Harry Potter and the Cursed Child discussion

We all have read the taglines: based on an original new story by J.K. Rowling, Jack Thorne, and John Tiffany; a new play by Jack Thorne....etc. etc. Basically, we all know this was not written by J.K. Rowling. But as I read it, I had a hard time believing that she even had anything to do with it. First of all, I never dreamed there would be an eighth "story", and even if there were to be one, I expected more of a delay than a mere nine years after book seven. But none of it sounded like something Rowling would do with her story. (view spoiler)[Kill characters, yes, but try to bring them back? Never. Put Albus in Slytherin after Harry's big speech about choices? Unlikely. Giving Voldemort a daughter when he is clearly incapable or love (and I would think incapable of lust as well)? Does this really make sense when a parent/children relationship is what defeated Voldemort when he tried to kill Harry? Use a time-turner as a major plot device? Seriously? After having them all DESTROYED so as not to have littluns messing with the space/time continuum?
(hide spoiler)]
The voice was weak and the characters lacked their original personalities. In my opinion, other than the few deaths, nothing seemed like genuine Potter.
Long story short, I believe the other co-authors have Rowling locked up and gagged in a cellar, and they kept coming up with these crazy ideas and would ask her opinion, and when she replied "No!" they took it as yes, because they couldn't understand her properly while she was gagged! But let me know what you think, specifically, where do you see any hints of J.K. Rowling at all in this book?

I think how much you see is also dependent on how much you think there is, so it's a bit of a circle...

I didn't clearly see that much.
I just saw it as: "Hey, let's put some pictures of her with Thorne and Tiffany so that all the fans will think it's legitimate! Yay, marketing!"
And it's working. Oh, well.

Well, don't know about the gagging part but this book did not feel as if it was written by JK Rowling. AT ALL.

Julia wrote: "We all have read the taglines: based on an original new story by J.K. Rowling, Jack Thorne, and John Tiffany; a new play by Jack Thorne....etc. etc. Basically, we all know this was not written by J..."

I agree with most of what you said except the part about Rowling not putting Albus in Slytherin. She's always put a huge emphasis on names (Voldemort=flight of death, Malfoy=bad faith, Remus Lupin=Wolfy-Mcwolf, Minerva=goddess of wisdom, etc. etc.) and Albus is no exception. He is half named after a Slytherin (Severus) and his initials spell out a type of snake (ASP). This on top of the huge talk where Harry basically tells him that being in Slytherin would be fine convinces me that Jo had always planned to have Albus in Slytherin. (Also I like the idea of a new story exploring how Slytherins aren't all evil, although TCC didn't really do that at all.) (view spoiler)[ But Harry telling his son that he wish he hadn't been born? What the heck is that? Ah yes, Harry Potter, a kid who grew up without a family, telling Albus that he wished he wasn't his son. Sounds about right. (hide spoiler)]

Anna wrote: "Julia wrote: "We all have read the taglines: based on an original new story by J.K. Rowling, Jack Thorne, and John Tiffany; a new play by Jack Thorne....etc. etc. Basically, we all know this was no..."

I just couldn't believe that after Albus was so terrified of ending up in Slytherin that a quick chat with his dad and a train ride would make him drop his fear altogether. Also, he was named after "the bravest man Harry had ever known." Dumbledore himself says he thinks sometimes "we sort too soon." I took it as, by the end, Snape could very well have been a Gryffindor, if not necessarily a very nice one. I think we also forget Albus' Weasley roots. All Weasleys have been in Gryffindor, and as I try to believe in the good in people, I don't think the Slytherin qualities Albus may have inherited from Harry would trump the Gryffindor qualities from Ginny as well as from Harry. There is nothing wrong with being determined or ambitious (I myself strive to be both), but the Sorting Hat knows where a person really needs to be. Take Hermione, for instance. She has better grades than any Ravenclaw in her year, yet she is a Gryffindor. The hat knew she had to be a Gryffindor, I believe, because of the role she was to play in Harry's life. (Let's not forget that at the end of the day, it is Harry's story, regardless of any of character's choices, abilities, or personal stories.) I believe the hat could foresee a life where Hermione was in Ravenclaw, never met Harry, couldn't help him find the Stone, solve the Chamber, rescue Sirius, etc. etc. and the Wizarding World would be plagued in darkness. This could be why Hermione was such a Hatstall...it had to foresee every future. Now, we can perhaps take Cursed Child as the Sorting Hat's prediction of a world where Albus is in Slytherin and all hell breaks loose. Obviously, this would be terrible, so it would instead choose Gryffindor for this already troubled young boy. But it puts people in their houses for a reason. Harry was a Gryffindor because he needed light in his life in order to bring down Voldemort. Snape was a Slytherin because Lily had to eventually reject him and instead have Harry with James and fulfill the prophecy. It's much like the force keeping balance in the Wizarding World, and after 18 years of turmoil for Harry, I don't see the hat putting him through anything like that again.
I do enjoy your point about the names, but considering that the final line of Deathly Hallows was "All was well", any contradiction to this, from Albus getting Slytherin to Voldemort have a daughter, does not, I feel, belong in Harry Potter.

Speaking of Rowling not having any influence, for those who have the books, why wasn't Peeves in the movies? Why didn't she insist that Peeves be included? I mean, many authors say that the characters they create are like family! if that's true, why didn't Rowling care? Or... Maybe they pulled out the old gag! Honestly, I am a little disappointed with Rowling for not fighting for her rights. -and, plus, Peeves is one of the reasons I also hate the movies)

Actually, Peeves *was* originally cast for the first movie. The intention was that he would be included, but I don't know who decided he wouldn't make the final cut.

Well... just direct me to their house, lol! I hate the movies for the sole reason that peeves wasn't in them! Honestly, I love books, but movies are such a disappointment! like, just get it right!