interesting topic which I particularly enjoy. My take on it is that if you can't actually imagine every detail of what you are duplicating, or you don't know how something would be made, you likely aren't going to be able to duplicate it. I'd say that, for a book for example, if you tried to duplicate it without actually knowing what is written, you'd be likely to end up with just a blank book.

I'm inclined to agree with you on this. What comes to mind is not HP, but of all things the Terminator's explanation of T1000:

Terminator 2 John Connor: I need a minute here. You're telling me that this thing can imitate anything it touches? The Terminator: Anything it samples by physical contact. John Connor: Get real, like it could disguise itself as a pack of cigarettes? The Terminator: No, only an object of equal size. John Connor: Why doesn't it become a bomb or something to get me? The Terminator: It can't form complex machines, guns and explosives have chemicals, moving parts, it doesn't work that way, but it can form solid metal shapes. John Connor: Like what? The Terminator: Knives and stabbing weapons.

So I suspect duplication magic may have some of the same limitations. For example maybe you could duplicate a watch, and it would look like a watch, but I'm not sure it would work. (Either because the magic is only involved in creating something of equal mass and appearance, or because the duplicator doesn't have a mental schematic of watch the mechanism.)

That does not however preclude the possibility that a functional machine can be duplicated, I was only thinking that the difficulty of duplicating something might increase, say, geometrically as the complexity of the item does.

The other thought that occurs to me is that duplicated items are impermanent. But I can't find any canon to suggest this... can anyone else?