I don't. It wasn't written by J.K. Rowling, she was just one of the three people who came up with the story.
What do you think?
Listen, brother, forty percent of all accidents represent nearly half of all accidents.
For me it's tough not to consider it canon given that Rowling says it is and she's the person who defines canon whether I like it or not. If she had left it open for us to believe whether it was canon or not, I would have definitely said no given how awful it is and how it contradicts so much of the characterization of the books.
shareI had never really considered the distinction of "head canon" before because I was always fine just accepting whatever she said about the books, full stop. Cursed Child did change that, though. I don't think it's actually possible to accept it as 100% canon, anyway. When you really think about it you're going to have to pick and choose between the play and the books for some things and the choice is obvious. Same with her interviews, some of those are contradicted by Cursed Child but I can't really think of anything where I'd choose the play. For example the issue of Harry's scar still hurting and still being able to speak Parseltongue. Poorly explained in the play, so unless she elaborates it makes more sense to me that that just left him with the Voldy soul as she said in 2007.
Some things I'll probably go along thinking are new canon, like Petunia keeping the blanket (not necessarily the plot stuff around it, though) and even the trolley lady I can go with...maybe not the way the play did it exactly, but just that she's some kind of phantom security feature of the train, lol? Sure, why not. Don't know if I've decided about Voldy/Bellatrix. But a lot of the play I'm just dismissing because it's not really worth my time doing all kinds of brain gymnastics trying to justify, and not that interesting to think about in the first place. If it doesn't fit naturally in the books or seem a natural progression from Deathly Hallows, then to me it's disposable.
_______________
If John Williams Scored Harry Potter 4-8: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtnLz_q7EfU&list=PL6HqJLDCy3kZodnQ-NNewovSKPU4Q1dm4
I don't know. I still don't know how I feel about it. Voldy and Bellatrix having a child just doesn't make any sense to me. I would think Voldy would find sex as a weakness. The only way I can make it work for me is to say that Bellatrix used magic to impregnate herself and Voldy had no knowledge of it.
shareRowling says that it's canon, and for some people that's enough. However, there are some issues with that. Mainly, there are plot points and devices in the Cursed Child that contradicts Rowling's previous statements.
1) Voldemort having a child. In the World Book Day chat of 2004, the following exchange happened:
Harry: Has Voldermort any children?
JK Rowling replies -> No. Voldemort as a father... now that's not a nice thought.
So for Voldemort and Bellatrix to have a love child is completely against what she had already said.
2) The Time Turner is not a device for bringing back the dead. It is well established that there is no magic that can bring the dead back to life. The closest thing we get is the Resurrection Stone and it doesn't really bring back the dead, it just makes their souls visible and tangible to whoever is holding the stone. Whenever the time turners are used in the books, they are never really used to change the present, but to allow for the present to happen. For instance, when Harry and Hermione save Sirius in PoA, they use the turners to protect Buckbeak, save Harry and Sirius from the dementors and free Sirius from the tower. We know for a fact that Harry cast his patronus before to save himself and Sirius, and we never see Buckbeak die (we only hear about the thump sound of the ax striking, which we learn was Mulciber swinging the ax in anger) and it can be assumed that Sirius was already free from the tower while Harry and Hermione were concocting their rescue plan with Dumbledore. Using it the way they did in CC flies directly in the face of everything Rowling has established.
It's my belief that Rowling considers it canon for a few reasons:
1) Her writing outside of Harry Potter hasn't been very well received. Given that she signed off on CC already, she may just be seeing this thing through to the end.
2) She may be under a legal obligation to not say anything that could be construed as disparaging against CC.
No and it's annoying Rowling does consider it cannon. The book doesn't even fit or make sense even with her approval so I can't include it.
shareNo. I'd completely forgotten the book existed till seeing your thread about it now. It was an entertaining read, but so freaking flawed. I barely remember the story, but in it, doesn't Scorpio and Albus travel through time a half a dozen times, each time something completely different happens... but oh what a coincidence that Scorpio doesn't travel to a future where both he and ALbus aren't born (or something—I could make a stronger argument if I re-read the play).
My point being is that while the idea of two kids hacking time sounds like a fun idea in theory, within the HP universe, it simply doesn't hold up because at any given point, both those kids could easily "disappear" by going to the wrong timeline and changing the wrong things and then boom... nothing. No more Scorpio, no more Albus.
I did like Scorpio though. Cool character, I think an actual book surrounding him (and written by Jo) would be fantastic.
Flibbetygiblet
K Rowling replies -> No. Voldemort as a father... now that's not a nice thought.
So for Voldemort and Bellatrix to have a love child is completely against what she had already said.
2) The Time Turner is not a device for bringing back the dead. It is well established that there is no magic that can bring the dead back to life. The closest thing we get is the Resurrection Stone and it doesn't really bring back the dead, it just makes their souls visible and tangible to whoever is holding the stone. Whenever the time turners are used in the books, they are never really used to change the present, but to allow for the present to happen. For instance, when Harry and Hermione save Sirius in PoA, they use the turners to protect Buckbeak, save Harry and Sirius from the dementors and free Sirius from the tower. We know for a fact that Harry cast his patronus before to save himself and Sirius, and we never see Buckbeak die (we only hear about the thump sound of the ax striking, which we learn was Mulciber swinging the ax in anger) and it can be assumed that Sirius was already free from the tower while Harry and Hermione were concocting their rescue plan with Dumbledore. Using it the way they did in CC flies directly in the face of everything Rowling has established.
what has made sense since making Dumbledore gay etc etc she does anything to keep in the media eye
Look like Tarzan talk like Jane! HAHA
Why did I even bother to apply the spoiler tag?
Oh...right...courtesy. I tried to be courteous to people who haven't read or seen CC yet and may still be curious about it.
Never mind. Just go ahead and flat out quote my entire post instead of just replying.