Why Snape doesn't have to be human

[melclaros]

No: HPFGUIDX 107580

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:


> 
> Alla:
> 
> Certainly, nobody is perfect, but as you said, we want to change. 
I 
> so far saw nothing to indicate that Snape wants this change to 
occur.


You misread. What I said was that none of us don't have traits that 
SOMEONE ELSE would like to change or see change. I said nothing at 
all about effecting change in ourselves. For instance, I'm stubborn 
and argumentative. I have no intention of changing that no matter 
who would "like me better" if I did.



> 
> Melpomene:>  
> > Snape IS like us. Well, ok, I shouldn't speak for all of us but 
> none > > of us are perfect are we? I don't think there's anyone 
here who > > doesn't posess a single trait that someone else 
wouldn't dearly > love > > to change. 


> Why the hell can't Severus Snape just be a flawed 
> > character--a delightfully nasty flawed character--and get on 
with 
> > it? JKRowling seems to have no problem with that approach so far.
> > 
> > 


> Alla:

> By the way, after her answer, I don't really believe that he is a 
> vampire, although I could never figure out why people are so 
strongly 
> opposed to that theory.


Read through the archives. There are many arguments against the idea-
- far more "against" arguments than "fors" and all of them supported 
by canon and far more substantial than the stand-bys, "he must take 
a potion" and "we haven't seen a vampire yet, so he must be one," 
which pro-vamps *always* end up coming back around to in the end.
The arguments against run the gamut from folklore and literary 
examples, to plot development and exposition all the way to simple 
logic. 

Melpomene