As a science-fiction author, Butler isn’t content to simply say “it just is that way”, even in a novel she describes as fantasy. Though at first she seems to disregard the more nitpicky aspects of time travel, there are some instances in the novel where the
We can add plenty of more metaphorical interpretations to Dana losing her arm in the wall, but the way I interpreted it at first was a simple answer to an obvious question: it's established fairly early on that Dana moves slightly in space between the time she leaves and returns to the present, so what happens if she happens to move into an area where there's an obstacle?
The original Star Trek series had to answer the question of "why do Kirk and Spock never beam into a wall when using the transporter?" This was explained by the one-way accuracy of transporter pads. It was safe to beam crewmembers into a large open area on a planet's surface, but in order to move them from ship to ship there had to be a corresponding receiving apparatus on the other end to make sure they didn't end up like Dana. Transporter technology presumably got better as time went on, since this rule was disregarded in later Star Trek series.
Anyway, Butler gives a pretty clear answer to the question: yes, Dana's movements in space are random, and thus it is possible for her to wind up halfway inside of a wall. Certain versions of the X-Men storyline (superhero comic writers like to create alternate realities and retcon things out the wazoo) involve Nightcrawler dying from this sort of accident.
Butler does a fairly good job of sweeping other potential time-travel issues under the rug. Dana makes a point of not testing the paradox. However, there's one instance that I'm really kind of annoyed by.
Why is Rufus still in the past?
When Dana timeported while Kevin was holding on to her, Kevin got dragged into the past. Similarly, Kevin gets pulled back to the present when he tackles Dana during the confrontation with Rufus. So if a person in direct contact with Dana undergoes the same temporal displacement, why does the dead body of Rufus, which is clinging tightly to her arm, turn into a wall instead of following her to the present?
Does it not work on dead people?
Even so, is Rufus entirely dead at that point?
The NaNoWriMo forums, which are a great place to look for answers to the weirdest questions you've ever wondered about, suggest that people are still alive for a while after losing consciousness from stab wounds.
The problem isn't so much that there's a loophole in the time travel--if I wanted to be really picky, I'd go after stuff like "why isn't the dirt under her feet timeported as well?" The problem is that this is a pretty blatant inconsistency, to the point of being distracting and causing tangents that lead to discussion of the finer details.
Oh, well. I guess I'll use a catch-all explanation:
Metaphorical license.
We can add plenty of more metaphorical interpretations to Dana losing her arm in the wall, but the way I interpreted it at first was a simple answer to an obvious question: it's established fairly early on that Dana moves slightly in space between the time she leaves and returns to the present, so what happens if she happens to move into an area where there's an obstacle?
The original Star Trek series had to answer the question of "why do Kirk and Spock never beam into a wall when using the transporter?" This was explained by the one-way accuracy of transporter pads. It was safe to beam crewmembers into a large open area on a planet's surface, but in order to move them from ship to ship there had to be a corresponding receiving apparatus on the other end to make sure they didn't end up like Dana. Transporter technology presumably got better as time went on, since this rule was disregarded in later Star Trek series.
Anyway, Butler gives a pretty clear answer to the question: yes, Dana's movements in space are random, and thus it is possible for her to wind up halfway inside of a wall. Certain versions of the X-Men storyline (superhero comic writers like to create alternate realities and retcon things out the wazoo) involve Nightcrawler dying from this sort of accident.
Butler does a fairly good job of sweeping other potential time-travel issues under the rug. Dana makes a point of not testing the paradox. However, there's one instance that I'm really kind of annoyed by.
Why is Rufus still in the past?
When Dana timeported while Kevin was holding on to her, Kevin got dragged into the past. Similarly, Kevin gets pulled back to the present when he tackles Dana during the confrontation with Rufus. So if a person in direct contact with Dana undergoes the same temporal displacement, why does the dead body of Rufus, which is clinging tightly to her arm, turn into a wall instead of following her to the present?
Does it not work on dead people?
Even so, is Rufus entirely dead at that point?
The NaNoWriMo forums, which are a great place to look for answers to the weirdest questions you've ever wondered about, suggest that people are still alive for a while after losing consciousness from stab wounds.
The problem isn't so much that there's a loophole in the time travel--if I wanted to be really picky, I'd go after stuff like "why isn't the dirt under her feet timeported as well?" The problem is that this is a pretty blatant inconsistency, to the point of being distracting and causing tangents that lead to discussion of the finer details.
Oh, well. I guess I'll use a catch-all explanation:
Metaphorical license.
"Metaphorical license" is no joke, and not simply a catch-all explanation. If time travel is seen as a metaphor for history, then it makes sense that the travel only works in one direction, back and forth from the present to the past. We always have access to our past in history, but of course not to our future (except via anticipation and projection, or the tired idea that the past will "repeat itself" if we don't sufficiently study it). Dana can "visit" the past and confront it, but the future for Rufus has to remain an idea, a hypothetical projection. He can "hold" part of her back there, as a metaphor for how experiencing this past changes her, how she doesn't "return whole."
ReplyDelete