Harry Potter, Medium Swapping and Continuity

So this is sort of bothering me, and so I will sound off on it here.

Today Harry Potter and the Cursed Child had its cast announced. Here they are:

So beyond the Ron with hair that is distinctly not red, you've got yourself a black Hermione who apparently did not magically fix her teeth in her teen years.  My first reaction to this was a definitive: "Huh?" This bothered me a lot more than I thought it would and, after much reflection, I think I've determined the reason why: The stage is a visual medium and JK Rowling is slapping her fan base in the face by insisting on making her sequel on it.

Stick with me and I'll take you through my reasoning. 

First, let me talk about why I think this matters.

For an established character, the image and feel of a character counts. For instance: Jean-Luc Picard is bald. If (God forbid) a 'sequel to the Next Generation' series were pitched featuring Picard with a full head of hair, then I would feel quite justified in screaming bloody murder. Once a character is established to look a certain way in a certain continuity, then you've gotta stick with it. If you put Fabio in Picard's shoes then I don't feel comfortable or respected as a fan in the setting.

Now the question of race and superheroes has been popular in the media lately. I hear a lot about the idea of a black James Bond or Spider Man for instance. And you know, I'm not against either idea. Just make them in their own continuity. I mean, fuck, you're resetting Spider Man every two fucking movies anyhow, so why not give it a try? And hell, don't those kinds of movies shift continuity every time they change their lead actor anyhow? 

But in any case, the point I'm trying to make here is this: I would not care about this issue if the above Hermione were in an alternate universe adaptation of Harry Potter. The distinction I draw is that this is a Hermione who's supposed to be in a direct sequel to the books.

Anyhow, so now let's get the author's position:

This makes sense to me. I actually avoid racial descriptors when I describe a characters too, which I've observed has resulted in arguments in what people think a given character actually looks like. I think some degree of ambiguity in that regard is sort of necessary, particularly in a book where we're expected to relate to and invest in certain characters. I get that.

For me it goes like this though: I open Chamber of Secrets and read: "Hermione snatched the timetable back, flushing intensely." (75) All human beings have the blushing reaction, but for what should be obvious reasons it's not very distinctive on a person with some colour on their face already. You can't tell when a dark skinned person is blushing as easily as you can a pale person. Hence why I always pictured the gal as being white.


"But that's just your perspective and it's subjective," I hear you say. And well yeah, of course it is. The Hermione in my head is indeed a white girl, but if she's black in yours then that's your prerogative. I don't think it would effect our mutual enjoyments of the books.

But that's the thing, isn't it? This isn't a book. It's a play. A horrendously expensive and inaccessible play that a pauper like me can never hope to see on stage, but nevertheless: a visual medium. We aren't in the Theatre of the Mind any more, we're in real space. The "you can picture whatever Hermione you want" argument breaks down because for this play, which is billed as a sequel to the Harry Potter books,  there is now just one Hermione. The one on stage. And the lady they're putting on stage looks absolutely nothing like the Hermione I've imagined.

"Wait a second," I hear you say, "Why should your white Hermione take precedence over my black one?" And you're right, I can't give you an objective reason why that should be. But note: the argument works both ways. Before everyone would read the books and make their own world. When the movies came out, mileage varied. Many people (including me) thought Emma Watson was a bit too pretty to be Hermione for instance. And for me, Kingsley is always going to be a Samuel L. Jackson type figure. But nevertheless: Previously, what was a point of contention like that could always be resolved with the words 'but well, in the books we can make our own sense of it'.

But now there is no book. There's just a play. (And hopefully a script that they'll eventually publish for us poor commoners)

And that brings me to a fundamental conclusion about all of this: Making the sequel to a fabulous series of books into a London-only stage production is a huge disservice to the fans. It's whimsical on the part of the author, it's anti-democratic and it flies in the face of the magic that the Harry Potter books really allowed the reader to do within its pages.

JK Rowling can do whatever she wants, of course. But you can't do a medium swap like this and not expect to irk people like me.