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

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 88151

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:

> The thought of a vampire, with a wand, plus the ability to 
perform theImperius curse would be an interesting development 
at Hogwarts, don'tyou think? Since vampires find nourishment 
from fresh blood *only*, the staff and pupils would present as the 
equivalent of the local supermarket.Even DD isn't that 
easy-going with the personal weaknesses of others.
>

Canon for the fresh blood only, please? It's very odd to me, 
considering that there is very little reliable information about 
vampires from inside the Potterverse, and none at all from Real 
Life (so far as I know),  that people have formed such strongly 
held opinions about them. Why is that, do you suppose?

However, from a literary point of view, I think I see what you are 
getting at. The big mystery about Snape is why he's such a 
monster, so for the answer to be, "because he *is* a monster, 
silly" would be a cheat. Either being a vampire doesn't explain 
anything about his behavior, in which case it's unnecessary, or 
else it explains too much, and undermines  the poignancy in the 
hidden similarities between Snape and Harry which we (and 
they) are slowly discovering. Is that it?

However, vampires are *not* fabulous monsters in terms of the 
Potterverse itself. To be considered Beings they have to restrain 
their appetite for humans, at least we've been told that  
Acromantulas  can't be considered Beings because they won't.  

Hermione is at least not alarmed by the notion that a vampire 
might be shopping at Honeydukes. As for Dumbledore not 
allowing potential  man-eaters anywhere near children  in the 
school, we've already seen them on security duty  posted outside 
Gryffindor Tower (see FBAWTFT under Trolls.)

It makes no more sense to avoid all trolls or  vampires because 
some of them are killers than it does to avoid all humans for that 
reason. And even in the wizarding world, I venture, a human child 
is in far more danger of being  killed by another human than by a 
vampire or a hag. 

The challenge for Harry, should he ever discover what Snape 
really is, will be whether to discard his developing understanding 
of Snape for the facile explanation, "well, what can you expect 
from a vampire?" Doing what is right rather than what is easy, in 
other words.

And what effect does this facile explanation have on Snape 
himself? Theories of inborn inferiority may be all too easily 
believed by their targets. Snape may have diminished 
expectations of himself because his culture has diminished 
expectations of him.

Still, one might think that  Snape would prefer to blame his  
upbringing rather than his nature. But what if he knew no reason 
to?   What if the "child-abuse" explanation for Snape's behavior is 
valid, but neither Snape himself nor any one else in the WW has 
any idea of it? 

Remember, the idea that emotional abuse can cause lasting 
harm to normal individuals is a modern one, only widely 
accepted in very recent times.  Even an enlightened wizard like 
Dumbledore might be unaware of it. That would certainly shed 
some light on  his  cavalier abandonment of Harry to the 
Dursleys, not to mention his tolerance for Snape's classroom 
manner. But that's another post. 

Pippin