Subject: Okay, I can see that.
Author:
Posted on: 2016-07-27 11:24:00 UTC
A few points I'm going to draw out:
-I hadn't twigged that there were two long-range Time-Turners involved. That, I agree, takes it out of 'single prototype' territory and into 'outrageous coincidence'.
-I don't think the Mintumble Effect is a full-on butterfly effect - it's way too limited! Only 25 people stopped existing, after 500 years? Either she literally appeared in a sealed cave and telepathically communicated with one person, or history in the Potterverse is very resilient.
Actually, we know it is, because it's possible for schoolkids to use a (short-range) Time Turner without changing anything. I think the setting works on the principle of 'if you're trying to keep things the same, you'll probably succeed'. Plus, of course, the usually counterpart: 'if you try to change things, it'll go out of control'.
So is it resilient enough to let them restore it to normal after their shenanigans? That's one for debating, I think.
-Why didn't next Wednesday run backwards, or some other time-breaks-down events? Well... who says it doesn't? >:D Maybe the sun never rises again after the night the play ends. But no, I agree that canonically listing side-effects and then ignoring them when convenient is bad.
-I get the feeling your objection isn't really centred on the contradiction of minor points of the canon, but on the fact that Cursed Child is pretty much Back to the Future - 'kid tries to make things better for his parents in the past but accidentally deletes himself', for instance - and that you don't think a Back to the Future storyline really fits the Potterverse. That, plus you don't like the dark timeline - is that because of the specific details of it, or just on general principles?
hS
(PS: And no, I don't think it was snappy. I don't think it was incoherent, either, but if I've totally misunderstood you, then it was. ^_~)