Apparently, all was not well.

Harry Potter and the Cursed Child elicited many feelings. Some were good, some bad, and some indescribable. So, in short, it was exactly what one would expect with another Harry Potter story.

Below is a list of a few major points that went into my overall view of the play. Elements under consideration were characterization, consistency with previous books/lore, plot, writing, and overall storytelling.

WARNING: THERE BE SPOILERS AHEAD.

The Good

The relationships in Cursed Child, as with its literary predecessors, shined the brightest. From new to old, familiar to uncomfortable, there is no denying that the world of Harry Potter is bursting with colorful, developed, and unforgettable characters.

While there are many different relationships with equal amounts of stage time, the two that stood out were the father-son relationship of Harry and Albus Potter and Albus's blossoming friendship with Scorpius Malfoy. Harry and Albus's relationship is strained, strong, and stressful to read—basically like any real-life father-son relationship. Harry will do anything to protect his son from the horrors he faced at his age and from the darkness that he believes threatens him. Sometimes, that causes him to act irrationally (which will be detailed later), he does see the errors of his ways after a confrontation with Draco Malfoy of all people—another relationship that I enjoyed seeing play out on the page.

The relationship of Albus and Scorpius was a breath of fresh air, a dynamic duo whose adventures rival that of The Golden Trio themselves. The way the characters compliment each other, play off of each other, is a true delight to read. A pure friendship (though some parts of the internet already believe otherwise) that conquerors all. And isn't that what Potter is all about? Scorpius follows Albus through time itself, even when his conscience tell him otherwise. He knows what they are doing is wrong but does it anyway. This is very telling of how he regards Albus and also makes the reader feel more at ease, letting them know that they aren't the only ones who think Albus's plan is more than a little far-fetched.




The glimpse into the future that Cursed Child provides, namely the careers of our favorite characters, was also a high point.  I think ya'll know where I'm going with this.

HERMIONE AS THE MINISTER OF MAGIC IS BAE.

#SorryNotSorry

In all seriousness, though, I feel like this detail is super important. Not only because it's Hermione Granger and she is a character that deserves the world on a silver platter, but also because she is one of the strongest female characters of the last decade. Even if you don't agree, you can't deny that she is easily one of the most prominent feminist literary heroines of recent memory. She taught thousands, if not millions, of young girls (including myself) that it's okay to be unapologetically smart and know exactly what you want. Now that we have affirmation that she continued being the BAMF that she is post-Hogwarts and reached the pinnacle of influence in the British Wizarding World is nothing short of incredible. Especially in a world where we have a so many female leaders in power or campaigning for it on a major ticket.

The world around us is evolving everyday and the arts are one of the many reflections that can showcase that for future generations to observe. Hermione Granger continues to influence the world nearly ten years after her final chapter was written. Hats off to you, Minister! Except for the part where you hid a Time-Turner in a bookcase. I mean how could Smartest Witch of Her Age think that was a good idea? Especially when at eleven years old she helped Harry Potter find the Sorcerer's (Philosopher's) Stone by surpassing very similar methods to hide a powerful magical object? 

(Answer: Because plot, that's why.)




Scorpius Malfoy is the obvious breakout star of this script. He's funny, smart, and completely the opposite of what I expected in the best of ways. He is Albus's voice of reason while also just flawed enough to make his own mistakes (Rule number one of hesitant time travel: Don't keep the faulty time turner.). His lines were funny, smart, heart-wrenching, and sometimes a combination of all three. The fact that such a kind, dorky, hilarious person was brought up by Draco Malfoy is also a telling detail of not only Scorpius's character but Draco's as well. It was a shame the only true moment we saw between them was in an alternate universe.

It wouldn't be a Harry Potter story without one very potent theme: Love conquers all. It's a familiar theme, but a welcome one. It made the story feel familiar—made the play feel like slipping into an old, comfy pair of slippers. Sure, they're a bit warn but they still fit you perfectly and provide a toasty place to kick up and relax.

Yes, of course there is adventure and strings of darkness strumming ominously in the undercurrent, but above all else the story is about the power of love. But instead of discovering this, as that was the job of the first seven books, Cursed Child was about rediscovery. The final scene with Harry and Albus cements this, as cheesy as it is. And though I haven't seen the play, there is a definite 112% chance that Hedwig's theme follows the final line. I mean, it would be a missed opportunity if it didn't.

*puts on Writer's Cap*

It's not often that reading a play can be enjoyable. In my experience, it can fall rather flat unless you invite a few friends over and do a read-through. Plays are written to be seen and not read; they are a mixture of visuals and writing that compliment each other effortlessly. If it's well-done, that is.

While it's unclear whether it was because of the familiar characters, the readability of the stage directions, or the thickness of the hardbound script, there were moments I forgot I was reading a play. The images projected into my brain as if they had always been there, the voices echoing in my eardrums as if reading the lines right next to me.

Those moments were often interrupted by me pulling away from the the script and asking: "Can you really do that on a stage?" I'm not sure of the answer because—as previously mentioned—I haven't seen the actual play, but reading depictions of time travel and wizard dueling always made me take pause, trying to suss out just how a production team could make that happen. Conclusion: Their budget is easily worth thousands of galleons. If one of the purposes of releasing this script was to get people to see the play... it's safe to say I have an urge to book a ticket to London just to see the magical effects play out in the West End.

The Bad

Harry Potter and the Cursed Child: Part II was a hot mess. There were moments that were enjoyable, seeing alternate universes being one, but they were far outweighed by the frankly ridiculous climax of the story. The most glaring perpetrator being the true identity of Delphi "Diggory".

The pairing of Voldemort and Bellatrix was something straight out of fanfiction lore, which is a crime unto itself. But it was the timeline of Delphi's conception that really raised more questions than answers. If Bellatrix gave birth to the child around the time of the Battle of Hogwarts, wouldn't it have been apparent in Deathly Hallows? I mean, Harry is pretty thick (there are plenty of reasons he's not in Ravenclaw, guys, let's be real), but he would definitely have noticed if Bellatrix looked a bit different than the last time he saw her.


Part II started out innocently enough with Scorpius trying to get Albus back and fix the world they had royally screwed up, but the way it was done left too many questions and plot holes (some of which will be addressed later) to be taken seriously. In lieu of this, perhaps splitting the play into two parts wasn't the greatest call. While it is an interesting concept to see two plays that tell one overarching story, because of the many issues with the second part it's hard to defend it as being anything more as a money grab. And while that might be true, the mediocre conclusion to an otherwise promising plot makes one think otherwise.

Believe me, it pains me to say that just as much as it pains you to read it.




Some things are better left unsaid.

The concept of Harry and Dumbledore reconnecting was interesting, I'll give it that much. Many readers had to wonder if Harry or McGonagall (two people who were the closest to Dumbledore when he was alive) had conversations or consulted his portrait postmortem. When the first conversation came up between Harry and the portrait, it was a pleasant surprise. I didn't expect our favorite bearded wizard to make an appearance, but his is always a welcome presence. It was also nice to see that Harry, even after all these years, still sought his guidance. And Dumbledore, as evasive as ever, was not much help but still made his wisdom apparent.

The second conversation is a different story.

The entire scene felt as though it was written for atonement's sake. That it's only reason for being included at all was to have Dumbledore apologize for how he treated Harry which, granted, Harry deserved, but not from a portrait. The whole scene felt forced when it should have tugged at the heartstrings. The scene was glaringly unnecessary.

Cursed Child is a new play with a new story to tell. Yes, the familiar characters are a pleasure to see again but some memories from the past deserve to stay there. Some things are never resolved in life and that's okay. Perhaps if this conversation happened off stage, if it was mentioned in a passing remark by McGonagall or Harry, it would have a different, more digestible feel. As it is, I still cringe thinking about it.




I've already shared my feeling about Delphi's role in the play as one giant plot hole, so I won't repeat that. I believe Hermione's regrettable decision to hide a Time-Turner in a bookcase can also count as one. Now, I'll focus on two other discrepancies that made me go "Wait, what?!"

(These are far from the only plot discrepancies, but in the interest of time, I've narrowed it down to the ones that really struck a chord)

1) Cedric Diggory. No matter what anyone says, I will never believe that Cedric was the type of person to become a Death Eater just because he was embarrassed during the Triwizard Tournament. Viktor Krum, maybe. But Cedric Diggory was painted as a kind, smart, and an altogether good person during Goblet of Fire. He and Harry teamed up to win the Cup just before he died. He told Harry how to activate the egg before the second task even though it would lessen his chances of winning. He was a good person. Embarrassment wouldn't turn him to the dark side. It just wouldn't.

2) Harry's Possessiveness. This was previously mentioned but needs more elaboration. Harry Potter was a child of an abusive household. So, when he chooses to track his own son using the Marauder's Map and threatens punish him if he disobeys, it didn't sit too well. Harry's frustration of not being able to connect with his son was understandable at the beginning . "Admitting" that he didn't want Albus as his son was a natural human error and one that readers could see was a grave mistake just as Harry saw it himself. But what he did in response to the tiniest hint that Albus was hanging around with a "cursed child" was anything but natural. It was completely out-of-character for someone who had been nothing but kind in the face of his past. While he did later apologize for his behavior to both his son and McGongall (who should not have put up with his crap in the first place, mind you), the entire scenario reminded me too much of how Vernon Dursley would respond. *shivers*

The Ehh

If Google says it's a word, why do the red squiggles keep showing up in Chrome?

Figure 1. Me when I heard the "new" news.

Figure 2: Harry Potter, a summary,

"I thought, 'What if we switched it around a bit and see how a boy does,' and, you know, it’s about the same." 

Figure 3. A girl who actually does stuff? Blasphemy!

WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR BOTH THE BOOK AND MOVIE VERSIONS OF DIVERGENT

This weekend, I finally got the chance to watch Divergent for the first time in theatres. I read the book last summer but put off watching the movie 1) because I was very busy at the time it came out and 2) I'm still mad about the ending of Allegiant so I was kind of boycotting it. Maybe.

Divergent premiered with many eyes watching and waiting to see if it would become the latest casualty in the search for the next YA hit franchise. While I believe these expectations to be "The Next Hunger Games" are unfair and unjust to YA books everywhere, they unfortunately make a difference in box office terms. Many great YA series have been panned because of their "unsuccessful" adaptations and there was debate whether or not Veronica Roth's best-selling series would be among them. Turns out Divergent had just the right ingredients to draw in a large audience and can be deemed a success in its own right.

I went into the theatre with dilapidated complacency, mostly brought on by the amount of time I waited to watch it. With this neutral outlook, I was able to sit back and actually watch the movie instead of picking it apart like I usually do with book-to-movie adaptations. Plus, it helped that I didn't reread the book right before watching the film. So my outlook is one of whom that is familiar with the book but doesn't have it committed to memory.

Honestly, I really did like it. With all thoughts of Allegiant out of my head, I looked at Divergent as it's own story - which it is, really. It's the beginning to a revolution, as so many YA dystopian stories are nowadays. The film kept the momentum and tone I loved about the book: something both daunting and hopeful. The audience developed with Tris through her trials and triumphs. I did, however, notice a lot violence from the Dauntless initiation period cut down in regards to one-on-one combat and training. Specifically, with the character of Peter. In the books, Peter is a sociopath and it's no secret. In the movie, he's just a bully. While his fight scene with Tris was kept in and added to his asshole-image, the audience only sees him as a boy making all the wrong choices - which comes to fruition in the final battle sequence (SPOILERS. Highlight white space to reveal) when Peter is standing guard without the influence of the mind control serum. A very disturbing scene involving a knife was not included, which would have made Peter a contestable villain. I'm not quite sure what the angle of this was - perhaps to make Peter more sympathetic as a character? Maybe to portray Kate Winslet's character, Janine, as the main antagonist? Regardless, I'm eager to see what role he'll be playing in the future films.

Also noticeably absent was the role of Uriel, another one of Tris's friends in the Dauntless initiate class. His positive and flirtatious attitude would have been a welcome reprieve from the dark overtones of the film. The whole Tris/Al relationship was also understated. While Al's romantic feelings were unrequited in the books, I believe they were important in his overall motivation for (SPOILERS) the cliff scene and his eventual suicide. While it was clear that he was a weak-minded individual, his romantic feelings also added to Tris's emotional distance and how Four was the one to help soften that disposition.

While the movie did not follow the book verbatim, I still think it was a wonderful adaptation. It helped me remember what I loved about the first book in Roth's series. The Divergent trilogy as a movie franchise looks to be in good shape, if it's gross income thus far is any attestment. The sequel has already begun filming. While I have mixed feelings about the third book being split into two movies, as do many people, I still look forward to future installments and wish the best for this new success story in the world of YA book-to-movie adaptations.

The Vampire Academy book series is one that captures its readers. It's sexy, daring, funny, and even original.

"What I will say is that I wrote the Hermione/Ron relationship as a form of wish fulfillment. That’s how it was conceived, really. For reasons that have very little to do with literature and far more to do with me clinging to the plot as I first imagined it, Hermione with Ron."

. . . 

"In some ways Hermione and Harry are a better fit,"

I don't understand all of the hate that is coming out about this movie. I absolutely loved it. Of course, I had my stipulations, but all around I really enjoyed it. And, before you ask, yes I read the book. Honestly, I am insulted you would even suggest such a thing.

A lot of the problems people had about the movie are mostly to do with it being so slow-moving. And to that I say: Have you read the book? I read it for the first time this summer when I heard the movie was coming out. I had been recommended it before but never had much initiative to read it until I saw the first trailer for the film. And, I'll admit, it was pretty hard to get through. I'd heard so much about it. Heck, even my dad read it (which isn't that much of a surprise since he's more of a SciFi nut than I am... but still!). The majority of the book takes place at battle school, as does the movie. It focuses on the many battles Ender had to face such as the battles between armies and his personal demons, as does the movie. So really, I don't get why everyone is whining so much about it being so boring. My coworker, who hadn't read the book, holds that opinion, which I respect. But I honestly don't understand why people who read the book hated the movie so much. The acting was good, the visual effects were stunning, and it followed the plot as well as it could with the book's vast timeline.

Now, I'm not saying the film didn't have its weak points. SPOILER ALERT. PLEASE DON'T READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO AVOID MAJOR MOVIE GIVEAWAYS.

Peter. I wanted more of him. At the beginning of the book, we see that Peter is pretty much a psychopath. Now, the movie does allude to this. But then it just drops it. The movie version of Ender and Valentine do discuss later that Ender is not like Peter, yada yada yada. But if you didn't read the book, you really wouldn't understand what that meant. Peter is a guy who tortured living animals. I just wish that the movie would have emphasized Peter and his relationship (or lack thereof) with his family.

They also way overplayed Petra and Ender's relationship. I understand why - it's explained in this Wired interview with Orson Scott Card - but it was still unnerving to witness. Especially since I know in the books they have a significant age difference. *shivers*

My final point is a positive note to end on. Card has openly said that the movie is "damn good" so... there. I like it. Card is obviously fine with how it turned out. Now I'll just go off and bake a cake so we can all eat and be happy.

Okay. I cannot keep my silence on this issue any longer. I've tried to keep a level head and brush it off but my patience is wearing too thin to be considered healthy. I should probably write about it before I start screaming.

The issue is, naturally, about books and movies. They kind of dictate my life, in case you haven't been able to tell already. More specifically, I want to talk about book-to-film adaptations. Again, this isn't really surprising because I have already ranted about this topic in a previous post. But this time I want to narrow down my scope to an particular aspect of the process that I've been seeing a lot of lately. I don't know whether it's because we're in the social media age or people's filters are getting thinner but, nonetheless, this is an issue I feel I need to speak up about before my head explodes.

Being an aspiring novelist, I've looked into the industry quite a bit to get a general know-how before I sell my soul to it. Do I think it's worth it, you ask? Well, I'm still writing my manuscript if that's what you're wondering. I'll get back to you about the other thing.

During my trek into the wonderful world of publishing, I came across some author's experiences with their books being turned into movies. Whether or not this process had happened to them, they pretty much all had the same things to say about the process. Here's a general factoid for those interested: When you sell a book to a publisher you also sign a waver-type document releasing the rights for a film adaptation. Sometimes, the waver is never taken on by a company, but in most of the cases I've found, the rights are purchased by a production company. Whether or not they immediately adapt the book into a film depends on their particular strategies, sponsors, etc. If they do choose to move forward with the project, it is their decision how much influence they want the author to have. But, ultimately, since it's technically their film, they have the final say. Of course, my opinion is the same as most book enthusiasts - the author is the best tool you have to making a successful film. End of story.

Now that you're a bit more educated on that lengthy process, let me tell you about casting. Assuming the adaptation's production is moving forward with all of it's moola, the next step is to cast the characters. This is very tricky and most of the time, the author either watches the auditions or some form of them (tape, Skype, etc.). These are their characters that we're talking about. If the author had absolutely no say, there would be a major problem. But, thankfully, they're usually included.

Again, this is a general consensus among most of the authors I've researched: They care more about the characterization of the character more than the appearance. So, you know, if the actor can act like the character they envisioned, that's all that matters. Not the hair color. Not the bone structure. Not the body build. The acting is the main priority. As it should be with casting any movie. If you don't believe me, just look at John Green's Tumblr. Go on.

The reason I'm talking about this is because of two major franchises that are coming to the silver screen. I'll talk about the one I'm more well-versed in and, honestly, care more about. The Vampire Academy series has one of the most loyal and die-hard fanbases out there. They've pretty much been campaigning for a movie since the series first started in 2007. Now, their wish is being granted with The Vampire Academy: Blood Sisters. At first, the fandom was in a roar. "FINALLY!" They cheered. Now, it's turned ugly. And not in a good way.

Fans are usually very particular with the cast of a movie. They cheer and rejoice when the actor perfectly matches their image of the character. But when they don't... man, do they let people know. With TVA, I've seen a lot of hate towards the casting of Dimitri - Rose's love interest for this and many other installments of the series. I, for one, was super pumped when pictures first came out of Danila Kozlovsky. He's hot, he's lean, and he's actually freaking Russian. How much more of Dimitri could you ask for? As a fan of the books, I was very much pleased with this news, as were many others. Now, it's a completely different story. What's changed? Not much, really, other than the fact that the production company responsible for bringing the movie to life is beginning to publicize the film. I liked the Vampire Academy Movie Facebook page and they are really good at keeping fans updated on the latest interviews, pictures, and footage from the set. Yet looming over all of this excitement is a dark cloud of comments from "fans" dissing Danila and other cast members because they are "not what they pictured" or "not hot enough." Don't believe me? Here you go:

Robert as Simon was just... I felt like I was reading the book all over again. He was the Simon I never knew I wanted. But boy was I glad he was there! He was easily my favorite. Hands-down. Isabelle and Alec were also perfect. Even though their presence was toned down a bit in favor of the Jace-Clary-Simon dynamic, they were still phenomenal whenever they were on screen.

The only thing I didn't like about the cast was Magnus. I mean, Godfrey was pretty good... but he just wasn't as enthusiastic as he could have been. I warmed up to him towards the end when he had his moment with Alec (WHICH WAS JUST SAIDHKLAEWASX SO FREAKING CUTE AND AMAZING). He plays Magnus's soft side very well but I would love to see a more vamped-up and enthusiastic Magnus in the future films. The contrast in his personality when he was around Alec was one of the reasons I loved him so much in the books. Hopefully they'll work on this when they make City of Ashes.

The movie overall was almost dead-on to the book, keeping in some of its key moments and lines. That being said, there wasn't a whole lot of time to breathe. As a fan, I loved watching the scenes I had read come to life on screen. I was a kid in a candy store, let me tell you. But after the movie, some of the people I went with were experiencing a kind of whiplash. One that had them asking me questions to verify if what they got from the plot was correct or not. They loved the movie just as I did, don't get me wrong! They just had to confirm certain things that happened. It was a lot to wrap their heads around.

The last thing I want to talk about is the ending. SERIOUS SPOILER ALERT AHEAD SO PLEASE DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT MAJOR SPOILAGE.

Towards the end is where the timeline of the book skewed a bit. They had the final battle at the Institute. Which was fine because I completely understand why they did it. The movie was already nearing two hours and adding another location and the journey to it would waste time that could be spent on other things. But with that came some changes. Valentine never captured Jace so their whole shebang was in the library. I really liked how we got to see Jace's reaction to being told the news that he was Valentine's son. But in the books he recognised him right away as his father, cementing the lie of his and Clary's relation. So that was a bit odd to me that he took more convincing.

It seems like I'm giving this blog a theme with all the rants I'm posting about books and movies. I guess they're just all that I feel like talking about. Maybe I'll talk about makeup or boys in the next one.

Moving on...

Today's post is inspired by all the media surrounding the "50 Shades of Grey" movie. Let me just start out by saying that no, I haven't read the books. Nor do I intend to. I do have friends who have read them, however, and they have told me that they're not as bad as they're being portrayed. I considered reading the three-book series just to write an educated post about them but decided against it. Mostly because I'm lazy but also because I also have a pile of other books I have to read, as I've stated before. But I feel that I don't need to have read them in order to say what I intend to say so I'll just get straight to it.

"50 Shades of Grey" is erotica. It's a known fact. It can also be categorized as romance but who are we kidding. Anything with explicitly written sex scenes can be counted as erotica. I've read plenty of books with sex in them and can easily tell the difference between romance and erotica. Simply put: If the book has three or more synonyms for "penis" and "vagina," it's erotica. Also, plot. Plot is very important. If it's intricate enough, sex scenes are put in the backseat and aren't entirely relevant when it comes to the main story line. Hell, you could even skip them. But if they overshadow the plot (hence, the BDSM in "50 Shades") then it's clear that the plot isn't strong enough and cannot be carried without them. Erotica.

Good. Now that we've gotten that settled. Why in the name of all that is holy is this book being made into a movie? I mean, I could see full-on porn being based off of it. But a full-length motion picture? Seriously? This is just doomed to be a disaster. They're going to have to water it down a lot to get an R-rating. And even if they accomplish that, will it even be that good? I've heard snippets of the main plot from friends who have read it and don't think it seems all that interesting. It's main appeal is the sex and its, ahem, interestingly written scenes. Maybe that's why the cast hasn't been announced yet. Maybe the executives who were dumb enough to fund this project have seen some sense.

Having read a few excerpts of the text (Hamster. Enough said.) I could tell that this wasn't the greatest book to begin with. The main reason for its publicity was that it was first written as a "Twilight" fan fiction. Which I have the utmost respect for. Being a former fan fiction writer, I am proud and envious of the success of writers who got their start in fan fiction. It gives me hope. But still, when your story is as poorly written as "50 Shades," I almost take it back. E.L. James's success gives writers false hopes of publishing. She didn't get all of this attention because her book was good. She got it because she was riding the "Twilight" bandwagon in the steamiest and most controversial of ways. Is she setting a good example for future writers? No. She's "inspiring" them to write something controversial to get media attention and let themselves be remembered as that one lady who wrote that sex book. She's a fad and will be remembered for all the wrong reasons. She could have had the potential to be a truly fantastic novelist whose stories (yes, even erotica) would have been remembered because they were good, not because they were bad and falsely revered. Now she's the pinnacle of bad writing done right, which shouldn't prove as any encouragement to those wanting to break into the industry.

And they want to make a movie out of it. That's about as screwed up as the media can get.

/endrant