Oh, I thought Harry’s relationship with Cho was dead on as a portrayal of what often goes on at that age. The fact is, Harry is, like many boys of that age, and just like Hermoine says, hopeless. He’s clueless as to what he really wants from a relationship, and uncomfortable and awkward about it. A certain young person whose name I won’t mention was once just the same way.
Well, this can’t be strictly true, because we already HAVE seen them alive: just in memories and flashbacks and ghost. So it’s certianly possible that we could revisit other aspects of their story in “real time” just like we have before. I think Rowling just means that James and Lily are not going to come back to life in a “real” way. Voldy is the closest we’ll get to a resurrection.
Using the Time Turners to save Harry’s parents would be quite problematic. Consider the numbers:
Harry should be 16 in book six. If he was born in July of 1980, then book six must take place during the 1996/1997 school year.
Let’s say that, on Halloween of 1996, Harry decides to try to travel back to Halloween of 1981 to kill Voldemort and save his parents. He gets a Time Turner and starts turning.
Remember how the Time Turners work. One turn = one hour back in time. Harry needs to go back fifteen years. That’s a total of 5479 days (including Leap Year days in 1984, '88, '92, and '96), or 131,496 hours. That a lot of turning.
If Harry averages one turn per second, he’ll spend a day and a half doing nothing but turning.
You assume time turners are linear. Isn’t it possible that “one turn = one hour” is just an approximation that works for a small number of turns, and further turns could equal days or even years.
I think saving Harry’s parents, or even trying to, would be a huge gip, violating a lot of the emotional heft of things like the ending of the third book (which, you have to admit is pretty heartwrenching: Harry thinking that he’s seeing his father again, and coming to realize that he is seeing himself).
It’s too LATE for Harry to have parents anyway in the sort of wish fulfilment that he’s always had. At the end of the series he’ll already be of age and able to live on his own, having called the Dursley household his home that entire time.
One thing I just realized: when Harry, Ron, and Hermione used the Time Turner in book three, they didn’t actually change anything. Everything that happened the first time thru happened the second time as well; it’s just that Harry, Ron, & Hermione were doing two things simultaneously. In fact, Dumbledore’s warning to avoid their past selves suggests that any change in history might have bad consequences. (Indeed, if their actions cause their past selves do anything differently, it will create a tempral paradox.) It could be that it’s not possible to change history, and that the Time Turners are only useful as a way to give yourself more time to do things.
Plus, changing history to save Harry’s parents would be an incredably lame cop-out on Rowling’s part.
From what I remember about PoA, don’t they only go back in time with a timeturner? There’s no way for them to go forward is there? Even if Harry went back in time and saved his parents, he’s stuck 17 or so years in the past, and his parents would be busy raising him as a one-year-old.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the timeturner did become useful, though. If you think about it, it’s existence is kind of out of place for it to be used only once.
I’ve heard that the last word of the last book is “scar.” One site had submissions from people about what teh last sentence could be. Some revolved around people’s theories that Harry wakes up form a dream and wonders where his scar is, or how he got that scar. That would be the worst possible ending to the series, IMO.
Well, I’m not sure there can be any coherent explanation of time travel and paradoxes forthcoming from Rowling, but that’s a good point: the changes to history made with time turners appear to be those which have already been made the first time through.
So you aren’t actually changing anything in your past, you only think you are, not having known that you’d ALREADY changed it, even for the first time through. Buckbeak had already been saved by Harry and Hermoine when they decided to go back in time to save him. And Sirius hadn’t yet been killed: they just needed more time to save him. Had Buckbeak or Sirius already been definitively dead, that would have meant that no one ever had or would save them using a Time Turner, because it hadn’t already happened the first time through.
Another thought came up with the listening of book #3 on tape.
Ron give Harry a Sneakoscope for his birthday. Mentions that it is a cheap one and is going off all the time, unknowing that Scabbers the Rat/Animagi is the problem. It goes off on the train ride to Hogwart’s and again, Scabbers is near. But, so is Crookshanks.
Ron was telling them how it went off when he was in Egypt tieing it onto their old owl, Errol. No mention of Scabbers is made being nearby ( presumably he could be in a pocket or something) but *what if Errol is secretly an animagi *?
Why else would the family keep such a beat up old owl ( other than the fact they are poor) and Errol is in hiding for either the good side or bad side.
Of course, a small part of me believes every work of fiction ever produced from this point forward should end this way, but I try to keep that part well-medicated.
Regarding your post Shirley, I thought it was assumed that the Sneakoscope went off because Ron was doing something sneaky - i.e. using Errol when he actually wasn’t supposed to be.
Well, Ron could have been doing something sneaky, but all he was doing was sending his best friend a birthday present. And since the Weasley family love Harry, I don’t see anything wrong with this. Unless, of course, you take into consideration the use of Errol, who is antiquitidated.
But, when Owls are so important to send letters, why wouldn’t the Weasley’s invest in a newer one. Besides the fact they are poor.
Plus, I think time turners can only be used if they already have in the past-see, Harry saw himself because he was SUPPOSED to use it-they didn’t so much as change the past as they did what they had already done.
