Snape Vampire Theory (kinda long)

[Sydney]

No: HPFGUIDX 77778

Silmariel wrote:
> 
> Ugly mermaids. That's wildy different from the norm.
> 
> House-elfs. I doubt the medium young reader brainwashed by LOTR knew 
> elves could be small, ugly and, well, as house-elfs.
> 
> Fairies. Turned into Barbies.
> 
> But as she uses the same name, we recognize them. However, she
changes a 
> bit a creature (Nightmare) and gives a different name (Thestrals) and 
> the medium reader doesn't recognize them. The power of names.  

But these are all cosmetic things-- like, ultimately, going out in
daylight or the garlic thing.  But saying you have a non-undead
vampire, is like saying you have a non-turning-into-a-wolf werewolf. 
Lupin isn't unusually hairy, the silver thing has never been
mentioned, nor have of the other folkloric associations of
werewolfhood.  But he DOES turn into a wolf.  That's what makes him a
werewolf.  JKR wouldn't even have to call him a werewolf, we would all
still recognize him as one.

I'm not a vampire fan, but at the level of basic definitions, isn't a
vampire an undead creature (that is, a human being who has, rather
than dying, entered a twilight state of non-life, non-death), that
keeps itself going by sucking up the life-force of living creatures,
be it blood or whatever.  Isn't it?  If Snape is aging normally, he is
not undead, is he?

Seeing as immortality and the nature of death are such HUGE themes in
the books, I can't see JKR dropping the undead part, not to mention
the selfishness of hanging on to life by sucking it out of other
people part.  

It still seems impossible to avoid some sort of Snape/Vampire
association, but, well, I might have to sign up for the half-vampire
theory, so he can get in the parade with the other half-people like
Hagrid and Fleur.  

Sydney