It is a stretch, which is why it needed to be explained.
And yes, it would kind of make him immune to dying… in cases where he could be accidentally rescued. Cases like a first year student’s spell locking a door, which an investigator could easily dispel when trying to investigate.
Oh, and I guess once it was established, the other time travel scenes would have had to be written differently. Or at least clarify that “while Draco’s murder plot was flimsy enough that the simplest timeline was the timeline in which it failed, Quirrel’s murder plot was bulletproof enough that the simplest outcome was for it to succeed.” Because authors write the rules, they can get away with a lot of nonsense. But in this kind of story, they do need to acknowledge and (try to) explain any inconsistencies.
And here’s the line I was referring to:
“The earlier experiment had measured whether Transfiguring a long diamond rod into a shorter diamond rod would allow it to lift a suspended heavy weight as it contracted, i.e., could you Transfigure against tension, which you in fact could.” (Chapter 28, foreshadowing the nanotube, which may or may not have been what you were talking about)
And yes, it would kind of make him immune to dying… in cases where he could be accidentally rescued.
By a time traveler, who doesn’t need to do much—only to appear and make the paradox possible. That makes the list of possible cases much more extensive than a first year student locking the door.
And here’s the line I was referring to:
Correct me if I don’t remember something, but that episode didn’t imply that he would be able to create and manipulate tentacles like he did in the book’s final.
And that partial transfiguration thingy is a DEM itself as it was used several times to get Harry out of hot water and serves no other purpose in the plot.
It is a stretch, which is why it needed to be explained.
And yes, it would kind of make him immune to dying… in cases where he could be accidentally rescued. Cases like a first year student’s spell locking a door, which an investigator could easily dispel when trying to investigate.
Oh, and I guess once it was established, the other time travel scenes would have had to be written differently. Or at least clarify that “while Draco’s murder plot was flimsy enough that the simplest timeline was the timeline in which it failed, Quirrel’s murder plot was bulletproof enough that the simplest outcome was for it to succeed.” Because authors write the rules, they can get away with a lot of nonsense. But in this kind of story, they do need to acknowledge and (try to) explain any inconsistencies.
And here’s the line I was referring to:
“The earlier experiment had measured whether Transfiguring a long diamond rod into a shorter diamond rod would allow it to lift a suspended heavy weight as it contracted, i.e., could you Transfigure against tension, which you in fact could.” (Chapter 28, foreshadowing the nanotube, which may or may not have been what you were talking about)
And yes, it would kind of make him immune to dying… in cases where he could be accidentally rescued.
By a time traveler, who doesn’t need to do much—only to appear and make the paradox possible. That makes the list of possible cases much more extensive than a first year student locking the door.
And here’s the line I was referring to:
Correct me if I don’t remember something, but that episode didn’t imply that he would be able to create and manipulate tentacles like he did in the book’s final.
And that partial transfiguration thingy is a DEM itself as it was used several times to get Harry out of hot water and serves no other purpose in the plot.