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

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 88299

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" <jakejensen at h...> wrote:
> 
> Kneasy, I know you didn't say this to me....but I can't help but 
> notice that a great deal of canon evidence has been presented by 
> others.  Initially, I would point you to Pippin's post (#35299 I 
> believe) which will lead you to countless other canon-based posts.    
> Secondly, one might want to be careful when using a phrase 
> like "objectively compelling."  What does such a phrase mean?  
> Objectively compelling to you?  Well...you are "strongly attached" to 
> the idea that Snape is not a vampire and believe that, if he is, it 
> would be a big letdown for the series.
> 
> Jake
> Who thinks that Snape being a vampire is logical and that him not 
> being a vampire is logical

I suppose it all depends on your definition of 'canon evidence'.
Since JKR is a tricky writer, who seems to  relish in misleading her
readers, the literal words of the books may be (and is some cases are)
a deliberate attempt to mislead or the precursor to a conflict necessary
to the plot, to be resolved later as the story-line progresses. It may be 
significant that the characters who turn out to be not what they seem 
are revealed as such within a single volume of the series (Quirrell,
Lupin, Sirius, Crouch!Moody). 

Fans may offer counter arguments, but it doesn't seem that startling
revelations of what someone is are multi-volume threads. The only
arguable instance is Scabbers (introduced in book 1 and revealed in
book 3), but for the first two books he was a minor cast member who
blossomed(!) in book 3. To put it crudely, he was 'a nothing' that
became 'a something'. He may yet become a 'something else' but that
has already been hinted at with his debt to Harry.

Snape is a bit different. He's  been a central character  for 5 books 
and has been 'a something' right from the beginning. For him to 
become 'a something else' now, and what's more a type of something
else that doesn't seem relevant to anything that's gone before, seems
pointless. A form of exhibitionism without eaning, if you get my drift.
Vampires are mentioned in the text, mostly where you would expect 
them to be (DADA classes and relating to DADA teachers, plus Hagrid's
mission), but there seem to be no references to Vampires in the UK at
the present time;  they all seem to be found in places distant and 
mysterious. I have difficulty in imagining a context where Snape being
revealed as a vampire would be relevant to what has gone before, 
bearing in mind that most key threads link back to past events.

You might call that my philosophical argument.

As to the evidence produced by Pippin, filoroll and others, all I can
say is that, *IMO*, all of it can be explained by alternative 
interpretations. Moreover, and I may be mistaken here, the only
reason that the adherents of the  Snape!Vampire theory seem to
have is a desire to see a vampire in the story somewhere and Snape
is the one elected. Now if someone can offer cogent  reasons *why*
Snape needs to be a vampire, I'll be more than happy to listen (and
probably to dissent, but that's beside the point).

Add  to  this the evidence countering the Snape!Vampire hypothesis
(that he doesn't show the behavioural characteristics associated with
the breed), and I hope you will understand my deep scepticism.

The phrase 'objectively compelling' is meant to  mean 'compelling
to an objective reader' which I am not, not on this subject anyway.
I  fear I have dug into my trench, sown my minefield, strung the
barbed wire, ready for a war  of attrition (all to be fought within 
the rules of the Potterverse Convention, naturally). 

Kneasy