Summary of the Summary of the Summary:
Summary of the Summary:
I wanted to like it. I tried to go in with a leveled mindset with no biases or expectations, whether positive or negative. And the truth of the matter is, if held to its own, it is an entertaining and fun story. I think it would be incredible to see performed on the stage. As a play, it's great. As a part of the Harry Potter canon, it's repetitive. It's unoriginal. It's pure nostalgia.
The story seems to pick out some of the most popular elements from the Harry Potter novels and the most well-known character traits, and expands on them. The characters we know from childhood, Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Ginny, have been turned into caricatures of themselves. On stage, it's probably necessary to display personality. Reading it in relation to Rowling's original works, it comes across as crass and a disservice to her imagination. Where it does excel as in the built-from-the-bottom-up characters of Scorpius Malfoy and Albus Potter, who are smartly written as the children of famous characters.
The most important thing I've been reminded of when discussing my thoughts on The Cursed Child is
that J.K Rowling did not write this herself. She helped develop the story, but really, it was written by playwright Jack Thorne with input from Rowling and director John Tiffany. And it shows. It lacks Rowling's imagination, wit, and nuanced characters. When read as a play, it's great. When read in relation to the Harry Potter novels, it's basically fan fiction.
that J.K Rowling did not write this herself. She helped develop the story, but really, it was written by playwright Jack Thorne with input from Rowling and director John Tiffany. And it shows. It lacks Rowling's imagination, wit, and nuanced characters. When read as a play, it's great. When read in relation to the Harry Potter novels, it's basically fan fiction.
Summary:
(Disclaimer: the summary does not include spoilers, but immediately following is a clearly marked section that will include spoilers)
Harry Potter and the Cursed Child could be considered the ultimate form of wish-fulfillment. Fans get to see beloved characters who have died once again. We get to hear them speak, apologize for their mistakes, admit things that had previously been implied, and even learn and accept their own fates. We also get to revisit popular events and elements of the Harry Potter stories, including time turners and the Triwizard Cup. While some might find great enjoyment in this, I found it to be something similar a fan would write themselves (would write very well, mind you) in order to imagine what it would be like to encounter all these characters and situations again, except through the eyes of new characters who are the opposite of their parents.
The authors use the play's plot as an opportunity to ask all the "what if" questions of the original characters, in a move I would consider straight out of fan fiction, with a device that does not endanger any original circumstances. The plot takes some of the pivotal conclusions of the novel series and displays what would have happened if these things had not come to pass. This includes what if who didn't wind up with who, what if who died, what if who didn't die, and what if who and who had a child? While perhaps one of these "what ifs" could have been intriguing, all of them in one story just comes across as fan service, basically fan fiction.
The characters we know are also not well served in the story, seemingly being reduced to caricatures of themselves. It's almost as if the writers based them off of the Very Potter Musical (a college-created Harry Potter parody) counterparts. Harry is as whiny and conflicted as ever; Ginny is there as a level head to offer sage advice (more of a representation of here Mother than her original character); Hermione is accomplished, determined, and always thinks she's right; and Ron is just a plain doofus, being useless except for as comic relief and the occasional terrible dad joke. Was Ron ever really that much of a doofus? Yes, he was dimmer, easy to anger, and occasionally more concerned with dinner than the task at hand, but he was brave and there when you needed him. Portraying him as Hermione's mismatch of a husband is a disservice to the complicated and well-rounded character Rowling developed.
I'm probably being a bit harsh, as the play wasn't all bad. The new characters of Albus Potter and Scorpius Malfoy are welcome additions. Albus is a bit whiny and ambitious (in all the wrong ways for my liking), but he is his father's son, and Scorpius is a delightful departure from the Malfoy name, being a witty, kind, and school-minded boy just trying to survive school and make his own name. The play also does a lovely job highlighting father-son relationships and how they are determined by a father's past, his hopes and expectations for the future, and a son's own hopes and expectations.
An odd thing that may be disappointing to some, and which adds to the non-Rowling feeling of the story, is the fact that it is a play. All that is printed are minimal stage directions and dialogue. This means there is no wonderful Rowling description that builds whole worlds, emotions, and finely-tuned characters. This results in dialogue reading clunky and awkward and the whole story feeling less magical. I have a feeling the page does the whole thing a disservice. The stage performance has gotten good reviews, and a believe on the stage the story might be amazing. The magic that must be performed, the settings that must be set, and the emotion that can be relayed through the actors could all make for an exciting and fascinating production.
Overall, the story is entertaining, but it serves better as nostalgia than as part of the Harry Potter canon. The addition of the play to the Harry Potter universe is innocuous. It doesn't ruin or change anything that occurs in the novels, but it also doesn't feel like it was written by Rowling. It lacks her imagination and originality that she infused in the novels, even the worst of them. So my final ruling is that it is an interesting addition to the Universe for hard-core fans, along with the upcoming Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them film series, but not essential to the story.
I leave you with a quote from Entertainment Weekly that I whole-heartedly agree with (accept for the whole eventually adopted into canon thing).
"Admittedly, it’s tempting to write off the work as Rowling-approved fan-fiction, rather than her own defining mythos. Certainly with time, fans will accept the story as canon, but some of the Cursed Child finality feels presently dubious — not insomuch as where characters have ended up, but in why their fates have almost been perfunctorily defined. It’s almost the Potter series’ response to the nostalgia-mania that’s defined this generation of regeneration — a condition Potter surprisingly subscribed to just nine years after its purported end. On one hand, the reprise helps uncover important new layers that only serve the greater, grander story; but on the other, certain moments in the series have been untied and hastily re-packaged here. (Coyly: Some portraits are best left silent.)"The characters we know are also not well served in the story, seemingly being reduced to caricatures of themselves. It's almost as if the writers based them off of the Very Potter Musical (a college-created Harry Potter parody) counterparts. Harry is as whiny and conflicted as ever; Ginny is there as a level head to offer sage advice (more of a representation of here Mother than her original character); Hermione is accomplished, determined, and always thinks she's right; and Ron is just a plain doofus, being useless except for as comic relief and the occasional terrible dad joke. Was Ron ever really that much of a doofus? Yes, he was dimmer, easy to anger, and occasionally more concerned with dinner than the task at hand, but he was brave and there when you needed him. Portraying him as Hermione's mismatch of a husband is a disservice to the complicated and well-rounded character Rowling developed.
I'm probably being a bit harsh, as the play wasn't all bad. The new characters of Albus Potter and Scorpius Malfoy are welcome additions. Albus is a bit whiny and ambitious (in all the wrong ways for my liking), but he is his father's son, and Scorpius is a delightful departure from the Malfoy name, being a witty, kind, and school-minded boy just trying to survive school and make his own name. The play also does a lovely job highlighting father-son relationships and how they are determined by a father's past, his hopes and expectations for the future, and a son's own hopes and expectations.
An odd thing that may be disappointing to some, and which adds to the non-Rowling feeling of the story, is the fact that it is a play. All that is printed are minimal stage directions and dialogue. This means there is no wonderful Rowling description that builds whole worlds, emotions, and finely-tuned characters. This results in dialogue reading clunky and awkward and the whole story feeling less magical. I have a feeling the page does the whole thing a disservice. The stage performance has gotten good reviews, and a believe on the stage the story might be amazing. The magic that must be performed, the settings that must be set, and the emotion that can be relayed through the actors could all make for an exciting and fascinating production.
Overall, the story is entertaining, but it serves better as nostalgia than as part of the Harry Potter canon. The addition of the play to the Harry Potter universe is innocuous. It doesn't ruin or change anything that occurs in the novels, but it also doesn't feel like it was written by Rowling. It lacks her imagination and originality that she infused in the novels, even the worst of them. So my final ruling is that it is an interesting addition to the Universe for hard-core fans, along with the upcoming Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them film series, but not essential to the story.
I leave you with a quote from Entertainment Weekly that I whole-heartedly agree with (accept for the whole eventually adopted into canon thing).
Hard core fan? (NVM, you probably already have it.) Want to make your own ruling? Get it here.
Candid Reactions: (Warning! There be spoilers ahead!)
And why would Snape's love of Lily be public information younger generations know about? I doubt he would want it as part of his mythos.
Also, I don't remember Snape being that witty.
How is Albus able to do some of the magic if he was so terrible at school?
Harry gets to say everything to Dumbledore he wasn't able to. Gets to witness his parent' deaths. Gets closure in ways he previously didn't, which makes things less messy and less relatable. Certainly puts closure on his story, as he doesn't really have anything but paperwork to grapple with.
Can we not have an original villain not tied to Voldemort? He was the first dark magician, and I doubt he would be the last.
Really? Voldemort has a child? Is that not the most cliche twist that could have occurred?
Additionally, the idea of Voldemort and Bellatrix having sex is revolting.
Did you read it? What were your thoughts? Leave them in the comments below.
Disclosure: The Amazon links in this post are affiliate links, which means that if you click through and make a purchase, Amazon sends a couple coins my way. It won't pay the bills, but it may help me purchase my next book to review. Thank you for your support!
No comments:
Post a Comment