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

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 88189

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> 
> 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?
>
Kneasy:
Real life and vampires are a contradiction in terms, metaphorically
and actually. Agreed?
What we do have is the fictional canon accepted in the wider world
of fantasy and folklore. This is what I meant by readers having a
strong image of what a vampire is and does. We all  know and
share the image presented when we think "Giant", "Goblin",
"Centaur" or "Elf". The same goes for "Vampire".  (Though JKR did
pull a bit of a  fast one with  her Elves, since they correspond to
a mostly forgettable sub-group - Brownies. But they are congruent
with those in folklore;  it's just the situation she puts them in which 
gets a fresh twist.) 
So my argument is that  if a writer  uses named creatures that are
well known in fantasy, then convention demands that they can be
recognised as such or pointers given that the convention is not
being followed in this particular instance. Neither is evident in HP.
 

Pippin:
> 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?
> 

Kneasy:
We diverge here. I'm not much concerned about how Snape got
to be such a miserable old git as "what is he up to, and why?"
I  have a healthy scepticism for the psychological dissection of
characters to determine what makes them tick. It nearly always
ends  up begging the question. If (a big "if" in my opinion), Snape
suffered  'mental abuse' (a meaningless phrase; the definition
by necessity being so elastic as to encompass anything from
being mildly admonished to being in fear of vicious assault,
depending as it does on the perceptions of the recipient or the
observer), it would mean little anyway. One would wonder why 
the 'trauma' suffered by Harry, Neville or Lupin had such differing
outcomes. I see it as an easy out for lazy  writers. 
I don't want excuses, I want solid motivation.

Pippin:
> 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.
>
Kneasy:
We obviously have very different ideas of what the  HP series is
about. I see it as a fantasy adventure; the concept of a text
on the emotional resolution of personal interactions leading to 
psychic health leaves me cold. I'll leave that to those who are more 
likely to comment on the diffraction of light rather than glory in a 
magnificent sunset.

Pippin:
> 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. 

Kneasy:
Snape will place no blame on upbringing or  nature IMO.
Snape *is*. He arrives fully adult and nasty with it. The
archetype of the schoolmaster that makes life a misery  for
the boy-hero in school stories without number.

It's not his attitude to Harry or Neville that requires analysis,
it's his attitude towards Voldemort. Why  has he changed?
What  caused him to join with people he doesn't like to
oppose his natural ally? Sure as hell it wasn't his father
shouting at him. (If he did. I've got at least three different
interpretations of that memory scene in which the male is
shouting(?) at the *woman*, not the child. All three open
very contrasting cans of worms.)
 
Can you actually see the Snape character whining "It's all my 
dad's fault"? or "I couldn't help it, your Honour, it's in my genes."?
Hardly. More likely is "Get out of my sight, Potter."

You look for psychology; I look for plot threads -  the placement
of characters in situations from which consequences arise.
You may argue this is what you are doing; laying the psychological
groundwork for character  development. Largely irrelevant, says I.
Harry was placed at the Dursleys for a *plot*  reason -  protection
against Voldy, not to highlight the differing effects mental trauma
have had on himself and Snape. That, if it has occured at all, is a  
very minor by-product and not essential to the plot. 

Emotional abuse is whatever people want to believe it to be.
It is convenient label; a portmanteau phrase that can mean much
or very little. Objective confirmation and quantification is difficult
to obtain. It undoubtedly occurs, but unfortunately often seems 
to be used as the default defence of those who claim that nothing 
is their fault and so they cannot be held responsible for their actions.

I don't know who is the more cynical; me or them.