I haven't read Cursed Child in a while so my memory's a bit foggy. Though I remember that the plot felt rather choppy which is sure to leave one or two plotholes. Anyone know one?

 

There were far more than one or two plotholes.

1. Harry's scar.
Harry's scar only hurt because it linked him to Voldemort due to the Horcrux. The Horcrux was destroyed in Deathly Hallows. Voldemort died in Deathly Hallows. Harry's scar hence had no reason to hurt, right? Well, it did.

2. Cedric's character assassination.
"Remember Cedric. Remember, if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort. Remember Cedric Diggory."
That's what Dumbledore said in Goblet of Fire. Can you imagine Cedric becoming a Death Eater? Well, he did.

3. Time turners.
Fundamentally, how time-turners work has changed in Cursed Child. Their nature has changed so much that it directly contradicts Prisoner of Azkaban.

4. Harry speaks parseltongue.
See number 1. Same reasoning applies.

5. Ron gives his nephew a love potion as a gift.
Albus Potter was 14 at that time. Enough said.

6. Hermione can't hide stuff.
She hid the time turner in a book. A series of riddles solved by a teenager led to the discovery of the time turner. This is Hermione we're talking about. Why on earth would she hide a time turner in a bookcase? McGonagall said it best, “And in a bookcase. You kept it in a bookcase. It’s almost laughable.”

7. Albus Potter makes out with his aunt.
Repeatedly. What the actual fuck?

That's off the top of my head. You can search for more if you'd like.

 

Wait what? Do tell, I never actually finished reading the scriptbook.

 

At one point, Albus took polyjuice to turn himself into Ron. He happens upon Hermione and to escape, he decides to distract her by kissing her. He even went as far as to ask if she wanted to try for another baby or something. Don't remember exactly.

You don't know the half of it. Harry's boggart is actually a pigeon. A fucking pigeon.

 

...

no comment

DAO xover! Harry/Shale!

 

This one isn't the case, at least with respect to the "can't change the past" aspect. In PoA, "Closed loop time travel" is what happens when you use time-turners correctly, in accordance with Ministry guidance. But the very fact that Hermione was warned against changing the past shows that it is possible within the PoA canon. It's just a very bad idea.

The Cursed Child timeturner is different in that it goes back further and returns you to the future rather than you having to live your way back to your original time, but this isn't really a plot hole given that the Cursed Child timeturner is explicitly said to be an upgrade. It's important to distinguish magical innovation from plot holes.

 

Now I want to go back in time and change history so that Cursed Child is never made.

 

@CheddarTrek, they were pigeons.

Every second sentence in CC is a plot hole, there's no point in trying to list them all or make sense of them. Just one reading ruined my childhood. I suggest we all just collectively pretend that it never existed.

 

Huh. Well, that was a gross oversimplification on my part. I haven't really read the material in years, so my memory's a bit foggy. Those are just the things that stood out to me the most. Thanks for the clarification anyways.

 

Dumbledore is hardly going to trash a dead kid in front of all his friends. "Sure, Cedric was pretty cool but if he was subjected to a calvacade of humiliations he might have made foolish choices that I'll now speculate on in order to ruin his memory." It's a pretty big character swing sure, but that's not the best argument for a plot hole in my mind.

 

I dunno. Cedric turning death eater is wrong on just so many levels. This is the guy who was all about honor and fair-play. The guy who nearly threw away his chance at glory during the third task because it went against his principles.

I mean sure people change, but damn, you turned the first significant death in the series, a death which affected the readers because of how much the character resonated with everyone, turn into... this.

In short, saying that Cursed child is responsible for the character-assassination of one of the better liked characters in the series is no exaggeration.

 

Should the fact that they are able to see the Potter's house, which is under Fidelius, be counted as a plot hole or a weakness of the Fidelius itself? I mean, could it be that people that come from a point in time in which the Fidelius has already been broken or taken off be unaffected?

 

If I remember correctly, it had to be broken, because Hermione could see the house as well, and basically whoever came there to sign the memorial text (and the person who put it there). Unless that text wasn't exactly where the house was, which I don't remember. Harry should be able to see the house anyway, and as it is his perspective, I can be wrong.

 

Yeah, when they travel back in time to 1981, everyone (I think, but I'm almost certain) who has travelled back is able to see the house, which shouldn't be possible unless the Fidelius has that weakness I mentioned before.

 

You're right on both counts. All of them were able to see the house, which really shouldn't have been possible since Voldemort hadn't attacked yet (if I recall correctly). Although, that begs the question: would the Fidelius have failed because the secret was revealed by the secret keeper? Or is it simply sloppy writing causing sloppy mistakes?

 

Ripple-Effect Proof Memory is a thing, and it seems reasonable to apply that here. The Fidelius was pretty clearly broken completely, and that's suggested pretty much from the very start of the series, when in the first chapter you've got McGonagall and Dumbledore mentioning Godric's Hollow by name, and Hagrid and Sirius going there in person. Doubtless Sirius knew the secret anyway, and probably Dumbledore did as well, but I'm not sure McGonagall and Hagrid would have been considered 'need to know' candidates. Doesn't seem like a plot-hole to me.

Nor, for that matter, does Albus kissing Hermione, or Ron giving Albus a love potion. Bad/stupid/weird/immoral, perhaps, but not plot-holes.

Also, there isn't a boggart anywhere in the play, that I recall, and the pigeon thing is mentioned solely in conversation at the end, where it's clearly presented as an irrational phobia. Stupid, yes, but not a plot-hole.

 

So, majority of what I would consider plot-holes are just examples of the stupid/immoral/bad occurrences in the play. Okay, makes sense with the corresponding explanations. What'd you consider plot-holes?