We know that bad things have happened to wizards who traveled through time. Some have ended up killing their past or future selves, we were told.
How many times did Hermione say that she and Harry "couldn't be seen" by anyone when they traveled to the past to save Sirus and Buckbeak in Prisoner of Azkaban? Before she and Harry traveled back, Dumbledore reiterated the point: "You know the rules, Ms. Granger. You must not be seen."
It hadn't occurred to me until I listened to the audio book for the nth time that Hermione not only did the very thing people traveling through time are warned against, she did so with the Ministry of Magic's blessing! Hermione appealed to Professor McGonagall for a Time Turner so she could increase her course load, and McGonagall managed to convince the Ministry that Hermione would use it responsibly. So with the TT, she'd attend a 9 a.m. class, and then travel back in time to attend another 9 a.m. class.
Hermione was seen. Didn't that violate some kind of rule? Obviously, the Ministry and McGonagall (and Dumbledore) thought it was OK. If that's the case, why the repeated warnings when rescuing Sirius and Buckbeak? Was it because there were two of them?
Color me confused. Perhaps I missed something in the book.
Maintained by La Shawn Barber, this site is not affiliated with Time Warner Entertainment Company, LP, Warner Brothers, The Walt Disney Company, Walden Media, Scholastic, Inc., or Bloomsbury Books. Copyrights and trademarks for books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners. Their use is allowed under Fair Use.
Unless otherwise noted, site design modifications, original writing, and photography are copyrighted by LBC Media, All Rights Reserved.
Original WP theme Copyright Mike Little
April 20th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I can't believe I'm actually going to take a stab at this, but here goes…
The rule to stay unseen is something to protect the integrity of the timeline in how things and events interelate. Think about George Bailey–one life touches so many others, Joseph the angel said. We see the entire town of Bedford Falls changed in the George-had-never-been-born universe. That's a lot of years and a lot of people and events influencing one another. Hermione had kept her time travel to very short iterations of time (an hour, ore or less) lost in a crowd, so to speak. Her influence was kept at a bare minimum. Harry and Herminone's actions at the end of the novel have a lot influence, hence Dumbledore's warnings.
Technically, Hermione wasn't breaking the rules going to her classes. You stay unseen so that no one knows you're travelling through time, and until the end of the book, (and with the exception of Dumbledore and McGonagall) no one does.
Anyway, that's my five and a half cents. Let me grab my pocket protector and I'll get out of here.
April 20th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Thanks, fellow geek!
I had considered Hermione's shorter periods of time, compared to several hours (can't remember exact time span) she and Harry spent saving Sirius and Buckbeak. Yours is a decent explanation.
But it still bothers me. Perhaps JKR will write that HP encyclopedia she's been hinting about and clear up nagging questions like mine.
April 20th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Well, if Hermione saw herself going to another class, it would be okay, because she knew she was traveling in time.
Also, I would presume that other professors knew about her time turner in case they saw her twice, but I don't recall.
April 21st, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Presumably all the teachers knew she was doing it all year, but perhaps it was just McGonagall and Dumbledore. Either way, her use for that purpose had been sanctioned by the Ministry, so of course it wasn't illegal for her to do it. Therefore it wouldn't be a problem if someone saw her doing it, since her doing it wasn't illegal.
What would be illegal would be for her to do it for any other reason, especially for a reason that was already breaking the law. It would clearly be illegal to use it to save an animal condemned by law to death and to help a convicted murderer (even if he was actually innocent, he was legally a murderer) to escape.
Dumbledore knew full well that each of the two things he was sending them to do was illegal. If anyone saw them and put together that they might be in two places at once, they might realize she had used the time turner, which might help them figure out how these two had been rescued. Alternatively, even if they don't figure out that time travel is involved someone might see them hanging around and realize they had something to do with the rescues. Either would be very bad. That's why he told her not to be seen. It's not as if the prohibition on being seen applied to her regular use of it that the Ministry had approved of. The Ministry doesn't prohibit people using time turners not to be seen.
April 21st, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I didn't know you were into HP, Jeremy.
OK, so when Dumbledore said to Hermione, "You know the rules, Ms. Granger," they both understood that what she was about to do was illegal (change the course of past events), and in doing so she had to be extra careful and not be seen while doing it? I think I'm overthinking this, but it's fun. It'll all be over soon!
April 21st, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Yes, that's exactly how I took it, and it does make sense of all the elements that you thought were problematic.
I've been into Harry Potter since the first movie. I'd originally wanted to watch all the movies and then read the books, but in anticipation of the last book we went and bought all the books that are out. Once we had the whole set, we couldn't resist reading them, thinking we had just enough time to read them all before the last one would come out. I was expecting that to be out in early spring, however, so we're now done and waiting along with everyone else.
April 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I've read a few odd theories that toy with the idea that the issue of "being seen" travelling through time will come up in the seventh book similarly to how Harry thought he saw his father casting the patronus. Some theorists suggest that when Harry goes back in time to the night of the Godric's Hollow incident he will be briefly mistaken for James. I think it is a fascinating idea.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Shadowquill: JKR has stated that all the time turners were destroyed in the battle at the ministry.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Remember that what Harry and Hermione were doing at the time was clandestine in nature to begin with. If they were seen, it would give the whole game away, regardless of any other rule regarding the use of the time-turner.
And they DIDN'T change past events, did they? Everything they did on their return to the past, they had already experienced from a different viewpoint. So I think the admonition not to be seen had less to do with time-travel than it did with the fact that they were breaking other rules (and that there would be problems for everybody if they messed up).
April 26th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
What I really liked about this bit in the Potter series is how logically Rowling treats the concept of time travel.
If you travel to the past, logically your actions will have consequences that affect the future…including the future from which you've traveled. You can't change the past, because anything you might do while traveling to the past has already been done before you even leave. Because it's the past.
Does that make any sense?
This is how Rowling writes time travel. Hermione and Harry do not change the past. They travel back in time, and their actions have consequences we recognize as having seen earlier in the book, before they travel. The thunk of the axe into the pumpkin, for example.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
And the stones thrown through the window. Hermione realizes what is going on (the Hermione inside Hagrid's house), and keeps quiet about it. It is also Hermione who realizes that it was Harry who saved himself, when Harry was waiting to see his father save him.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Jared–
Yes. I think you have it exactly.
To my mind, the ultimate time -travel story is Isaac Asimov's "The Red Queen's Race." (I'm not that big on Asimov otherwise, incidentally.)
April 27th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
I thought Dumbledore's admonition simply meant that the two Harrys and the two Hermiones couldn't be seen ~together.~ So when Hermione was racing from one class to another, the students in the "first" class would be different from the students in the "second" class, so it would not be obvious what she was doing.
However, since she and Harry were going back in time and would be encountering themselves, they had to make sure they were not seen by themselves, by Draco and his gang, or by the Minister of Magic, Hagrid, and Dumbledore. Which is why Dumbledore distracted the Minister and allowed Harry and Hermione to release Buckbeak.
The one violation was in the Deatheater scene where Harry sees himself. Since the one Harry was on the verge of collapse, it didn't cause a problem.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Very true, Edmund. All the time-turners were destroyed at the ministry. But is that the only way to time travel? I'm inclined to think so, since J.K. Rowling generally doesn't use magic as a plot device unless it is already known to the reader. The reason I still consider time travel a possibility is because someone asked Rowling if there would be any more time travel and she said "not telling!". Maybe she just hadn't made up her mind? It is still rather suspicious that we may not have seen the last of time travelling. Who knows.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I'm not 100% sure on the time-travel interview response, so I'll have to go dig that up and bring it back here sometime. Don't take it as fact until I find it again on Accio Quote… but I'm pretty sure I read something along those lines.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:19 am
I hope we have seen the last time-travel in the series. Time-travel either creates a paradox, or accepts the doctrine of predestination.
The things that Harry and Hermione did in the past had already happened when they decided to do them. How could that be if they had a choice?
If they did have a choice, then they are, in some way or another, affecting the past, and that will affect the future–and could change their circumstances and therefore their choices, which could mean that they choose not to go back, which would mean that the changes they made did not happen, etc.
Time travel is like dividing by zero. There's nothing in the theories to prevent it; it just doesn't work.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I do agree that time travel throws an entirely new level of complication into the story that probably shouldn't be there, however. It can propel the plot, but it can also hinder the plot. Best left untouched, perhaps, but the possibility is always there. She's used it once, she could (being the author) reasonably use it again. I never said I liked the implications, I'm just fascinated by the concept.
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:31 am
Several good reasons posted here already; I'd like to add, I think the admonition to not be seen would have to involved in knowledge of the time travel. If Hermione (or a teacher in the know) had seen herself at school during class times, it wouldn't have been too much of a shock. But since Hermione had not planned on traveling back in time to correct the situation (and nobody else did, certainly) then seeing doubles of herself and Harry would be a big problem.