Where, oh, where do I begin? Since my thoughts on this book are so scattered, I'm going to try to put them down in an orderly, start-to-finish fashion. Let's hope I don't get sidetracked.
Ok, first. THIS BOOK IS NOT WRITTEN BY JOANNE NO-MIDDLE-NAME-BUT-THE- EDITORS-DIDN'T-THINK-BOYS-WOULD-READ-A-WOMAN'S-WRITING ROWLING. That's not entirely true. The people who wrote this lifted entire scenes from the real Harry Potter series, so that dialogue is consistent with the characters we know and love. The rest of the story- not even close. It's like they took the original stereotypes we had about them all, added 20 years, and never bothered to let them grow beyond Year One. Except Harry, who has turned into The Man, not the one you buy shots for- the one who keeps you down.
Back to that middle name thing- how in the world, did someone at a publisher, probably several someones, read The Philosopher's Stone, realize that it had great potential and not realize that it had Universal Appeal? I realize that boys are not encouraged to read about girls while girls are expected to read about boys and girls, but really? The first is filled with female characters that girls should get closer to- Macgonagall, Molly, HERMIONE. The whole idea that Rowling was forced to cloak her identity to protect poor little boys who might accidentally enjoy fiction by a woman just sets my feminism bone a-buzzin'.
Parts One and Two- this is not only unnecessary, it's false. I hate to be the Dwight Shrute here, but one could not read just Part One and have a complete story. They are dependent on each other to tell a whole story arc. There's a semicolon at the end of Part One, not a full stop. Also, none of the children are actually cursed, so the title is inconsistent with the rest of the stories.
Now into the actual pages. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how this is a stage production. The scenes are so short and shift setting so often, you'd have to have the best set people in the world, possibly a rotating stage or a huge one. The huge one is probably how it happened because the characters don't move around while they are together or talking. So one huge background, lit the right, very focused way, could bounce around all over the magical world. I imagine it a very complicated production. In addition to the logistical nightmare, most of the scenes are so short there would have to be a lot of scrambling about on stage. One scene is a single page and doesn't contain a word of dialogue. And don't get me started on the actual magic that would have to occur. On stage. There's polyjuice, people.
The characters- what have they done to the characters we know? Macgonagall has lost her soft spot for Harry and the Gang. Headmistress must be a tough job if it crushes her spirit. Remember, she was a strict teacher, but she had a quiet, impish fire inside her. How did the woman who gave Harry his Nimbus 2000 come to merely tolerate him now that he's Head of Magical Law Enforcement? Was Ron lobotomized? Why doesn't Neville ever show up on stage? What has become of Teddy? WHERE IS HAGRID?
One of my favorite things to ponder is how the original stories would be different if Harry had accepted Draco's offer of friendship on the Hogwart's Express. Would Harry have become a Slytherin? (oh my goodness! it looks like this might be about that. Oh, wait, no.) What different path would he have taken to defeat Voldemort? Would the prophecy been about Neville instead? Would Ron and Hermione gotten together? Oh, the possibilities are endless! I got excited at the beginning of this book thinking that someone else had put pen to paper and drawn up one possible scenario, just one generation off. It starts with that premise a little bit- Albus is a Slytherin and friends with Scorpius, son of Draco- but that's about as far as that goes.
The story is unbelievable even when you suspend disbelief enough to accept magic. There are gaping holes. Is The Augury a bird, a child, or a place where they roast muggles? It is never referenced in the original novels, just in video games and later companion books. Now that Draco is out from under his father's thumb, why is he still a dickweed? Did he and Harry really not figure a way to be friendly in the twenty years since The Battle of Hogwarts? I could've sworn that a major theme of the series was redemption and forgiveness, I expect the hero to apply that to others, too. Why was Cedric's death so much more influential than any other person who died for The Cause? Did the writers fancy RPatz and wish him to not be sparkly? And why hasn't Harry's scar been bothering him this whole time Voldemort's Child has been alive? Because it hurt him from the moment Moldy Voldy started sucking on unicorn blood in the first one. It wasn't that he was taking power and making efforts to destroy anyone, his mere existence was enough.
So despite all these complaints, I still liked the book. I was, once again, whisked away to a fantastic world where anything is possible, where good will triumph over evil, where people drink butterbeer. I think the writers, publishers, and producers were banking on that nostalgia to sell a truckload of books. We Potterheads will buy anything remotely related to Harry, Ron, and Hermione. We're still talking about the stories nine years after the last one was published. They are enchanting and magical themselves. After all these years? Always.
Being connected to the originals is enough to earn this one three Marias. I know many will argue I'm being sentimental, and I'm ok with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment