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

[bookraptor11]

No: HPFGUIDX 88129

> Kneasy wrote (with much snipping on my part):
> 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. 

Donna:
Sometimes the simplest explinations are best, and take nothing away 
from a character's complexity; it adds to it, I think. Most of us 
seem to agree that Snape was abused at home, based on Harry's view of 
Snape's memories in OOP. Snape comes to Hogwarts as a child who is 
used to being abused and attracts the attention of bullies, who can 
sense a victim like a shark, or vampire :), smelling blood. He falls 
in with a group of Slytherins who admire Voldemort and aspires to 
join the DEs, sensing strength in numbers and a chance to get back at 
his abusers. However Snape realizes eventually that he's really just 
being victimized by another abuser, who alternates between charm and 
brutality to get what he wants from his followers. 

With this as his background is it any wonder that Snape acts the way 
he does towards students? For him anyone who is in a weaker position 
is fair game. Abused becoming the abuser is a common phenomenon, but 
what we don't know for sure is how much, if any of it, is an act to 
support Snape's reputation as a double or triple agent. If it is, 
it's probably an easy part for him to play! If it isn't, can he 
overcome his past and change? For me, this is complexity enough. 
Vampire Snape is overcomplicating things.

Kneasy again:
> 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)

Donna:
According to GOF they are Non-Wizard Part-Humans. As classified Non-
Wizards I don't think they're allowed wands, though probably no self-
respecting vampire would deign to use one, with their already 
considerable powers.

I find it interesting that in the "What is a Beast" chapter of 
Fantastic Beasts, vampires are only mentioned once in a footnote. 
Centaurs removed themselves from being status in part because they 
refused to be in the same category with vampires and hags. Vampires 
do not attend either of the summits, although hags, who eat children, 
do. Were they not invited or did they choose not to attend?

Can we petition the Lexicon to remove vampires from the beasts list?

Kneasy again:
> 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

Here here!
Donna