A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape

[melclaros]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Charme" <dontask2much at y...> wrote:

> 
> A good point about Snape and his wand, however where did canon say
vampires 
> couldn't carry wands? 


It's in Fantastic Beasts etc. I'd look it up but I'd have to go into
my kid's rooms for it and I'm not prepared to risk my life over it.
Vampires are classified as beings and like house-elves and other
non-human magical creatures may not carry wands.





 I wish I knew the remainder of this sentence from 
> GoF:
> 
> "That woman's got it in for the Ministry of Magic!"  said Percy
furiously. 
> "Last week she was saying we're wasting our time quibbling about
cauldron 
> thickness, when we should be stamping out vampires!  As if it wasn't 
> specifically stated in paragraph twelve of the Guidelines for the
Treatment 
> of Non-Wizard Part-Humans-"

I fail to see how this relates to Severus Snape in any way, shape or
form. Actually it points to a huge flaw in how vampires are treated in
Rowlings world. They're non-human magical creatures and thus
marginalized. We're told there are Vampire Hunters who go around
"stamping out" vampires (or at least there are folk who think they
should be) and while all that's going on, as you noted, Honeydukes is
selling them blood-flavored lollies. Or are they. IIRC, it's stated
that someone "thinks" that's what/who they're for.


> 
> 
> Non Wizard Part-Humans? So, vampires are considered non wizard but half 
> human? And werewolves are allowed wands? Compare that with this from
GoF:
> 
> "Here, look." Mr. Diggory held up a wand and showed it to Mr.
Weasley. "Had 
> it in her hand. So that's clause three of the Code of Wand Use
broken, for a 
> start. No non-human creature is permitted to carry or use a wand."


Ta Da.
It appears werewolves are considered fully human while vampires are
not human at all--at least in Rowling's Potterverse. And yes, I see
the complete and utter illogic there.




  The other thing I'd like to ask is 
> what exactly do you not consider a "dead issue?" I mean, what would
you like 
> to see that would be different and intriguing for you?

There are Far, FAR more interesting topics to discuss and always have
been. My two favorite topics from my days on that other list (this is
The "Old Crowd" isn't it?) are: 1) what went on at Godric's Hollow and
what was Snape's role in it--as I am one of those convinced he was
there; and 2) Was Snape in fact the eavesdropper?

Discuss amongst yourselves.