Harry Potter and the Cursed Child: Parts One and Two
by J. K. Rowling, Jack Thorne, John Tiffany
Harry Potter (8)
On This Page
Description
As an overworked employee of the Ministry of Magic, a husband, and a father, Harry Potter struggles with a past that refuses to stay where it belongs while his youngest son, Albus, finds the weight of the family legacy difficult to bear.Tags
Recommendations
Member Recommendations
anonymous user A non-magical detective investigates a murder at the magical high school where her gifted sister teaches. Smart and fascinating examination of the tropes used in HP, including the Chosen One.
Member Reviews
So much love! OK, first of all, it’s in script format. No doubt that disappointed some--it's not a new novel. But for me it was a plus. For one, none of the stylistic tics that have bugged me in Rowling were present: No jarring book-saids or adjective abuse. It’s not bloated in plot; there aren’t any plot holes that I can see. One of my friends said she did roll her eyes at one aspect, but even with her that was a minor complaint.
There's another way I find this a past due recognition. The way Gryffindor dominated the other books and all the Slytherins were depicted negatively really bugged me. One quarter of the kids are cool and another quarter evil little tyrants or their followers in the making? Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff still show more don't get their due but at least there are heroic Slytherins in this one and some Gryffindors who... well, let's say make some mistakes. There's one line of McGongall's I've been waiting for *someone* to say to Harry Potter for years: "The lesson even your father sometimes failed to heed is that bravery doesn’t forgive stupidity."
A lot of the lines are witty, out and out funny and/or wise. There are some old favorite characters that unexpectedly show up--a highlight of the book for me. And I love, love Scorpius beyond measure. In fact, in the immediate aftermath of reading this I'd name this my favorite Harry Potter story. No doubt partly because it's been a long time--I hadn't realized how much I'd missed them all. show less
There's another way I find this a past due recognition. The way Gryffindor dominated the other books and all the Slytherins were depicted negatively really bugged me. One quarter of the kids are cool and another quarter evil little tyrants or their followers in the making? Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff still show more don't get their due but at least there are heroic Slytherins in this one and some Gryffindors who... well, let's say make some mistakes. There's one line of McGongall's I've been waiting for *someone* to say to Harry Potter for years: "The lesson even your father sometimes failed to heed is that bravery doesn’t forgive stupidity."
A lot of the lines are witty, out and out funny and/or wise. There are some old favorite characters that unexpectedly show up--a highlight of the book for me. And I love, love Scorpius beyond measure. In fact, in the immediate aftermath of reading this I'd name this my favorite Harry Potter story. No doubt partly because it's been a long time--I hadn't realized how much I'd missed them all. show less
“My geekness is a-quivering.”
- Scorpius, echoed by every Potterhead that has been fangirling over this screenplay since it was first hinted at
"She raised her wand and said, "[Vitiatus] Revelio." Nothing happened."“Well, you’ve just had a big shock,” said Ron kindly. “What was that supposed to do?" It was my I-don't-quite-remember-my-high-school-Latin-courses attempt at warning/revealing there might be spoilers lurking forthwith. Though this is a pretty good presumption to have about any review, really. If you haven't yet read this screenplay just consider this review a typed out version of Trelawney; it might ramble on or it might smack you over the head with some hardcore vaguenesses that some people take quite on the show more nose. Pun intended - and rather satisfying from this side of things.
Right then, review. This was a hard book to pick up and it's a hard book to review/rate. I've had it the past couple days and kept shuffling it off to the side. It's not that I wasn't excited for its release - it's a continuation of Harry Potter, of course I'm excited, my fangirl-side keeps exploding like she's swallowed a crate of Weasley's Wizard Wheezes fireworks - but it's been excitement tinged with trepidation. I certainly wanted more when the series drew to a close but it was the satisfied yearn of a highpoint ending. Rowling left her readers with a wealth of magical what-ifs and can-you-pictures. Part of me didn't want to stroll out of that magic and into an unknown, the possibility of crashing finality. So I knew I was going to read it but I also knew why I wouldn't be popping by any release parties and why it might get shuffled down a few pegs in my TBR. The anticipation built, however, and my fangirl side finally won out by gobbling this up earlier today.
In complete stuck-on-the-fence honesty, I both liked and disliked this addition to the series. Which makes my rating a puzzler because four stars doesn't really gel with a lukewarm read yet four stars feels about right. Partially because the story, while disappointing in areas, kept me interested in its resolution. Largely because this read came paired with a whole heaping pile of nostalgia.
I haven't read much HP fan fiction; I like lugging my books out and doing a reread whenever I get a hankering and just haven't sought much out. That being said, this screenplay reads like mid-road fan fiction. Which definitely doesn't sound complimentary, I'm aware, but isn't necessarily meant as an Avada Kedavra either. I love the universe Rowling built; the build of her wonderfully involved narrative that went into that universe continues to be important and beloved. For me, HP without this build doesn't read like HP. I get it - different format, different feel. However, it wasn't just the different feel that bothered me.
Rowling developed her main cast of characters over seven books - introducing new characters in this format is going to have some limitations in comparison. Still, just like the aforementioned build up of this magical world her readers have taken flight in during the books and afterwards, the fleshed out feel of these characters is a large aspect of the series' popularity. In this format even the well-known characters felt stunted to me - not in the least because they seemed so much less than they were. I missed the wit and heart of Hermione, the chemistry and sweetness of her and Ron. I missed Ron's nature - in the previous books we see nuance to his character but in this script he fills the field of a funny foil. Part of what is spectacular about Harry is that he has such a big heart after everything, but for a large part of this script I found myself wondering exactly where that heart went.
So, some letdowns. However, letdowns are an expected part of any addition to a beloved series in my opinion. We all take a certain perspective away from loved characters and well-worn pages which may or may not fit in with the perspective of its creator. So these letdowns and comparisons don't serve to diminish interest in this script nor the overall enjoyment of it. I was pulled in enough to be invested in how it would turn out and ended up feeling much more connected to what was happening as the play ended. I loved Scorpius - I loved how the friendship between Albus and Scorpius was both the epitome of the word as well as a learning process for them and for their families. I loved that we get to see a new layer of perspective from Ginny, Draco, and Snape previously unexperienced. While 'love' isn't quite the word for it, I really appreciated that
I think I liked where HP originally ended but I enjoyed the chance to fangirl over it all again, to be reunited with its magic in a unique way. It may be easier to consider it a mixture of 2, 3, and 4 stars rather than a solid 4 star read but I'll end up revisiting this book through the years as I have the others and can imagine I'll be grateful for it, perceived flaws and perfections all. As we know:
“Those we love never truly leave us."show less
The Cursed Child features mostly the mechanics that I hate the most in the Harry Potter universe. I'm referring mainly to the time-travelling nonsense, which is confusing to the point that you sometimes have difficulties following which era of the Potter story you're currently in, what has already happened and what is about to happen again, especially with the Triwizard tournament "fixes", which feature Inception-like layers of time reversal. It's also a bit boring reliving the events that you've already read about in other parts of the series.
I've said it in reviews many times before, unless you really know what you're doing, as a writer, stay away from time-travelling. There's just no good way to explain why everyone can't just go show more back to fix their problems. If Albus Potter and Scorpio Malfoy can travel back in time in an attempt to save a life, why couldn't the same have been done before, for Harry's parents or Sirius Black or Cedric Diggory? Why can't the Death Eaters travel back and prevent the death of Voldemort?
In a universe as rich and teeming with, heh, magical possibilities, there is absolutely no need to rehash the same scenes, especially since JKR deliberately destroyed the time-turners in Order of the Phoenix (I think) to prevent further time travelling and all of its complications.
Nor do I think there's any special need for the rehashing of the tired old Voldemort story, especially since at this point he's been dead for twenty years. I believe this play to be a lost opportunity as regarding the introduction a new source of conflict, a new point of contention into the Potterverse. Instead we are treated to another complicated scheme by a Voldemort supporter that should bring him back, with dubious chance of success. An opportunity lost, indeed.
I also missed more warmth and funniness in the play, the kind that permeated the original series. This is possibly because the main character, Harry's son Albus, is a major emo kid and he projects his gloomy disposition on his parents and other relatives, which also feature heavily in the story.
I kind of have a feeling this is a lot better if seen live, but, man, so much more could have been done with such a chance. show less
I've said it in reviews many times before, unless you really know what you're doing, as a writer, stay away from time-travelling. There's just no good way to explain why everyone can't just go show more back to fix their problems. If Albus Potter and Scorpio Malfoy can travel back in time in an attempt to save a life, why couldn't the same have been done before, for Harry's parents or Sirius Black or Cedric Diggory? Why can't the Death Eaters travel back and prevent the death of Voldemort?
In a universe as rich and teeming with, heh, magical possibilities, there is absolutely no need to rehash the same scenes, especially since JKR deliberately destroyed the time-turners in Order of the Phoenix (I think) to prevent further time travelling and all of its complications.
Nor do I think there's any special need for the rehashing of the tired old Voldemort story, especially since at this point he's been dead for twenty years. I believe this play to be a lost opportunity as regarding the introduction a new source of conflict, a new point of contention into the Potterverse. Instead we are treated to another complicated scheme by a Voldemort supporter that should bring him back, with dubious chance of success. An opportunity lost, indeed.
I also missed more warmth and funniness in the play, the kind that permeated the original series. This is possibly because the main character, Harry's son Albus, is a major emo kid and he projects his gloomy disposition on his parents and other relatives, which also feature heavily in the story.
I kind of have a feeling this is a lot better if seen live, but, man, so much more could have been done with such a chance. show less
The internet is probably not short of reviews of the new Harry Potter play. On one hand, it's Very FanFic and fan service - it would score a full house in any HP Bingo of Platform 9 3/4, sorting hat, polyjuice potion, deaths of Harry's parents etc etc. And the plot that spoiler is Voldemort's spoiler just felt a bit too unlikely.
It is basically a time travel plot, but annoyingly is exactly the opposite of the perfectly crafted timetravel in Prisoner of Azkaban, where the universe is in a stable state, and things already seen can be reinterpreted once you know about the time travel. It is the multiverse, 'go back and kill your grandfather and vanish' time travel, which is always just going to make for slightly annoying plots. And never show more lends itself well to overthinking.
It definitely has the feel of something crafted for adults. Which doesn't mean there isn’t a lot there for children - I'm sure the magic spells and potions and running on the top of trains and travelling through time would be really appealing to a younger audience. But the central theme of father-son relationships, of feeling like you don't know your children or how to be a good parent to them, definitely seems pitched at an older audience than the first Harry Potter book.
Anyway, despite those flaws, it was a joy to read - it was quick and page turning and exciting, and very Harry Potter. show less
It is basically a time travel plot, but annoyingly is exactly the opposite of the perfectly crafted timetravel in Prisoner of Azkaban, where the universe is in a stable state, and things already seen can be reinterpreted once you know about the time travel. It is the multiverse, 'go back and kill your grandfather and vanish' time travel, which is always just going to make for slightly annoying plots. And never show more lends itself well to overthinking.
It definitely has the feel of something crafted for adults. Which doesn't mean there isn’t a lot there for children - I'm sure the magic spells and potions and running on the top of trains and travelling through time would be really appealing to a younger audience. But the central theme of father-son relationships, of feeling like you don't know your children or how to be a good parent to them, definitely seems pitched at an older audience than the first Harry Potter book.
Anyway, despite those flaws, it was a joy to read - it was quick and page turning and exciting, and very Harry Potter. show less
I can't believe the fucking spoilers were real. It's like they trolled through a bunch of ff.net stories from 2004, and plucked out random tropes and plot points, and mashed them all together. I'm ... Laughing, but also crying. Because goddamn, what a wasted potential of essentially a dudefest of OCs, that no homos so hard it's laughable. (Seriously? This was a lot more focus on Albus and Scorpius, hardly any Rose at all, and never enough Hermione, Ginny, or McGonagal for my taste. Though, what we got from those three WAS fantastic.)
I mean, I appreciate the way the trauma these kids went through was actually dealt with out loud. (FINALLY, GINNY WEASLY TALKS ABT HER TRUMA. 7 BOOKS TOO LATE BUT FINALLY). And I LOVED Harry laying into that show more piece of shit Dumbledore, but of course, they can't stick with it. Or with Snape. Gotta try and redeem at the last second and I'm just.. Whatever, I've known the plot for a while now, so I'm way less angry and mostly laughing. It's not as terrible to read as I thought it would be, so it gets an extra bump of a star. I'm sure actually seeing the actors tackle it is really much better than reading it, but alas, not going to England any time soon. show less
I mean, I appreciate the way the trauma these kids went through was actually dealt with out loud. (FINALLY, GINNY WEASLY TALKS ABT HER TRUMA. 7 BOOKS TOO LATE BUT FINALLY). And I LOVED Harry laying into that show more piece of shit Dumbledore, but of course, they can't stick with it. Or with Snape. Gotta try and redeem at the last second and I'm just.. Whatever, I've known the plot for a while now, so I'm way less angry and mostly laughing. It's not as terrible to read as I thought it would be, so it gets an extra bump of a star. I'm sure actually seeing the actors tackle it is really much better than reading it, but alas, not going to England any time soon. show less
***spoiler alert. spoilers of a specific nature will be under cuts. you've been warned. spoiler alert.***
I went into this new Harry Potter play with no particular expectations except a niggling fear that it would feel wrong or tacked on and/or that it would in some way ruin Harry Potter. I was also a little skeptical of the format. Why a play rather than a novel (or novella) or a movie or some other form that we already know this world through? So when I sat down to read it yesterday morning I was delighted to look up around page thirty and say, somewhat wonderingly, "This is really good!"
This works as a play. I can't say that it would not work in some other format, but it feels like a play and I did not find the format disappointing or show more long for it to be presented otherwise. Rowling said something a while back about there being aspects of the story that meant it needed to be a play, and I can't quite put my finger on anything that makes me say, "Yep, that right there would not have worked any other way." But some of the elements do seem like they would be particularly suited to a stage performance with a live audience.The stage directions often indicate that the Dementors appear sort of in the audience, and I think that would be particularly effective. Voldemort's voice similarly sometimes seems like it is meant to come from behind or within the audience, and how creepy would that be? Also, the stage directions sometimes call for a fade to black, which you can do in a film (and not in a novel), but not in the same way you can in a theatre, where you can plunge the entire audience into complete darkness. I don't know that I would go so far as to say that the story requires these effects in a live performance, but I do think they probably enhance the story greatly.
I also think the emotional pitch of the story would lend itself particularly well to a stage performance. There's a lot of high emotion here that I think it would be easy to overdo in a film but which, done well, would be perfectly suited to the stage, where the actors and the audience can achieve a kind of rapport. Furthermore, while a talented writer should certainly be able to pull off this story in novel form, there's of course something to be said for understanding which medium will serve the story best. And I think this story would be best served by a visual medium.The plot revolves around the ways in which Harry and his younger son, Albus, fail to understand one another. Since neither of them fully understands why or how they do not understand the other, being able to watch them interact may be more effective and affecting than reading about it. Some of the scenes also struck me as the kind of thing that would work best visually. The moment when adult Harry must watch his mother die for him in the past while being held up by his wife and son is one such scene. I can so easily imagine this on stage, and in my imagination it is sublimely painful--one of those exquisite moments you sometimes experience watching a play where you feel for one moment that the actors have perfectly portrayed something real and every single person in the theatre is feeling the exact same thing in their own way in the exact same moment. And I can just as easily imagine it not working in a film. Too sharp, too produced, perhaps.
Of course, if you're reading the script, you're not experiencing all this in a visual medium, but somehow I think it still works better than it would have as a novel/la. The stage directions are there; one can "see" how it might be performed. For me, reading this script was a seamless, painless experience. I have some experience/training in reading plays, given my background, so this may be harder for readers who don't, but the script uses the stage directions very well to fill in what's happening for readers. In fact, I suspect the stage directions (at least in this version of the script that's been released for people to read, rather than to produce a play from) have been written specifically with readers who may never get to see the play in mind.
As for the story itself,I thought Delphi's motivation and background were a little bit "dropped in" (though the resulting climax where Harry had to take on the figure of Voldemort was wonderfully chilling) and the repeated time travel was perhaps a tiny bit silly, but the play uses it to great effect to explore both the Harry Potter world and a theme Rowling was interested in throughout the Harry Potter novels: acceptance of death. Albus goes back in time to try to save Cedric Diggory because Albus understands what it's like to be thought of as a "spare." But in saving Diggory, he destroys the future. Depending on what, exactly, he does in the past, the future is variably changed: sometimes Harry dies at the Battle of Hogwarts (thus meaning neither Albus nor Harry's other children are ever born (the story follows Albus's friends Scorpius in that future--gosh but I love Scorpius. He's such a marvelous combination of snarkiness and vulnerability, nerdiness and innocence); sometimes the great scheme of things is the same but Ron and Hermione never got married; sometimes Voldemort won and the world is a terrible, terrible place. The death of Cedric Diggory is perhaps one of the hardest in the Harry Potter novels to accept--he died for nothing, and simply because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time--but even this death we must accept. It does not do to try to meddle in such things. We see this theme again within the time travel when Harry must let Voldemort kill his parents; he cannot stop him, for then Voldemort would never have been weakened, might never have been defeated. The play stops shy of saying "everything happens for a reason." It's not that; it's not that there's a grand plan that we don't understand. It's that the way of the world is that time moves forward, that people die, that there are some things that we cannot change, and that we must learn to accept this. Even magic does not (can not, should not) change that.
This play is not for children. It's not that it's not appropriate for (older) children--I'd say any child who could handle the last three books could handle the play--but it is not designed for children. There is no childlike, delightful magic here. This is not a world in which everything will probably turn out okay. This play exists in an adult world, one wherefathers may mess up their sons simply because they can't find a way to understand them, a world where husbands weep in their wives' arms because they've hurt their shared child. Some fans may find this disappointing, but I thought it was an excellent addition to the Harry Potter world. The novels are mostly told from Harry's perspective, his perspective, even in the end, as a child. The play is not. The play feels like seeing this world as it may always have been, were you to look at it through the eyes of an adult. The goggles are off, and the horrible things of this world seem a little more fully, really horrible here, though I had no sense of this ruining the world for me, or unpleasantly dispelling any kind of illusion. It's simply another way of looking at it (a child's view of the world is not more correct than an adult's--just different, just focused differently). And I found that refreshing, found it a lovely commentary on the Harry Potter world we already know.
Some of that commentary tweaks perplexities of the novels in satisfying ways.Dumbledore, for instance, through his headmaster's portrait at Hogwarts, admonishes Harry for coming to him for advice about Albus. It's a wonderful moment of dragging into the light just how terrible Dumbledore was as a father figure for Harry. And at one point Ron basically says, "I don't have much to contribute here, but if Harry and Hermione are doing an unpopular, dangerous thing, I'm going too." Which sells Ron a little short, but is still a lovely echo of the dynamic of the novels. We see more fully, more realistically, the ways the Dursleys' abuse of Harry must have harmed him psychologically as a child. And Draco. Ah, Draco. Turns out he's an actual human being, with feelings and complexities and hey! he's not pure evil. The last few books hint at that, of course, but again. This is an adult view; those were a children's view. It's nice to see him as a three- dimensional figure. (In fact, seeing Draco more fully realized was one of the highlights of the play for me.)
I've seen some complaints in reviews that the characters don't feel like themselves in the play. I agree by way of disagreeing heartily. By which I mean, no, this wasn't like reading an eighth Harry Potter novel where we pick up with the characters a month or two after we last saw them and everything is familiar and lovely. It's nineteen years later. They've grown up. They've become adult versions of themselves. They've become maybe a little less silly, maybe a little more serious, much more responsible, a bit more sad, a bit more distracted, a good deal more careworn. Their joys have become more complex; their sadnesses have grown thornier. They've become adults. I love, love, love the Harry Potter novels, I love them for the way they are magical themselves and delightful, and I do not for one second think there's anything wrong with giving children that view or with adults enjoying it too. But there's room for seeing these characters this way as well, and I do not fault the play for portraying them thus.
In fact, after just one read (I feel a reread coming on, possibly very soon), I only have two quibbles (aside from a slight dissatisfaction with some minor machinations of the plot):1) Where are James and Lily (the youngers, that is, Harry's other children) while Harry and Ginny et al are trying to find missing Albus? I mean, presumably they're at Hogwarts, as school is in session, but there's never any mention of their parents telling them what's up, or reassuring them, or even asking them if they have any idea where Albus went. This might be a function of reading the script--and the rehearsal/possibly-not-final script at that--as one might see something in the background that explains what's up with the other kids when watching the play, but this really bothered me at one point. Like, hello? Harry? You're so worried about being a shitty dad to your one kid, maybe, like, check and make sure your other children aren't freaking out that their brother has disappeared? 2) For the first third of the book, I was one hundred percent sure that Albus and Scorpius were falling in love. Then we started getting hints that Albus isn't that way inclined but I was still one hundred percent sure Scorpius was falling for Albus. And then in the end it turns out both of them are all "Cool! Girls!" So. tired. of. people. erasing. their. own. homosexual. subtext. Look, I'll be the first to admit that I'm faster to see this kind of subtext than others, but husbeast, who is decidedly not, who, in fact, has been known to turn to me during a movie or TV show and say, "No, they aren't, stop it," looked up at about the one-third point and said, "They're in a romantic relationship, right?" So. Just. *makes the face I'm making*
This is the first time I've gotten to experience buying a Harry Potter book the day it came out, taking it home, and reading the whole thing. And it was glorious. I loved it. I loved getting to do it, and I loved the play itself. Recommended wholeheartedly. show less
I went into this new Harry Potter play with no particular expectations except a niggling fear that it would feel wrong or tacked on and/or that it would in some way ruin Harry Potter. I was also a little skeptical of the format. Why a play rather than a novel (or novella) or a movie or some other form that we already know this world through? So when I sat down to read it yesterday morning I was delighted to look up around page thirty and say, somewhat wonderingly, "This is really good!"
This works as a play. I can't say that it would not work in some other format, but it feels like a play and I did not find the format disappointing or show more long for it to be presented otherwise. Rowling said something a while back about there being aspects of the story that meant it needed to be a play, and I can't quite put my finger on anything that makes me say, "Yep, that right there would not have worked any other way." But some of the elements do seem like they would be particularly suited to a stage performance with a live audience.
I also think the emotional pitch of the story would lend itself particularly well to a stage performance. There's a lot of high emotion here that I think it would be easy to overdo in a film but which, done well, would be perfectly suited to the stage, where the actors and the audience can achieve a kind of rapport. Furthermore, while a talented writer should certainly be able to pull off this story in novel form, there's of course something to be said for understanding which medium will serve the story best. And I think this story would be best served by a visual medium.
Of course, if you're reading the script, you're not experiencing all this in a visual medium, but somehow I think it still works better than it would have as a novel/la. The stage directions are there; one can "see" how it might be performed. For me, reading this script was a seamless, painless experience. I have some experience/training in reading plays, given my background, so this may be harder for readers who don't, but the script uses the stage directions very well to fill in what's happening for readers. In fact, I suspect the stage directions (at least in this version of the script that's been released for people to read, rather than to produce a play from) have been written specifically with readers who may never get to see the play in mind.
As for the story itself,
This play is not for children. It's not that it's not appropriate for (older) children--I'd say any child who could handle the last three books could handle the play--but it is not designed for children. There is no childlike, delightful magic here. This is not a world in which everything will probably turn out okay. This play exists in an adult world, one where
Some of that commentary tweaks perplexities of the novels in satisfying ways.
I've seen some complaints in reviews that the characters don't feel like themselves in the play. I agree by way of disagreeing heartily. By which I mean, no, this wasn't like reading an eighth Harry Potter novel where we pick up with the characters a month or two after we last saw them and everything is familiar and lovely. It's nineteen years later. They've grown up. They've become adult versions of themselves. They've become maybe a little less silly, maybe a little more serious, much more responsible, a bit more sad, a bit more distracted, a good deal more careworn. Their joys have become more complex; their sadnesses have grown thornier. They've become adults. I love, love, love the Harry Potter novels, I love them for the way they are magical themselves and delightful, and I do not for one second think there's anything wrong with giving children that view or with adults enjoying it too. But there's room for seeing these characters this way as well, and I do not fault the play for portraying them thus.
In fact, after just one read (I feel a reread coming on, possibly very soon), I only have two quibbles (aside from a slight dissatisfaction with some minor machinations of the plot):
This is the first time I've gotten to experience buying a Harry Potter book the day it came out, taking it home, and reading the whole thing. And it was glorious. I loved it. I loved getting to do it, and I loved the play itself. Recommended wholeheartedly. show less
There are no spoilers in this review, just a description of my experience of reading the play.
Halfway through the play I was so excited that I made myself take an overnight intermission so I wouldn't consume the whole thing in an afternoon.
My excitement came partly from finally having something new in the Harry Potter story. It's been five years since I saw the final movie and nine years since I finished reading the series for the first time. Now here was something new but familiar, like the first episode of Star Trek TNG or the beginning of the Dark Knight Trilogy, except with J. K. Rowling's humour and emotional pull.
I was also excited by the originality of the ideas, the new possibilities that were opened up and the old certainties show more that were questioned. I've read the series twice. You can't do that and not have questions about Harry's relationship with Dumbledore or how other people felt about the number of people who died to save "The Boy Who Lived", or whether Hogwarts is really somewhere I'd want to send a child to. All of these are touched upon without getting into dogma or descending into insider jokes.
The next day, I finished the play and I was less enthusiastic. I enjoyed the play: the plot worked, the characters drew on my emotions and there was a lot of action crammed into a small time but somehow I didn't finish it with the high I had expected.
I've taken a few days to try and understand my response.
My first realisation was that, by the end of the play, I was mourning the 500 page novel it might have been. The novel would have given the ideas and the characters more time to blossom and have allowed more ambiguity and more room for interpretation. This is a powerful story not just of good and evil but of fathers and sons (and daughters) and how differently children and adults see the world, how hard it is, even with good will on both sides, for them to understand each other or to avoid hurting each other. In a novel, I would have savoured those things. Reading them as a play made me feel rushed to the point of feeling slightly cheated.
My second realisation was that that was largely my own fault. Way back in the 1980's, when the Greater London Council still ran Adult Education Courses that weren't vocational, I attended a set of evening classes based around Ronald Hayman's book, "How To Read A Play". In that course I learned that reading a play required me to use my imagination differently than when I read a novel. With a play, I needed to go beyond the text and think about how I would direct each scene. The script format tends to lead the reader to pay too much attention to the characters with lines but to stage the play I'd need to visualise where the non-speaking people where during a scene and what they were doing. I'd need to amplify the stage directions into something physical and something as influential as the soundtrack to a movie.
In my hunger for a new Harry Potter story, I'd forgotten everything I'd learned about reading a play all those years ago and I'd approached "Harry Potter And The Cursed Child" as if it were a novel with clumsy formatting. In effect, I failed to imagine half of the play and so cheated myself of some of its impact.
So I went back and read the second part of the play again and had a lot more fun. I still think there are points where it's a little heavy handed (but then I feel that way about a lot of plays) but the play itself works.
I think it works best for Harry Potter fans who are fully conversant with the previous seven books but with 450 million copies sold, there should be plenty of those.
If I was a more social person and a member of a book club, I'd suggest doing a read through of this play with members of the group taking particular parts. Even with an amateur sight reading, the thing would come to life in ways that only happen in your head if you read the play in the right way.
I think that, by making this a play rather than a book, J. K. Rowling has given Potter fans a much more social way of indulging our addiction. We can come together to perform or direct or light or stage or watch this play and it will be different every time. There is something quite wonderful in that. show less
Halfway through the play I was so excited that I made myself take an overnight intermission so I wouldn't consume the whole thing in an afternoon.
My excitement came partly from finally having something new in the Harry Potter story. It's been five years since I saw the final movie and nine years since I finished reading the series for the first time. Now here was something new but familiar, like the first episode of Star Trek TNG or the beginning of the Dark Knight Trilogy, except with J. K. Rowling's humour and emotional pull.
I was also excited by the originality of the ideas, the new possibilities that were opened up and the old certainties show more that were questioned. I've read the series twice. You can't do that and not have questions about Harry's relationship with Dumbledore or how other people felt about the number of people who died to save "The Boy Who Lived", or whether Hogwarts is really somewhere I'd want to send a child to. All of these are touched upon without getting into dogma or descending into insider jokes.
The next day, I finished the play and I was less enthusiastic. I enjoyed the play: the plot worked, the characters drew on my emotions and there was a lot of action crammed into a small time but somehow I didn't finish it with the high I had expected.
I've taken a few days to try and understand my response.
My first realisation was that, by the end of the play, I was mourning the 500 page novel it might have been. The novel would have given the ideas and the characters more time to blossom and have allowed more ambiguity and more room for interpretation. This is a powerful story not just of good and evil but of fathers and sons (and daughters) and how differently children and adults see the world, how hard it is, even with good will on both sides, for them to understand each other or to avoid hurting each other. In a novel, I would have savoured those things. Reading them as a play made me feel rushed to the point of feeling slightly cheated.
My second realisation was that that was largely my own fault. Way back in the 1980's, when the Greater London Council still ran Adult Education Courses that weren't vocational, I attended a set of evening classes based around Ronald Hayman's book, "How To Read A Play". In that course I learned that reading a play required me to use my imagination differently than when I read a novel. With a play, I needed to go beyond the text and think about how I would direct each scene. The script format tends to lead the reader to pay too much attention to the characters with lines but to stage the play I'd need to visualise where the non-speaking people where during a scene and what they were doing. I'd need to amplify the stage directions into something physical and something as influential as the soundtrack to a movie.
In my hunger for a new Harry Potter story, I'd forgotten everything I'd learned about reading a play all those years ago and I'd approached "Harry Potter And The Cursed Child" as if it were a novel with clumsy formatting. In effect, I failed to imagine half of the play and so cheated myself of some of its impact.
So I went back and read the second part of the play again and had a lot more fun. I still think there are points where it's a little heavy handed (but then I feel that way about a lot of plays) but the play itself works.
I think it works best for Harry Potter fans who are fully conversant with the previous seven books but with 450 million copies sold, there should be plenty of those.
If I was a more social person and a member of a book club, I'd suggest doing a read through of this play with members of the group taking particular parts. Even with an amateur sight reading, the thing would come to life in ways that only happen in your head if you read the play in the right way.
I think that, by making this a play rather than a book, J. K. Rowling has given Potter fans a much more social way of indulging our addiction. We can come together to perform or direct or light or stage or watch this play and it will be different every time. There is something quite wonderful in that. show less
Members
- Recently Added By
Lists
Dishonorable Mentions of 2016
2 works; 1 member
Top Five Books of 2016
795 works; 229 members
Read in 2016
107 works; 6 members
mom
729 works; 1 member
Books Read in 2017
4,248 works; 130 members
Books Read in 2018
4,360 works; 110 members
Books Read in 2019
4,052 works; 110 members
Books Read in 2016
4,666 works; 199 members
2010s
241 works; 3 members
Plays I Like
230 works; 31 members
Harry Potter Books Ranked
8 works; 1 member
Contemporary Fantasy to Read
63 works; 5 members
Elaina's
183 works; 1 member
Check Library
169 works; 1 member
Best Fantasy Novels
821 works; 357 members
Author Information
342+ Works 1,025,486 Members
J. K. (Joanne Kathleen) Rowling was born in Gloucestershire, U. K. on July 31, 1965. She also writes fiction novels under the name of Robert Galbraith. Rowling attended Tutshill Primary and then went on to Wyedean Comprehensive where she was made Head Girl in her final year. She received a degree in French from Exeter University. She later took show more some teaching classes at Moray House Teacher Training College and a teacher-training course in Manchester, England. This extensive education created a perfect foundation to spark the Harry Potter series that Rowling is renowned for. After college, Rowling moved to London to work for Amnesty International, where she researched human rights abuses in Francophone Africa, and worked as a bilingual secretary. In 1992, Rowling quit office work to move to Portugal and teach English as a Second Language. There she met and married her husband, a Portuguese TV journalist. But the marriage dissolved soon after the birth of their daughter. It was after her stint teaching in Portugal that Rowling began to write the premise for Harry Potter. She returned to Britain and settled in Edinburgh to be near her sister, and attempted to at least finish her book, before looking for another teaching job. Rowling was working as a French teacher when her book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was published in June of 1997 and was an overnight sensation. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone won the British Book Awards Children's Book of the Year, was shortlisted for the Guardian Fiction Award, and received a Commended citation in the Carnegie Medal awards. She also received 8,000 pounds from the Scottish Arts Council, which contributed to the finishing touches on The Chamber of Secrets. Rowling continued on to win the Smarties Book Prize three years in a row, the only author ever to do so. At the Bologna Book Fair, Arthur Levine from Scholastic Books, bought the American rights to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone for the unprecedented amount of $105,000.00. The book was retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone for it's American release, and proceeded to top the Best Seller's lists for children's and adult books. The American edition won Best of the Year in the School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Parenting Magazine and the Cooperative Children's Book Center. It was also noted as an ALA Notable Children's Book as well as Number One on the Top Ten of ALA's Best Books for Young Adults. The Harry Potter Series consists of seven books, one for each year of the main character's attendance at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. All of the books in the series have been made into successful movies. She is number 1 on the Hollywood Reporter's '25 Most Powerful Authors' 2016 list. She has also written Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Quidditch Through the Ages, and The Tales of Beedle the Bard. She won the 2016 PEN/Allen Foundation Literary Service Award. In 2016 she, along with Jack Thorne and John Tiffany, published the script of the play Harry Potter and the cursed child. It became an instant bestseller. Rowling's first novel for an adult audience,The Casual Vacancy, was published by Little Brown in September 2012. She made The New York Times Best Seller List with her title Very Good Lives: The Fringe Benefits of Failure and the Importance of Imagination. She published two bestselling fiction novels under the name of Robert Galbraith: The Cuckoo's Calling and The Silkworm. (Bowker Author Biography) show less
30+ Works 21,054 Members
2 Works 20,737 Members
Some Editions
Awards and Honors
Awards
Series
Work Relationships
Common Knowledge
- Canonical title
- Harry Potter and the Cursed Child: Parts One and Two
- Original title
- Harry Potter and the Cursed Child
- Original publication date
- 2016-07-31
- People/Characters
- Harry James Potter; Ginny Potter (nee Weasley); Ron Weasley; Albus Severus Potter; Hermione Jean Granger; Ronald Bilius "Ron" Weasley (show all 32); Draco Malfoy; Rose Granger-Wesley; Scorpius Malfoy; Delphini Diggory; Amos Diggory; James Sirius Potter; Cedric Diggory; Lily Luna Potter; Minerva McGonagall; Severus Snape; Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore; James Potter; James Potter Jr.; Lily Potter; Delores Umbridge; Craig Bowker Jr.; Moaning Myrtle; Polly Chapman; Rubeus Hagrid; Yann Fredericks; Madam Hooch; Petunia Dursley; Dudley Dursley; Viktor Krum; Karl Jenkins; Bane
- Important places
- Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Scotland, UK; Godric's Hollow, England, UK; King's Cross Station, London, England, UK; Ministry of Magic, London, England, UK; London, England, UK
- Related movies
- Harry Potter and the Cursed Child (2016 | Theatre, not movie - premiere: Palace Theatre, London, 30 July 2016)
- Dedication
- To Jack Thorne
who entered my world
and did beautiful things there.
--J.K. Rowling
For Joe, Louis, Max, Sonny, and Merle...wizards all...
--John Tiffany
To Elliot
As we rehearsed, he gurgled.
--Jack Thorne - First words
- A busy and crowded station, full of people trying to go somewhere. Amongst the hustle and bustle, two large cages rattle on top of two laden trolleys.
- Last words
- (Click to show. Warning: May contain spoilers.)HARRY I think it's going to be a nice day. He touches his son's shoulder. And the two of them - just slightly - melt together. ALBUS (smiles) So do I.
- Publisher's editor*
- Salamandra
- Original language
- English (UK) (UK)
- Canonical DDC/MDS
- 822.92; 822.914
- Canonical LCC
- PR6120.H67
*Some information comes from Common Knowledge in other languages. Click "Edit" for more information.
Classifications
Statistics
- Members
- 20,978
- Popularity
- 265
- Reviews
- 633
- Rating
- (3.34)
- Languages
- 26 — Arabic, Catalan, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hindi, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Farsi/Persian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish, Ukrainian, Portuguese (Brazil)
- Media
- Paper, Audiobook, Ebook
- ISBNs
- 113
- UPCs
- 2
- ASINs
- 31