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

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 88144

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> > Kneasy:
> > 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. 
> 
Pippin:
> Then it's odd that so many people have indepently made the 
> connection.
> 

Kneasy:
Have they? I  don't believe so. Yes, there are a fair few who now
ransack the canon for evidence that seems at best to be debatable,
at worst non-existant, but IIRC it didn't seem to be all that popular
an idea when first mooted. In what ways do Snape's actions match 
those typically exhibited by stereotypical vampires? Except in a few
marginal and unimportant ways (appearance, office in a dungeon).
They don't, IMO.
I'd put in the same ideas category as:
Crookshanks is someone in Animagus form
Mrs Norris is someone in Animagus form
Sirius will come back from the dead
DD was the wasp in the examination room
The Longbottoms are being drugged by someone

All of which have attracted comment and support at one time or 
another but for which there seems to  be a paucity  of evidence.
Interesting speculations, of course, but it would be nice if there
were some canon to back them up. And that's really the crux.
In my own mind I classify ideas bounced around the site thus:
Theories have at least *some* canon support - "We know that...
therefore .."
Speculation takes the form of "I wonder if...?" or "Wouldn't it be 
interesting if...?" or "Could this be explained if...?"
Speculation can be fun, but I won't take it seriously until some
incontrovertable evidence turns up.

I cheerfully admit to playing the same game occasionally. Throw
out an idea and see what the response is. Sometimes someone
points out that there is supporting evidence, sometimes not. Quite
often I get mails questioning my grasp on reality; so what? It all
adds to the fun. The members have an unalienable right to disagree
with me, or with anyone. It'd be a boring site if we didn't.

 
Pippin: (on blood  flavoured lollipops) 
> Well, I've got to go with Hermione here. She said they were for 
> vampires, and on matters of fact she has never yet been wrong.
> 

Kneasy:
A fact or an assumption? Usually when Hermione states a fact she
quotes her source, when she makes an assumption or supposition
she gets it wrong as often as anyone else (nature of Lockhart,
Kreachur, Hogwart Elves wish to be free, bewitched broom, etc)
 
> Kneasy:
> > Canon and near-canon suggests Snape cannot be of the 
> undead persuasion:
> > 1. The Lexicon states that vampires are beasts, not human.
> 
> It does??? FBAWTFT states explicitly in the footnote on page xiii 
> that vampires are creatures which  have "being" status. This tells 
> us two things. They are considered intelligent and they are alive. 
> Not undead spirits, whatever Muggle legend may relate.  Since 
> as "non-wizarding" people they would presumably be forbidden 
> to use wands, that would be an powerful motive for Snape to 
> keep his vampire status secret, would it not?
>
Kneasy:
Whoops! Mea culpa. Cock-up by Kneasy. Yes, they are beings, not
beasts, but they are still forbidden wands.
Could he hide his status from the staff and pupils at Hogwarts?
If he lived in the wider WW I'll concede it might just be possible,
but not at a school surrounded by experienced wizards and pupils
willing to think the worst of him. I doubt he'd last a term.

 Pippin:
> I don't really see why being a vampire would be too much--not 
> from Rowling. She is the one who put two monsters in the 
> castle, two hidden animagi, etc, etc. I wouldn't discount child 
> abuse as an explanation for Snape's temperament, but does it 
> have to be the only reason? 
> 
Kneasy:
Nope. (I *speculate* that the child abuse is not what it seems.)

JKR could shove any being, beast or whatnot into her plots,
but I'm naive enough to think she plays fair and the clues are
always there -  even if you skate over them first time around.
Especially with individual characters - particularly continuing
characters that are key to the plot.
On this I can't see any clues even if I look for them specifically.
Maybe I'm blind. Maybe Snape is a literal monster, not just
a metaphorical one. 
But if Snape is a vampire, all sorts of questions surface.

When and how did he become a vampire?
Would the DE supremacists accept him as an equal to a pure-
blood wizard? (I suspect not, but Malfoy acts otherwise.)
Who does he feed on? When? (He'd need fresh blood - often)
Does DD know? (How could he justify this one to the Ministry?)
Why are there no  victims of vampirism in canon ? (Both
Quirrell and Hagrid have met them, but no bites anywhere.)
Why is he not repelled by garlic?
Why is he not affected by daylight?
Why does he cast a reflection in the Foe-glass?
How can he cross running water? (Bathroom overflows in CoS)
Why no fangs?
Why doesn't he sleep during the day?
Have the Aurors in the Order been blind for 14 years?

Bloody strange vampire, IMO, not to exhibit vampire traits.
An even stranger vampire to do things no vampire ought.
If JKR unveils him as a vampire, I'll feel cheated. 

Kneasy