Things that irk me: That goddamn time-turner

Hello friends! Today I am beginning a new segment (can I call it that? I'm gonna call it that) called "Things that irk me". I'm uncertain as to how many entries this segment will have, but considering that a good few of my blog entries have already been about things that irk me, I think I can sustain it fairly well. Many things tend to irk me, as I'm sure you've probably gathered by now. People irk me, people not thinking irks me, people not thinking I think they are irksome irks me. Irksome things. The word irk, on the other hand, does not irk me.I like the word irk. It's three fifths of the word quirk, and we all know how I feel about that word.

I'd like to begin this segment with a little fan-girl peeve (yes, that's a reference to where this is going, sorta) regarding one of my favourite things, the Harry Potter universe. I don't say Harry Potter (though he is awesome) because it's more an issue that is taken up with universe logic and not the book series so much, though I suppose I'm being a little pedantic as they're essentially the same thing.

That. Damn. Time-turner. (Below is one of the main time-turner related arguments, in some context. I actually love these How it Should Have Ended videos but I accept that they simplify elements of the plot for the sake of humour. That's often what parody does and I can forgive them that, because a lot of their videos are clever, well constructed and their points valid.)

It's one of those things that people who generally aren't fans use as an example as to why an otherwise incredibly nuanced and well thought out world is "stupid" or can be entirely disregarded based on one small inconsistency. It's next to "Why didn't they just drop the ring into Mt. Doom on the eagles?" LotR nitpick, and the "Why didn't they just blame the joker?" concern with the end of The Dark Knight. I don't really know enough about either of the others to comment but the reasons I can come up with are along the lines of "For the purposes of drama and good storytelling" or "To show certain character development points".

Again, these two don't annoy me as much because I'm not as informed but also because they are valid points (at least, I don't see fault in them as criticisms and I've never had anyone convince me otherwise). I take issue with the time-turner-ists because the hypothetical scenarios they put forward as solutions, in which the time-turner is used to save the day ARE FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG. I base this entirely on world logic and the impressions and explanations we are given in the books (ie. the canon), specifically book 3, The Prisoner of Azkaban.

Man, I love that design though
Mmmmm....(drooling ever so slightly)

The main reason I take issue with this criticism of the books that I so love is twofold.

1. The people who put forward such an argument clearly weren't paying attention to the time-travel mechanics, how the scenario unfolds is really all the explanation needed. But more on that later.

2. It kind of hits a nerve.

It hits a nerve because it makes me acknowledge the fact that a fair bit of the world logic is flawed. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is quite possibly my favourite of the seven books.... but it has a bit of a deus ex machina ending. I love the book, I honestly do. I love the characters introduced and the development given to those already existing, I love the back story elements of it, I like the fact that we get a break from the Voldy antics (it is the only book not to feature Voldemort at all) and the plot as a whole feels like the best stand-alone story out of the lot. It is cohesive, it's dark, funny, inventive, with an emotional maturity we hadn't seen a whole lot of in the previous two books. Harry has the greatest arc so far in this book and we see him grow so much from it, it's incredibly satisfying. But it's not without its flaws. The ending, while clever (and not flawed in logic) does feel like Rowling had to finish her story and threw something in last minute, backtracking to make it work.

And the others aren't perfect either. Honestly, I don't know why more people don't question the logic of the sentient paintings, or the goddamn luck in a bottle! I could probably write whole rants on those two separately (Do the pictures think the same as the people themselves or are they independent? If the former is true, could you glean information about someone by creating a magical picture of them and interrogating that? Does the picture know what happens to their flesh and blood counterpart in real time? And the felix felicis- if it's notoriously difficult to make, why don't potion makers make a small portion of it then make more under its influence, as they wouldn't fail? Anyway, another time, readers). Accepting the flaws in something that is otherwise so well constructed can be difficult but from a writing standpoint it is somewhat comforting to know that works that I and many others love, can be flawed in such ways and still be so loved.

Anyway, on to why the time-turner-ists are wrong. For this to make sense, let me first summarise what happened at the end of the third book. Buckbeak, a hippogriff (a mythical winged horse with an eagle's head and neck) belonging to Hagrid, is to be put to death for attacking Draco Malfoy near the beginning of the book. Harry, Ron and Hermione go to watch the execution. However, as the dded is being carried out, Ron's rat Scabbers runs away and the three chase it, never actually seeing the execution. Then, later, Harry, Ron and Hermione are being drained by some dementors and are saved by someone in the woods with the patronus of a stag, whom Harry originally believes to be his dead father somehow come back to life. The three of them then pass out. Back at the school, they discover that Sirius Black, Harry's godfather who was framed and wrongly convicted of murder, has been sentenced to a dementors kiss which will reduce him to a mere shell of a man. Harry and Hermione, having learned the truth, decide they cannot let this happen and are advised by Dumbledore to use the time-turner to change things. They go back in time, save Buckbeak (who was never actually executed, as he was rescued before the executioner could act), rescue their past selves from the dementors (Harry finding that it is his own patronus that takes the form of a stag) and using Buckbeak to save Sirius from where he's being held, returning to the same spot before time catches up with them.

This is quite a different kind of time travel than the kind we are used to. Why? Because it does not actually change anything. Everything is exactly as it was when they two went back in time, the only thing that has changed is knowledge. Harry didn't know that Buckbeak was saved and so it was possible to save him. The three friends didn't know that it was Harry who saved them so it was possible for him to do so. And Harry and Hermione didn't know that they'd already helped Sirius escape, so, again, they were able to do so. This form of time travel is such that no time paradoxes are created and no fixed points in time are altered, there being no "Well, if that never happened then why would I go back in time in the first place?"

It's a little bit complicated, so I'll put it in simpler terms (analogy lovingly taken from Charlie McDonnell here). Imagine you walk into your kitchen and find a freshly baked plate of cookies. You eat them and they're really good, so you decide to make a second batch. When those cookies are baked and put on a plate, you notice that that plate of cookies is identical to that which you just polished off, so you go back in time and leave the cookies for past you to find and enjoy. No paradoxes, no mess. Easy.

Here's a second simplified explanation of the three
agreed upon time travel methods

Or so it would seem. However, people tend to ignore these time travel rules and apply the usual default (the paradox causing rules) where things can change and paradoxes can be caused. Because the time travel in the Harry Potter universe is not as useful as the paradox causing kind, even though it makes more logical sense. The only thing that can change in the Harry Potter universe's version is knowledge, specifically that of the user. That's why Hermione was able to use it to take so many classes, the only thing that was changing was her knowledge. However, while that usage is quite simple in terms of consequences (as long as the two Hermiones are never in the same place) it gets more difficult once you do change things. This is where some of the logic breaks down and becomes philosophical. If you were to travel back in time, whatever you do would already have happened during the space in which you were living in your regular timeline. So, when you are back in time, is your free will truly your own? Everything you do has been, in a sense, predetermined, because the timeline is fixed. So...you don't have free will. Therefore, whether or not you can change anything is based entirely on the fixed timeline. This is somewhat discouraging in terms of time travel use because whether o not you change things in your favour relies on whether or not it was "meant to be". This does fit with the fatalistic world of Harry Potter, though, where prophecies can be made and they will fulfill themselves. Then there are other questions that can be asked about this time travel conundrum. For example, one could argue that it you killed someone while back in time, you couldn't be held accountable because your actions were pre-decided by the fixed timeline. Hey, I'm not saying the world's logic is infallible. There's a jelly legs jinx for chrissakes!

I had to include this somewhere.
Context is for the weak! 

I am, however, saying that one could not go back in time and kill Tom Riddle, thereby stopping any of the events of the war, Harry's Parents' deaths et cetera from ever happening. For such a thing to be possible, given the time travel rules of the world, you would have to go back in time, kill Voldemort or Tom Riddle but then replace him with an identical person who would need to believe they were the person you just killed, and have all his memories and characters traits. And, because you (probably) have no free will, the likely outcome of such an expedition would be:
Go back in time => See young Voldy => Chicken out => Timeline continues as normal => eventually you'll catch up to your own time, decrepit and disillusioned at yourself for being unable to do the impossible.

There are infinite further questions regarding this from of time travel, such as how aging works, and there's the added fact that you can't go forward in time, or, if you could, what that means for the free will argument.

Long story short, people have nothing on my over-thinking these things. Trust me on this one, I've spent far too long philosophising about a world that doesn't exist to have this just shot down. My reasoning is sound, and it all fits. I think I know what I'm talking about here. Come up with your own theories if you like but if I know one thing, it's that there's no way this sort of time-travel could be used to stop our pal Voldy. Sorry guys.

Embrace the Madness (and Draco. Awkwardly)