Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff

[junediamanti]

No: HPFGUIDX 88456

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "koinonia02" <Koinonia2 at h...> 
wrote:
> "K"
> Not really true. 
> ~~Traditionally, sunlight was not thought to kill vampires. In 
> medieval times, vampires were thought to be able to walk around 
just 
> as easily as humans during daylight. As literary vampirism 
increased, 
> so did the vampire's aversion to sunlight. In Dracula, Van Helsing 
> notes that the vampire can walk around by day, although he is not 
as 
> strong. However, modern film and novels have increasingly shown 
> vampires as vulnerable to sunlight, perhaps even mortally so.~~

June:
Oh, I see, Snape is a MEDIAEVAL VAMPIRE.  Well that certainly 
explains the costume, I suppose.  

I suspect you are moving the goalposts each time you consider the 
idea.  
> 
> June:
>  Which vampire tradition has daywalking 
> > Vampires?  Do tell.
> 
> "K"
> European, worldwide, movies, literature. The usual.

June:
Not the usual as read by me.  What movies, what books?  

Lets stick to the central eastern european vampire lore, shall we - 
otherwise we'll be getting into the oriental idea of dipping into 
the victim's spinal fluid or worse.  Allow me to run through what I 
consider to be fairly central tenets to the vampire myth vis a vis 
Snape.

1.  Blood drinking.  No canon evidence for his doing this at any 
time.  No listless pallid students - except as normal listless and 
pallid teenagers.  The difference between teenagers and vampire 
victims?  Very hard to call this one, I should know as mother of a 
teenager. Oh and spare me mention of the blood lollipops.

"You've just mentioned them yourself June" "Oh have I?  So I have!"

2.  Eating and drinking.  Vampires don't do it.  At least not as I 
understand them.  Snape spends a good part of his life in plain 
sight of a disinterested several hundred witnesses eating and 
drinking in the Great Hall at Hogwarts.  He may not each much, but 
that's not proof enough.  He doesn't eat at Grimmauld Place.  Well 
having read the descriptions would it be your choice of dining room?

3.  He does not go out to watch quidditch games muffled up to the 
eyes - but dressed as he normally does - indeed in POA he actually 
goes colourful for the only time in canon!

4. Garlic.  Now this one I will grant but not for the same reasons.  
Aversion to garlic is not supported by canon but I WILL extrapolate 
from his general character that he is something of a little 
Englander.  That means no mucked about foreign food.  "Waiter take 
away that Poulet Basquaise and bring me a plain steak, well-done".

5.  Running water.  Not something a Potions Master can easily avoid.

6. Crucifix aversion - now that is not something that will easily 
arise in these stories.  But you could argue that Hogwarts is 
crucifix free to avoid any nasty encounters for Snape - as 
instructed by Dumbledore perhaps?

Oh, but wait, of course you are going to tell me that the Vampire 
Potion is what is enabling Snape to function!  Well if you persist 
in invention as opposed to sifting canon evidence, what can I say?  
I'll stick to canon, ta.

>  
> 
> > 
> > June:
>   
> > Tweaking the conventions is one thing, chucking them all out of 
the 
> > window is quite another.
> 
> "K"
> She can tweak a werewolf but not a vampire? How about a wizard and 
a 
> giant having a half-giant. Now that's tweaking!

June:
Yes it is tweaking, whereas presenting a vampire controlled by 
potion who can walk around in daylight - that's throwing convention 
out of the window.  
> 
> June:
> > If this is a vampire walking around in 
> > daytime, without problems, let's be honest and call him 
something 
> > different entirely.
> 
> "K"
> Like a Daywalker? Or a vampire?

June:
Call it what you like - a Daywalker is not a vampire or there'd be 
no need for a different name, and it's irrelevant since it doesn't 
matter what you call it  - he isn't one.
> 

> "K"
> JKR can make a potion for a werewolf but she can't make one for a 
> half-vampire or a full vampire?
> 
> June:
> > Okay - tinkered in that respect.  He still has most of the 
symptoms 
> > though.  He still becomes a wolf at full moon.  He takes on the 
> > appearance and behaviour of a wolf.  Full scale tinkering would 
> > enable him to sprout wings and fly, perhaps, or still speak 
fluent 
> > english whilst transformed.  The potion is a comparatively new 
> > development.
> 
> "K"
> Why can't Snape being hiding those things with a potion or 
something 
> else?

June:
See above.  What is your point?

My point is that there would be NO point to such a plot line.

> 
> June: 
>   
> > Snape doesn't have problems fitting in because he's a vampire, 
he 
> > has problems fitting in because of his personality.  
> 
> "K"
> 
> Says who? That's just a theory. Nor am I trying to excuse all of 
> Snape's actions on vampirism.

June:
Nope - his personality - that is canon.  As exemplified by the 
Penseive scene, Sirius Black's remarks about "greasy 
oddballs" "Snivellus" etc, etc ad nauseam.  

> 
> June:
> > If he is a vampire (and he isn't - just forget it Vampire!Snape 
> > fans) - he's certainly not going to be a LITTLE vampire.  If I 
must 
> > accept Vampire!Snape - it'd sure better be BigVampire!Snape.
> 
> 
> "K"
> Who says Snape would be a LITTLE vampire. Surely you don't think 
> being a half-vampire would make him a LITTLE vampire? If he was 
born 
> that way then he would be a Dhampir and they are anything but 
little 
> vampires 

June:
Please read my irony for meaning and context.  What has Dhampir got 
to do with this?  Why should that make anything little or big.  
Personally I don't particularly care if Dhampirs are 50 foot tall 
and have 180 foot wingspans like the Eagles in the Silmarillion 
(irony),  or if they are in fact small enough to place in your 
jacket pocket without spoiling its line (more irony).  And anyway 
the term little vampire was yours.  

I don't care what size any of them are, mainly because Snape isn't 
either one of them.
>  
> June:
> > 
> > Not to cover anything.  Red herrings do not have to exist to 
cover 
> > other things.  It's just a "let people suspect he is a vampire" 
> > thing, if they want.
> 
> "K"
> 
> Now that would be a cheap trick. It's one thing to give a red 
herring 
> to take our mind away from something important. It's another thing 
to 
> give us hints just to fool the reader about nothing. 

June:
Cheap trick?  Because it doesn't suit what you the reader wants to 
happen?  Tell that to Sirius fans.  She is the author and can place 
red herrings wherever she likes, I think.  She can wipe out the 
entire cast of characters in the final chapter - her call.  It's not 
a cheap trick if the (very slender to non-existent) evidence of 
Snape being a vampire - sweeping around in a cloak and that's it 
really - is being set up to divert certain readers into a false 
belief of what he is or set up a certain "what if".  

Anyway, it is fooling the reader about something - to make them 
think that Snape is a vampire, when he isn't.  You can't call 
violation just because the author doesn't include your own theory in 
the final outturn.

> 
> 
> June:
> 
> > b.  Tearing up the whole vampire canon just to make him one? 
> 
> "K"
> Again, who says she is doing that? As others have said, it's not 
so 
> much readers wanting a vampire and trying to make Snape one. It's 
a 
> matter of the clues pointing to Snape.

June:
Cloak wearing doth not a vampire make.  That't the only evidence 
there is.  Essentially if vampire theorists have to either make up a 
potion, or come up with this Dhampir stuff to make it work, that 
seems to me a pretty broken down theory.  I've yet to read a shred 
of convincing evidence for it.
 
> 
> June:
>   I think making Snape a vampire 
> > would be an act of desperation by JKR.  Far harder to write a 
> > tortured and damaged man. 
> 
> 
> "K"
> I just don't understand why a tortured and damaged man can't be a 
> vampire. Are there no tortured and damaged werewolves, fairies, 
> giants, veelas, and so on? 

June:
And therefore why does a tortured and damaged character HAVE TO BE a 
member of an exotic species?
> 
> June: 
>  And perhaps 
> > you believe the Death Eaters just get together to play darts in 
the 
> > appropriate Knockturn Alley pub? 
> 
> Where did that come from???

June:
To answer the implication that he needs to be a vampire to make him 
menacing.  He can convince me he's menacing as a human thanks very 
much.
> 
> June:
>  Perhaps he is a keen killer, 
> > rapist and pillager.  Psychotic nutter is good enough for me.
> 
> 
> "K"
> He could be. I would cease to like him if he were.

June:
I wouldn't.  I'd still like the character because I judge him on his 
ability to interest me.  That doesn't mean he has to be nice.  If we 
were to judge him in acting terms the character acts everyone else 
out of the scenes he's in.  That doesn't have to mean nice.  I 
probably would not like Professor Snape were I to meet him in real 
life.  I have actually worked with people like that in a 
University.  They were interesting but I didn't like them.  
Characters in book do not have the power to make your working life 
hellish and therefore one can like them at a distance - as 
characters.

> 
> June:
>  >I 
> > found Hannibal Lecter a thoroughly engrossing character -he was 
> > psychotic nutter enough and smart too.  Characters do not have 
to 
> be 
> > fluffy to be entertaining.
> 
> lol  Since when are vampires fluffy? We do differ. I didn't find 
> Hannibal Lecter engrossing or intertaining.

June:
Please try to recognise my irony.  I admit it is a fault I have,  
and I am taking lessons in saying nice things each day,  to address 
it.  
>   
> 
> June: 
> > Oooh.  None of these were original you know - I can direct 
anyone 
> to 
> > the appropriate bit of traditional folklore for these 
characters.  
> > She didn't make any of them up.  Sure she tweaked some of the 
> > characteristics. And by the way, all the merpeople still live in 
> the 
> > water.  
> 
> "K"
> It doesn't matter if she made them up or not. 


June:
Well it matters to this discussion because on the one hand you are 
trying to make an argument for Vampire!Snape yet producing props to 
your theory that are not supported by canon, either in the HP 
universe, or by canon in the folklore you are arguing.  

Essentially, you are saying Snape is a Vampire though he does not 
follow any of the traditional rules that govern vampire behaviour, 
while equally providing a safety net for your theory - the "Vampire 
Potion" that means you can throw away all the rules.  Here in the UK 
we call that "Having your cake and eating it" ;-)


What I'm saying is why 
> can we have a story with loads of different creatures but heaven 
> forbid if the vampire made an appearance.

June:
I don't say "NO VAMPIRES" I just say no Vampire!Snape.  If no 
vampires appear, speak to JKR not me.

We all have things we want to happen.  I want it to be proved that 
Snape loved Lily, that he did turn good before the fall of LV, and 
that he will redeem his human self in the end. 

However, I can live with the following:

He went along to watch the murders at Godrics Hollow for nastiness 
and kicks, he has been a double double agent for LV all along, and 
his final murder of Harry is only averted by luck, or Harry's 
superior gifts. 

As long as he sounds good doing it. 

> 
> "K"
> 
> We do all have hopes for the story. Yet IMO having Snape half-
vampire 
> wouldn't take away from his human side at all.


Yes it would it would - it would take away precisely half his human 
side.


June
Who earlier swore she would not get into the Vampire!Snape debate, 
because she was above that sort of thing.  The road to hell...