Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 88109

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:

Seems to  be a Snapeologists benefit on the site lately. Goody. Lots
of scope for exposition of theories, prejudices and analyses.

In common with many, I have favoured notions about the Hogwarts
Potionsmeister, but I can't stretch them as far as Vampirism or
Animagitis. Mine mostly have as a basis the  W.C.Fields tenet that
anyone who hates children and animals can't be all bad.

Pippin takes a different line to the majority (if I understand correctly)
in wondering if Snape is not the representation of an emotional state
or psychological profile brought into the the books to round off the
cast list; a modern version of a mask from an ancient Greek play.
No doubt I'll get a stiff note for  grasping the wrong end of the 
stick(if that is the case), but never mind, it's never stopped me before. 

Pippin: 
> My Snape's a vampire theory isn't against Snape at all, if by that 
> you mean an argument that Snape is ultimately against the 
> cause of good. It may be  that being a vampire, or part vampire,  
> he has no innate fellow-feeling towards humans, or human 
> children.  He may have no natural desire to help others and does 
> not get a warm fuzzy feeling inside when he does so. So every 
> good action he does is by an act of will, which by some 
> estimations would make him more moral than a person who is 
> kindly and helpful and never feels any inclination to be otherwise.
> 
> Hagrid and Maxime are, as you say, obviously half-giant.  They 
> can't fool anyone but themselves, and Rowling wants us to see 
> that. But what if someone could carry off such a charade 
> successfully, fully accepted by someone like Fudge, who was 
> quite prepared to award an Order of Merlin to Severus? What 
> price would there be for that? Is there another character in that 
> situation?
> 

Kneasy:
I have to admit to an instinctive mistrust of what could be called
the 'Chinese menu option' for peopling a story: "Right, we'll have
a number 5, two number 9s, a 23 and..." Sure, it's an uncommon
tale that doesn't have hero, villain, victim, etc. etc., but that's a
bit different from attempting to stuff examples of human foibles
and failings into the plot not because they are  necessary, but
because they exist in real life and an example (or moral) can be 
drawn from them. 

Maybe JKR is laying down more moral markers than I see, but I
have difficulty translating Vampire!Snape into that category. He's
already presented facets of personality that cause any sentient
reader to pause for thought; would throwing fangs at midnight
into the mix help or hinder the readers understanding? 
Hinder, IMO. It would excuse rather than explain - a cop out.
Snape  is being driven by more than the instinctive behaviour
of a mythical beast. Or he'd better be; otherwise I want my
money back. 

Most readers and watchers of film and TV have very strong
images of what a vampire is and how a vampire behaves. Does
Snape fit the profile? Again, I don't believe so. Those that have
delved into the mythology and folklore have unearthed some
interesting versions of vampire lore that are a credit to their
search engines (or Grimmoires - take your pick), but still I'm
not persuaded. There seems to be a lot of special pleading;
claims that meals, mirrors, daylight, garlic, can be dismissed
with a convoluted explanation or two. In this I'm a sceptic, so
solid evidence, please;  something along the lines of pupils
with puncture marks, blood dribbling into his soup, a coffin
filled with earth in the Slytherin common-room would do.
(Oh, and there's a possible alternative explanation for the
blood sweeties in Honeydukes too. Hags. They just love
the taste of blood (one gets served raw liver in Diagon Alley).
They also seem to be fairly common in the WW.)
 
Canon and near-canon suggests Snape cannot be of the undead
persuasion:
1. The Lexicon states that vampires are beasts, not human.
2. Only humans, not beasts, are allowed wands. (FBaWTFT)

As to the idea of a half-vampire... I posted a whimsical note
a few months back wondering how the hell it would be done
(77088). The practical difficulties seem daunting, what with the
normal partner wearing impervious neck-guards or the afflicted
one having a total extraction of their teeth, though bondage
might appeal to some.

The Animagus option appeals even less. That would just be
boring. For a supposedly very rare and closely monitored type
we've had too  many to be credible already. And  there are
suspicions that another (DD) may pop out of the woodwork any
minute. Grrr!

What would being an Animagus achieve anyway? Well, it might help
with information gathering, spying or whatever. The trouble is, I
don't really think Snape is a spy in the conventional meaning of the
word. I think (hope) he's up to something else - just don't ask me
what; not just yet. To  regard him as a spy would further diminish the 
power, paranoia and vindictiveness of Voldy and he's not living up to 
his billing as the almost-equal of DD as it is. Further fallibility would 
diminish his credibility as Emperor-of-the-Universe-in-waiting and 
might make him a push-over for Luna Lovegood, let alone Harry.

So I'm quite satisfied with the Snape that has developed over the
last 5 books. A complex, contradictory, bad-tempered, miserable
old git who can bear a grudge till it dies of old age. 
Someone I can look up to and hope one day to emulate.

"There was a Caesar; whence  comes another?"

Kneasy