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

[junediamanti]

No: HPFGUIDX 88602

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "junediamanti" 
> <june.diamanti at b...> wrote:
> 
> > However, the Vampire!Snape lobby asserts that JKR will in fact 
> make considerable alterations to all the standard traits of the 
> vampire  for the sake of her story.  <
> 
> You've missed my point. 

June:
No - I haven't.  I hear what you are saying and I think you are 
quite unwilling to listen to MY points. I have yet to read a 
convincing rebuttal of the points I have made in answer to this 
theory and the various "clues" you say prove it.  All I have read is 
a constant re-iteration along the lines of "Vampire's can vary... 
there is more to Vampires than you know..."  yada yada yada.  You 
are entirely convinced that you are right.  I for my part am 
entirely convinced that you are not.  

And I believe you have the right to your views, but I also have the 
right to oppose them.  

There are *no* "standard traits of the 
> vampire." There's Buffy vampires, yes,  but then there's Bram 
> Stoker vampires, and Anne Rice vampires, and Laurell K. 
> Hamilton vampires (no celibates, they) plus cinematic and 
> folkloric vampires galore, all different. There is no reason to 
> regard any one of these as  the standard version. There is no 
> Bullfinch's Mythology for vampires to which we, or JKR, can refer.

June:
There are generally recognised traits that not only I but a good 
many enthusiasts of fantasy literature, film and other sources tend 
to see as general commonality to the myth.  As I said earlier - if 
you want this theory to be believed - well fine, you seem to have a 
number of adherents to it, but it entirely depends on making a 
number of assumptions (too many I think) that certainly jar this 
writer.  

Constant moving of the goalposts does not prove a theory. If this 
theory is so good, why does it require so much work to make it walk 
and talk?  And I still have not seen a satisfactory response to my 
assertion that this theory requires considerable tweaking to make it 
work. 

JKR may well do that - but do not expect me to believe or even 
consider this theory as a good one, simply because a theory lobby 
seems to be unable to even concede that the sceptical reader may 
well consider them to be stretching a point to the level of burst 
elastic... 

If I am proven wrong by canon - then I'll get on this board and 
admit it when the time comes, until then - I remain entirely 
unconvinced, both by the likelihood of it happening and even the 
extrapolation of the "clues".  They may indeed seem important clues 
to you - but not to me.  I can explain every one of the clues that 
the various pro Vampire posters have made in a different way.  That 
doesn't make you wrong - but it certainly doesn't make me believe 
you are right.  Please try to understand that distinction.  And 
please be as prepared to accept the fact as I am that you may well 
be proven wrong by canon in the future.  I don't even perceive among 
the adherents of Vampire!Snape theory the slightest consideration 
that they may be mistaken.  And there is good cause for you all to 
accept that it is indeed highly possible.

> 
> JKR does not seem to be  writing under some Tolkienesque 
> imperative to create a mythology purged of popular, foreign or 
> literary influence. All of these can be found in her work. She has 
> also let us know that Muggles have limited ability to perceive 
> magical creatures and are being deliberately misled by wizards 
> besides---a handy explanation for any discrepancies between 
> her mythos and others.
> 
> All of which makes me feel that she can tweak the vampire 
> legend as she pleases.

June:
Indeed she can - but will she and will she do it in the way that you 
require?  Permit me to doubt!

> 
> I respect the desire to avoid squicky discussions about 
> reproduction, but I am afraid that this is one of the sources of 
the 
> monster myth in general. Monstrous births were thought to be 
> the result of monstrous ancestry, and unexpurgated folklore 
> leaves us in no doubt as to how this came about.
> 
> And "part" creatures are very important to JKR's theme, because 
> sexual desire has ever been the undoing  of rigid social 
> stratification. However Slytherins may boast that they restrict 
> themselves to the pureblood as partners, it is hardly canon that 
> they actually do so. There are many indications that they do not. 
> Riddle's ancestry is mixed, there are all those inconvenient 
> relatives not listed on the Black family tree, and all those 
> Slytherins who seem to resemble hags or trolls. 

June:
I really think you are mistaken if you think any future book in the 
HP series is going to go into the sexual mores of the wizarding 
world in any great depth.  And your dependence upon this as a plank 
on which to build this theory is to me further proof that it is a 
pretty desperate idea.  Sorry this is not to offend any addict of 
Vampire!Snape theory  personally, but I see a definite trend in the 
lobby to imply that only they are capable of the analysis required.  
You are picking up on items in the text and making them fit a 
theory.  I am looking at the same items and having no difficulty 
whatsoever providing a non-Vampire explanation.  Does that make me 
wrong? Of course not.  And my explanations are based on a less 
exotic interpretation of events than yours.  The explanation does 
not have to be exotic or introduce non-human species.  Why is this 
essential?  

> 
> You can dismiss the indications if you like, but when the canary 
> is missing and the cat has feathers on its chin, the prudent 
> bird-fancier will purchase a sturdier cage and keep a closer eye 
> on the kitty in future.

June:
(?) Gee that's elliptical...

Not really - because what is the point of buying a new cage when the 
bird is eaten?  And if that is supposed to make me say "Sorry I must 
be wrong - out-metaphored" - hate to disappoint you but it failed.

I am not dismissing anything - I am merely asserting my right to 
interpret it in a different way, and just as you patently think your 
view is correct, then I think mine is - and with just as much logic 
and reason - if not more. 

June

Big question - still unanswered, why is it SO VERY necessary to you 
all for Snape to be a vampire?  I prefer him human because I believe 
he is a more interesting character as a flawed human being.  So go 
on - what's your excuse?