Question concerning movie 4
#1
How come they don't use the "time turners" (or what they are called) to fix the return of lord voldemort and the death of diggery etc. etc..
Man, putting these "time turners" into the books sure was a risk :roll:

Anyways *** reply if you know why or have a logic solution :wave:

MalusDarkblade_
Reply
#2
Time Turners are dangerous creations, and their use does not guarantee the outcome of any "do over".

This issue was addressed very well in an episode of Dr. Who, when Rose attempts to use the time-travel aspect of the Tardis to return to the day of her father's death, and save him from the accident which took his life when she was a baby. [Granting that story was set in the Britian of Dr Who, not Potterverse, of course.] Anyway, the Doctor had warned Rose that she must not attempt to alter history; but she disregarded him, and imperiled everyone by so doing.

Time Travel creates paradox upon paradox. And the world does not do well with paradox issues; the results almost certainly will be an alternate reality, but one which may well be worse, even horribly so, than the reality one knows.

Proposing the existance of the Time Turners allows one to endlessly ask these sort of questions. For example, after the events of the Potter's death, why didn't Dumbledore just take a Time Turner and go to Godric's Hollow, and save them along with baby Harry?

Ah, but had he done so, then LV's AK curse would not have rebounded upon his own body, breaking his powers for many years, which allowed for orphan Harry to grow up in a world absent the terror a whole, active LV was inflicting upon the Wizarding World. LV would have been able to try again, and again to kill Harry, for Dumbledore at that point knew nothing of LV's Horcruxes, and could not have killed him, even had he managed to save the Potter family {that time}. James' death, and Lily's sacrifice for Harry, had their part to play in making Harry Potter "who he was to become" in fulfilling the Prophecy, LV's one true Nemesis {As Dumbledore explained to Harry}.


Who could have been strong enough to attempt to use a Time Turner to go back and "save" Diggory, and thwart that particular attempt of LV to return? Only Dumbledore; and I hold that he would have been too wise to have attempted to do so. He knows that only Harry can ultimately "defeat" LV {whatever "defeat" may mean ...........}, and LV has to be present to be defeated.

On a more practical note:

The Ministry had all the Time Turners. When Harry recounted his tale of LV's return, Dumbledore and his supporters believed him, but Fudge {Minister of Magic} and the Ministry did not. So, had Dumbledore peititioned for use of Time Turners {and they'd have needed several ....... for many Order of the Pheonix members, or Aurors} to effect the change in the time line you propose, Fudge would have denied them. He flatly refused to believe Harry's story, after all.

And remember too: In Order of the Pheonix, the Time Turners were all smashed in the battle at the Ministry. So they are now out of the picture for any future story lines.


Reply
#3
Darq Ali Wrote:Time Travel creates paradox upon paradox.

Your points are all well-taken except for this one. This is not true for all cases. Future time-travel would not have this impact. Hermione's use of the time-turner allowed for only one paradox to occur: her pressence in two places at once.

But the question does arise: What are time-turners intended to be used for?

Surely they weren't created with the sole purpose of aiding over-acheiving students in their studies. Or were they?
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#4
Good question!

However, attempts to change past events always run a great risk, and alternate time lines may be no better, and often are much worse, was my point.

When Hermionie used a Time Turner to be able to sit multiple classes which met at the same hour, she was not attempting to "undo" any outcome of events. She did not forget what she had learned in Class One, as she sat in Class Two.

Likewise, when Dumbledore sent Hermionie and Harry back in time, he was not attempting to undo an undesired event. He was attempting to avert a tragedy.

I submit also that Dumbledore also had a crucial piece of information which helped him reach his decision to intervene in events in this manner: He knew Buckbeak had not been executed.

When the Trio {plus Peter the Rat, in Ron's pocket} left Hagrid's cottage, it was just as the executioners' party arrived, and they heard what they thought was Buckbeak's execution as they trecked across the grounds. Then Scabbers wriggles free, and they end up at the Shrieking Shack, as the story unfolds. They have no way to know Buckbeak was not actually killed.

Dumbledore, however, knew differently. Buckbeak had disappeared, though no one knew how.

And so, when Harry told his story to Dumbledore, the facts fell into place: Buckbeak was gone; someone had freed him .......... and Sirius needed rescue, an deed which a flying mount could aid; plus, Hermionie had a Time Turner. We might also speculate that Dumbldore had espied the rescue of Harry, Sirius and Hermionie from the Dementors, and understood it was Harry on the far side of the lake ........ but he need not have done.

And so, Dumbledore sent Harry and Hermionie back in time, so that they could rescue both Buckbeak and Sirius ....... knowing that it had been done, by the fact that Buckbeak was not dead.

This is seeking to avert an undesired end {Sirius' being soul-sucked}, not an attempt to change history. While still potentially frought with peril, this use of the Time Turner isn't nearly so dangerous as an attempt to alter a reality one already has experienced.

Reply
#5
Well thanks for the very fast and imaging replies Smile
I am well aware of "doctor who" haha, nice example, lets just hope it doesn't unfolds like that Big Grin.

Nice that people know so much about HP.
Though i have read the books rrrrrrrrrrrealy carefully Confusedo:.
Anyways thanks again, looking forward to the final book and movie 5.
It's going to be so freaking sad when the story ends can't bear to talk about it :mad:

Well bye people, see you around.

MalusDarkblade_
Reply
#6
Quote:And remember too: In Order of the Pheonix, the Time Turners were all smashed in the battle at the Ministry. So they are now out of the picture for any future story lines.

I didn't remember this. It doesn't rule out that there are more Time Turners that individuals owned, does it?

It is possible that the existence of Time Turners was brought to our atttention in order for them to be used again, although this may have already been set up for and occurred during the rescue.
Reply
#7
Darq Ali Wrote:Likewise, when Dumbledore sent Hermionie and Harry back in time, he was not attempting to undo an undesired event. He was attempting to avert a tragedy.

I'm afraid that I fail to see the different between undoing an undesired event and attempting to avert a tragedy. Is it simply the scale of the events that you're mentioning? In which case, there are any number of tragic events that are far, far greater than the loss of a single hippogriff, yet those things haven't been averted through use of a time-turner.

I also didn't see an answer to my question: What is a time-turner's intended use? Or is your answer that they were made to avert a tragedy? In which case how do we, or the Ministry, determine which they are doing?
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#8
Arcadia Wrote:I didn't remember this. It doesn't rule out that there are more Time Turners that individuals owned, does it?

My impression is that all Time Turners are {were} owned by the Ministry of Magic; and that their use is strictly controlled by them. Hermionie had to apply for the use of one; McGonnagal vouched for her so that she was allowed the use for school.

It is possible that the existence of Time Turners was brought to our atttention in order for them to be used again, although this may have already been set up for and occurred during the rescue.

Nothing is impossible, and some things we've seen will appear again.

However, the statement that all the Time Turners were destroyed in the battle at the Ministry of Magic {at the climax of "Order of the Pheonix} suggests that they can't be used for any 'do overs'.
Reply
#9
RobRoy Wrote:I'm afraid that I fail to see the different between undoing an undesired event and attempting to avert a tragedy.

In my mind there is a real difference.

In any event, I see the fact that Buckbeak was not killed as part of the reason that Dumbledore sent Harry and Hermionie back, in order to save both the hippogriff and Sirius.

Again I note, that while the Trio had no idea that Buckbeak had been rescued ....... in fact, it was certain they all thought him dead ....... it is plain that Dumbledore knew he had not died, by the time he was telling Hermionie that she and Harry needed to go back using her Time Turner. [Dumbledore was with the execution party. He knew first hand Buckbeak had escaped, though at the time he could not have known how. But the fact that he knew Buckbeak was alive, added to the fact that Sirius needed rescue from an upper floor office, played into his decision to send Harry and Hermionie back, and also, with what he told them as he did so.]

Before he had done that, Dumbledore didn't {logically, couldn't have} know{n} how Buckbeak had escaped. Yet, he knew that he had. In pondering how he might aid Sirius, confined as he was in an upper-level room, the notion that a flying steed would be of great service followed; and so, the idea of sending Hermionie and Harry back in time to grab Buckbeak from Hagrid's garden just ahead of McNair's ax, to later fly him up to the window to rescue Sirius, was logical.

As for the difference I draw:

Buckbeak was not dead. Sirius was not soul-sucked. Sending Harry and Hermionie back in time to avert the death of one and the irreversable damage of the other is to ask them to avert a tragic event that has not happened.

Sending someone back in time to the graveyard at Little Hangleton, to change the fact of Cedric Diggory's death, and to "un-make" the events of LV's return, would be a very different matter. It would mean that the dead can be returned to life, and that a terrible spell which re-created a body for LV could be 'undone', by intervening {with post-event knowledge} in a time line which has already elapsed.

When Harry and Hermionie went back, they were to do things in past time in order to avert events which had not yet taken place. Sirius had not been soul-sucked, and, by going back, they were in a position to ensure he never was. Because he sent them back far enough, they also prevented Buckbeak from being decapitated; and Dumbledore understood that they could, because he had lived through the time set for execution, and knew that when the party went into Hagrid's garden, Buckbeak was not there ............

If Dumbledore had wittnessed Buckbeak die, I do not think he would have sent Harry and Hermionie back to "undo" his death. He may have sent them off with a different plan for Sirius' rescue, but note, he sought to intervene prior to the soul-sucking, and did not seek to reverse the event, after it was over.

I don't know if going back in Time could be used to "un-do" the death of Cedric, nor "un-do" the return of LV, which was the question asked. That is a paradox, because, when you choose to go back to "un-do" an event after it has really happened, this pre-supposes that you have knowledge of this terribly undesired event in the first place. But if you intervene and prevent it from happening, how can your future self know it happened, to send yourself back to change it? This is a paradox.

Again, Dumbledore knew that Sirius would be soul-sucked, if he were in that locked room when the Dementors arrived. And so he could send Harry and Hermionie back in time, to make certain they could get him out of that room before the Dementors got there. Had there been more time in the present, that might not have been necessary; some other escape might have been contrived.

Bringing back the dead, because you learn later that they have been killed, is another matter. As I said, there is a paradox in that notion. If you go back to change the events that led to that death, and so, "undo" the death, how can your future self know to go back to change events that never took place? Different matter.

Is it simply the scale of the events that you're mentioning? In which case, there are any number of tragic events that are far, far greater than the loss of a single hippogriff, yet those things haven't been averted through use of a time-turner.

Dumbledore didn't send them back to save the hippogriff. He sent them to save Sirius. He realized that Buckbeak was the key for them to do so {being a flying steed, how handy!}, and knew that was the method they used, because he also knew Buckbeak had escaped. That the action "saved two innocent lives" was good fortune.

I also didn't see an answer to my question: What is a time-turner's intended use?

I said, "good question".

Or is your answer that they were made to avert a tragedy? In which case how do we, or the Ministry, determine which they are doing?

My answer is, "I don't know why Time Turners were made."

expanding on that, I add "..........in the Wizarding World".

Obviously, they were a great plot device for JKR to use in that book, and I take it that the 'fact' they were also all destroyed is also a handy 'event' in the story, just so no one can ask, "Why don't They just take a Time Turner and fix things ............?"

Speculation, in the spirit of seeing the Wizarding World as a given reality:

Time Turners were invented by some great Witch or Wizard, for their own very obvious uses. In the Lawless Days before the Wizarding World had the Ministry of Magic to regulate such things, they were used by any who could make or purchase {or steal} such a thing; much as the Philosopher's Stone was used by anyone who could make such a magical device.

But the Ministry came into being, and the Time Turners were made Controled Objects, and gathered {Upon pain of punishment} into Ministry hands, to be used for relatively harmless purposes, such as, getting a really over-achieving young witch into extra classes, just because she can. The Ministry decides what purposes, and what persons, are approved. They would not have approved of what Dumbledore directed Harry and Hermionie to do, using the one she had borrowed.
Reply
#10
Darq Ali Wrote:In my mind there is a real difference.

If you say so. To me, one set of events includes a paradox because they used the time-turner, and the other doesn't because, well, they didn't use a time-turner. That's the only real difference I can see.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#11
RobRoy Wrote:If you say so. To me, one set of events includes a paradox because they used the time-turner, and the other doesn't because, well, they didn't use a time-turner. That's the only real difference I can see.

The distinction I make is this:

Dumbledore decided to send Harry and Hermionie back in time in order to effect the rescue of Sirius, because he knew in the Present that Sirius was an innocent man, who would be Soul-Sucked {unjustly}, and he was powerless to prevent the event {without undesired side-effects} because of circumstance. He used the Time Turner {a} because it was present and {b} because doing so allowed him to provide Sirius with an escape and remain anonymous.

We saw Dumbledore defend Harry and his own person in his office, and escape several Aurors, by great magical prowess. We saw him battle LV in the Ministry hall, and triumph. Dumbledore could have gone and placed himself between Sirius and the Dementors, and fought them both free ......... I have no doubt. But to have done this would have been to have become an outlaw in the Wizarding World alongside Sirius, because that course would have been in open defiance of Fudge and the Ministry, who were not willing to listen. Yes, Dumbledore eventually did this very thing, after LV was back; but in the time frame of Prisoner of Azkaban, he was not yet willing to abandon his post as Headmaster of Hogwarts, protecting Harry and overseeing his education.

And so, because time was very short, he used Harry and Hermionie as the means to rescue Sirius; along the way, this effected the rescue of the creature Buckbeak, too, a happy second benefit of that particular plan. But nothing he did created a paradox that would prevent him from doing what he did. He knew Sirius was in imminant danger in the present, and sent others back so that they would have time to rescue him. Nothing about that rescue changed the facts of the danger Sirius faced.

Consider again the question asked at the start of this thread: Why didn't "They" use Time Turners to go back and 'save' Cedric Diggory, and 'undo' the Return of LV to a healthy corporeal body?

First, of course, Fudge didn't believe Harry and Fudge as head of the Ministry controlled the Time Turners. We don't see Dumbledore as having one to use, so, it seems improbable that Time Turners would have been released for this purpose. That is a direct answer why "They" never tried this: The people who could have authorized such an effort didn't believe the events actually happened, in the first place. [Sure, they knew Cedric was dead, but laid this to an 'accident' in the Maze; and they simply denied the whole Portkey to the Cemetary and Return of LV ever happened at all.]

But moreove, there is in this "undo events that have really happened" concept the inherent paradox:

For anyone to send someone back to change the past, alter to a different reality things that have already taken place, "They" have to know the events transpired. Once the past is satisfactoraly changed ....... and there's no guarantee that a 'better alternate' would be the outcome ............ then, if Cedric is not dead, and LV is not back, how does the then future person know to send anyone back? And if they don't send someone back to intervene, then, events go down as they did ...........

When you strive to prevent something you see looming, you are not "undoing" anything. When you seek to change events already over, you are; and that is .......... different.
Reply
#12
Darq Ali Wrote:But moreove, there is in this "undo events that have really happened" concept the inherent paradox:

A paradox has a point of origin, though to all observers following the point of origin, it appears as chicken and egg. Hence the paradox. Essentially, what you're saying is that one is ok "Because Rowlings wrote it this way." That's fine and all, I've used a similar argument as well. But this doesn't support any difference between undoing an undesired event and attempting to avert a tragedy. By definition the two concepts are kith and kin, if not the exact same thing using different terms. <shrug>
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#13
Clearly, I don't see it that way.

Some also see the one example of Time Travel JKR uses for crucial events in HP's story as bogged down in paradox, anyway.

Were it just the issue of the rescue of Buckbeak and Sirius, she'd have got off fine, but there was another event which I ignored: Harry's rescue of himself, Sirius and Hermionie from the Dememtors, of course. Their survival depended upon the person across the lake, which Harry took to be his father, James. But it was his later self.

Trouble is, his being there the second time depended upon his having lived through the first time, which he would not have done had his second self not been there, to save his real-time self. If Harry had not saved himself and Hermionie and Sirius from the Dementors, Sirius would already have been soul-sucked and Harry and Hermioine along with him. But the second Harry was there, sent back by Dumbledore to save Sirius. But he could not have survived to have been sent back ............... dog chasing tail.
Reply
#14
I sort of see what you're saying, Darq Ali, but you're assuming that the end result was the same as the original event. However, there's no way we can know what the original event was as we only see it as it was changed by the Harry and Hermoine going back in time.

Was Buckbeak really killed the first time? We aren't told. We are only told that Harry and Hermoine save him the second time. Did he escape on his own the first time? If so, he could have been happily living in the Forbidden Forest with his hippogriff friends the last three years rather than on the lamb with Sirius. Plus, there's the old question, why would Dumbledore be concerned about saving two lives instead of one if, on the first time around, Buckbeak wasn't killed? An escaped hippogriff doesn't exactly need saving. An executed hippogriff does. Perhaps Dumbledore considered this of little enough consequence to the time line to allow its alteration.

Let's not even get started on the second Harry saves the first Harry timeloop as it is just a tangled mess that is never going to be straightened out.

"Undoing real events" vs "Averting a tragedy" is a very fine line and not much of a difference really. If you go back in time to undo the real events, then you could potentially avert a tragedy. If you go back to avert a tragedy, then you are still undoing the original real events. No matter which way you slice it or how you phrase it, things are being changed. Period.
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#15
Darq Ali Wrote:[B]Clearly, I don't see it that way.

You don't have to see it that. By definition, that's the way a paradox works. :wave:

Quote:But he could not have survived to have been sent back ............... dog chasing tail.

Exactly, which negates any kind of difference you're trying to state regarding averting a tragedy or undoing real events.

GamgeeFest Wrote:"Undoing real events" vs "Averting a tragedy" is a very fine line and not much of a difference really. If you go back in time to undo the real events, then you could potentially avert a tragedy. If you go back to avert a tragedy, then you are still undoing the original real events. No matter which way you slice it or how you phrase it, things are being changed. Period.

Exactly, Gamgee. The only difference I can see at this point is that one contains a paradox and the other doesn't. Past that, the further I can get them is kissing-cousins! :dummy:
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#16
RobRoy Wrote:Exactly, which negates any kind of difference you're trying to state regarding averting a tragedy or undoing real events.

I disagree.

The way JKR wrote it, the Time Travel aspect of Prisoner of Azkaban did involve a paradox which I cannot solve: That Harry had to survive the first trip through a given afternoon and evening's events, to be alive to be sent back, to live the same time period over a second time; but he could not have done so, for he saved himself {and Sirius and Hermionie} from the dementors, which is not possible {dog chasing tail}.

But take that aspect out, and the rest of the Time Travel adventure isn't wholly implausable; because Harry and Hermionie didn't change things that had happened ......... they averted a probable bad event {two, actually, when you add in Buckbeak's escape to Sirius'}. The third bad event averted ....... the Dementors soul-sucking Sirius, Harry and Hermionie was also written, but that part was not possible.

As for there being no essential difference between going back in time to gain enough time to act to avert a bad future, and going back in time to change the history of elapsed events:

One posits that you can bring the dead to life, raise the Titanic, or unburn a forest fire.

The other posits that if help arrives in time, a bad event may be prevented.

The second is somewhat plausable in literature; the first is problematic in the extreme. But if you want to see them as essentially the same, well, that is your perogative.

JKR has stated through her work many times, that nothing can bring back the dead. Harry hears and even sees 'echos' of his dead parents, Cedric and others; he hears his mother's screams in memory. But even JKR would say, he cannot bring them back 'for real', no matter what he does.



Exactly, Gamgee. The only difference I can see at this point is that one contains a paradox and the other doesn't. Past that, the further I can get them is kissing-cousins! :dummy:

If there is no paradox, the concept is believable.

btw, paradox can be very entertaining. Ever read Robert Heinlein's "By His Bootstraps" {short story}? A very masterful exploration of the paradox of Time Travel.

also: The chicken/egg thing is not a paradox. The scientific answer is, "The egg came first. The bird which laid it was not a chicken, but a direct ancestor of the chicken, whose egg contained a genetic mutation, which made its offspring different than its' parent; different in a positive way, which meant it survived and thrived and prophegated, creating a new species." [Almost 5 decades in the poultry business speaking here.]
Reply
#17
Darq Ali Wrote:I disagree.

The way JKR wrote it, the Time Travel aspect of Prisoner of Azkaban did involve a paradox which I cannot solve: [snip]

Not the issue. The issue is the difference between averting a tragedy or undoing real events. One has a paradox, the other does not. In order for the one to have a paradox, it requires the initial action, in this case the use of a time-turner. Without that initial action, there is no difference between averting a tragedy or undoing real events.

Quote:also: The chicken/egg thing is not a paradox.

It's a little more intricate than that. At what point does the chicken, by definition, become a chicken, and is that point when it is in the egg, when it is viable, when it is a chick, when it matures, etc.

I believe Plato answered it in a completely different way. He said that the actual proceeds potential. Thus, because an egg is only a potential chicken, whereas the chicken is an actual one, the chicken must come first. :bg:
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#18
GamgeeFest Wrote:I sort of see what you're saying, Darq Ali, but you're assuming that the end result was the same as the original event. However, there's no way we can know what the original event was as we only see it as it was changed by the Harry and Hermoine going back in time.

Uh. Here is the paradox thing.

Let's start with the clear problem as JKR wrote the tale: Harry's first truly successful Dementor-repelling quality Patronus.

The first trip through the time that Harry and Hermionie lived twice, we see the events at Hagrid's cottage up to the Trio's leaving, just at the arrival of the Execution Squad {which included Dumbledore}; this included the re-entry of Scabbers/Peter the Rat into the tale, and following that, the whole escapade down the rabbit hole, sorry, under the Whomping Willow and into the Shrieking Shack, followed by the emergence of the Werewolf Lupin, which led to Sirius, Hermionie and Harry being beset by Dememtors.

And from across the way comes a fully formed Stag Patronus, a spell the failing Harry percieves as being cast by his father, James Potter.

At this point, Harry doesn't know Time Turners even exist, much less that Hermionie has one hanging 'round her neck. He therefore cannot even begin to hazzard a guess that the distant figure he sees across the lake is himself, come back for another go 'round at the same evening's time.

Now, if you posit that "the second time" we see these same events are somehow different from the first time, how then do you explain that Harry, Hermionie and Sirius survive? Were there no Dementors there to imperil them? Did Harry manage his own Patronus on his first try, so that he didn't need to 'save himself' from afar? Was the ghost of James Potter actually across the lake, as Harry imagined? Or, did Harry, Hermionie and Sirius fall prey to the Dementors and become soul-sucked right then?

None of those explainations make any sense whatsoever.

It was the presence of the Dementors which made Sirius, Harry and Hermionie helpless, so that Sirius was captured, after all. They had to have been a factor in the events, first and second time.

Harry had to have been unable to cast an effective Dementor-repelling strength Patronus that first time, else he could have chased them off, and aided Sirius into the Forbidden Forest, or back into the Whomping Willow, into the passage into Hogsmede and freedom; had Harry been able to repel the Dementors on his own, Sirius would have escaped with his aid.

We know James Potter is really dead, and not a ghost who can return to aid Harry {though his echo did that one time ......... different incident, when 'priori incantatum' called back the echos of the dead, not their ghosts}.

So, the first time through the time-line, Harry/Hermionie/Sirius are saved, not soul-sucked. Nothing else makes sense. Of course, this is the inherent paradox of this aspect of JKR's tale, for Harry has to live to get to the Infirmiry, to be sent back to save himself; but I digress.

Was Buckbeak really killed the first time? We aren't told.

No, we saw the events the first and second times through the first hand viewpoint of Harry and Hermionie; and as they {with Ron and Scabbers} leave Hagrid's, under the Invisibility Cloak, they hear , but do not see , the events unfolding behind them. As they hear the fall of McNair's axe, they {and we} assume the death of Buckbeak.

Both they and we are unaware of the second Harry and Hermionie hiding in the edge of the Forest, and of their careful timing of the rescue of the hippogriff. However, Dumbledore, who lived through this time-line only once, was not unaware of what actually happened. He along with all the others saw Buckbeak tethered in Hagrid's garden prior to going into the cottage to formalize the execution order; and he also was aware that when he {they} came back out, Buckbeak was gone. These events happened only once. Nothing changed. The sounds remained the same, and so forth.

We are only told that Harry and Hermoine save him the second time. Did he escape on his own the first time?

Since our first trip throught this scene did not show the events in the garden with Buckbeak, this would not have been impossible [Buckbeak freeing himself, to hide himself in the forest; though, given his actions when Harry and Hermionie had him, that seems doubtful in the extreme. Buckbeak was blissfully unaware of his pending doom, after all; and when freed, he sought {a} food and {b} to re-join Hagrid. He had no reason to seek his freedom, nor to hide. Unless forced not to show himself, Buckbeak had no reason not to do so, for he was not present at his own trial, nor the appeal, and had no understanding of his own peril.]

If so, he could have been happily living in the Forbidden Forest with his hippogriff friends the last three years rather than on the lamb with Sirius.

If he would have attempted to hide; but he would not have done {see above}. Buckbeak didn't know he was condemed to die.

Plus, there's the old question, why would Dumbledore be concerned about saving two lives instead of one if, on the first time around, Buckbeak wasn't killed?

Dumbledore was concerned with saving Buckbeak, if he could, from the start of Draco Malfoy's false accusation. But Dumbledore is not King of the Wizarding World, and had no power to overturn the mechanations of Lucious Malfoy and his fellow Death Eaters. But if buckbeak were already dead, he would have moved on, surely; for Dumbledore has told Harry {and us} that nothing brings back the dead.

But that is not the reason he told Harry and Hermionie, as he sent them off to go back to relive several hours over again, that their efforts might save two lives {not only Sirius'}.

Dumbledore had great faith in the magical abilities and loyal intent of the pair, but he needed to set their feet on a path to success. Sirius was held in an office on an upper level of Hogwart's castle, a room we may safely assume had but one inner access door, which was amply guarded. As Sirius could not fly, nor jump to safety, Dumbledore knew the window was a path to escape, could a means be devised to get him safely away from the window.

Had Buckbeak been dead, an alternate suggestion would be something like, "Go to the Broomshed, kids, break in and steal the best brooms you can lay hands upon, fly up to the window and give one to Sirius." Would have worked just fine, and no reversal of events would be necessary. I hold that if Dumbledore had seen Buckbeak die, that would have been his instruction.

But Dumbledore had not seen Buckbeak die. He was present when the execution party found him absent from the garden tether all knew had held him scant minutes before. And Buckbeak could fly. And so his subtle suggestion, of the time needed to accomplish their task, and that they should seek to save two lives, not just Sirius. Had he wanted to save Sirius alone, Dumbledore would not have stipulated so much time needed to accomplish their task; for he suggested several hours. Stealing some brooms should not have taken that long; Harry, as a Quidditch player, surely could have laid hands on brooms very easily.

But if they had not gone back so far, then Harry would not have been hiding where he could watch the events which by that time he had lived through once, where the Dementors went after Sirius, Hermionie and himself .......... and where he, himself cast the Patronus which saved them all. If that had not gone down the same way, no Harry would have been there and Sirius would already have been soul-sucked before getting to the castle.

An escaped hippogriff doesn't exactly need saving. An executed hippogriff does. Perhaps Dumbledore considered this of little enough consequence to the time line to allow its alteration.

True, but see above. Buckbeak had no reason to free himself; he was blissfully unaware of his pending doom. If he did free himself, perhaps out of boredom or hunger {like, Hagrid was letting him starve?}, then he had no reason to hide, at all; he was reluctant to do so when untied by Harry, but sought rather to re-join Hagrid, or to root for food.

It makes sense to me that Dumbledore understood that Buckbeak had not died, and that Buckbeak, if taken to Sirius' office/prison window, was the ideal means of escape; and that using Buckbeak this way neatly kept all the people (including himself) free of suspicion. Brooms could aid Sirius in a flying escape just as Buckbeak did, but Harry and brooms are a natural; suspician might have been a problem. A living Buckbeak was a mystery to all, but it solved the problem of casting suspician on any person, Dumbledore or Harry.

Let's not even get started on the second Harry saves the first Harry timeloop as it is just a tangled mess that is never going to be straightened out.

Yep. Impossible.

"Undoing real events" vs "Averting a tragedy" is a very fine line and not much of a difference really. If you go back in time to undo the real events, then you could potentially avert a tragedy.

Harry and Hermionie were not sent back to "undo" anything. They were sent back in time to gain time to do something.

If you go back to avert a tragedy, then you are still undoing the original real events.

No. Harry and Hermionie "undid" nothing. They acted to do things, but "undid" nothing.

No matter which way you slice it or how you phrase it, things are being changed. Period.

"Changed" and "averted" are two different things.

If you see a road hazzard ahead, and apply the brakes, you may avert a collision. That is different than taking your vehicle to the body shop and reversing the results of the collision after it has taken place.

When Dumbledore sent Harry and Hermionie back in time, so as to gain enough time to rescue Sirius, Sirius had not been soul-sucked, though the event was imminant. He was applying brakes, not reversing the results of a collision.
Reply
#19
Darq Ali Wrote:"Changed" and "averted" are two different things.

Sorry Darq, but you're reaching here. Changed and averted are considered synonyms. We could apply them similarly to counter-examples and have no better argument. For example, in the car example you provided, we could say that you averted the outcome and had no damage, we could also say that you changed the outcome so that no damage occured. Same concept using the two different words. :bg:
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#20
RobRoy Wrote:Sorry Darq, but you're reaching here. Changed and averted are considered synonyms. We could apply them similarly to counter-examples and have no better argument. For example, in the car example you provided, we could say that you averted the outcome and had no damage, we could also say that you changed the outcome so that no damage occured. Same concept using the two different words. :bg:

You may be correct that I have not used the proper words, but my contention stands.

Sirius was never soul-sucked. Dumbledore's action in sending Harry and Hermioine back into time allowed them to see to it that he never was; what Dumbledore sought was to prevent the planned soul-sucking from ever happening , which his sending them back managed to accomplish.

Had Sirius been subjected to the Dementor's attentions, and then Dumbledore sent Harry and Hermionie back to change things so that it "didn't happen the second time", that would be different; and would be analagous to sending "someone" back in time, to change events following the Portkey from the Maze history, so that, the second time around, Cedric Diggory didn't die, and LV didn't achieve a strong new body.

Let's see:

Some one has dropped an egg, which is heading for the hard floor.

Dumbledore's action is analagous to catching the egg before it smashes, while the suggestion which started this thread is analagous to putting Humpty-Dumpty together again, after it already has.

Dumbledore has told Harry that nothing can bring back the dead. That is the stated reality of JKR's world: The Dead do not return.

Therefore, she would not write a story where Buckbeak is dead in one time line, but someone goes back and re-writes the story, so, the second time through the events, he no longer is; nor would she write that Sirius was soul-sucked, but later was un-soulsucked. Likewise, in Potterverse, no one can go to the graveyard with a time-turner, and await LV and Peter and prevent their killing Cedric; nor can they hide in the Maze and prevent Harry and Cedric from taking hold of the TriWizard Cup; nor yet can they prevent Fake Moody from turning the cup into a Portkey to begin with.

Someone may be hidden, and 'presumed dead' to the Wizarding World at large ...... Dumbledore tells Draco so ...... but nothing will restore the dead to life in Potterverse. Not even using Time Travel, for JKR said so.

But there are 'do overs' for Time, in the sense that Hermionie can live the same hour twice, or even three times, in order to sit three classes which meet at the same hour. Likewise, Harry and Hermionie can go back, and do things in the same bloc of time they have already lived once, doing other things the first time through; and their second trip may alter the outcome of the Future that no one has yet lived through. That is the case with the Time Travel we see in Prisoner of Azkaban; but no one dead has come back to life by their efforts, nor has a sucked out soul been returned to Sirius' body.

At least, not the way I read the books. Perhaps the British editions are more different from the American books than I have thought.
Reply

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Newt Scamander to Star in His Own Movie FilmGuy 2 618 May 25th, 2014, 02:07 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 Full Movie Online Free News From Yahoo! 0 1,036 December 19th, 2010, 11:22 PM
Last Post: News From Yahoo!
  Video: Official Teaser Trailer for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Pt 1" MOVIE Michael 0 442 June 4th, 2010, 06:48 PM
Last Post: Michael
  The next Movie Irene 5 562 May 27th, 2010, 01:15 PM
Last Post: RobRoy
  Young Grindelwald to appear in only one HP movie Michael 0 634 September 12th, 2009, 08:52 PM
Last Post: Michael
  MTV posts spoiler for "Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince" movie Michael 0 733 February 19th, 2009, 03:28 AM
Last Post: Michael
  When is the next movie? Irene 7 1,044 August 16th, 2008, 03:58 PM
Last Post: august
  Location Question in HP SilverChalice 3 691 March 6th, 2007, 05:00 PM
Last Post: Arcadia
  So here's an intellectual question for all you fans so and so 7 843 October 25th, 2006, 07:50 AM
Last Post: ginny weasley
  Harry Potter 5 Movie Fred Steve 40 1,965 September 17th, 2006, 04:57 PM
Last Post: Darq Ali

Forum Jump: