Pet Theories

[Erin]

Pippin:
> 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.


Erin:
You're right, Pippin, I got the objections mixed up with the 
defenders.  I was just typing really quickly and paused for a moment 
to think of a theory about which I'd heard claims based on canon 
other than Rowlings.  (I've also been emailed by Hans of the "scary 
alchemy people", and hasten to explain on-list that by "scary" I 
meant a formidable debater not bound by the normal rules of canon)

I probably should just have refrained from giving examples.

I'm really sorry, and I apologise. 

--Erin

P.S.  I think "snave" is my new favorite word  :-)