Why ole Snapey is(n't) a vamp (or old, either!)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 88122

> 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.
><snip>
> 
> 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. 
><snip>
>  
> Canon and near-canon suggests Snape cannot be of the undead
> persuasion:
<snip>
> 
> 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. 
><snip>

Carol:
Sorry to snip Kneasy's great post, almost all of which I agree with. I
just have one complaint. Why call him "old Snape" when he's still in
his thirties, the same age as Remus Lupin, whom JKR refers to at least
twice as "young"? He may be "old" from the perspective of his
students, but he certainly isn't from mine!

Carol, with apologies for altering the title of the post without a "was:"