Beatrice Groves: ‘Nagini Maledictus’ Literary Allusion in Fantastic Beasts

A Guest Post from Beatrice Groves, Research Fellow at Trinity College, Oxford University, and author of Literary Allusion in Harry Potter — Enjoy!

John has recently posted on the current fan theory that Claudia Kim’s character in Crimes of Grindelwald – ‘a Maledictus, the carrier of a blood curse that destines her ultimately to transform into a beast’ – will turn into Nagini. 

John notes that ‘the Nagini theory has legs,’ which is a rather satisfying pun. It is pun I particularly like because the serpent in Eden is ‘cursed’ (maledictus) to go without legs:

‘So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.’ (Genesis 3.14)

Or, in the Vulgate (Latin):

‘Et ait Dominus Deus ad serpentem : Quia fecisti hoc, maledictus es inter omnia animantia, et bestias terræ : super pectus tuum gradieris, et terram comedes cunctis diebus vitæ tuæ.’ 

If the Maledictus becomes Nagini it will continue the link between Voldemort and the Satanic snake of Genesis which Rowling began in Harry Potter [John says: see chapter 4 in Prof Groves’ Literary Allusion in Harry Potter]. In Christian visual heritage the Satan-inhabited-snake in Eden is – rather surprisingly – often depicted as half-woman. This rich medieval visual tradition flourished despite the fact that Satan is described by a male pronoun in the biblical text. It culminates in the famous image of Michelanglo’s Satan-as-snake-woman on the roof of the Sistine Chapel. 

Within Harry Potter there are many hints of Nagini as a snake-woman rather than simply a snake. Not only does she take the form of a woman in Deathly Hallows, she also has a disturbingly humanoid relationship with Voldemort from the moment we meet her in Goblet. She tells Voldemort that Frank is listening at the door of the Riddle House and while his not-to-be-named form resembles a baby – ‘the thing… looked like a baby’ (Goblet, Chap. 32) – Nagini keeps him alive with her ‘milk’ fed to him from a ‘bottle’ (Goblet, Chap. 1). Nagini takes the place of the mother to this parody of a child.

Then there is her name. Nagini is a name for Ma Manasa Devi, the Hindu snake goddess: [Read more…]

Is ‘Nagini’ the Name of the Maledictus in ‘Crimes of Grindelwald’? ‘Nagini Gaunt’?

Wayne asked me on the ‘Crimes of Grindelwald’ Ensemble Cast Photo post thread:

So, John, you’re suggesting that this Maledictus in this film becomes full-time snake and then animal familiar/horcrux for Voldemort about 70 years later. Did I get that right?

Great question, Wayne!

The ‘Nagini’ theory about the Beasts2 Maledictus is a fandom theory you can track down via this link that was also in the post. We were told months ago that the Claudia Kim character was a performer in the Circus Arcanus troupe.

It also sounds as if a wizarding circus will play a significant part in the plot: South Korean actress Claudia Kim has been cast as a young woman who stars in the circus as one of the attractions, while Ólafur Darri Ólafsson plays Skender, the circus boss.

The only character we know about in the Circus (from a poster) that are an obvious match with Kim is “the Enchanting Snake Girl.” Someone in global fandom, I do not know who, when it was announced last Thursday that Kim’s role was playing “a Maledictus, the carrier of a blood curse that destines her ultimately to transform into a beast,” posted a theory that the Maledictus is Nagini.

There are three steps from the information we have and that conclusion. What we know is:

  • Kim’s character is a performer in the circus;
  • There is an act in the circus according to the poster called ‘the Enchanting Snake Girl;’
  • Kim’s character is a Maledictus who is cursed to become a beast.

To get from that information to ‘Kim’s character is Nagini,’ you have to connect these dots:

  • The act Kim’s character plays is the Enchanting Snake Girl;
  • The beast this Maledictus is cursed to become is a magical snake; and
  • This magical snake is the snake who becomes Lord Voldemort’s familiar.

Which is quite a collection of jumps. I think the Nagini theory has legs for these reasons:

[Read more…]

Is J. K. Rowling a Novelist? Not Primarily

This morning a new friend from Finland, the YouTube videographer responsible for a piece that argued runes would play a part in the Beasts film franchise, wrote a note in response to my post on that idea. It was polite and thoughtful except for the casual assertion that we are “arrogant” here at HogwartsProfessor (a charge like ‘elitism’ that is a hashtag-categorization slur in place of argument and discussion that the insecure use to belittle anyone they fear are more intelligent). I thought what the response said beyond that unfortunate note was well-put, if we’ll have to agree to disagree about the likelihood of runes becoming important in the Beast films.

Reviewing my original post, though, I think I was mistaken in an important aspect of my argument contra Rowling-writing-with-runes in the films to come. As this represents something of a sea change in my understanding of Rowling-as-writer, I decided to write about it as a proper post rather than in that thread of comments (though I was obliged to jump into an old thread yesterday to explain a theory about Jacob Kowalski). I really would like to go public with this change in perspective I’ve had and read what you think.

I asserted with great confidence in the Rune post that Rowling is a novelist-on-holiday in her screenwriting duties, someone who is not really that committed to movie making, hence the ‘one-film now three films now five movies’ evolution that suggests writing by the seat of one’s pants rather than the five years careful planning we’re used to in her novels. The assertion that ‘she’s primarily a novelist,’ an assertion that is one she makes, was the heart of my argument that Rowling is almost certainly not going to create a new language for these films to include an alphabet.

That premise may have been true, but there is good reason today to doubt it. The consequent argument may be true though the premise is false; we’ll have to see. Why do I doubt that Rowling is still primarily a novelist?

[Read more…]

‘Crimes of Grindelwald’ Group Portrait: Is it a Meaningful Picture of the Story?

Warner Brothers released its first picture of ensemble cast for the ‘Crimes of Grindelwald’ that will be in theaters a year from now. David Martin shared with me the official ‘Everything We Know about The Crimes of Grindelwald franchise posting over at PotterMore which featured the cast picture and a key to the various players.

As helpful as this survey post was in gathering together a lot of information (and links) about the story points released thus far, it certainly wasn’t everything.

Most importantly, there was no interpretation of the portrait itself in the PotterMore post, which includes only brief descriptions of the characters, though the cast picture has been posed as carefully as a painting by Pieter Bruegel or Giorgione. Let’s begin the conversation about this still-life drama by noting the position of the players relative to one another and the possible and more likely meanings. [Read more…]

Jordan Peterson and the Chamber of Secrets: Mythic Artistry and Meaning

Jordan Peterson, author of The Maps of Meaning, is a psychology professor at the University of Toronto. While most famous today for his defense of free speech contra campus cultural marxists and collectivists, more than five hundred videos of his classes about psychology, religion, mythology, and how to lead a fully human life have been posted at his YouTube Channel. Even more clips of interviews he has done, public talks, and his testimony for civil liberties have been edited and posted by his admirers.

I was delighted to see that he is a Hogwarts Saga reader — and a serious reader at that. In the above video, Professor Peterson chose Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets as his text, a book experience he knows he shares with his students, to talk about why mythic stories make sense and why they mean so much to us despite their seeming nonsensical.

Check it out. And, if you have a moment, compare it with my first look at the meaning of Chamber of Secrets in 2002. Scroll down that page to ‘Chamber as Morality Play.’ I think Peterson and I agree a lot more than we disagree.

What do you think?

Post posting discovery: An older, cooler, shorter version of the talk above —