Past and future in the HP universe

[pauraque_bk]

Current debate:

-James grew up to be a better person than he was at 15.
tinderblast argues for.
mimine argues against.


Recent essay:

-no_remorse: 'There is no real past in Harry Potter, as there is no reality outside of Harry's head. If there is a "past" event, it is very obviously someone's memory of it, not the past itself. And with this ever-subjective interpretation of the past as the individual's memory of it - time itself becomes "memory in the making."'


Good point:

-ruhgozler: 'Everything I have read in canon points to the theory that time turners take you into the past and you have to live your way back to the present. [...] No where does it give any indication that time turners can jump you into the future.'


It's a coincidence that these things all came up around the same time, but they all speak to the reality of past events. The HP universe is one in which the past is definite -- you can go back into it, muck about with it, and the present still comes out the same.

The future, on the other hand, is indefinite. While there are reliable ways of magically seeing the past (Pensieve), magic to tell the future is presented as difficult and untrustworthy. There's no obvious reason this must be so; it was a conscious decision on JKR's part.

The way time travel is presented in PoA always bothered me, because it seems to tell us that free will doesn't exist in the HP universe, and that doesn't jive with the "our choices make us who we are" business. But if the past is essentially different from the future, and is consistently treated differently in the text... hm. Free will may "exist" in the present, but not the past. To carry no_remorse's point a little further, it can be read that Harry is the only one who experiences free will, as the "present" is defined as his consciousness.

Wild stuff.

Comments

[nicolthewhore.livejournal.com]

i'm having flash-backs to philosophy 101 and cartesian thinking. O_o

free will: i don't think that because the past is definite that means no one has free will. since there is travel to the past at all, that means one has to make the choice to travel back into the past -- so either you have the free will to hop around in time, or you have no free will at all (because your past You creates your present You and then your present you MUST become your past You, etc).

subjectivity: that's the inherent problem with third person limited. ^_^ you only see what goes on with that one character. i actually have a hard time reading large chunks of the books because i get very angry with JKR -- she leaves out SO MUCH CULTURE that must exist in the wizarding world! example; if they have ONE pop/rock band (the weird sisters), then shouldn't there be this entire subculture of punk witches? there must be! but harry is, disturbingly enough, not a curious child. he's not interested in the wizarding world like hermione is. he likes the cool tricks, he's thankful to be out of the dursleys' house, and he's horrified that he's wrapped up in this whole Rise of Voldemort deal, and that's about it. child has not curiousity whatsoever. this strikes me as 1) psychologically unhealthy (symptom of being raised in a closet?) and 2) an indication that harry will probably not remain in the wizarding world when the second battle is over. he just doesn't care about it enough.

also, since we're presented the story from harry's point of view, its kind of ridiculous to say that he's the only one in the universe with free will. if you want to get really technical, there is no reality outside of MY head, right now. its rehashing decartes' argument about whether any of the outside world exists or not. i admit that i don't understand the way JKR thinks, so harry's being the center of the universe may or may not come up in other books -- in fact, if one uses symbolism, she's already written about brains in vats (that seemingly pointless scene in the end of #5 in which ron gets attacked by brains) so maybe this symbolizes the "maybe we're all just brains in vats" argument. point being that i don't think that the choice of third person limited to write the story means that harry is the only one with free will -- i think it was JKR's way of introducing kids to the wizarding world, legitimizing it when characters ask each other ridiculous questions ("what's that?" "a wand, stupid"), and giving herself leeway to introduce new concepts throughout the series without just plopping them in all of a sudden (someone has to ask what it is, and then it is explained, so one more piece of the world makes sense).

[pauraque]

You seem to be confusing literary analysis and philosophy. The text of the HP books is composed entirely of Harry's experience; Harry's experience is all the reality there is. That's not "ridiculous", it's a fact about the text. Acknowledging it isn't advocating real-life solipsism.

Fandom is mostly made up of fic writers and readers, so we're used to approaching texts by seeing them as on some level "real" -- ie, what's really going on in the lives of these characters when Harry isn't there? But that's a conceit -- they *have* no lives when Harry isn't there, until we decide to change the nature of the story. Other characters' experiences aren't part of the story JKR is telling, and it's *her* work I'm presently trying to dissect, as is no_remorse.

The way we're used to analyzing canon for fic purposes is not the same as traditional literary analysis. Literary analysis is not generally of much use in writing fanfic, and when someone does use it for that purpose, the product is often labeled "metafic". That should tell you something.

[asphodeline.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. there's an interesting concept there. Need to think about this a bit first! I wasn't keen on the time turner thing myself, it bothers me how it may be used in subsequent books; there have to be limitations as regards what you can change and what not??