Harry potter

[Achiles74]

Instead of Harry Potter get some classics by Ronald Dahl or Enid Blyton much more simpler.

[Groomyd]

I had no idea you were an arse Razorback

Thought you were one of the decent ones

Still Moist says there is no explanation which I think is as close as we're going to get

I agree there was no need to have the time travel aspect in the book

[unc.si.]

Not read any of them myself but my younger daughter read all the Potter books when she was 8/9 and loved them. From what I've seen of them they're not that we'll written so not surprised if there are a few things that don't stand up to detailed analysis. Can't comment on the example quoted, (although Groomyd maybe the Time Travellers Wife's not for you if you're going to analyse the plot mechanics in that level of detail). Great storylines though. Bit like the Dan Brown of kids literature I guess.

Tried her on the hobbit last year. Wasn't sure whether she'd like it but she lapped it up and wanted to read LOTR as well. Found that a bit too heavy going though.
Worth giving the hobbit a go though Groomy once you've ploughed through Potter.

Last book I read to mine was the call of the wild, about 12 mths ago. They don't like being read to so much now. I think I go too slow!

[Groomyd]

I loved the hobbit as a kid. But we tried it last year and she just didn't get into it.

On revisiting it does take an age to get going with Tolkein's interminable nerdiness annoying me too! We ditched it before poor bilbo got going anywhere!

The Harry potter books are (after 3 ) formulaic and flawed but they are exciting page turners and they definitely have their finger on the pulse of 8 year olds. They are enjoyable to read too

Even if the time travel bits don't bear close examination

[Surprised]

Even if the time travel bits don't bear close examination

Don't be too concerned about whether bits and pieces don't stand up to close examination as most of it doesn't as it's a series of books about kids being wizards and doing magic. I'm sure your daughter isn't losing any sleep over the time travel confusion.

[sted]

Time travel eh? Some people just don't get it.

[sted]

[sted]

[WilBert]

Even if the time travel bits don't bear close examination

Don't be too concerned about whether bits and pieces don't stand up to close examination as most of it doesn't as it's a series of books about kids being wizards and doing magic. I'm sure your daughter isn't losing any sleep over the time travel confusion.

She probably is now that groomy's ranted at her for 3 hrs before closing the book and refusing to finish it.

[FingerPass]

As far as I can remember (been ages since I read the books), there was no plot hole here. Your issue seems to be more with the particular theory of time that the book must subscribe to in order for the events to make sense.

This is a case of a causal time loop, which is quite commonly used in science fiction when the subject of time travel arises. As mentioned, you have to picture yourself viewing time from 'outside of time' as it were - as if you can see all moments of time instantaneously (like the Observer characters for fans of the tv show Fringe..). Thus everything that happens has happened and will always happen i.e. nothing can be changed. Harry was always there to use the Patronus to save himself. In this case, time isn't linear. There was no original timeline in which original Harry is in danger and needs saving before the time travel has occurred. According to this theory of time, the idea that time 'moves forward' is just an illusion from our perspective (but in actual fact, everything has already happened).

Of course this means that there can't be any change in the events during the loop, there is only a change in perspectives. Looking through the thread, it sounds like there might be a problem for this theory if Buckbeak dies first, but then is saved on the second time round. I can't check the text as I don't have a copy of the book to hand but is it stated that they know for sure Buckbeak dies? I know that in the film (which I've seen more recently) that they actually just 'hear' the thud of the axe and assume he is dead but it is later revealed that it was just the sound of the executioner throwing his axe in anger at Buckbeaks disappearance. But I can't remember if it is explicitly stated like that in the book. If it's not, then either they definitely knew Buckbeak died in book and hence Rowling made a mistake which might be why she sought to fix it in the film, or if it's not explicitly stated that they knew for sure that Buckbeak is dead, then it may be ambiguous and possibly lazy writing but not necessarily a plothole - and again, why Rowling may have decided to make it clearer in the film. Unless Rowling did in fact cover herself in a similar fashion to the film (really wish I had a copy of the book right now so I could check!).

The bigger issue is whether this theory of time is correct. If it is, then it seems life is pointless as we have no free will which is the problem a lot of people have with this theory (and presumably why you're not happy with it?). I did a module on time travel during my last year of Philosophy at Uni and studied this theory of time along with a bunch of others. The real question is, if we can travel back in time, is it possible to carry out an action such that it changes the 'past'. This really is the starting point for lots of time travel theories. It all starts off interesting but it becomes bit of a headache when you have to start deciphering logic equations.

[sted]

'and the wand chooses the wizard'

Let's face it, JK was off her tits when she wrote this.

[Groomyd]

'and the wand chooses the wizard'

Let's face it, JK was off her tits when she wrote this.

Very nice tits too

[murf]

'and the wand chooses the wizard'

Let's face it, JK was off her tits when she wrote this.

She said she wrote it in a coffee shop in Edinburgh but really it was a coffee shop in Amsterdam.

[Groomyd]

Fingerpass

The book makes it clear that Harry and Hermione are going back in time change history. That buckbeak, who had been executed, needed to be saved so that Sirius Black could escape on it.

However when they go back in time they change this series of events but then the protonus at which Harry thinks he saw his father is the same set of events but only because Harry gets involved while back in time.

This is incoherent and inconsistent with the time loop theory you are talking about.

In the film they seem to be aware of this as they introduce three extra little Mobius time loop thingys (first a stone is thrown into hagrids hut and breaks a jar, then once out of the hut Hermione thinks she sees movement in the trees and finally the werewolf leaves Sirius alone because it hears a wolf whistle in the forest). When H & H go back in time it is they (back in time) who throw the stone, make the noise in the trees and do the wolf whistle so that the events of time stay the same ....................... but not for buckbeak who they rescue.

None of these three events are in the book. Just the film. Which adds a little grist to my mill

If buckbeak had not been killed then why go back in time to rescue him?

The plot, far from being "simple" thickens

[murf]

So if they can change history then why not go back in time and strangle Voldermort as a baby.

Then Harry Potter wouldn't have been the wizard he was wouldn't have had a nemesis and therefore wouldn't have wanted to, yet alone been been able to, go back in time to kill baby Voldermort. Then Voldermort would have grown up, Harry would have been strong, gone back and killed him etc etc.

Nice little double loop. I think I'll patent it and use it in a film and a sequel (tip - don't go and see murf's film III, it will just be a rehash of the first one)

[Surprised]

So if they can change history then why not go back in time and strangle Voldermort as a baby.

Then Harry Potter wouldn't have been the wizard he was wouldn't have had a nemesis and therefore wouldn't have wanted to, yet alone been been able to, go back in time to kill baby Voldermort. Then Voldermort would have grown up, Harry would have been strong, gone back and killed him etc etc.

Nice little double loop. I think I'll patent it and use it in a film and a sequel (tip - don't go and see murf's film III, it will just be a rehash of the first one)

Grandfather paradox

[Groomyd]

Pedants paradox

[murf]

Pedants paradox

Pedant's paradox


(Actually I think it all proves that time travel is impossible - at least backwards anyway)

[FingerPass]

Groomyd

I'm not sure why you think there is an inconsistency with Harry being the one who sends the patronus that his 'past' self sees (unless I've misunderstood you). There is no point in which he now becomes involved as he was always involved. All moments of time on the timeline 'happen' at the same time. The use of the word timeline may be misleading as time does not move. One event does not come after the other. 'Future' Harry was always there. 'Past' Harry always mistook it for being his father (but it never is).

When H & H go back in time it is they (back in time) who throw the stone, make the noise in the trees and do the wolf whistle so that the events of time stay the same ....................... but not for buckbeak who they rescue.

This is referring to the film yes? The events in the film do stay the same, even for Buckbeak. Buckbeak in the film was always saved (as everything has already happened). The original H&H were mistaken in believing Buckbeak was dead (they heard the axe being thrown in anger) and hence gives them the motivation for travelling back in time to 'save' Buckbeak.

That's why I asked if, in the book, they explicitly knew for sure that Buckbeak is dead. Whether Buckbeak is dead or not is irrelevant for their desire to go back in time to save him. They only need to think he is dead to then want to travel back in time.

So, anyway, I've managed to source myself a copy of the book for my kindle (don't ask me how ). The 'past' H&H's perspective from earlier in the book:

There was a jumble of indistinct male voices, a silence, and then, without warning, the unmistakable swish and thud of an axe.

So they heard the sound of the axe, assume Buckbeak is dead, cry like a sissy for a bit and later have the motivation to travel back in time to 'save' Buckbeak.

In the penultimate chapter of POA:

There was a swishing noise, and the thud of an axe. The excutioner seemed to have swung it into the fence in anger.

There was some other preceding text where the people sent to execute Buckbeak exclaim their surprise at the disappearance of Buckbeak (the jumbled voices mentioned in the earlier part of the book). Thus, the axe H&H heard earlier was in fact the executioner throwing it at the fence. None of the events have changed, only the perspectives.





Murf, you ask a pertinent question regarding time travel that I alluded to in my previous post. Namely, are 'past-changing' actions possible? Within the framework of Harry Potter, it seems that no, they aren't and really the reason they don't travel back in time to kill Voldemort is that simply, they never do/did (everything has already happened in this theory of time remember). There is a fairly famous thought experiment in which you are asked to imagine a team of trained assassins sent back in time to kill their grandfathers. There are theories (such as the Harry Potter one) that everything exists within one timeline and thus this is impossible so something must happen to each and every assassin such that they fail to carry out their mission (slip to their death on a banana skin, mistakenly kill their grandfather's secret twin, find the wrong John Connor, etc.). This doesn't necessarily rule out time travel into the past but more so means that the time travellers cannot change the past (but they can remain observers). Unless of course, you believe in the Butterfly effect and the time travellers presence in the past disrupts the atoms in the air starting off a chain reaction that leads to a tsunami on the other side of the world or something.

A popular route out as it were is to contemplate a theory of time that allows for alternate realities. Thus the time traveller sent to kill his grandfather actually travels to a point in time in a different 'reality', one in which the time traveller never existed in as he kills his grandfather in that world.

[murf]

A popular route out as it were is to contemplate a theory of time that allows for alternate realities. Thus the time traveller sent to kill his grandfather actually travels to a point in time in a different 'reality', one in which the time traveller never existed in as he kills his grandfather in that world.

There could be one reality that then splits into two 'alternatives' at the instant the time travellers appear. If time travel ever becomes popular then there would soon be a huge number (potentially infinite) of alternate realities and just about anything and everything happens* which is as mind blowing as an infinite universe with infinite murfs doing an infinite variety of things on an infinite number of earths.

Too mind boggling to comprehend and, if you don't mind, I will stay on my flat earth and believe time is linear, you can't go back and those particles in Switzerland were obeying the speed limit.


(* = but still Arsenal wouldn't win a cup)

[Groomyd]

This is referring to the film yes?

They only need to think he is dead to then want to travel back in time.

.

No, the book.

It is Dumbledor who sends them back in time, indeed tells them the right time period in which to go back and makes it clear that it is to save buck beak so Sirius can escape.

Given that a) dumbledor was there when buck beak was executed and b) is all knowing about time and time travel

Then I still think it's inconsistent on it's own terms.

[FingerPass]

Okay, well I think my point regarding Buckbeak still stands, film and book.

The questions surrounding Dumbledore seem more speculative. I mean, throughout the whole series he is painted as this all-knowing figure. He has been shown to be very wise so perhaps when Buckbeak magically disappears, he immediately worked out in his clever brain how it must have happened and that he must start the chain of events off later on, or he may have already been intending to tell H&H to travel back in time to save him and when Buckbeak disappears, he realises his plan works (he presumably knows and authorised Hermione's possession of the time turner in the first place).

It may be unlikely, you may not like it, but logically, it is sound I think.

[murf]

Dumbledore lied about Buckbeak's fate to ensure the cissy cry babies went back in time????

[Groomyd]

Dumbledore lied about Buckbeak's fate to ensure the cissy cry babies went back in time????

Hermione had been going back in time all year in order to attend double classes

Come on guys, you can't explain Dumbledore's role in this! If buck beak were not dead then he would have told harry and hermione to simply collect him and take it up To Sirius immediately.

I dont have a problem with the time loop idea. But it is not portrayed consistently or coherently in the book.

[FingerPass]

But now this is a debate about a different issue. I was just trying to explain why there is no logical inconsistency regarding the events that happen within the time loop in the book.

You've now moved on to speculating Dumbledore's actions. Unfortunately, the books are told from Harry's perspective, not Dumbledores. We quite frankly don't have enough information to infer correctly as to why Dumbledore does what he does. We don't know when he realises what is going on or what part he plays, or even if he is just a magical fairy that knows everything.

At what point do you think Dumbledore should tell them to go collect Buckbeak and save Sirius? My view is that it is precisely at the moment in which Dumbledore and chums discover that Buckbeak has disappeared that Dumbledore pieces together what has happened. At this point, 'future' H&H saving Buckbeak has already happened. Now Dumbledore can't do anything other than give H&H the idea to travel back in time later on.

[Groomyd]

Nothing had happened at the point buck beak is executed

No Sirius discovered, nothing.

I don't agree with you - it is clear that Dumbledore sends them back to change events, it is clear that they do, but not to all events. IMO.

[FingerPass]

Okay right, my memory of this is obviously a bit shaky without actually rereading the book.

So if Sirius at that point has not been discovered, then there is no point in which Dumbledore can tell them to just go collect Buckbeak without him already having being saved by future H&H.

So now it seems to me that the moment of Buckbeak's disappearance is the start of suspicion as to what actually happens in Dumbledore's mind and he then has a better idea of what is to happen when he knows Sirius is trapped.

Again, you talk of them changing events, but that is precisely the point of a time loop. There are no changing events. All events have happened.

So you think it is clear that they travel back in time and change events. But I'm not sure why you think that? What in the book makes you think events have changed? Reading the 'past' H&H section and then the 'future' H&H section, it seems pretty watertight to me, and I imagine Rowling would have went over this part a lot for fear of inconsistency. Rereading the earlier section, there are even pretty heavy-handed clues that both sets of 'events' are happening simultaneously - e.g. 'past' H&H hesitate a moment as they wait for the sound of scurrying feet to disappear and hear a door slam - later we realise this is 'future' H&H running into a cupboard to hide from past 'H&H'.

This is actually one of the best parts of the Harry Potter books, especially with the later books. Once you are aware of the details of the end 'reveal', you can reread the books and spot all the clues Rowling drops in that you missed before.

[Groomyd]

So you think it is clear that they travel back in time and change events. But I'm not sure why you think that? .

Because Dumbledore sets them up to do just that. To go back and free buck beak.

Why would he do this if there is no point?

Hermione is clear to harry (who has never time travelled before) not to change anything part from buckbeak's death as wizards that have done this have got themselves into serious problems befor through the unintended consequences of doing so.

[Surprised]

So you think it is clear that they travel back in time and change events. But I'm not sure why you think that? .

Because Dumbledore sets them up to do just that. To go back and free buck beak.

Why would he do this if there is no point?

Hermione is clear to harry (who has never time travelled before) not to change anything part from buckbeak's death as wizards that have done this have got themselves into serious problems befor through the unintended consequences of doing so.

Buckbeak was never killed.
They had to go back in time and Dumbledore telling them that they had to save Buckbeak (so Buckbeak could help Siruis) was the only reason they would go back.

[Groomyd]

Why did they need to go back in time to do that?

Why would Dumbledore not simply say that buck beak had not actually been killed and that they should nip upstairs and sort it out?