I want to define this thread through a negative. That is Why are there no vampires in the Potterverse? Well, there are, and the title of this thread is the same as a book by Lockhart. But, in truth, we only hear of them in passing. Quirrell speaks of them and they're among the creatures discussed in DADA class and Hagrid claims to have had a disagreement with one in a pub. And yet it is only at Slughorn's Christmas Party in HBP that we are introduced to a vampire, Sanguini. Alas, the vampire described by JKR is rather comical and unthreatening. (Rita Skeeter thinks vampires ought to be stamped out. While Percy classifies a vampire as non-wizard part-human.) And yet Worple, Sanguini's friend, treats him like a pet dog.

The vampire Sanguini is described thus:Alas, the image of bored Sanguini leering at some fangirls and having a pasty stuffed in his hungry mouth is not very romantic. It undermines the iconic figure of the suave and charismatic figure we've seen in fiction from Polidori nearly 200 years ago, through Bram Stoker's Dracula, Anne Rice's Lestat and, most recently, Stephanie Meyer's Edward Cullen.

So, why are vampires sidelined in the Potterverse? Werewolves are developed in the persons of Fenrir Greyback and Remus Lupin; giants are revealed in Grawp and Hagrid; centaurs, merpeople, goblins and house elves are given bigger roles than vampires. Is JKR deliberately leaving vampires out? Is Sanguini's comic turn a commentary on vampire fiction?

JKR has spoken of "the bad boy syndrome" and wondered if girls weren't really taken with Alan Rickman and Tom Felton more than Snape and Draco. There was an old thread here called Vampire Allusions in HP, but it was more interested in finding vampire themes than exploring what JKR might be saying about vampires and their absence in the series.

So, what does the fictional vampire represent? And how is the sexuality that vampirism usually embodies in the fiction of Rice and Meyer expressed without them? And why has JKR chosen to exclude this magical creature from her cast of characters with the exception of the comical Sanguini? Is the Wizarding World free of the sexual inhibitions of our world, making the rebellious S&M icon of the vampire unnecessary and crude?

Is Snape the vampire stripped bare? A vampire without charm or immortality, possessed by guilt and sexual frustration? Often described as pale and gaunt and bat-like, Snape has been described by many as the tragic hero of the series, but is it not more reasonable to see him as the tragicomic anti-hero? Snape isn't really undead, he's unliving.

So, in the aftermath of the next-JKR's Twilight Saga, what's up with the lack of vampires in Harry Potter? Does the myth of the vampire not fit with the Potterverse? Has JKR indirectly critiqued the vampire myth in the character of Snape? And is the gaggle of girls fascinated with the vampire a symptom of "the bad boy syndrome"?

Very interesting question David. With all the fantasy creatures used in HP why not vampires?



My first answer would be - "No sex please, we're British!".

When JKR introduced Sanguini I had hoped that we would see more than a casual mention of him. Vampires are frightening, mysterious and yet weirdly attractive, characteristics that would compete with the image of Snape. I am sure that it is no coincidence that Snape is pasty and bat-like, always wearing his black robes, never being caught wandering the halls of Hogwarts in his dressing gown like the other professors and apparently never sleeping. Snape is similar to Rice's character of Louis, a tortured and guilt ridden personality without the charm and luring personality. Snape is a tragic romantic figure not a sexual one, IMO.

Liking JKR's name choices again, I wanted to be sure of the meaning of sanguine and got this as a definition:



As the other definitions mention red or bloody, I thought this one was rather tongue-in-cheek, well, cheeky :

emphasis mine

I couldn't help but think that JKR was poking fun at the popular romantic notions of "vampire love" as contemporary literature tends to portray. The pallid complexion of the "traditional" vampire versus the "healthy" connotations of Sanguini's name holds irony at its subtle best (in my opinion).

I also got the impression that Sanguini could have been derived as a combination of sanguine and linguini...giving an extremely subtle "lashing with a wet noodle" (as Dear Abby - or was it Ann Landers? used to say in playfully scolding herself or her readers) to those fangirl types who fantasize about a romantic vampire encounter.

I think moreso than Snape, there is a definitive textbook representation of the "classic" vampire in HP with the character of Voldemort. He is the un-named vampire in the books. Unlike the more modern "repentive" or "sympathetic" vampires, Voldemort doesn't receive much recognition (if any) as a vampire probably because he lacks the sympathetic enhancement which we've come to expect from "our" vampires - possibly beginning with (as I remember it) The Lost Boys , which opened the door to a heartsick and mournful Dracula in Bram Stoker's Dracula. In fact, Severus Snape reminded me of the Vlad which Gary Oldman brought to life in the 1992 version...ironic that he later plays Sirius! lol

As an aside, my older daughters find it very funny that their friends and cousins are currently obsessed with the Twilight series. On a pop psychology level, I could make a quick "diagnosis" that these young females feel somewhat guilty about the romantic notions that adolescence tends to bring - and are trying to sort those feelings out through transference, but that is a different topic for discussion.

Yes, Voldemort does consume others in his quest for power. But the only blood he ever drinks is that of the unicorn in PS/SS. And he seems asexual, unlike an incubus. I'm more inclined to view Voldemort as a King of the Shadows or Demon King.

I don't think Snape's a vampire. Indeed, JKR specifically said he was not a vampire. But I do think she was trying to bring the idealized sauve and charismatic vampire down to earth when she wrote Snape. I never found him sympathetic. But fans would still project onto him. I think the archetype of the Byronic hero is so strong that it's hard to break.

I agree that the archetypical vampire of the HP series is exemplified in Voldemort. He is the end product of a human who has gone so far from humanity, that he was essentially inhuman. We know that Voldemort never drank blood, but maybe Rowling purposely had Voldemort take Harry's blood in GoF as a symbol of immortality since Volemort was under the impression that if he carried within him Lily's sacrifice, that he would be protected as well and given an even greater shot at immortality. It was a blood ritual of sorts, which can be seen as paralleling vampires using blood to become born into vampirism and thus into immortality.
I don't believe Rowling created Snape into some sort of charismatic vampire. To me he was a complex, forlorn, lost, embittered man who lost the love of the only woman he ever loved and he had himself to thank for that. He was a man possessed by guilt, but whether or not he was sexually frustrated really isn't in the realm of the Potterverse Rowling created; and I don't believe it would have had a place in it. However, could the fact that by neglecting to delve into such issues with Snape, Rowling inadvertently created an even more mysterious and enigmatic character than even she herself could have realized?

emphasis mine

I agree, David. It wasn't until the events in HBP and DH were revealed that this possibility came to mind. When I was responding to your post, the scene where Winona Ryder's Mina calls Vlad "My Sweet Prince", put an image of Snape over Dracula - which is kind of hard to put in words! lol

Well, I confess I thought Snape to be a vampire at first. And yes, I thought his bullying and greasiness was a smackdown of the seductive, sexual type.

I suppose having a few vampire characters would have been quite complicating to the plot, unless totally incidental, which is pretty much what we have. The magic would get bewildering, I suppose, with vampires consuming magical blood, or cursed blood, or magically protected blood. The blood issues are so pervasive in the plot...maybe she thought it would make it all too byzantine. Though her portrait of Sanguini is close to mockery; it could be she dislikes them.

Wow, nice thread davidenglish.

It seems that JKR has for the most part left vampires out of the story, aside for the odd mentions, and the brief encounter with Sanguini in HBP.

I have a theory, that in literature, vampires have long been popular subjects. Thinking back to Dracula, when vampires first became (I think; my knowledge of this isn't extensive) more widely known, Bram Stoker described in great detail Dracula's appearance and habits. Then came a few more books featuring much the same types of vampires... And naturally, the movies followed.

We know that movies reach a much wider audience, but cut out a lot of imagination required from the reader. It was then that the appearance of vampire characters became basically set in stone, and accepted as being just how they were shown on a movie screen.

JKR does like a bit of inventing and likes us to use our imaginations, evidenced by her including hippogriffs in the books. They were not so widely known, so she had a bit of space to invent and give our imaginations a chance. Possibly the problem she would have been faced with using vampires in the story is that they have so many traits attached to their character that she would not have enough freedom in inventing the characters. Perhaps this is why there were none included, especially during the short meeting with Sanguini, where he seems not like a typical vampire; just to challenge our imaginations.

Has anyone else ever thought that, or was that just me?

On a related note, the Twilight series etc does remind me though of the "Is it female masochism, To love Snape" thread. Plus, including vampires in the story might have stolen Snape's title as the popular tragic male character. Couldn't have that after having his female fanbase built up for all those books...
Heehee.

bold mine

I like this Lirene. It is true that as far as we know, Voldemort didn't drink human blood - yet his first "security" charms involved blood or a blood requirement as an initiation of sorts. Remember in HBP, Dumbledore correctly guesses that the Inferi Cave can only be opened through an offering of blood, and he responds in (what appeared to me), a frustrated and exasperated way something like "Primitive". It is almost by with Voldemort knowing that Lily possessed an "ancient magic" that by taking some of that magic through Harry his magic would be that much stronger, since it used a medium which he placed a lot of stock in already, yet didn't "possess" himself.

As an aside, the undead, vampire-like inferi infested the underground lake, combined with a blood sacrifice to gain admittance is very "vampirey". Reading that reminded me of the scene in 1992's Dracula with Jonathan Harker being almost drowned in the liquid-like silk and satin coverings of the Castle's Bridal Bed with the vampiresses who want to make him their own, only to be foiled by the entrance of a very Voldy-like Dracula banishing them from the room...if I remember correctly, I think he even says something like "He is mine!".

Thanks momwitch That is a very valid point about HBP and the blood rituals used to guard the Locket. And Dumbledore calling the magic protected by the cave "primitive"; was this a vampire reference, which again could be Rowling's way of paralleling the HP world to that of vampires? Blood rituals and offerings have been made for centuries on end in history, so "old magic" could be interpreted as very old chronologically, but it is very powerful magic as well.

I wonder what Rowling herself was going through and the thought processes involved when writing Harry's choosing the Horcruxes over the Hallows. Was this a very conscious effort on Rowling's part to demonstrate some type of anti-vampire view; in that immortality isn't something that Harry should try to achieve? Or did she inadvertently create a very powerful vampire image in Harry becoming the Master of Death?

Well there's no point quoting when I agree with ALL the previous posts.

Vampires are so done. After so many centuries, there's really there's not much left to do with them, and yes I'm including Stephanie Meyer in that. (Speaking of which, I'm surprised to see you, David, referencing her works-- the breadth of your reading material never ceases to amaze.) To be honest, the whole romance-of-the-Vampire thing is something that I never really "got". I never understood the sexiness of Anne Rice's vampires, for example-- hello! They're blood-sucking fiends! (They don't even have sex.) Her concept that the vampire is somehow raised above the normal human was offputting. Even in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where vampires are soulless monsters that are fun to stake through the heart, two of the main character's three love interests are... vampires. So maybe I'm a bit biased on this point. But I really do believe that Rowling may feel the same way, in that there's not too many more directions to take vampires. Either they're sexy, misunderstood, troubled, lonely figures, or another variety of human-turned-monster. Well, she already has plenty of monsters, and for the former, we have Lupin. There are just so many other avenues to explore that haven't been done to death, and Rowling does. Werewolves, for example. What werewolves do we have in recent storytelling? I Was a Teenage Werewolf? Teenwolf? In Lupin and Greyback, Rowling has a chance to explore the human condition in terms less overboiled than vampirism.

Sanguini does seem to be an intentional poke at the vampire mystique, especially with the interested-looking schoolgirls hanging about him. Rowling has made it pretty clear that she doesn't go for the appeal of the "bad boy"-- and what is lusting after vampires, if not that? She wants girls to love Harry and Ron, not Snape and Draco; naive, maybe, but explains why there are no sexy vamps hanging around in the background.

What a lovely post, matilda. And I certainly agree.

I do think young women are too taken with the heroes of Pride & Prejudice, Wuthering Heights, and Jane Eyre. (And I'm afraid they are too fond of the Darcy of the first half of the book and not the remorseful Darcy. I find it odd how modern sequels seem to prefer the cold and arrogant Mr Darcy when Austen's point is that Darcy has failed to communicate and becomes more introspective by the novel's end.) Heathcliff is a sociopath. And Rochester, well, let's just say that Jane is better off with a half-burnt Rochester than a whole one.

Of course, I see vampires as a confused social metaphor. On the one hand they represent consumerism and corporate capitalism, while taboo sexuality on the other. The problem with the former is that it requires a serious socio-political outlook, and the latter needs a sensitive understanding of human psychology. And that's where I'd suggest Anne Bronte's The Tenant of Wildfell Hall would make better reading than Jane Eyre for teen girls.

Urgh, I never much cared for Mr. Rochester or Heathcliff. Sociopathic is about right. Mr Darcy... well, he's much more redeemable. After all, his only real fault is thinking too highly of himself, a trait instilled by his parents and by society in general; although it's left unsaid, it is easy to suppose that Caroline Bingley is not the first lady to treat him as the ultimate prize. That might go to the head of even the best of men after awhile. Even before Elizabeth ever-so-gently points out that being rich and well-born alone doesn't make him a great catch, he has some good qualities; his "transformation" doesn't change that core, it just knocks him off his high horse and makes him aware of how his behavior is perceived by others. Similarly, Elizabeth's own humiliating voyage of self-discovery lets her (and the reader) see more of the real Darcy. He always was a good man, albeit a snob with bad manners. Such can't be said of, say, Heathcliff, who's main goal in life is essentially to ruin everybody else's lives. Vampiric, indeed.

I think that the draw of Mr. Darcy is that he falls in love with and marries Elizabeth for all of the right reasons. Not because she's wealthy, or pretty, or because it's expected (or because it's not expected/ rebellion). Mr. Bingley falls in love with Jane simply because she's beautiful and agreeable; he needs no more. But Mr. Darcy falls in love with someone that he can talk to, or spar with; he sees that the essence of Elizabeth is her sardonic sense of humor and ability to observe the people around her. The one thing every woman wants is to be loved for herself, and P&P is a manifestation of that desire, happy ending included. (Not to mention that it's a beautiful example of what I think of as The Bickering Romance, a longstanding tradition of the likes of Benedick and Beatrice, Molly and Arthur or Hermione and Ron. Love isn't always staring moonily at each other.) I guess all I'm saying is not to lump my beloved Darcy and Elizabeth in with those other gothics!

Very insightful posts, matilda

You know, I was recently doing a re-read of some of the chapters in PoA and realized that Rowling's first description of Sirius was that of a vampire. But the description of Sirius wasn't to highlight his roguish good looks, but she portrayed a very sinister Sirius, sinister just like vampires can truly be. Could this seemingly negative description of Sirius and his comparison to a vampire reflect Rowling's views of vampires, and thus explain why she didn't use more vampires in the series?

I've started reading PS/SS with my son, but I've been reading ahead to try to make it more interesting for him. This morning, I saw something which reminded me of this thread and I just had to share!

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Scholastic Paperback, P 70:



(bold mine...gads, you really have to give JKR credit for writing this the way she did. Typing that stuttering was giving me a headache! It'aint easy! )

Anywho, two things came to mind when I read this. The first thing was the description of the "real" vampire, Sanguini, much later on in the Series as being a bored, comical character - not in the least bit terrifying and easily subdued with a warning look from his friend. The second thing is that we later find out in SS/PS that Quirrell was Voldemort's host during Harry's first year, and so it begs the question - what was he so afraid of?

A real DADA teacher would know that the hype behind "real" vampires was mostly a smokescreen...why would Quirrell be so terrified? Was it just to inspire fear in Harry, or was it a three pronged arc?

Firstly, it feeds into the popular notions of vampires as "real" entities. By acknowledging that vampires existed in the Magical world, especially after Harry experiences fantastical, impossible things with a person from this unknown place (Hagrid), it allows us to bring everything we've been told was "make believe" into the "real". We let our guard down and finally become not only a reader, but a participant in the Story.

Secondly, it made me think that perhaps Quirrell was still resistant in becoming a puppet in Voldemort's plan. Quirrell obviously knows he is being possessed by something that isn't him - something that is slowly sapping him dry of his essence - of who he truly is. It seems he is trying to find a way to stop this from progressing further, before he loses himself totally, and since he knows that vampires have an ability to suck the life out of things ( postscripted and emphasized later in the series with Sanguini being bored at a party! lol), wants to read up on it further in the guise of being well-prepared for his Dark Arts classes. This also makes me think that this ruse might have been the only way he could have justified his getting the book to Voldemort...in trying to keep Voldemort from knowing his true intentions in obtaining that knowledge. He kind of reminds me of the Abraham Van Helsing character in the Bram Stoker classic, Dracula.

Thirdly, it does give a big yet extremely subtle hint into what Voldemort truly is. As mentioned before, Voldemort seems to personify the classic description of vampire. They aren't warm, fuzzy, and sympathetic, but twisted beings who either lost or forfeited their humanity in exchange for an unlife that exists beyond death. The creatures that are given the name "vampires" in JKR's world seem to be self titled wanna be parodies - especially Sanguini, who seems resigned to playing his role as a mockery to himself, as he has nothing else to live for.

Perhaps the lore behind the power of the Cross and the Eucharist against vampires is more symbolic in that those items represent Faith . Faith can be defined as "deep trust", and as such is the only thing that can destroy Death - if you fully trust in Life, and subject yourself to its natural order.

I just started re-reading PS/SS after looking something up for the Deus ex Machina thread - first time in years I think. Anyway, it's fresh and front of mind so...


These are interesting ideas.

I'm not sure if Sanguini is meant to be representative of all vampires in the world. He's supposedly reformed isn't he? And being dragged around by his biographer? I could be wrong - no book nearby and I haven't read in quite some time. Still, he's almost like the "tame" animals used as exotic pets - often in the Victorian or Edwardian era. They were sometimes brought back from the empire as gifts or they were acquired from dealers to serve as conversation points or status symbols (there was one aristocratic lady who had a pair of zebras to pull her carriage). Sanguini makes me think of those sad monkeys on leads or pet leopards - slightly pathetic and seen by the owner only in terms of their own interests.

Vampires are introduced by the quivering, stuttering Quirrell and then again directly referenced (if I remember right) by Gilderoy Lockhart? Wasn't there a Voyages with Vampires in his bibliography? Sanguini, poor man, seems to be in good company with those two - or at least with Quirrell as he seemed and Lockhart as he really was!

However, having Quirrell bring up vampires at that particular moment is, as you point out, a tiny piece of foreshadowing for Harry - foreshadowing that this new world of his doesn't just include the colorful and the enticing side of magic, it also includes the dark and dangerous.


Unfortunately at this point Quirrell isn't yet possessed by Voldemort - that's why he is able to shake Harry's hand. What he is facing however is an almost impossible task - breaking into Gringotts - with two possible outcomes. Either he will be successful and Voldemort will return (bringing the monster to life), or he will fail and must face the consequences. Has he already be threatened with possession? Possible but not supported. Perhaps the reference is less direct (Quirrell is actively thinking of learning more about vampires) but indirect (Quirrell will himself be turned into a blood-sucking monster and eventually left as an empty shell).


In Theory Stoker was referencing Vlad the Impaler (Vlad III Draculea) of Wallachia in Southern Romania - a mass murdering sociopath who supposedly did away with thousands of people in extremely nasty ways.

Which makes me think of another possible vampire reference - and possibly JKR is playing with the various literary traditions of vampire throughout her books - the Malfoy family. Draco of course is from the same root as Dracul or Dracula and certainly Draco is far more the attractive, bad-boy vampire of modern popular culture. If that was at all in her mind it's amusing that she strips him of this at the end by giving him a receding hairline - pretty far from the dramatic widow's peak many people think of for a vampire!


You could also look at the cross and the Eucharist as symbols of resurrection - life after death - while vampires are a sort of death in life.