If you think the controversy surrounding J K Rowling's Nagini casting in Fantastic Beasts is unfair, consider this

JK Rowling has been facing criticism ever since the controversial reveal that Voldemort’s snake, Nagini, will be played by a South Korean actor in the latest Fantastic Beasts film.

Critics claim that the casting choice contributes to the fetishisation of East Asian women. They argue that Claudia Kim playing the role perpetuates a racist stereotype, because the snake is a submissive character, possessed and controlled by Voldemort.

In cases like these, you could be forgiven for thinking that white screenwriters are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Had a Caucasian actor been cast in the role, you could imagine that journalists like me would be writing censorious pieces about white-washing and the cultural appropriation of Asian mythology.

After all, when Tilda Swinton played the Ancient One in Marvel's Doctor Strange, the casting was severely criticised, despite the director’s argument that using an Asian actor would further fuel a racist stereotype. You could argue that the Fantastic Beasts franchise has made the opposite decision, but that they are still, somehow, being accused of cultural insensitivity.

Rowling’s defence suggested that she had thought through the implications of the decision that Nagini should be an East Asian woman. She explained, “The Naga are snake-like mythical creatures of Indonesian mythology, hence the name Nagini” and “Indonesia comprises a few hundred ethnic groups, including Javanese, Chinese and Betawi.”

But despite this mic-drop defence, I still see where the critics are coming from. For starters, Rowling’s explanation has now been challenged by the author Amish Tripathi, who tweeted in response: “Actually @jk_rowling the Naga mythology emerged from India. It travelled to Indonesia with the Indic/Hindu empires that emerged there in the early Common Era, with the influence of Indian traders and Rishis/Rishikas who travelled there. Nagin is a Sanskrit language word.”

But this is about more than mythological inaccuracy. If anyone is coming across as a little too quick to complain about this casting decision, it may be because, often, non-white people are forced to choose between problematic representation and no representation at all.

If Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald didn’t have a largely white cast – if it starred actors of colour in all manner of roles – then Kim’s casting wouldn’t have needed to come under such heavy scrutiny. But if there is limited BAME representation in a film or TV show, is it surprising that people might want to debate whether a particular attempt at diversity actually does more harm than good?

When we do see non-white people in films, we’re often forced to face the same tropes over and over again. We see the brown guy in love with the white girl; we see the sassy black friend; we see the Chinese mathlete.

That’s why films like Black Panther and Crazy Rich Asians are so refreshing, such a welcome break from this tradition of limited, problematic, or non-existent representation in Hollywood. In films like these, it doesn’t matter if a character of colour happens to have some stereotypical traits, because, clearly, the film is not under the illusion that an ethnic background equates to a set of certain characteristics. But when there are only a couple of non-white characters to choose from, a racially stereotypical portrayal is unlikely to be a coincidence. And yes, it is likely to be an issue.

Only when non-white actors are offered the eclectic range of roles available to their white counterparts will we be able to stop forensically analysing the racial politics of casting. Until then, we should continue to examine the way in which our own, and other people’s, inbuilt prejudices might be influencing the art that we create.