Harry potter

[Groomyd]

Just started reading these to my daughter who is 8

The whole Harry Potter thing passed me by before so its all new to me

We have now read the first three books

Problem is I don't understand something about the Prisoner of Azkaban

At the end of the book Harry, Hermione and sirius Black are approached by dementors which are about to suck out their souls with a dementors kiss. Harry attempts a spell to repel them but it fails. As he slips from consciousness he thinks he sees his father on the far side of a lake create the spell and the dementors leave.

Later he goes back in time and witnesses the events again. But the spell does not come and he has to do the spell himself to save himself ad his friends.


This is the bit I don't get. How did it happen the first time around?

Any potterfisoers explain?

[Surprised]

The spell did not come from his father in the first place. Before he fainted he though it was his fathers spell but when he goes back in time he realised it was himself and his patronus had taken the form his father's had.

[murf]

From book 4 onwards it might be a bit much for an 8 year old. Good luck though.

Start of book 4 drags a bit and is uneccesary (IMO when Rowling got too big for her boots and her editors didn't rein her in)

[Groomyd]

The spell did not come from his father in the first place. Before he fainted he though it was his fathers spell but when he goes back in time he realised it was himself and his patronus had taken the form his father's had.

Yes, I get that. But why didn't it happen the second time round when the "back in time" Harry had to step in and make it happen?

He was watching himself behind the bush hoping to see his Dad - but nothing happened. So he had to do it himself the second time around.

The "back in time" Harry wasn't there the first time and yet it happened the first time, but not the second

[murf]

The "back in time" Harry wasn't there the first time and yet it happened.

He was - it was the back in time Harry every time (easy trick used a lot in Doctor Who and probably Back To the Future)

[Groomyd]

So at one time they all had their souls sucked out?

I still don't get the chronology

[Surprised]

The first time ,when Harry fainted, the person he saw was his future self. It was not his father.

[Achiles74]

It was device for the plot!

Most books have them - they are called plot lines.

[sted]

Maybe your daughter could explain it to you?

[Moist von Lipwig]

Yes, I get that. But why didn't it happen the second time round when the "back in time" Harry had to step in and make it happen?

He was watching himself behind the bush hoping to see his Dad - but nothing happened. So he had to do it himself the second time around.

The "back in time" Harry wasn't there the first time and yet it happened the first time, but not the second

Its a paradox, practically every time travel based tale has one in somewhere.

[Groomyd]

The first time ,when Harry fainted, the person he saw was his future self. It was not his father.

Nope, still don't get it.

In real time Harry from the future is not there. But the spell works with Harry thinking he saw his father. This later turns out to be him as he resembles his father.

But it does not explain how it happened the first time.

In fact Harry goes back in time to change the past (releasing the hypogryff) and changing the past.

But he didn't have to change the past with the dementors. Yet he appeared to have to do so.

So what was the the chronology?

[Moist von Lipwig]

So what was the the chronology?

again, its a paradox. linear in time, there couldn't have been a harry to cast the petronas to save the 'dementored harry' the very first time this happened, there is no explanation.

[Achiles74]

Yes, I get that. But why didn't it happen the second time round when the "back in time" Harry had to step in and make it happen?

He was watching himself behind the bush hoping to see his Dad - but nothing happened. So he had to do it himself the second time around.

The "back in time" Harry wasn't there the first time and yet it happened the first time, but not the second

Its a paradox, practically every time travel based tale has one in somewhere.

the Star Trek film didnt

[kizkiz]

As others have said, you're arguiing semantics of time travel and paradoxes, rather than a specific point in a book

[Moist von Lipwig]

the Star Trek film didnt

which one? there are 11

Actually, the most recent star trek film itself creates a paradox for a lot of preceding star trek stories

http://www.tunequest.org/star-trek-2009 ... /20090604/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

but we're getting way too nerdy now.

[Achiles74]

the Star Trek film didnt

which one? there are 11

Actually, the most recent star trek film itself creates a paradox for a lot of preceding star trek stories

http://www.tunequest.org/star-trek-2009 ... /20090604/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

but we're getting way too nerdy now.

Not a expert on Trek but the film with Kirk where they came back to modern age earth and rescued some Whales to take to the future.

[Surprised]

The first time ,when Harry fainted, the person he saw was his future self. It was not his father.

Nope, still don't get it.

In real time Harry from the future is not there. But the spell works with Harry thinking he saw his father. This later turns out to be him as he resembles his father.

But it does not explain how it happened the first time.

In fact Harry goes back in time to change the past (releasing the hypogryff) and changing the past.

But he didn't have to change the past with the dementors. Yet he appeared to have to do so.

So what was the the chronology?

Predestination paradox.

[Groomyd]

Thanks

So it couldn't have happened - thought I might have been missing something.

How rather disappointing! I find that a really lazy story mechanism

[Zoolander]

Thanks

So it couldn't have happened - thought I might have been missing something.

How rather disappointing! I find that a really lazy story mechanism

it's a children's book about wizards and witches

[Groomyd]

it's a children's book about wizards and witches

Yes, I'm reading the series to my daughter who loves them

[Razorback]

I always felt that incorporating a time travel element into the third book was a mistake, if such a thing was possible then why couldn't others do the same thing to right past wrongs (or vice versa) .

As for the execution of the time travel concept, I don't think there's anything particularly difficult to understand regarding how events in the third book play out .

I can only suggest to those that do experience problems getting their heads around what happens that it may be better for them to stay the hell away from 'Triangle' ...

[Zoolander]

it's a children's book about wizards and witches

Yes, I'm reading the series to my daughter who loves them

Sorry, you've misunderstood. I wasn't ridiculing you for reading the Harry Potter books (admittedly, that's what it reads like).

I found your comment about it being a lazy story mechanism amusing given the books are full of them.

I've read all of them myself and the story is enjoyable but full of lazy cliches and 'mechanisms'.

As you were...

[Groomyd]

As for the execution of the time travel concept, I don't think there's anything particularly difficult to understand regarding how events in the third book play out .

Sorry to come back to it then but could you explain it?

Because it was not possible for Harry to witness anything different happening to the first time things happened when he went back in time.

Change them yes, but not witness them differently and then intervene.

[Surprised]

As for the execution of the time travel concept, I don't think there's anything particularly difficult to understand regarding how events in the third book play out .

Sorry to come back to it then but could you explain it?

Because it was not possible for Harry to witness anything different happening to the first time things happened when he went back in time.

Change them yes, but not witness them differently and then intervene.

But nothing different happened.
A time traveller attempting to alter the past, intentionally or not, would only be fulfilling their role in creating history as we know it, not changing it.

[Groomyd]

Yes but "Back in time" Harry wasnt there the first time around ..........but it happened and it happened without a back in time Harry

In the same plot line they DO change the past by releasing Buckbeak .........

I understand the concept of the predestination paradox - but it's essentially sic fi bull isn't it? It's not internally coherent and as moist says, there is no explanation.

That's fine, but it devalues the plot and is up there with "it was all a dream"

[WilBert]

It's a kids book about wizards ffs

Poor 8 year old not even being allowed to enjoy a bedtime story. Seriously though, throw it in the bin with Goldilocks because bears don't sleep in beds.

[Razorback]

As for the execution of the time travel concept, I don't think there's anything particularly difficult to understand regarding how events in the third book play out .

Sorry to come back to it then but could you explain it?

Because it was not possible for Harry to witness anything different happening to the first time things happened when he went back in time.

Change them yes, but not witness them differently and then intervene.

He didn't witness anything different, he (like the reader/viewer) just didn't see who cast the protronus and therefore didn't realize at that time he was saving himself.

Same thing as the werewolf running towards the howl of another werewolf, at the time it happened they didn't realize that it was Hermoine imitating a werewolf howl.

I'm pretty sure that this thread is a bit of a wind up to be honest ...

[Razorback]

Yes but "Back in time" Harry wasnt there the first time around.

Yes he was ...

[Groomyd]

Why the

How could he have been there?

Does it mean that we as readers experience the journey back in time in two separate ways?

The first time we witness harry back in time but NOT the release of buck beak, then we witness it again but with the release of buck beak.

Because that's the issue isn't it?

They go back and do TWO things, but the patronus is witnessed by the reader the first time and the release of buck beak only the second time?

[Razorback]

Bored now ...