I remember the "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" midnight release; at age 11 I was bubbling with excitement, constantly jumping out my designated beach chair, one of three that my parents had brought as we waited for the clock to strike midnight. We were the seventh party on line, which was fantastic coincidence, and when the 759-page book was finally in my hand, I didn't let go until I had finished the book at 6 a.m., the sun already rising, and my eyes full of tears.
What I'm saying here is, Harry Potter holds a close place in my heart. I was always a reader, but "Goblet of Fire" was my first independent big read, and at age 11, my parents and I were the seventh party on line for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows;" by the time the eighth movie came out, I was convinced it was the end of the road. Sure, "Tales of Beedle the Bard" would come out later, but it wasn't an experience of spectacle like these previous releases. The then-announcement of "Fantastic Beasts" left me quite excited, and the later reveal of "Cursed Child" left me wistful that I'd be missing out. That is, until J.K. Rowling declared the release of the play as a back.
So waking up on July 31st, nine-years and seven days after my last midnight book release, was quite surreal. This Ravenclaw went to the release, and by 12:20 a.m. I had the latest HP installment in my hands.
Across Facebook, before and after finishing the 320 page play, I've seen articles with headlines that read things along the lines of “Why ‘Harry Potter And The Cursed Child’ Disappointed A Lifelong Harry Potter Fan”. This contrasts distinctly to what I see across my feed from friends and colleagues, who felt fulfilled by the final addition to Harry's story. Samantha Laveni, writer of the HuffPost article linked right above, relatively hits the nail on the head about my sense of expectations and where the story's outcome left the play on my approval spectrum. She discusses the awareness that it wasn't distinctly a work of J.K.'s herself, but rather Jack Thorne's outcome of her treatment, and how unfortunately, at points, it reads as a work of fan fiction.
She's not wrong; unfortunately, unlike many of friends who seemed to love it and either can't wait to see it abroad or when it potentially comes to the States, I didn't love it enough. I found Ron unbelievably un-Ron, he seemed like a stereotyped version of the character, rather than the more layered Ron of the books, and seemed to have a thick veil of replacement-Weasley-twin masking any sense of his snarky and vibrant personality.
Furthermore, the climax and reveal of the villain was cliched, and the use of the time turners were so beyond what the cannon initially had offered us. This is hard for some fans, like me, to wrap their brain around, especially since this isn't simply a matter of not fully understanding a character (such as my issue with Ron), but this is J.K.'s own creation, and for the first time I'm questioning her work.
Whilst discussing the play's merits and downfalls with friends, my mind wrangled the question of whether I'm too cynical to simply enjoy the story for what it is, and if perhaps I've outgrown nostalgia and sentimentality for the stories I'd much prefer to read rather than see these days.
A tricky thing to navigate, when considering any particular fandom, is fan expectation. The creators aren't the only to build the world, the fans do too. Tumblr is a particular avenue to allow people to get involved with stories on a feasible level - one that invites you no matter your skill level. The site is an exploration of ideas and a collaboration of them.
My expectations have been generated in a nine-year gap, a long time to question how Harry and company would grow, and how the next generation would do similarly. I honestly never saw Hermione seeking out the position of Minister of Magic, and whilst Ron and Harry are exactly where I expected them to be career-wise, I found their characters problematic, with Ron being underwritten and Harry being incredibly manipulative to a level I never saw fathomable.
That being said, this is a work from the mind of J.K. Rowling, and it did answer some of my questions. Just days before "Cursed Child" came out, I had been questioning a few of my friends about what the Trolley Witch did when she wasn't selling Cauldron Cakes four times a year. I wanted to see where Draco and the Golden Trio would stand. I got these answers.
There are some things that the play did magnificently. Draco was a shining star, his relationship with Scorpius, and the conversation between him and Harry toward the end of the play are beautiful to witness, and Harry and Albus' growth together is realistic. The relationship building within the story is one of the things I most cherish about this tale, and I simply wish that the focus was more on these relationships than the convoluted Butterfly Effect-ian tale that surfaced.
The magic is there, within the play. I think it's hit-or-miss for fans, and this comes one, from expectations, and two, from the fact that this is a play - a medium we've never seen our Wizarding World written in (yes we have "A Very Potter Musical," but still, it's something we're seeing rather than reading). Particularly, the most excitingly magical moment, was in Hermione's office with Delphi, Scorpius and Albus. One can only imagine how this'll appear on the stage - a concept that I brought into question when seeing the stage directions on every page.
Furthermore, beyond the marvel of suspension of disbelief and stage design, there is a magic that exists within the story without the use of magic. As cheesy as it is, the magic of relationships - particularly of father and son - is poignant and beautiful within this story. This coming of age tale is prefaced by the grief of the Battle of Hogwarts, and it puts the weight of the world on Harry, Albus, Scorpius and Draco is a tangible way that is honestly expected, and that's where this play hits home for me especially. If only it punctuated as the more distinct story within the play.
