Pet Theories (Re: No responses on the main list )

[pippin_999]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Erin" 
<erinellii at y...> wrote:
> Phil wrote:
> ... it felt as if many posters each had their own pet mcguffin 
which  they were determined to interject into the discussion 
regardless of  whether there was any support for it in canon. 
<snip>  I think the  main "miscreants" are those who have 
chosen their favourite character, or at any rate their 
*interpretation* of that character, and are prepared to defend 
their opinion to the death.<
 

Erin:
> No, the Dumbledore=Ron theory is not your best bet for an 
example of  this kind, I'm afraid.  Vampire!Snape is more what 
you're looking for :-)  <

Eh? Vampire!Snape has canon support. You may consider it 
convoluted, unconvincing canon support, but it's not non-existent.  

It seems to me it's the  objections to Snape as vampire or part 
vampire or former vampire that are not canon-based, ie  
"vampires are dead," "vampires are destroyed by sunlight." 
Convoluted explanations are necessary only if one accepts 
these non-canon "facts" as essential parts of JKR's vampires.

Now one could argue that  JKR's vampires must have some 
correspondence with existing vampire lore, because otherwise 
why would she call them vampires? 

But if she wanted to show us something about the difficulties of 
seeing beyond stereotypes, then she'd need to pick a creature 
for which a stereotype already exists. Enter the vampire.


Pippin
Who thinks people are a little too ready to  deny  the 
possibility that JKR gives tricky answers, even though she's said 
that readers like to be tricked. After all, she's not about to be 
*caught* tricking us, is she? Not till Book Seven reveals All.