Harry Potter discussion

Questions > HP plot flaw?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 62 (62 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Kathryn (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:51PM) (new)

Kathryn | 6 comments Alright, I love Harry Potter more than words can say... But, I noticed something peculiar and wondered what you all thought about this:
You know how in "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" (Book 3), Hermione uses the "Time Turner" to go back in time to save Sirius from being caught and Buckbeak from being executed? Well, why didn't they just use the Time Turner to save Sirius' life in Book 5? Or Dumbledore in Book 6? Or Lupin, Tonks, Mad-Eye, Ted, and Fred in Book 7? Or Harry's parents from being killed by Voldemort in the very beginning?? They could have even killed Voldemort himself waaaay sooner had they just used that device!! It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, how could J.K. use it in Book 3 but then forget all about it in all the other books? Are there rules about the Time Turner that I just missed? Or is this an overlooked flaw in the plan? If it IS a flaw, well that's just lame; so many character's lives could have been saved! But, I suppose I could understand how the author of such a long and complex story could let a few details slip through the cracks. The story has so much going on that it must be awful trying to balance and straighten all the facts in 7 lengthy books! But I am sure she gets thousands of emails daily interrogating her about those things--hopefully she hooks people up with answers and works hard for those billions she rakes in every year! Damn I hope I can write something that successful someday and damn I hope I don't overlook anything; I would hate to have some chick writing about some flaw in my story! Yikes

PS I still love the Harry Potter series enormously and loved how the series concluded with Deathly Hallows! Although I would love to know more about what happens to all the characters when they grow up...

message 2: by Meghan (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:51PM) (new)

Meghan | 686 comments Well in five the kids smashed all the time turners and because they are in the time room and constantly fixing and breaking agian they can't use them. I think this is mentioned in one of the books. It is agianst wizard law to mess with time. J.K. Rowling tells in three that the only reason Hermione got one was because she was an exceptional student and would never use it wrong. Nobody would be aloud to use them to go back in time and change things like death.

message 3: by Peng (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:51PM) (new)

Peng | 317 comments well, death is inevitable. it's not something one should avoid. those deaths happened for a reason. i wouldn't change a single thing with the book (except the dursley making harry miserable - but then, he wouldn't feel so happy at the burrow!). so, i therefore say, that it is not a flaw.

message 4: by Kathryn (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:51PM) (new)

Kathryn | 6 comments Well I agree that death is inevitable and that the books are perfect as they are. I loved the story and felt that each moment was crucial to its development. I'm just being anal about why such a powerful device such as a Time Turner could be given to a young student to take extra classes, and yet it was also encouraged by Dumbledore for her to use it to save Buckbeak's life, and to help Sirius. So why wasn't it used for other things like killing Voldemort who tortured so many people for so long or saving Dumbledore who brought peace and protection for so long? If it is against Wizard Law to mess with Time to cheat death, then why did Dumbledore use it to save Buckbeack? Is there a time-limit for how far back you can go perhaps? It is just one of those curiosities I had, even though I wouldn't change a thing in the story. I mean, there wouldn't be a story if all the characters had survived and they had offed Voldemort long ago with a Time Turner! But let's just discuss this for the sake of discussion... Are there any other clues as to the rules of Time Turning?

message 5: by Ashley (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:51PM) (new)

Ashley (readerandwriter) Think of it this way. If all that happened hadn't happened... Harry wouldn't haven't had such a strong friendship with Hermione and Ron.

message 6: by Meghan (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:51PM) (new)

Meghan | 686 comments Well, I know that after five they couldn't use time turners agian until they made new ones, which takes a long time according to J.K. Rowling. I also think that everyone would be to scared to time travel to fight Voldemort. I was wondering though, why do you think that if someone used a time turner they would be able to kill Voldemort better or faster or whatever? I don't think a time turner would help in that respect.

message 7: by Kathryn (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:51PM) (new)

Kathryn | 6 comments First, here is a link I found that gives some basic info on the devices: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/spell... Second, I have a feeling that JK probably didn't want to use them as major tools in the books following Book 3 because it would open up too many "gray areas" and questions; she probably didn't want time-travel to detract from the basis of the story. Regardless, the devices seem to be extremely rare and hard to make, as was suggested, so perhaps there is some sort of restriction built into them that limits what they can be used for? To answer Meghan's question about how a Time Turner could help defeat Voldemort sooner, I think it could have been used to destroy him before he started his horcrux-making. Just a simple killing-curse to get rid of him before he caused so much devastation. We know that although that huge lot of them were destroyed, Hermione still had hers which the Ministry gave her via Minerva. It would have been great to buy Dumbledore more time with Harry! Don't get me wrong though, I still think that even if it were possible to go back in time in the story I would still rather have the the plot progress as it did--it makes it more of a masterpiece! And it assists with the characters' development and unification.

message 8: by Kathryn (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:51PM) (new)

Kathryn | 6 comments Also, I just had a thought: maybe you can only go back within 24 hours or something, because to go back any further (for example, going all the way back to kill Voldemort) would alter history so drastically as to cause an extreme meltdown in time and the development of all the lives within that time lapse. So then, I wonder why no one suggested to Hermione that she save Dumbledore? I mean, she could have said no and kept on with the storyline, but I wonder why no one even tried to coerce her into using her device that way? Perhaps I am thinking about this too much! Haha

message 9: by Kenzie (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:51PM) (new)

Kenzie I see where you are coming from Kathryn with the whole saving lives. I believe Dumbledore didn't want them to go back in time to save all peoples lives, however, with the case of Buckbeak and Sirius I believe that since they were innocent Dumbledore felt it wrong to kill them. If someone is innocent that is a good enough reason to save them.

P.S. If they did go back in time to save Harry's parents they would have to spin and spin and spin, for the Time Turner works by hours. Plus if they did go back in time they would have to wait until present day to come into reality, otherwise there would be more than one Harry or Hermione, etc. Then they would have to spend all that time in a different time growing older and everything.

message 10: by Kathryn (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:51PM) (new)

Kathryn | 6 comments Hmm, I see what you are saying McKenzie! You cannot use the time turner to go forward, so whoever went back would be stuck in that time period and would have to wait it out. And turning it back all the way to Voldemort's youth would take waaaay too many turns, it would be easy to make an error--and if you blew your chance at killing him then, again, you'd be stuck there. And I think you're right about the the innocence of Buckbeack and Siris: it was so recent that Dumbledore probably decided to break the rules and save them--of course he would do that because he was never afraid to bend rules, and because saving Buckbeak/ freeing Sirius really wouldn't alter history very much as to pose a big problem in the time continuum. You are sooo right!

message 11: by Jayme (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:52PM) (new)

Jayme | 13 comments I may be wrong because I haven't read that book in awhile, but weren't they saving Sirius from the Dementors Kiss. Which technically speaking isn't death. (Although I'd rather be dead) So maybe that could be Dumbledors way around the rules, and Buckbeat was an animal, so maybe there are not real rules on the use of time turners to save animals. I agree that you can probably only go back a few hours or so. I mean, Hermione was only using it to go back a couple hours for her classes.

message 12: by Meghan (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:54PM) (new)

Meghan | 686 comments Yeah, it wasn't really death, but given the choice, I'd take death over that.

message 13: by Kidz (new)

Kidz | 33 comments another posible flaw, in book 6 harry checks and finds that the half blood prince was 50 years ago: before his parents were at hogwarts, but we know that snape was in the same year as his parents.

message 14: by Nikki (new)

Nikki Boisture Kidz-It's not that the half-blood prince was from 50 years ago, that is just when the book was published. Remember, that particular text book belonged to the school, so many students had probably used it. My guess, based on how child-Snape was described, is that his family was too poor to afford texts, so he had to use school copies. He wrote in his Potions book, and it sat there until Harry came along and got it.

message 15: by Robbie (new)

Robbie Bashore I'm not sure how this explains Buckbeak, but Harry and Hermione actually went back in time *before* Sirius got the dementor's kiss, so they weren't really bringing him back. I don't know if it made a difference that they didn't witness Buckbeak's death but only heard the chop.

message 16: by [deleted user] (new)

if they did, there would be no series! duh.

message 17: by Crystal (new)

Crystal (jamessangel) | 18 comments I thought Hermione returned the time turner to Prof. M. at the end of book 3.

message 18: by Tracey (new)

Tracey you're right, CH...she did return the time turner.

message 19: by Kidz (new)

Kidz | 33 comments the chop was the executioner throing his ax into the fence

message 20: by Joanne (new)

Joanne (ioanasaunt) | 63 comments ahm hello Kathryn, yeah I think you missed something. I think Hermoine mentioned somewhere between Half-Blood Prince and Deathly hallows that the time-turners were destroyed in the Ministry during the war of Order of the Phoenix. But I'm not sure.

I also noticed something in Deathly Hallows but I'm not sure if it's a flaw.

Harry mentioned (I think it's before Fleur and Bill's wedding at Ron's bedroom) that the Horcrux can be destroyed like what happened on Tom Riddle's diary by using the basilisk fangs. Ron even mentioned that they've got loads of them and glad that he can finally use them. But then, after finally finding some Horcruxes, they somewhat forgot that they can use basilisk fangs. I was thinking about using them. I even wished that I could talk to them that they could use it. It's just impossible that Harry, Ron and Hermoine forgot all about them because they're thinking hard during those times.

message 21: by Pandy, "It unscrews the other way." (last edited May 09, 2009 05:41PM) (new)

Pandy | 1575 comments Mod
That's not a flaw either. Ron is joking when he says they have a large supply of basilisk fangs! The only basilisk fangs around at that time were those on the dead basilisk in the chamber at Hogwarts. Ron and Hermione go to the Chamber of Secrets once they get to Hogwarts at the end of the book so that they can get fangs to destroy the cup. They didn't forget and before that time there was no way for them to access basilisk fangs.

message 22: by Carly (new)

Carly | 258 comments i thought it was a pumpkin

message 23: by Pandy, "It unscrews the other way." (new)

Pandy | 1575 comments Mod
What do you mean?

message 24: by Joe (new)

Joe | 57 comments Ok first of all, as others have mentioned they were broken at the ministry, but the main point is:

Hermione mentions that you mustn't meddle with time, if Sirius dies, it is his fate to die and by saving him you could have a worse effect on the future, it is possible maybe Dumbledore dies, not allowing Harry to figure out he had to destroy the Horcruxes, or Hermione may die, in which they won't realise to use the sword of Godric Gryffindor or find what can destroy a horcrux. By saving Sirius and CHANGING fate by meddling with time, this may cause a worse outcome, this is the same for going back to save all of the other characters aswell.. If it was their fate to be saved, you'd see a second Harry save the person who dies, or you won't see who saves them, in which you could travel back in time and wait to find out who did, AND THEN if no-oen will save them, that is the time for you to realise you used a timeturner to save them. Do you get it?

message 25: by Ashlee (last edited Jun 22, 2011 05:52AM) (new)

Ashlee (ashlee_) ****SPOILER ALERT****

It all happened for a reason. Everyone who died, such as Dumbledore and Snape, were killed for a reason. We find out that Dumbledore had a curse that was going to kill him anyways, so he wanted Snape to finish him off quickly to keep Harry angry with him, and to please the death eaters/Voldemort. When Snape dies, we find out that he really WASN'T the bad guy, because of the memories he left for Harry to see. I thought the whole thing was brilliant. When Snape killed Dumbledore I had no idea how he was going to come back from that and through the twist and turns of the plot, J.K made it work. Still blows my mind! so, in a nutshell what I'm trying to get at here, J.K could have written in the time-turners saving everyones life, but I think the way she did choose to write it really kept the storyline interesting, and to quote Kathryn- I also agree that " JK probably didn't want to use them as major tools in the books following Book 3 because it would open up too many "gray areas" and questions; she probably didn't want time-travel to detract from the basis of the story"

message 26: by Ashlee (last edited Jun 22, 2011 11:03AM) (new)

Ashlee (ashlee_) Palice wrote: "I haven't read everyone's comments on here -- I will soon, but I just wanted to add something.
When I read the third book, I got the feeling that the Time Turner was used only when it had been used..."

Well said at the end there! I agree that the message is some things are inevitable! death is one of them. I love the way JKR made the story flow.

message 27: by Dave (new)

Dave | 2 comments Hey guys, first, on the matter of "Why didn't they just kill Voldemort way-back-when?"... it seems to me that, as the Time Turner (in the books) returns the individual back to the place they were in that time, this same individual might revert back to that "state" in said time. Aka, if Harry & Hermione had waited a year and then gone back, they would regress physically (as well as geographically and tempularly) in time by 1 year. In any event, as use of a TT seems to revert you back to your position at that relative time, then regardless of a de-agification possibility, it's ability to transport you seems determinate on your existence within that time frame. If that's the case, then one could only travel back in time WITHIN their own lifetime. In a way, it's a neat way to prevent too too much damage to the time stream! Of course, this is barring any given examples which would seem to argue otherwise.

Second, while I cede the difficulty/nigh-impossibility of traveling back to any time to enact great change, I cannot see why they didn't use a TT to save Sirius from falling into the mirror. Like with Sirius and Buckbeak in book 3, all it would have taken is Harry standing in front of the mirror with the invisibility cloak, and both time perspectives would have been maintained without violation! Just some thoughts... great to post here!

message 28: by Tanavi (new)

Tanavi | 23 comments I think that it is too dangerous to mess with time and so Dumbledore took away the time turner

message 29: by Tanavi (new)

Tanavi | 23 comments Also just so you know, if you look it up online JK Rowling tells TONS about what happened after HP7

message 30: by Charsiu12 (new)

Charsiu12 | 1 comments Well this goes back to the story of the three brothers. The brother whose love was brought back to life felt like she didn't belong in the world. I believe that if the time turner was used to bring anyone human back into the living world, they would feel like they don't belong. i think rowling is capturing the idea that death is inevitable, but "the ones that love us, never really leave us".

I totally agree with Palice about the dead not wanting to come back. Despite how much Sirius loved harry, his afterlife would be served honourably with James and Lily - his best friends.

message 31: by Amanda (new)

Amanda (mandgoggs) Time turners are very rarely granted to wizards. If everybody had them then they would have a 'BAck to the Future' situation where too much would change. You can't mess with time. The only reason Mconagall gave Hermione the time turner was because she knew that she was mature enough to handle it, would keep it quiet and wouldn;t go messing with anything.


message 32: by Ciara (new)

Ciara  | 109 comments I think Dumbledore would have taken it, because he thought they might become big-headed if they had the power of time-turning.

I also agree with Aimee's comment.

message 33: by [deleted user] (new)

haha I'm reading everyone's comments, and this is deep stuff, isn't it? so cool.
I agree with anyone who's mentioned the circle thing...you'd know if you were supposed to go back in time, because it would have already happened! it's all really convoluted.

message 34: by Ishani (new)

Ishani (IshaniG) | 425 comments Kathryn wrote: "Alright, I love Harry Potter more than words can say... But, I noticed something peculiar and wondered what you all thought about this:
You know how in "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaba..."

I know it would have been great if all of them were saved but remember it would take too many swings to go back in the past. To go back to where Harry's parents were being killed would be like 10000 swings or something. And then the person can't come back cuz it will be too long.

Also time ought not to be meddled with!

message 35: by Devin (new)

Devin Dos santos | 1 comments Ok so here it is. When voldemort first rose to power, it was with great shock to the wizarding world, they didn't know how to react much less to use the time turners to kill him. Remember he was still fairly young at this point (he graduated, asked for a position, was denied, created his seven horcuxes, then was defeated, therefore from the time he finished the last horcrux to his defeat by harry as a baby, his rise must have been very fast). Afterwards, the wizarding world thought he was dead, so there would be no point in killing him other than trying to save those he killed, which would create major fluxes and historical paradoxes. And so time went on until the minister recognizes at the end of the 5th book that voldemort has indeed come back to life. However at this point, it is too late to use a time turner to stop him because prior to this point in the book, harry and his friends destroy the ministry's collection of time turners.

message 36: by Adam (new)

Adam (thespadebaron) | 3 comments U don't mess with time and its illegal to use tune timers unless approved by the ministry. Dumbledore knew Harry's limits and knew he needed his godfather. He also knew Harry and Hermione could pull it off. Great man, Dumbledore. He also knew don't mess with time unless truely necessary and 100% chance u won't damage the future. Just my thoughts

message 37: by Linda (new)

Linda Bohm | 9 comments I think that the reason why nobody used a Time-Turner is the same reason why they didn't use the eagles to take the One Ring into Mordor in LOTR; it's not always about the destination, it's about the journey. The Harry Potter books aren't about the death of Lord Voldemort, they're about the journey of Harry and his friends growing up together. It's about them learning how to live their lives as good, honest people.

Also, if Voldemort had been killed easily, it would've undermined the message of how we need friends to help us defeat out demons, how we don't have to face the big battles alone. Everybody has a big battle to face, and oftentimes, if we just look, we're not the only ones going through those same troubles.

The other deaths that using the Time-Turner could have also prevented each had a message as well. Most of these were to illustrate the awful unnecessary deaths that every war brings. Not even magic can prevent extraneous death brought by war.

message 38: by Joseph (new)

Joseph Gugino | 2 comments Well, I didn't read all the comments, but I'll tell you 1 reason why they didn't use the time turner for any of that. Hermoine was give the time turner with a huge responsibility, and that was for her to take on more classes than humanly possible, and in the end was used to save Buckbeak and Sirius. Now did you ever see/hear about it again? I'll tell you one things for sure, If I could go back in time and change something I sure as hell wouldn't. Simple answer
The butterfly effect, you never know what 1 thing changing will change in the future, it's very commonly explained through-out life. When it's your time to die, it's your time to die. That's it, clocks run-out. Some people believe even if you could cheat death he would catch up with you, and some believe that going back in time and righting all their wrongs would be the right thing to do. It's not right to mess with what's done, I think in heroes season 4 it's best described, small butterflies will have seemingly no effect, the larger the situation the bigger the difference in life. Overall in this rant and rave it's the balance of the space-time continuum, and that time turner was obviously put away after book 3 and not taken back out for a reason. These people were wizards, beyond genius' level. They know not to mess with that sort of thing.

message 39: by Joseph (new)

Joseph Gugino | 2 comments Linda wrote: "I think that the reason why nobody used a Time-Turner is the same reason why they didn't use the eagles to take the One Ring into Mordor in LOTR; it's not always about the destination, it's about t..."

I also believe that makes sense, It's like saying, why did that cartoon get up after he was smashed with the anvil? SHUT UP AND ENJOY THE ENTERTAINMENT

message 40: by Bonnie (last edited Feb 18, 2013 12:31AM) (new)

Bonnie (bonn1e) | 4 comments In LOTR the ring couldn't have been taken by the eagles because the journey had to be secretive. Fly a giant eagle screaming about destroying the ring and Sauron will get you immediately. Hobbits on the other hand were very good at sneaking about unnoticed, that is why Bilbo was a thief in The Hobbit.
Time Turners were never supposed to be used to change time in a major way. I think it was Hermione that tells Harry and Ron about the horrible things that happened when wizards tried to change their past. I think that the time travel in the 3rd book was done under very unique circumstances.
The plot hole that is driving me nuts is the House Elf Conundrum.
Think about it. Voldemort is completely unaware of house elves and his magic and the Death Eater's magic doesn't affect them. Why didn't Dumbledore just send a couple of the many house elves working in the castle to retrieve the horcruxes, go down to the chamber and destroy them, and avada kadavra Harry once to get that horcrux? Then he could just go out and kill Voldemort.

message 41: by Ishani (last edited Feb 18, 2013 02:04AM) (new)

Ishani (IshaniG) | 425 comments Bonnie, As much as I recall Harry could only be killed by Voldemort to destroy that last Horcrux. Dumbledore said so to Snape himself. Maybe this was because of the protection given to him by his mother and also because Voldemort's body was made by Harry's blood. Also cld u please tell me where it is written that house elves aren't affected by death eaters magic because I don't remember anything like that. And Voldemort was just ignorant towards house elves not unaware abt them. Dumbledore didn't know about the horcruxes until the sixth book where he asks Harry to get the information from Slughorn. Everything had a connection. Rowling did a beautiful. No offence but u seriously can't question that and asking the elves to destroy the horcruxes and especially to Kill Harry sounds a bit... Easy. I think Rowling has done justice to the book. The reason why she has millions of fans and followers.

message 42: by Pauline (new)

Pauline (seiren04) | 1 comments It is a plothole. I think they can change or avoid certain deaths or happenings if they use the time turner. But it will also happen to change the present time and future. It's not wise to meddle with time in Harry Potter world. There are rules they need to follow, one is they can't be seen. There's too much risk at stake just by using it. That's why they only used the time turner for trivial things like for studying right? Well aside from when they used it to save Buckbeak and Sirius but we should also remember that the ever clever Hermione is the one who used it. And Dumbledore gave his approval and trust that Hermione can do it. Just imagine if Harry is the only who one who went back in time. It's going to be a total mess. :)

message 43: by Tejashree (new)

Tejashree | 31 comments Think about this...
Its just an idea but to stop Voldemort from killing all those people one would have to go way back maybe when he came first time to Hogwarts because we know he killed even when he was in the school.
& if that would have happened there would have been no Harry. because in absence of voldemort there would have been no death eaters and may be Snape would not have indulged in the dark arts or had friends who were death eaters and would have remained good friend of Lily which might had resulted in them being together rather than Lily with James (As one of the main reason Lily stops being with Snape is his fascination for dark arts). Then Harry Potter 'The Boy who Lived' would have been the boy who wasn't born (Unfortunately). Everything happens for a reason they say.....

message 44: by Bonnie (last edited Feb 19, 2013 10:13PM) (new)

Bonnie (bonn1e) | 4 comments Ishani wrote: "Bonnie, As much as I recall Harry could only be killed by Voldemort to destroy that last Horcrux. Dumbledore said so to Snape himself. Maybe this was because of the protection given to him by his m..."
I'm not saying that all the problems could have magically (no pun intended) been solved by house elves. But I think that the protections that L.V. put in place to guard his horcruxes did not stop elves. We know, from the 6th book, that L.V. did not even consider the possibilities of underage wizards or elves retrieving his horcruxes because the enchantment on the boat that guarded the locket did not stop underage wizards or elves. Dumbledore knew or suspected as much because he allowed Harry to accompany him. In the last book Dobby is able to save Harry and co from the Malfoy Manor because he is a house elf, despite the enchantments the death eaters have placed on the grounds.
So, AD knew, or highly suspected that the horcruxes would not guard against elves.
That being said, I love the books. And also, that comment was meant as a JOKE (I thought Dumbledore killing Harry made that obvious). There is a VERY good reason why JKR did not wrap up the series by sending Dobby out on an adventure.

message 45: by Ishani (new)

Ishani (IshaniG) | 425 comments Yep I get that. Point taken. Voldemort was definitely an ignorant brat. And I srsly didn't mean any offence to u.

message 46: by Daniel (new)

Daniel (daniel_ozl) | 20 comments Death eaters destroyed all th turners in ifth book dumbledore said so himslef

message 47: by Bonnie (new)

Bonnie (bonn1e) | 4 comments Ishani wrote: "Yep I get that. Point taken. Voldemort was definitely an ignorant brat. And I srsly didn't mean any offence to u."

No Offense taken.
Love the enthusiasm! :)

message 48: by Ishani (new)

Ishani (IshaniG) | 425 comments :-D

message 49: by Leon (last edited Feb 25, 2013 08:14PM) (new)

Leon It says in the third book that Hermione returned her time turner because it was wayyyy to much work for her, so she couldnt have saved sirius or anyone later if she wanted too. What i thought was a plot flaw was that in the fifth book Harry was suddenly able to see threstals leading the carriages. He saw his mother die when he was only one, so why was he be able to just see it then? In the other books he never saw them. My sister thought it was because either, one- he began to see them after Cedric, not his parents, or two- you had to be a certain age to begin to see them. But i thought that it didnt make sense since Luna said that threstals have been pulling the carriages all the time, and when Hagrid first showed them the threstals he said, "i thought you might be able to see them, with yer parents an all" to harry.

message 50: by Tejashree (new)

Tejashree | 31 comments http://thelastmuggle.com/2011/07/09/m...

Quoting from that page:

Luckily, time travel in Harry Potter doesn’t exactly work that way. The time traveler cannot change the past because what is experienced in the past has already been changed.

So the Ministry would be unable to go back in time and destroy Voldemort unless they already went back in time and destroyed Voldemort, thus negating the need to do so.

« previous 1
back to top