Isbister15
Gryffindor Alumni
Mmmm...chocolate
Posts: 5,082
|
Post by Isbister15 on Aug 28, 2004 21:15:26 GMT -5
Okay, first I'd like to apologize for starting a new thread for this, but I wasn't quite sure where to place it. So here goes... I was just watching HP and the Prisoner of Azkaban and something struck me about the part where Dumbledore tells Harry and Hermione that they can save innocent lives if they use the Time-Turner properly... Since it's been made clear that it is possible to reverse a death with the TT, why didn't Dumbledore just use one and go back and save the Potters? Can you perhaps only go back to the same point in time once? (though didn't Hermione have three classes at the same time that year? ) Did Dumbledore perhaps actually use a TT and return to the scene of the Potters' death, but was only able to save Harry? Any thoughts on this? Am I just crazy? Is chocolate not the best food on earth?
|
|
|
Post by Sphi on Aug 28, 2004 22:29:59 GMT -5
It's totally okay for you to start a new thread, Izzy! It's been a while since we had a new topic in here anyways.
Since it's been made clear that it is possible to reverse a death with the TT, why didn't Dumbledore just use one and go back and save the Potters? Did Dumbledore perhaps actually use a TT and return to the scene of the Potters' death, but was only able to save Harry?
Hm! That's quite an original thought. I think in PoA, Hermione only had two classes at the same time, so maybe you can only go back once.
So Dumbledore might've taken the chance to go back and save Harry. But hasn't JKR said that there's no way to bring back someone from the dead? I know they did with Buckbeak. Hmm... But then why wouldn't Dumbledore save James and Lily too?
...Maybe Harry was already fine on his own (you know, since it was even part of the Prophecy), and Dumbledore went back for a different reason... You know how on JKR's site, she says the two questions we should be concentrating on is "Why didn't Voldemort die?" and "Why didn't Dumbledore kill Voldemort in the Ministry scene?" ...Maybe Dumbledore going back there has something to do with that. At the end of OotP, Dumbledore and Voldemort has a "conversation", if you can call it that.
I don't really know how to support any of these ideas, especially because they're all sorta coming out of nowhere (), but maybe Dumbledore knows something about how to destroy Voldemort, and for now, that means keeping him alive.
And yes, chocolate may just be the best food on the face of the earth. ;D
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Aug 28, 2004 22:43:15 GMT -5
Hmm, I think you can only go back once, because if you go back multiple times to the same location, logical contradictions will arise and we can't have that. Bad thesis! Get back in your box!!
See, that's the other thing. You have a time limit on how long you can be away (from memory, 3 minutes?), before you have to make sure that your actions are consistent with what took place before. And for logic's sake, I don't think any "bunches" of 3 minute intervals can overlap. So maybe Dumbledore could either save Harry or James and Lily? I really don't know, because that time travel story is implausible... *grumble*
|
|
|
Post by Sphi on Aug 28, 2004 23:15:27 GMT -5
*staring at the dancing badger, badger, badger, badger...*
The implausibility is one of the key elements of JKR's twist endings! ;D I personally don't think something like this would be impossible in the HP world, but I suppose you have been spending way too much time thinking about the Time Turner lately. ;D
|
|
|
Post by hermoine on Aug 29, 2004 6:59:54 GMT -5
(from memory, 3 minutes?)
Three minutes? Didn't Harry and Hermione go back for 3 hours?
Maybe Dumbledore thought he might not be able to kill Voldemort. He had already heard the prophecy given my Trelawney hadn't he, and I suppose he knew what had to happen. Probably if he had gone back in time, something like what happened in the Ministry of Magic might have occured, except that he'd have more followers with him.
I love this thread! Highly interesting!
|
|
Isbister15
Gryffindor Alumni
Mmmm...chocolate
Posts: 5,082
|
Post by Isbister15 on Aug 30, 2004 14:05:51 GMT -5
Hm! That's quite an original thought. I think in PoA, Hermione only had two classes at the same time, so maybe you can only go back once. I wasn't sure about this so I checked the book and on page 98 it shows Hermione has Divination, Muggle Studies, and Arithmancy all at 9 o'clock in the morning. So Dumbledore might've taken the chance to go back and save Harry. But hasn't JKR said that there's no way to bring back someone from the dead? I know they did with Buckbeak. Hmm... But then why wouldn't Dumbledore save James and Lily too? That's what I'm wondering. I do think it was stated either by JKR or in OotP that you can't bring someone back from the dead, but that's already happened with Buckbeak, and also kind of with Sirius when the dementors got him at the end of PoA, right? He was just about dead anyway. I don't really know how to support any of these ideas, especially because they're all sorta coming out of nowhere (), but maybe Dumbledore knows something about how to destroy Voldemort, and for now, that means keeping him alive. That could be, and I don't remember exactly when Trelawney's first prophecy was made, but that doesn't really explain why Dumbledore couldn't have saved Lilly and James, right? I'm probably completely wrong about all of this and I thank you guys for indulging me , it just seems that some things could have been corrected somewhat easily. And yes, chocolate may just be the best food on the face of the earth. ;D Another reason why I like you so much, SP. Hmm, I think you can only go back once, because if you go back multiple times to the same location, logical contradictions will arise and we can't have that. Bad thesis! Get back in your box!! Actually, Ko, Hermione went back to the same block of time at least twice for her classes. But do you mean to the exact same time and location? Hmmm, that might be our answer right there. See, that's the other thing. You have a time limit on how long you can be away (from memory, 3 minutes?), before you have to make sure that your actions are consistent with what took place before. And for logic's sake, I don't think any "bunches" of 3 minute intervals can overlap. So maybe Dumbledore could either save Harry or James and Lily? I really don't know, because that time travel story is implausible... *grumble*
Well, I looked back and I don't see anyting concerning a time limit for being away. Just the fact that you have to get back in time for the exact second you left (five minutes to midnight, in Harry and Hermione's case). I'm still thinking maybe Dumbledore was only able to save Harry. Three minutes? Didn't Harry and Hermione go back for 3 hours? Yep, they went back to three hours earlier in the evening. I think Ko meant the amount of time they could be absent from the present. Maybe Dumbledore thought he might not be able to kill Voldemort. He had already heard the prophecy given my Trelawney hadn't he, and I suppose he knew what had to happen. Probably if he had gone back in time, something like what happened in the Ministry of Magic might have occured, except that he'd have more followers with him.True, but I'm not so much wondering why he didn't kill Voldemort (although I wonder that quite often). I'm wondering why he didn't save James and Lilly. I love this thread! Highly interesting! Awesome! I'm glad you guys don't mind pondering this with me. So, here are some other things that have recently come to mind concerning the Prisoner of Azkaban... As the Marauder's Map never lies, and Fred and George had had it for a while, why hadn't they seen the name Peter Pettigrew in conjuction with Ron Weasley all the times Ron was carrying Scabbers around? (And when Percy had him before that?) I'm fairly certain that it will be revealed that Crookshanks is more than he seems, and if he is in fact an animagus should'nt the Marauder's Map be showing his true identity as well? Okay, just one more thing... On page 353 it says that Lupin can keep his mind as a werewolf if he takes his potion the week before the full moon. Yet on page 380 as he's transforming Hermione yells, "He didn't take his potion tonight!" and Lupin does become violent. But we all know he was taking the potion the week before...so what's up with that?
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Aug 31, 2004 3:58:12 GMT -5
See, that's what I don't get... that means in the HP world there would be all these random temporal slices of people (like how there were two Harrys and two Hermiones) with time turners all over the joint. And what if you used a TT when you were already time turning? Like, wouldn't you get infinite regress?
|
|
|
Post by hermoine on Aug 31, 2004 4:04:37 GMT -5
Yep, they went back to three hours earlier in the evening. I think Ko meant the amount of time they could be absent from the present. Oh, I get it now!True, but I'm not so much wondering why he didn't kill Voldemort (although I wonder that quite often). I'm wondering why he didn't save James and Lilly. My dear Izzy, that's what we're all wondering, and what we have to figure out most of all. JK said it herself, that that question is highly important.As the Marauder's Map never lies, and Fred and George had had it for a while, why hadn't they seen the name Peter Pettigrew in conjuction with Ron Weasley all the times Ron was carrying Scabbers around? (And when Percy had him before that?) Hey you're right! It is true! Did we just find one of JK's errors? I'm fairly certain that it will be revealed that Crookshanks is more than he seems, and if he is in fact an animagus should'nt the Marauder's Map be showing his true identity as well? JK said that Crooskhanks is half-kneazle, but not an animagus. So, that's as far as it might go with Crookshanks I suppose.On page 353 it says that Lupin can keep his mind as a werewolf if he takes his potion the week before the full moon. Yet on page 380 as he's transforming Hermione yells, "He didn't take his potion tonight!" and Lupin does become violent. But we all know he was taking the potion the week before...so what's up with that? True. Maybe he had to take it from the week before, uptil the night he was to transform? I dunno.
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Sept 1, 2004 6:13:14 GMT -5
So, here are some other things that have recently come to mind concerning the Prisoner of Azkaban... As the Marauder's Map never lies, and Fred and George had had it for a while, why hadn't they seen the name Peter Pettigrew in conjuction with Ron Weasley all the times Ron was carrying Scabbers around? (And when Percy had him before that?) The Map was made by Peter and the other Maurauders. It is quite possible that they know a way around it so they won't be identified by it, in the same way that all these rude things come up when Snape was trying to get it to reveal its secrets.
|
|
Phoenix
Gryffindor Alumni
Posts: 374
|
Post by Phoenix on Sept 2, 2004 15:09:13 GMT -5
goin back to the whole time turner thing.
I do think it was stated either by JKR or in OotP that you can't bring someone back from the dead, but that's already happened with Buckbeak, and also kind of with Sirius when the dementors got him at the end of PoA, right? He was just about dead anyway.
you're right JKR did say something about not being able to bring someone back from the dead, but if you think about it neither buckbeak or sirius was ever dead. or even close to it because sirius never had his soul sucked out. its highly confusing but this is what i think happened. you have to think about their being two harry and hermiones. when they left hagrids cabin for the first time(when they thought buckbeak had been executed remember they heard the swish and thud of an ax and hagrid crying) what they were actually hearing was their future selves saving buckbeak, macnair getting angry and swinging the ax into the fence, and hagrid being so happy he starts crying. similiarly, sirius never had his soul sucked out because harry and hermione's future selves saved him from that happening. Am i making any sense at all or am i just raving?
by the way, i don't think dumbledore ever went back in time, to save harry or his parents.
]
|
|
|
Post by hermoine on Sept 2, 2004 15:17:51 GMT -5
Makes complete sense! It makes things fall into place like a jigsaw puzzle. ;D
|
|
Phoenix
Gryffindor Alumni
Posts: 374
|
Post by Phoenix on Sept 4, 2004 15:58:05 GMT -5
Good. I'm happy to know I'm not a raving lunatic! Now I have a theory about the next two books that involves a time turner that I want to run by you guys. In Chamber of Secrets JK made a point of exaggerating how much Harry looked like Tom Riddle and the similarities between them. For example, they're both Parselmouths, both halfbloods, both lost parents at an early age. Now do you think its possible that Dumbledore knew he couldn't beat Voldemort(for some yet unexplained reason) but found a way to send him back to before he became evil? So that Harry is maybe Tom Riddle as he should have been instead of as he is? That could be why only Harry can vanquish Voldemort and also another reason Voldemort insisted on using Harry's blood to rebirth himself. I might be crazy, but what do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Sept 5, 2004 1:48:21 GMT -5
Hmmm, that's a very interesting idea you've got there... and I wouldn't put it past JK to do something like that, but the thing that I find unsettling about it is the fact that Tom was around AGES ago before Harry, whereas with the (proven) use of the time turner we've seen, you can only send yourself back to a time when you already existed, so it seems kinda weird that there is Tom ages ago, and Harry now, and Harry is a younger version of Tom but living later. I'll have to think about that one, but I think that otherwise, it is quite plausible.
|
|
|
Post by hermoine on Sept 5, 2004 8:38:11 GMT -5
Hmmmm, interesting idea, but I don't know.....
I had always noted certain similarities between Tom and Harry, even the colour of their hair, until I realised, James's hair was like that too. The fact that they're both Parselmouths though is shown through the fact that Voldemort transferred some of his powers to Harry, including the ability to talk to snakes. Maybe Harry can only kill Voldemort because he has powers like him. Nobody can kill him unless he kills himself sort of. So, Harry would be killing him with Voldemort's own powers, something like that.
If I keep ranting like this I might just come to the conclusion that it might said to be suicide.
|
|
Isbister15
Gryffindor Alumni
Mmmm...chocolate
Posts: 5,082
|
Post by Isbister15 on Sept 5, 2004 22:27:17 GMT -5
Phoenix, I think you just might have solved the death issue concerning the Time-Turner. But one thing that bothers me, assuming you're right, is that Harry, Ron, and Hermione all actually saw Buckbeak murdered in the movie. Since JKR is overseeing the details of the movies, wouldn't she have wanted that to stay consistant? I'm all for crafting theories on the upcoming books, as I've got more than a few myself. ;D However, I kind of doubt that Harry is a sort of alternate version of Riddle. I think JKR made a point of detailing all the similarities between them to depict what Harry would be up against, but also to show how evil someone in Harry/Riddle's position could become (basically, that it would be possible for Harry to go that route as well). Good theory, though.
|
|