#i'm cis and so not the best equipped for that conversation but I'm also the only out queer person they know so

[pointlesshroom]

to all trans, and especially non-binary people and especially people whose gender is something funky beyond man/woman/neither, I am so sorry if you ever had to have a conversation about gender with cis people

[raptured-night]

Hullo! I'm sure you've seen the recent news about Nagini by now. I'd be curious to get your thoughts?

Hi there, my friend!

First, let me start by apologizing for being slow to respond to this ask. When the news of Nagini first broke, I made a conscious decision not to comment and assert “my opinion” right away. Fandom dinosaur that I am, I’ve been around long enough to recognize that a common response when issues of racism or offensive representation are brought up is that too many of us white fans presume we can jump in to either explain (i.e. whitesplain) why “we” don’t see a problem or we try to go on the defensive in some fashion or form and accuse the people who are trying to draw attention to the issue of making fandom more “divisive” by being too “sensitive” or “just looking for something to criticize/be angry about.” As a rule, and because I do believe that a conscious effort to promote intersectionality belongs in all our social interactions, including but not limited to social media, I do make a point to remain silent and to pay attention to what is being said before I begin to voice any opinions of my own. Indeed, I feel that as a white woman in fandom it is important that I try to remain conscious of my privilege and the way that “my opinions” can often be given more priority and weight within fandom spaces than those of the people whose voices should be at the center of any conversations that are taking place (in this case, Asian fans of HP, specifically South Asian fans and East Asian fans). White (cis-het, etc.) fans have a very terrible habit of treating issues of racism and representation as if they were just another bit of discourse, no different than debating the relative merits of one ship or character over another, and so we weigh in as if we’re just as entitled to decide what is or is not racist, or what is or is not offensive representation as are the people whose race, culture, sexual orientation, etc. are being represented. 

However unintentional, I want to be careful that the simple act of asserting my opinion doesn’t become a tool of oppression or a measure of silencing or speaking over the voices of the people we should be listening to, first and foremost. Additionally, I often find that one’s first response to learning that something within a fandom they enjoy is being received negatively by a marginalized group and that it is offensive or harmful is to attempt to provide some kind of defense for why that isn’t the case, largely so we feel we will be able to continue to enjoy fandom content without feeling guilty or “problematic” for doing so. There is this fallacy of thought that you cannot be critical of the content you consume and also still enjoy other aspects of it that pervade within a lot of fandom spaces and it often goes hand-in-hand with the very worst examples of people using their privilege to silence or speak-over the people who should be at the center of any conversations being had (not to mention the way it contributes to the proliferation of white-feminist arguments and appeals to anti-intellectual rhetoric that would discourage any critical analysis of the content we consume by framing it as an act of hostility, censorship, or “reverse-oppression/divisiveness”). That being said, having taken my time to consider how best to respond to your ask, I do believe I’m better equipped to give what I hope will be an informed and thoughtful response to your question @idealistic-realism00 .

To begin with, I would like to highlight a very important point that @fandomshatepeopleofcolor  recently made and one that I have been seeing with some frequency as well. That is, the issue of people conflating criticism of Nagini that is independent of her in-universe portrayal in the Fantastic Beasts franchise with an in-universe critique. Often, a person may be arguing one issue only to have their argument derailed by in-universe focused defenses of Nagini that hold no real bearing on the larger implications out-of-universe (i.e. the real-world connotations) of Rowling’s or the movie’s choices in terms of casting or representation present us with. Ultimately, the problem in this approach should be self-evident, as it does become easier (even when that isn’t someone’s deliberate intention) to invalidate, dismiss, or ignore the valid criticisms that are being discussed and, I do believe, should be discussed within the Harry Potter fandom. Ultimately, if one person is focused on criticising the decision from a larger, non-fictional context and the other person is debating the merits or demerits for any of the decisions or backstory we do have in-universe then you have two people having two very different conversations. 

As such, I would like to begin by breaking up the critique of Nagini into two parts. I’ll begin first by focusing on the out-of-universe issues that are being discussed and why I do agree that they are not only valid but important for us (especially those of us who are not Asian and who do not have any of the learned or firsthand experience with the racism or racial microaggressions that Asian people face daily) to not only examine and reflect on but to also acknowledge for their real-world connotations without allowing our (i.e. white/non-Asian HP fans) own biases or privileges to convince us that we get to be/should be the deciding vote on what is or is not racist, offensive, or harmful to other people in our fandom. Once I have accomplished that, only then will I attempt to explore and highlight some of the core issues with Nagini’s in-universe portrayal (based on what information we have so far) that have been raised by those whose voices should be most central to this discussion and criticized as racially offensive, potentially sexist, and/or characteristic of poor representation. 

So, let me begin by addressing one of the leading arguments that I have seen against any criticism of Nagini and its fallacy. The insistence that we do not already have enough existing information to form an impression about what kind of representation Nagini might bring (i.e. good or bad,  harmless or harmful, inoffensive or offensive) or to acknowledge racially offensive connotations in her characterization. I support the arguments that vehemently disagree with this idea, especially as this response so insightfully observes, this notion contradicts the very purpose of releasing movie trailers, which is to formulate an opinion based on what content and what information we do have about whether we like the content based on what we have seen or if we would like to see more of it. Beyond that, as I have already said, out-of-universe critiques do not look to the in-universe content in order to arrive at a determination. It is the real-world connotations that we will be looking at and we already have a sufficient body of evidence to make a valid case for Nagini’s concept being a poor example of representation with a lot of racist overtones. 

Case-in-point, we know from what information Rowling has provided us with that she claims to have had this twist for Nagini in mind for twenty years and that she chose the name Nagini because of the connection to the Naga mythology, which she solely credits as having originated in Indonesia when, as has been pointed out to me, the Naga mythology originated in India and then spread throughout South Asia where it evolved with the different cultures. Now, a second argument I have seen circulating is that any attempt to critique Rowling’s writing or the franchise she has built constitutes as an unwarranted or vicious attack against her or should be relegated to the same corners of fandom hate as the antis who send people death threats. I would counter that this is nothing more than a further effort to silence inconvenient (and necessary) criticism and conversations and impose on fandom a laissez-faire attitude that can only further advantage the privileged members of fandom (i.e. white/non-Asian) over those who should be central to this issue. Moreover, the defense or “plea of ignorance” appeal that Rowling merely didn’t know what she was doing, didn’t mean to cause harm, or should be given yet another chance to grow is yet another argument in favor of privilege (not unlike the Affluenza Teen we are, quite literally, arguing that because Rowling is white and privileged we should excuse her inability to accurately and inoffensively represent other races and their cultures) and prioritizes what we believe Rowling’s “intentions” were over the impact that poor and/or racist representation and appropriation can have on the people who are being offensively reflected in her body of work. 

As this response by @diaryofanangryasianguy illustrates, it only makes us (re: white/non-Asian) complicit in supporting racist, colonial mindsets that permit a wealthy, white author to not only appropriate from the culture of another race and misrepresent them and/or their origins but to also profit from that misrepresentation. Furthermore, the argument can be made that this latest instance with Nagini only supports a pattern on Rowling’s part, one which this poster illustrates, of incorporating other races or cultures into her series and either misrepresenting them (e.g. her offensive use of Native American skinwalkers, spirit animals, and the very fact she portrayed Native American magic-practitioners as being less skilled or educated than their European counterparts until someone from Europe educated them on wands and their use, which harkens to Imperialist and colonialist thinking) or improperly crediting them. Indeed, Rowling has even insisted in interviews that when she uses mythological creatures in her world, she does attempt to conduct thorough research. Notably, when crafting her in-universe mythology for the “obscure” hippogriff, Rowling can be quoted as saying:

“But you’re right, yes, children, they know, obviously, they know that I didn’t invent unicorns, but I’ve had to explain frequently that I didn’t actually invent hippogriffs. Although a hippogriff is quite obscure, I went looking, because when I do use a creature that I know is a mythological entity, I like to find out as much as I can about it. I might not use it, but to make it as consistent as I feel is good for my plot. There’s very little on hippogriffs. I could read…”

This brings me back to the main issue, which multiple people have addressed on this site and elsewhere (source, source, source, source, source), which is the glaring fact that the origins of the Naga mythology are from India although, again, they did proceed to spread through South Asia and assume unique mythological characteristics among the different South Asian cultures, including Indonesia. Which means that Rowling is not only incorporating South-Asian mythology into her opus but treating South-Asian people as if they and their culture are interchangeable by crediting only Indonesia for being the origin of the Naga mythology when, as has been pointed out, its origins can be traced to India from which is spread and took on new form as it became a part of South-Asian mythology overall. Now, if Rowling has had this twist in mind for over twenty years, as she claims, and we know that she allegedly likes to “…find out as much as [she] can about [mythology]” before she uses it then we must acknowledge that the issue and criticism is certainly valid and that is just based on what information we already have. So, I reiterate what others have said when I say that Asian people and their culture are not interchangeable and should not be treated as if they were. If Rowling can devote the time, effort, and energy into thoroughly researching mythology as obscure as the hippogriff (which has Greco-Roman origins) for her series then there is no excuse for her failure here to accurately represent the Naga mythology and to clearly communicate that she is not erasing or failing to acknowledge that while the origins of the Naga mythology may have begun in India and spread through South Asia, she is choosing to focus on Indonesia’s unique Naga mythology specifically rather than just seeming to credit their culture alone as the point of origin for the Naga myths. 

Again, just based on that information alone, we can make a valid argument that there are issues of racism and offensive representation for Nagini that have larger real-world connotations. Not all representation is good representation (e.g. see the “token” character trope where any character of a marginalized group is inserted into a primarily all-white cast for the diversity points with no interest or intention of developing the character in any complex or meaningful way), which is often taken to mean that the only kind of representation for Black characters or characters of color must be heroic. This, also, is a fallacy and it misses the point of what representation is and why it matters. Good representation is when a character is portrayed in a way that does not adhere to existing and harmful stereotypes, racist tropes, or otherwise. Importantly, a character can even be a villain and still be an example of good representation (e.g. Black Panther’s Killmonger) so long as they are written in a manner that accurately represents their race and culture and does not pander to stereotypes or racist tropes. Rowling, however, has demonstrated her lack of knowledge (and if we are to accept that she does do thorough research based on her own words, then we must even ask if she has not demonstrated a lack of interest when researching the mythology of a culture that is not Western and Euro-centric) when it comes using South Asian mythology in a way that does not give the impression she is overlooking, misattributing the origins of, or erasing the cultural contributions of one South Asian people (i.e. Indian) while claiming to have drawn inspiration from another (i.e. Indonesian). Especially because, in-so-doing, she does become guilty of cultural erasure. 

The reality is that Rowling is a white author who, courtesy of her wealth, also has access to a greater number of resources available to her than the average fan-fiction writers, many of whom do often seek out Brit-pickers and sensitivity-readers to beta-read their fan fiction when they make no profit off of their efforts outside of reader-feedback. According to Rowling, she will take the time to thoroughly research obscure mythology, like that on the hippogriff, and she also claims to have written her series with the deliberate intention of interweaving an allegory of anti-prejudice, anti-racism, and anti-discrimination into her books (something I’ve also been critical of in discussions for what I believe is a failure of her narrative to convincingly acknowledge that prejudice and racism are systemic issues and not just a matter of extremes), yet when it comes to taking the time and making the effort to provide her readers with correct and accurate portrayals of a mythology from a culture that is not her own (i.e. Western and Euro-centric), we continue to see examples of poor, inaccurate, offensive, or appropriative representation. As others have pointed out, when issues of representation are brought to her by her fans (no matter how politely or informatively they are worded, as yet another defense for Rowling’s liberal use of the block feature and defensiveness towards any kind of criticism is that she is protecting herself from angry fans who threaten her which, while certainly understandable, should still not be an excuse to ignore all critical feedback or refuse to, as some fans insist we allow her to do, take the time to reassess her choices and grow) Rowling does not acknowledge any validity in those complaints, she does not apologize if communities feel her portrayal of them and their culture is harmful, offensive, or appropriative. What she does do is double-down on the “rightness” of her stance, reference her activism as if it was a shield/get out of jail free card that balances everything out and excuses her from any further criticism, and defends herself against her fans from a position of greater (white) privilege to the effect that often those (marginalized) fans who try to bring their issues to her attention are then subjected to harassment and threats themselves (sometimes even pushed out of their own fandom).  

I do not believe there is anything wrong or contradictory in the idea that fans of the Harry Potter franchise can both enjoy her world and be critical of it. More to the point, I do not believe there is anything wrong or contradictory in the idea that fans of the Harry Potter franchise can both enjoy her world and be critical of Rowling’s creative choices, her response to instances of valid criticism especially as they concern the issue of representation or racism, or even how those responses might influence one’s perception of her politics and/or ideology as a feminist or social advocate (i.e. it’s not “wrong” or an example of being a “hater” to have these conversations and ask ourselves if Rowling isn’t an example of white feminism, or if she isn’t failing to address her own privilege, or if she isn’t a teaching-lesson for white writers, a category of which I count myself among, and what not to do). In fact, I will always support the willingness to critically approach the content that we consume and I firmly believe that it is important if we are to call ourselves advocates or allies to always be mindful and aware of our own privileges and how they may influence our perspectives as content-consumers (speaking as an intersectional social justice advocate, an academician whose field depends heavily on critical thinking and analysis, and someone who could be said to be “anti” anti-intellectualism, exegesis is vital to human understanding and empathy). 

Which brings me to yet another glaring out-of-universe issue of representation; one that is also very specific to Nagini’s portrayal in the film. The character of Nagini, which was based on South Asian mythology (although Rowling claims to have based her canon on the Indonesian Naga mythology specifically), will be played by Claudia Kim, who is a South Korean actress. So, now we have an issue of South Asian mythology being conflated with East Asian mythology in the film (something which, I want to be clear, should not be seen as a criticism of Claudia Kim or an attack on her, as she is not the issue, the people who made the decision to cast her over an Indian actress are). Once again, Asian people and their culture are not interchangeable and should not be treated as such, and when you do that it is an example of racism and racial microaggression (it is NEVER good representation). This is why I do agree with the people who are pointing out that the casting-choice could be criticized for its erasure and potential colorism, especially as Korea has its own unique snake mythology. For this reason, I do believe that fans (especially those whom Nagini is now supposed to “represent”) do have a perfectly valid reason to view the film with a critical eye and that we should be asking why they opted not to cast an actress in the role of Nagini who is Indonesian if Rowling is going to be using Indonesian Naga mythology. Again, just based on this information alone, we can look at the latest Fantastic Beasts film and acknowledge that the criticism coming from some segments of the Harry Potter fandom is more than valid and there are issues of representation present.

To summarize, we can now make a case for offensive representation and racism on two points, just based off what we already know from interviews and the trailer. First, there is the issue of the way that Rowling specifically seems to credit the Naga mythology as having originated from Indonesia alone when that is not entirely accurate (i.e. it came from India and spread to different cultures in South Asia), which is a form of erasure by failing to clarify that she is using Indonesia Naga mythology for Nagini but that the Naga mythology is not just from Indonesia. This, despite the fact that Rowling claims to have been considering this twist for Nagini for twenty-years (in fact she claims it was the inspiration for naming the character Nagini ) and that she typically does a lot of research before incorporating mythology into her canon. Secondly, there is the issue of the film casting a South-Korean actress to play a character that has its mythological origins in South-Asian culture when Claudia Kim is from East-Asia, which opens the film up to further criticism for its erasure and colorism. 

For these reasons (among the many obvious), I do not believe it is the place of any white/non-Asian fan of the Harry Potter series to attempt to assert that there is nothing racist, offensive, appropriative, or harmful in the way of representation in Nagini’s characterization as it is. While I do not doubt that opinions vary even within the different Asian communities where Nagini is concerned (a fact that I do acknowledge as I have been quietly following the discourse to the best of my abilities for as broad of an understanding as I can have) that is very much a intra-community conversation that I, as a white fan, have no place interjecting myself into. Rather, I will continue to argue that it is not my place or the place of any other white/non-Asian fan of the series to presume that I/we get to decide or cast the final vote on whether or not Nagini’s representation is racist, offensive, appropriative, bad representation or speak over Asian fans who do feel that it is because “my Asian friend/this Asian person in fandom says it’s not an issue so that makes it acceptable for me to tell every Asian person criticizing this choice that they and their feelings are wrong.”

Moving on, now I will begin to examine some of the in-universe criticism of Nagini’s characterization just based on what information we do currently have. I would like to begin with one of the most common complaints, which is that Voldemort is a “Nazi” and connecting an Asian woman to a Nazi is racist in-and-of-itself. However, I think a clarification first needs to be made whenever these arguments surface (and in general when it comes to our discourse around fictional Death Eaters and Voldemort’s ideology or character) so that we can avoid falling into Godwin’s Law rhetoric, which does effectively trivialize the trauma and experiences of victims of Nazi ideology and white supremacy by reducing it down to an inadequate fictional comparison. That should not be our intention, and we should take care to distinguish between the argument that Rowling wrote Voldemort and his Death Eaters with certain parallels in mind to Nazis and white supremacists (something which can also be open to criticism as to how effectively Rowling managed to convey those parallels) and “Voldemort was a Nazi!” No, he was not, he is a fictional character and we should not be responding as if a fictional character is as terrible or even comparable to actual Nazis and the real atrocities and harm they have committed (and continue to commit or perpetuate) to Jewish people, Romani people, Black people, peoples of color, and lgbtq+ people. 

That being said, we can argue that Rowling has said she has written parallels between Voldemort and his Death Eaters to Nazis and white supremacists in her construction of blood prejudice (I tend to be critical of this for the fact that she has constructed the DE to represent something of an all-purpose social commentary on any/all form(s) of prejudice, which effectively strips the different forms that prejudice can take within different communities of their nuance and systemic structures while also establishing a type of prejudice that we mostly see represented by having middle-class white characters like Lily Evans-Potter as the target or, at best, racially ambiguous but still middle-class characters like Hermione Granger; this while she also handwaves real-world examples of racism and prejudice any of her existing Black, POC, or lgbtqa+ characters could face by declaring those are solely Muggle failings, which contradicts her own message given that suggests Muggle-born children simply come into that world without those prejudices or lose them via assimilation and the necessary casting off of Muggle identity-politics and social precepts, negative or positive). As Rowling does allege that a parallel was her intention, then we do need to take such a parallel into consideration and the implications of that pre-established parallel to this new revelation about Nagini. As has already been observed, the fetishization of Asian women by white supremacist men is very much an issue. When Asian women are fetishized by white supremacist men for stereotypes of submissiveness or hypersexuality and Rowling presents us with an Asian woman (one who, I reiterate, is going to be portrayed by an East Asian actress instead of a South Asian actress in the film) who has become the inhuman pet to a character she wrote to parallel certain Nazi and white supremacist ideology it is valid for fans to respond to that critically and to be offended or concerned. 

Once again, I would like to address a further fallacy in the argument that we should or must wait for the film before we attempt any criticism because we lack sufficient information. The fact is, while we may currently be unaware of the full details of Nagini’s experience in Fantastic Beasts, we already have a large body of existing information about what happens to Nagini after those films in the Harry Potter series. We know what happens to her, we know how she dies, and we already have enough information to reflect critically on how these new details about her being an Asian woman alter our perception of her relationship to Voldemort and within the Harry Potter series. For instance, Voldemort draws strength from Nagini by “milking her” venom (i.e. a lot of jokes are circulating and there are assumptions that she was literally milked for actual milk but, speaking as a former snake-owner and snake-lover, when someone says they’re going to milk a snake that means it is venomous and that they’re milking their fangs for their venom), he implants a portion of his soul into her and makes her into his vessel as well as his pet, and whether or not he has control/command over her or she aligns herself with him we still have one of two issues to consider: Voldemort is either forcing her submission or Nagini is offering it willingly, which could play into stereotypes of the fetishized, submissive Asian woman. Also, for the sake of preempting any argument that Voldemort may not have known what Nagini was, let us not forget that he was a Parseltongue and was canonically shown to be able to converse with her.  

There is a lot of discourse circulating that this could be interesting or that Nagini could still be made into a sympathetic villain in the movie. The problem that arises with these arguments is the fact that Fantastic Beasts is a prequel to an existing series. One which Nagini as a character was, narratively speaking, already previously established as unsympathetic and a monster (one who we now can argue became a cannibal given she liked Voldemort to feed her people, a detail that could also be scrutinized for the way it might harken to Imperialist stereotypes, many of which still proliferate, about Asian medicinal practices and cuisine that were often cited as supporting cannibalism or, even today, joked about in terms of the offensive “Asian people eat weird things like cats, har har” stereotype). As a result, Rowling’s narrative in her Harry Potter series was structured to support a specific and intentional perception of Nagini, which Fantastic Beasts can either contradict, attempt to subvert, or support. The problem is that Rowling’s own information already suggests that she will be contradicting her own pre-established canon. Especially as she has already demonstrated a contradiction in attempting to make the South Asian Naga mythology fit into the Western fantasy motif that the Maledictus curse presents us with. As she describes the Maledictus curse in her own words, “The Maledictus carries a blood curse from birth, which is passed down from mother to daughter.” Indeed, the origin of the Latin prefix of Mal can be translated to mean “bad,” “wrongful” or “ill” while the Latin Dictus means “spoken,” so that, when combined, you can have a meaning roughly along the lines of “spoken ill of,” or “cursed.”

This differs drastically from the different Naga mythologies of South-Asian culture, in that the Naga (males) or Nagin/Nagini (females) were typically described as divine or semi-divine deities who typically dwelled in Patala and could assume a human-form, a serpent form, or a half-human and half-serpent form respectively (please note that while I do make a point to study mythology from different cultures in order to better recognize the significance of their iconography and symbolism in any of my literary analyses, I do acknowledge that there may be people on this site who are better informed than me on Naga mythology because it is specific to their culture and I would invite anyone who would like to provide additional context or corrections who may know more to do so if they feel the need or desire). As such, the Naga were not depicted as tragically cursed women or, in Nagini’s case, women with the potential to become venomous, cannibalistic, monsters as the Maledictus curse would suggest. Ultimately, Rowling’s claim that she drew her inspiration from the Naga in defense of Nagini implies that she either does not understand and did not bother to research Naga mythology thoroughly, was merely making the suggestion to defend Nagini in context of the criticism she received, or has intentionally taken South-Asian mythology and portrayed it in a way where it is a “blood curse” versus a source of divinity and Naga are relegated to the role of tragic-figures and/or monsters rather than deities. Indeed, one could argue that if Rowling wanted to introduce Naga mythology into her series then she could have easily done so, absent of Nagini, or she could have introduced the concept of the Maledictus curse through other characters aside from Nagini and written her as a proper and accurate representation of the Indonesian Naga mythos in such a way where she could be both a villain and escape from being either a stereotype or a source of appropriation. 

Moreover, I believe that this response highlights a very good point about the sexism inherent in Rowling’s use of the fantasy motif of a blood curse specific to women and Rowling’s failure to properly subvert it as a result of her established canon for Nagini in the Harry Potter series and I would go even further to observe that it can not only be read as potentially sexist but also racist due to the additional context of Nagini being an Asian woman. Overall, we can read her as a woman with “cursed blood” that will make her inhuman (i.e. gradually dehumanize her) and once she has become inhuman she will eventually be distinguished throughout the Harry Potter series as the subservient and dangerous pet that Voldemort uses as a vessel for his soul and to fulfill his agenda (among which blood purity is a motive, even if it is not the sole motive for his actions in the series). By the end of the series, Nagini dies by beheading as an evil and inhuman creature whose death we cheer and whose slayer we champion (however much I adore Neville, he still remains a white, European, pure-blood wizard) as a hero in a chiastic parallel to Harry versus the Basilisk. 

Further, to reiterate a point made in the post I have linked above, even if Rowling was to have not opted to subvert the existing themes within the “women with cursed blood” motif in order to make it into an intentional social commentary on misogyny then this intention is effectively undermined in the film solely by the fact that they continue to support the casting of an actor (i.e. Depp) in the role of a titular character (i.e. Grindelwald) who has a history of violence against women and who Rowling and the film’s producers continue to defend. A fact that does tend to make any such defenses or claims that Nagini may simply be meant to function as a social commentary on misogyny ring insincere. Rather, I would argue, it does just seem like an excuse to dodge any further criticism about racism, appropriation, or poor representation when proposed by either fans, Rowling, or film affiliates. As the poster I have linked to above illustrates, “a critical commentary of misogyny in your own work of fiction is ultimately meaningless if it is acted out by a man who beats women in real life.” 

Not to mention, any social commentary that Rowling could otherwise have made by utilizing this motif without attempting to subvert it does ultimately fail in this context because the existing Harry Potter series arguably does not make a convincing case for representing the unique way that an Asian woman’s experience with misogyny would also intersect with her experience of racism. Thus, Rowling is still guilty of using a motif that is an example of a form of misogyny white, Western women experience without considering the additional implications for this motif (i.e. a blood curse) when it is applied to an Asian woman and the additional steps she would have needed to take in order to provide the reader with an accurate social commentary that clearly communicates a condemnation of the unique stereotypes, racism, fetishization, and misogyny an Asian woman would experience. Further, this cannot just be accomplished retroactively by revealing a new aspect of her story twenty-odd years later in her newest film franchise. 

For Nagini’s characterization to be viewed as a legitimate, defensible, and intended social commentary Rowling would also have needed to show this in the main body of the Harry Potter series up to the very point of her death. Which Rowling does not effectively do, largely because her narrative “as is” does not enforce any such reading or “ah-ha!” moment independently of the Fantastic Beast franchise and it’s reveal of who Nagini is (and we cannot say Rowling is just unskilled at writing subtly or at writing big, plot-twisting reveals because Snape’s character arc, whether one likes him or hates him, does stand as a point of contrast and a testament to the fact that she is). Moreover, Nagini’s costume design in the film only furthers the issue of racial insensitivity, as it does seem to heavily play to Western stereotypes of the East Asian “Dragon Lady.” As this post already thoroughly demonstrates this point and goes into some detail on what the “Dragon Lady” trope entails, I will merely voice my agreement with their assessment and acknowledge that, in combination with the film’s decision to cast an East Asian actress in lieu of a South Asian actress, I do think that a valid case can be made for not just racism and colorism but also fetishization in how Nagini seems to harken to the Western media portrayals of the East Asian “Dragon Lady” femme fatale (who are typically characterized as hypersexual, exotic, mysterious, and dangerous). 

Now, in addition to any parallels to Nazism or white supremacy, I would also argue that Rowling draws a clear parallel between Voldemort and a Satan/Lucifer archetype (a strong case can also be made for Harry as a Christ-figure, Dumbledore as a God-figure, and Snape as a subverted Judus archetype). Indeed, we know that Rowling has said herself that Christianity and its themes were a heavy source of influence in the Harry Potter series. Notably, Christmas specifically is the holiday that we see celebrated (versus Hanukkah, Kwanza, or even the pagan holiday Saturnalia, etc.) at Hogwarts and when Harry overhears carols being sung in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire they are Christian Christmas carols (which, again, presents us with a contradiction in her world-design when it comes to Muggle social structures and their transference to the wizarding society by having Christian influences present while handwaving complicated issues of racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. as strictly a Muggle problem). I bring this up because it further supports my point above that Rowling’s original series does not communicate an awareness or intent to incorporate social commentary on the specific misogyny or racism an Asian woman would experience.

Notably, the Harry Potter series could be said to have been written with a very Western-minded emphasis on a type of serpent iconography that did more firmly align with Christian perceptions of snakes as subjects and/or harbingers of evil, corruption and/or a fall from grace, disease, and sin. This contrasts with the South Asian mythology of the Naga (and other examples of Asian snake mythology and iconography), in that snakes are not necessarily viewed as creatures that are inherently malevolent to humans or representative of extreme, negative connotations to the same degree that they are in Western-Christian mythology. The Naga, for instance, is said to be capable of being dangerous and it is quite venomous, however, in many South Asian myths they are frequently shown not to be malicious or hostile to humans unless they are forced to be. One could argue that Rowling may intend to draw from this bit of the Naga mythology and that it may have inspired her to craft a more sympathetic origin story for Nagini, wherein she becomes evil and dangerous because humanity forced her, yet the issue remains that, rather than presenting us with an accurate portrayal of the Naga as a magical creature in the franchise, Nagini is a Maledictus whose blood curse far more accurately aligns with the Western/Christian associations to serpent iconography and symbolism (i.e. corruption, disease, evil, and sin). 

So, either we accept that Rowling has been planning this twist for Nagini all along and that we can return to her main opus of the Harry Potter series and find strong evidence that supports her intentions for Fantastic Beasts. Which would mean also acknowledging that Rowling has, subsequently, attempted to insert her Western-Christian serpent iconography and symbolism onto the existing South Asian Naga mythology in an act that would be highly inappropriate and appropriative (a white, Western woman blending only components of South Asian myths that she likes with a Western mythos that presents snakes as inherently evil to create an Asian character like Nagini is the very definition of Imperialist thinking and white privilege; we may as well wade deep into The Last Samurai or Memoirs of a Geisha territory). Or, we admit that this latest incarnation of Nagini is, quite likely, not the product of twenty-years of planning so much as it is yet another example of retroactive world-building and canon ret-conning that we’ve already seen via Pottermore for years now (in fact, Fonda Lee wrote a very solid critique on this point that I thoroughly agree with). In which case, we do still have to acknowledge that Nagini was likely written into the Harry Potter series to align with themes, motifs, and allegories that were very intentionally inspired by Christianity and that do represent a serpent iconography and symbolism that carries very different connotations in that respect. 

I would argue that any consideration of Nagini’s character “in-universe” cannot be divorced entirely from her relationship to Voldemort and the Western-Christian inspired allegory that Rowling wrote into the Harry Potter series without one’s critique being regarded as either incomplete or disingenuous. Especially as Nagini, as we have known her in canon so far, was so thoroughly intertwined and connected to Voldemort’s character that she not only became his vessel but an additional window through which Harry (and the reader) could view into Voldemort’s mind and glean some of his intentions. We cannot ignore or overlook that Voldemort’s own character functions as a Lucifer-Satan archetype and that the snake motif, as it is assigned to him and his Death Eaters/followers, is wholly focused on embodying Christian concepts of corruption, evil, sin, disease, etc. Notably, Voldemort is portrayed in his youth as charismatic but deceitful and wicked (traits recognized by Dumbledore alone, our God archetype); he bitterly loathes his father (not unlike Lucifer) and his origins and one could argue that his paternal resentment motivates much of his anti-Muggle agenda (just as Lucifer’s aims are to undermine God, his father, in Christian theology) while his primary goal to obtain immortality for himself again harkens to Lucifer and his banishment from heaven (indeed that the Riddle household was once quite wealthy and affluent and yet Voldemort grew up in an orphanage is symbolic of a heaven/hell dichotomy). 

Just as Lucifer becomes Satan and is associated with certain marks (e.g. the “Mark of the Beast”) and symbols (e.g. inverted crosses and, later, pentagrams), Tom Riddle becomes Lord Voldemort and is recognized by his Dark Mark and the symbols of serpents, Death Eater masks, and so on. During the first war, we are told he amassed a large following, and that Dumbledore is the one person he feared and could rival him in power. Further, it is by his own pride and inability to understand love that he falls when an infant-son is born who is prophesied to be the savior/Chosen One. As Lucifer is in Biblical scripture, however, Voldemort is only temporarily vanquished (a detail, yet again, known only to Dumbledore and imparted to Snape, our subverted Judus archetype) and for him to truly be defeated “The Boy Who Lived” must sacrifice himself willingly and in an act of love that renders Voldemort powerless and solidifies Harry as a Christ-figure. In particular, because he rises from the dead following a brief meeting with Dumbledore in the afterlife. Also similar to Lucifer, Voldemort was said to have been handsome in his youth but it is significant that as he descended further into darkness, especially upon his return to power, his features became more serpentine. This effectively enabled Rowling to foreshadow the fact that Voldemort, like Lucifer, would fall to pride and evil as a creature of sin “cursed” to “roam the Earth on his belly” as in the Creation Myth of Christian theology found in the Book of Genesis. As such, the fact that Voldemort can, quite literally, occupy the mind of Nagini (a woman who very literally becomes a serpent by a “blood curse”) and that she could be said to be his most “prized pet/possession” (not unlike Dr. Evil and his iconic white cat, Nagini functions as something close to a signifier in her relationship to Voldemort in the Harry Potter books) all assume far different connotations for the fact that Nagini also becomes an identifiable agent of evil most closely connected to Western-Christian iconography and serpent mythology versus the South-Asian Naga mythology in-and-of-itself. 

Inevitably, when conversations of representation occur within fandom one presumption seems to be that any representation should be read as good representation. As I have already addressed some of the fallacy behind this line of thinking above and provided links to discussions that better detail the difference between representation and appropriation and why some forms of representation can be harmful I will only highlight another issue with Nagini as a source of representation, one which this poster further illustrates as well. That is, the fact that Nagini represents what is already only a very small sample of Asian characters within Rowling’s series. First, we have Cho Chang; a character that Rowling has often been (rightly I feel) criticized for due to the name she chose for her (as this video breaks down thoroughly for how offensive it is), especially as it is a Korean surname for a Chinese name, and for her characterization given that her portrayal mainly identifies her as a romantic conquest/infatuation for Harry and then an inconvenient, annoying, and far-less-perfect-than-he-idealized-her-to-be girlfriend for Harry to discard before moving on to Ginny. We have the Patil sisters, Pavarti and Padma who are also portrayed as either silly (e.g. Pavarti and Lavender are both characterized this way for their love of Divinations) shallow (e.g. in contrast to the film, Pavarti is shown to be jealous and catty towards Hermione when she sees her dressed up and with Victor Krum) or one-dimensional (e.g. also in contrast to the film, Padma is in Ravenclaw and featured less) and they are also notably used (i.e. they are the last resorts for Harry and Ron when the women they desired turned them down and they still needed dates) then cast aside by Harry and Ron at the Yule Ball while they both jealously fixated and brooded on the women they did want to go with. 

Beyond this, we are told that there is a wizarding school in Asia “with the smallest student body of the eleven great wizarding schools” from Pottermore (the details of which also appear to be a blend of primarily of East Asian culture and East Asian stereotypes that seem to be drawn from Western “Orientalist” ideas of East Asian culture). Notably, while Rowling does echo the one-magical-school system she used for Hogwarts, Durmstrang, and Beaubaxtons I would argue that, as with criticism for the-one-magical-school idea for a U.S. magical school, this system is decidedly more impractical and problematic in this context. Largely because a single magical school for all of Asia reflects short-sightedness when it comes to the sheer diversity and geographical scope of what “all of Asia” would imply (i.e. Asian people are not all one big conglomerate and their cultures should not be treated as interchangeable). In addition to that, the fact that Mahoutokoro is said to have the smallest student body when “all of Asia” would be such a large geographical area to cover does raise questions as to why it is the Asian wizarding school that is portrayed as potentially more inferior or less populated. Thus, we are again confronted with an example of representation for Asian people that more than merits criticism and scrutiny in Rowling’s wizarding world. Finally, the name that Rowling chose for her magical school in Asia literally just translates to “magic place/site/spot” ( 魔法 or mahō can mean sorcery, magic, or witchcraft while 所 or tokoro can mean place, site, or spot), which does not suggest a lot of time spent ruminating on either a creative name or a culturally respectful backstory and design for Asia’s one magical school.

Which brings me back to Nagini and the argument that we should not treat the fact she is an Asian character who is a Maledictus as automatically offensive or poor representation when it could be interesting. Beyond all the reasons I have already provided for why it is still an issue and that we should respect that members of the Asian community have valid reasons to be offended and/or critical (i.e. that the Maledictus curse contradicts Rowling’s claim Nagini is to be based on South Asian mythology, that Rowling has imposed Western-Christian themes and allegories into her main series that overwrites or complicates South-Asian serpent myths for Nagini due to how she has connected her to Voldemort in her series, that the fantasy trope of women with cursed blood has its origins in motifs that are inherently misogynistic and any social commentary it could have provided would need to have been written with an awareness of the way Nagini’s own experiences with misogyny would intersect with her race, etc.) the limited sample of Asian representation that Rowling has already included in her series and her wider wizarding world and the objectionable nature of even that small sample we do have is yet another reason why I do agree that criticism of this latest development with Nagini is more than valid –it’s justified. 

Moreover, because our first introduction to the concept of the Maledictus in the Harry Potter canon will come through Nagini, a character whose canonical future and death we already know from the Harry Potter series, a specific impression is being set (as @somuchanxietysolittletime notes here). Notably, when fans criticize Rowling for retroactively revealing that Dumbledore was a gay character one of the many valid arguments I see being made is to the fact that Dumbledore’s relationship to Grindelwald seemingly being followed by a lifetime of celibacy can actually carry problematic connotations in terms of how it might represent lgbtq+ relationships. Indeed, the suggestion that Dumbledore as a young man have been “seduced” down a “dark path” by another charismatic man only to be “redeemed” or made “good” again by rejecting that path (and Grindelwald by necessity) only for him to have never been shown to have had any other healthy male/male relationships in the series does carry dangerous connotations in terms of negative representation for the lgbtq+ community (source, source, source). I make this point in order to argue that when there is a lack of representation or a very small sample to reference from, then the nature of that representation becomes even more critical. In a Harry Potter series that had multiple examples of lgbtq+ relationships ranging from healthy to dysfunctional, Dumbledore’s relationship to Grindelwald and then relative isolation would be less of an issue and could be read as Rowling likely intended (i.e. Dumbledore’s guilt, grief, and fear lead him to isolate himself from forming any other romantic connections after Grindelwald and the death of Ariana). 

Likewise, in a Harry Potter franchise that contained several examples of characters with the Maledictus curse, ranging from good to evil to something more complex, then having Nagini as “just another” Maledictus could be treated to less scrutiny if Rowling also had also included more examples of nuanced and diverse Asian characters that were not offensively stereotyped or racist and if Rowling’s representation of Nagini as a Maledictus also took into consideration that a Maledictus is a concept disparate from Indonesian Naga mythology and should be treated as such. Or, as I previously argued, Rowling could have just introduced Nagini as a proper Naga from the very beginning and that would have been very interesting and could have allowed for either a sympathetic villain’s backstory (e.d. Nagini experiences the Imperialist attitudes of European wizarding society in how they subjugate the beings they classify as magical creatures and is treated poorly enough as a Naga caged in a circus that she is forced into malevolence, which would be actual social commentary if done correctly and mindfully) or one that is simply villainous barring we also had other diverse characterizations of Asian characters in the series that made it so one of the few South-Asian inspired characters isn’t just portrayed as a monster or a stereotype. Either way, the fact that Nagini is the very first Maledictus we will begin to build our framework of reference from and that she is one of a few Asian characters within the entire Harry Potter series, not to mention one who was previously only portrayed as just a venomously evil snake-monster that “belonged” to Voldemort (our erstwhile Satan allegory and nod to Nazism and white supremacy), does carry different connotations and I do believe we (i.e. white/non-Asian fans) should actually listen to the people who are saying this is not good representation and stop explaining/whitesplaining to them why it is or why it maybe-kinda-possibly-could be. 

I have to agree with Fonda Lee in believing that Rowling likely has not spent the past twenty-years planning for this new information about Nagini to drop in a franchise she likely had not even planned to create at that point. Nor do I think that she planted any strong evidence, examples of foreshadowing, or indications in her main text to the fact that Nagini could have been a Maledictus. Aside from her name, which I would theorize Rowling chose not because she wanted to legitimately incorporate Naga mythology into her work so much as she wanted to reference it in Nagini’s name, there is little-to-nothing to suggest that Rowling wrote Nagini into her Harry Potter series with a mind for her being either human or Asian. Indeed, Voldemort originally claimed that he discovered Nagini in Albania which, while not a definitive confirmation that those were her intended origins, could still be read that way. Speaking as someone who writes and someone who has done my share of editing work, I do think this is a case of expanding what has become a very lucrative and popular franchise and for what I feel may be all the wrong reasons (i.e. profit). In my humble opinion, this latest from Rowling isn’t a convincing example of a writer’s effort to lovingly build on her world for her fans because it’s far too careless, contradictory, and hamfisted (especially in terms of mythological research) when compared to the original series. Structurally, Harry Potter was written with a very explicit chiastic design that did require a great deal of attention-to-detail, foreshadowing, and careful planning on Rowling’s part to effectively achieve. For all that her work was not faultless, during the 90s it was still arguably sophisticated for a YA series. Unfortunately, Rowling’s attempts at adding to her world within the last few years have demonstrated a lack of evolution on her part when it comes to what passes for progressive writing or thinking (e.g. from a critical standpoint, the themes that may have been read as feminist in Harry Potter during the 90s would now be read as borderline anti-feminist and her latest inclusions to her canon are representative of further reductive or even regressive, white-feminist thinking), at least from what I can see. 

So, speaking simply from the experience of a writer, someone with some editing experience, and as someone with my degree(s) in literary criticism and theory/English Rowling’s new canon for Nagini is very transparently new canon and not even very well planned out new canon. However, when it comes to “my opinion” on whether Nagini’s portrayal is racist, appropriative, or offensive in terms of representation I don’t think it should matters half as much as the opinions of the Asian fans of Harry Potter that Rowling’s work is supposed to be representing. That being said, I also choose to support those fans and I hope that I have managed to effectively keep their voices and arguments central to this response as I do acknowledge that it is not my place, my right, or my business to decide what is or is not racist, offensive, or appropriative to other races and cultures outside of my own (i.e. I don’t get a vote). Instead, I opted to try to first listen to what was being said and highlight some of the arguments that are already being made and break them down to thoroughly demonstrate why I agree with them and do believe there are more than a few valid reasons to be having these conversations about Nagini and what issues are present in her characterization. 

That being said, I would just like to close by making one final point of my own and from my own perspective. As I see it, it shouldn’t matter if there is only one reason or several reasons why Nagini’s portrayal might be offensive; if even one reason exists for people to say that her characterization is harmful, appropriative, or racist then that should be reason enough for those of us who are not a member of the Asian community to stop what we are doing and pay attention to what is being said. There is this defensive resistance within many fandoms towards doing that where we respond like we’re under attack, as if the “uwu the angry sjw puritans found something else to be unhappy with and want to take away something we love/enjoy again” mentality suddenly prevails anytime those “Hi! I’m x-person, my pronouns are x/x, and this blog supports intersectional feminism and social justice!” value statements we so proudly likely to display in our blog descriptions become a tad inconvenient for us and demand we do more than just uncritically hit reblog on any social justice posts that appear on our dashboards. We either need to stop using those (false) value statements if they’re only going to be performative and we’re going to be hypocrites when it comes time to practice what we preach, or we need to start checking our privilege and being mindful of how we respond when marginalized members of our fandoms bring issues of racism, representation, or anything else to our attention. Some of us seem to be so afraid that we’re going to be expected to boycott the films or give up Harry Potter entirely that we’re failing to do the bare minimum that the people who are criticizing Nagini’s portrayal are asking of us; that is, at least acknowledge that there are enough people who do believe there is a problem and who have provided valid reasons for why they feel there is a problem that we should be asking ourselves how we can support them as allies and as fellow fans of Harry Potter. We’re prioritizing our concerns and anxieties that we may lose something we like/enjoy over what the people most affected by Nagini’s representation stand to lose by having their culture or race misrepresented (again) in a major motion picture and popular film franchise. 

Personally, I made the choice not to pay money to see the first Fantastic Beasts film because the movie was set to open around the same time that the news broke of Johnny Depp’s abuse. As I do have very personal experience with violence against women and that is an issue that I take very seriously, when the film and Rowling chose to proceed with him in their movies and defended his continued presence in the Fantastic Beasts films that were to follow I made the conscious decision that this particular franchise within the Harry Potter world would not profit off of me. As a result, I won’t be seeing this movie in theaters either and that is my personal choice and how I choose to respond to the issues I’ve seen in these movies so far. Others may feel differently or have different (and potentially no less effective) solutions but the fact remains that we still need to be having these conversations if we’re ever to arrive at a place where conversations about racism, appropriation, and what constitutes as quality/good representation are no longer as necessary and far more commonplace. So, that is where I stand and I hope that this very lengthy response to your question is sufficient as an answer. As always, I appreciate your ask and I hope that this reply finds you well. 

Yours,

Raptured Night

Edit: It has been rightly pointed out to me that while arguing that Rowling’s answers about Nagini seem to credit and imply Indonesia alone is the origin of the Naga mythology (which erases the fact that the Naga myth did originate from India and spread through South-Asia where it was incorporated uniquely into the mythology of different South-Asian cultures), I also failed to properly credit Indonesian people for their own unique Naga mythology. While this wasn’t my intention that obviously does not matter because, reading back on what I wrote, I still did exactly that and I make no excuses for it and instead take full responsibility. When this ask was sent to me I made a point to invite anyone better informed than me to correct me or bring attention to any important detail I missed or overlooked. I did that mainly so that I could avoid doing the exact same thing that Rowling does in presuming to speak over her fans and ignore their criticism when issues of representation are brought to her attention. I have apologized to the person who was kind enough to bring this to my attention and I would also like to issue an apology here for failing to acknowledge Indonesian Naga culture when I absolutely should have. I have also corrected this post to hopefully better reflect the argument I was trying (and clearly failed) to highlight, as it had been brought to my attention on this site and elsewhere, which is that Rowling should not have communicated or suggested that the Naga mythology “came from Indonesia alone,” as it does erase the cultural significance and origins of the Naga mythology in India the way her answers have been phrased. l continue to invite commentary and criticism because, as I said, the issue of Nagini’s representation is not something I get to cast a deciding vote on and when asked my opinion I opted to essentially highlight the arguments that others have made and acknowledge their validity and the need of non-Asian fans of Harry Potter to respect that.