First things first: Spoiler alert.

I’ve been an avid Harry Potter fan for as long as I can remember. I genuinely cannot imagine, let alone recall, a time in my life without these books, these characters, these places, this story. So, when the last book (“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”) was released, it felt bittersweet to say the least. And when the final movie (“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2”) was released, I was prepared to—not to be dramatic—pretty much cry forever, because the world of Harry Potter was over as I knew it. I eventually came around to the books and movies reaching their completion, taking solace in the J.K. Rowling quote: “Whether you come back by page or by the big screen, Hogwarts will always be there to welcome you home.” The fact that “The Wizarding World of Harry Potter” theme park and “Pottermore” had each been realized by the point of the final film’s release helped as well. Though, I must say, as much closure as I had achieved, I did always hold out the tiniest of hopes that we might one day get a Marauders era prequel. Then some time passed, and as it turned out, we really hadn’t seen the last of Harry’s tale after all.

“Harry Potter and the Cursed Child,” the stage show set nineteen years following the end of the core book series’ story, started playing this summer. And just last week the script was released for the fans, myself included, who wouldn’t get the chance to see the show in person. Now, before I read it, I’ll admit, I succumbed to reading spoilers. I, however, couldn’t believe what I read. All this stuff about Voldemort having a child, the arbitrary return to a plot that we wrapped up and left behind in the fourth book, and worst of all...the fact that Time-Turners just don’t work like that—it was all too much for me to believe. So I held my tongue. I reserved my judgements. But as it turned out, I was wrong. The play was just as spoilers had reported. And upon reading it myself, I was horrified.

Now, look, there’s a lot of subjective “flaws” with it. There’s even some less subjective, but still debatable flaws to get upset over. There’s the out-of-character behavior of so many of our favorite characters. There’s, like I said, bizarre choices in plot—I’m just saying, out of all of the fascinating plots to be revisited, why on earth choose Cedric Diggory’s death? Not to mention the fact that this only leads to more absurd character inconsistency (Cedric Diggory, a Death Eater? Please). And can you imagine how interesting it would have been to return to a plot that holds more weight or feels less random? Off the top of my head, I can’t help but think Mirror of Erised (where did it go? It’s an old plot like Cedric’s, but the fact that it makes it’s appearance in the series’ original book gives it full-circle significance and more nostalgic purpose than the arbitrary plucking of Cedric’s story from the middle of the series). Alright, alright, I’m going off topic.

There’s also the fact that there was literally a scene in which the Hogwarts Express’ trolley witch pushes her trolley across the top of a moving train, goes on a rant about delinquents and how she doesn’t like being ignored, then throws candy-grenades—like, as in they explode. I wish I was making this up. I mean, I can’t lie, I laughed super hard reading it. But it also felt a little like a slap in the face—like nobody cared enough to say, you know, this is a little ridiculous, even for the wizarding world. Yeah, it’s always been a whimsical, quirky world with a good sense of humor, but it’s not absurdist. And the thing about this scene is, I’m not even sure it was supposed to be funny. I can’t say for sure of course, as I haven’t seen it live, and just reading it, it’s difficult to picture. Either way, it’s too ludicrous for me. But like I was saying: semi-subjective flaws. I haven’t even returned to the fact that this play is trying to tell us Voldemort had a child. I mean, you saw what those horcruxes did to his nose, right? I could go on and on about things that I just plain old don’t like, or personally think seem illogical or underthought. In fact, I think I already have gone on and on. But my real concern here is the objective flaw. This is a flaw that cannot be disputed, and it’s a big one.

The entire play revolves around the over-done “Back to the Future” story. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll take a “Back to the Future” marathon any day, but we all know how this one goes. About a million movies have used this plot. I know it, you know it. Literally everyone knows it. Character has the ability to time-travel. Character changes something in the past. The future is negatively affected. Now Character must fix the altered past in order to restore order. That’s the basis of “Cursed Child”’s entire plot. And that would be fine—yes cliche, but objectively fine—except that’s not how it works. Yes, in some stories, in some fictional universes, that’s how it works. In the world of Harry Potter, however...not at all.

If you saw or read “Cursed Child,” you’ve probably read “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban,” the book where Time-Turners were introduced to the reader. Harry and Hermione use one at the climax of the book to save both Buckbeak and Sirius Black, and it is made indisputably clear, that it was something they’d always done. When they experienced the past, they were affected by the actions of their future selves, because they were always going to travel back to this time from the future, to ensure that certain things played out correctly. Harry saw his own patronus, from across the lake, and only realized it had been his patronus he had been looking at, when he went back to this moment with the Time-Turner and cast it himself. But the patronus had always been cast—even before Harry of the past had proceeded to later time travel and do it. He had always gone back to that moment and cast that patronus. That’s the way time-travel works in Harry Potter’s universe. What this all really means is timelines don’t change. There’s no such thing as going back and changing timelines, because if one were to go back and do something to alter the timeline, they would have always gone back and done such a thing to alter the timeline—which means, they don't alter the timeline at all! But what do they do in “Cursed Child”? They alter the timeline. Like a lot. Like I’m-not-sure-anybody-who-okayed-this-play-read-“Prisoner-of-Azkaban” a lot.

And that’s what bothers me most. I can’t get myself to accept this play as canon—even if I wanted to—because based on the inconsistency, it’s just not possible for it to fall into the same universe. I can be irritated about the plot, and the characters, and the stupid scene with the trolley lady which I hated and did I mention it was stupid...but I could probably shrug all that off (maybe, if I one day felt generous). But I just can’t shrug off the complete disregard for the—up until now—impossibly cohesive feat of world-building that the Harry Potter world has always been. I didn’t think anything could ever make me doubt my desire for a Marauders prequel, until now. “Cursed Child” is literally impossible based on rules of magic set by J.K. Rowling herself, so I’m going to try my best to regard it as fanfiction.