'The Exorcist' by William Peter Blatty
Discussion has officially started!
Synopsis: When originally published in 1971, The Exorcist became not only a bestselling literary phenomenon, but one of the most frightening and controversial novels ever written. (When the author adapted his book to the screen two years later, it then became one of the most terrifying movies ever made.) The deceptively simple story focuses on Regan, the 11-year-old daughter of a movie actress residing in Washington, D.C.; the child apparently is possessed by an ancient demon. It's up to a small group of overwhelmed yet determined humans to somehow rescue Regan from this unspeakable fate. Purposefully raw and profane, this novel still has the extraordinary ability to literally shock us into forgetting that it is "just a story." The Exorcist remains a truly unforgettable reading experience. Blatty published a sequel, Legion, in 1983.
About the Author: William Peter Blatty is a writer and filmmaker. The Exorcist, written in 1971, is his magnum opus; he also penned the subsequent screenplay, for which he won an Academy Award.
I guess as far as descriptions go, we don't need much. Everybody knows the story. I'm looking forward to this one though. People have said that they've read this book and will never read it again. It terrified them! And that's the kind of book we should have for a Halloweeen discussion.
Discussion has officially started!
So, get to reading!
I read it wheni was 15, only because my Mom was reading it and I saw her and she made it forbidden reading for me. So i got it off her nightstand and read it. Love that Mom always encouraged reading, but didnt' want me to get my hands on this one. I was compelling, but didn't freak me out. I thought of it as fiction. Enjoy the readings.
Either by accident, or by my husband being a sly MFer my copy of The Exorcist disappeared shortly after I finished reading it. I mean, I tore the house apart looking for it (was going to loan it to someone), I have to admit it creeped me out pretty badly. Months later it materialized face up on one of our shelves (I assume the cleaning lady found it).
Anyway. I can't WAIT to reread. I had to run up to my mom's for a family emergency, so I'll have aforementioned husband bring it up on the weekend.
I'm a huge fan of the religious horror type stuff, and I had not read this until last month! Honestly, I was a little disappointed it was so short, and it seemed kind of like a cop out to only include aftermath descriptions of key scenes. I know it can be a great literary element to keep us wondering or using our own imaginations but what I like best about reading material like this is the author's ability to come up with something I could never comprehend about such a subject.
It did not really scare me (unfortunately, I'm still on a trek to find something that will) but some scenes were certainly very disturbing.
Don't know Case 39, so I can't say. And I don't want to go into too much detail because it's early yet. But when you weigh the beliefs and attitudes of the characters as part of a naturalistic reading, their confusion and suspicion point to certain realistic (but nonetheless sinister) possibilities.
Yeah, what I enjoyed the most about this book was the internal debate the priest was having (left my book at home to tend to a family emergncy so I am going off memory, forgive me). He wanted to be convinced there wasn't anything supernatural happening--but couldn't justify it all. Now...I don't know why that would be more comforting in the reality of the book...
What stuck me best was the allegory involved about loss of faith and finally reclamation of the same, not to mention the disturbing opening chapter. Read it when I was about 15 yrs old and I still remember the effect it had on me. Would club it along with Dracula as one of the best modern horror novels .
It's been years since I've seen the movie, so I might not be remembering clearly, but I don't remember the movie centering around Damien's struggle with his faith. I mean, in the book it was a central plot point.
One of my favorite lines from the book that showed this was:
With thoughts such as these, Karras sadly watched blood turning back into wine.
I mean, it's perfect in my opinion of showing his wavering faith.
And it's funny, his disappointment when he thinks he realizes why he wasn't chosen to do the exorcism himself:
As he'd closed his eyes, he'd recalled that exorcists were selected on the basis of "piety" and "high moral qualities"; that a passage in the gospel of Matthew related that Christ, when asked by his disciples the cause of their failure in an effort at exorcism, had answered, "Because of your little faith." The Provincial had known about the problem, as had also Tom Bermingham, the Georgetown president. Had either of them mentioned it to the Bishop?
It's as if, right until the last minute, he's still in denial of what's going on with Regan and he just wants to go through the motions of an exorcism to trick her. Which performing a holy rite to trick somebody is sacrilege in itself.
I found it odd that the demon never really brought up his faith though. Did it? I mean, even if it wasn't a demon and she was just reading his mind (which is what he originally thought with the Latin), she would still know his faith wasn't strong. You would think that that would be a great attack plan for the demon.
You can imagine Karras's inadequate attempts to convince himself there's nothing supernatural going on as manifestations of his belief system; he has faith even though he doesn't always believe he should. Or you can imgaine him a skeptic in the wrong field who encounters something he doesn't have the ability to explain. The book as a whole (and in parts) is pretty open to interpretation, which is one of its strengths; the story is constructed in such a way one can not be certain what's going on (even up to the end) and still be carried along by it.
I agree with that.
I think it's strongest if you believe there is a demon and he's trying to convince himself against all facts that there isn't one.
You stated earlier that you thought it was best if you thought that it was all psychological. (that was you, wasn't it?)
I think I disagree. For me, it was scary when you took into account the circles he was going in. With all the psychological explainations he came up with (most which would be treatable to some extent) he hit a point where he had to admit that we may have come up with psychological explainations for things that are actually supernatural. That means NO treatment, NO cure. Hell on Earth. That's what shook me.
With the book on the shelf, sitting at my computer, I am firm in my beliefs that demon possesion isn't "a thing", but when I had the book open in front of me, I was completely taken in by that possibility.
I don't want to get into a religious argument, so let's try and skirt around the issue a little. But, I think there are plenty of cases that are pretty similar to the fictional account (I mean with out most of the drama that makes this a story obviously). Do you think that those are able to be explained away through psychology? Because, personally, I'm torn on the matter.
People of faith sometimes say things like "Well, if you are already convinced miracles don't happen, you won't see them when they do."
The converse is, "Well, if you are already convinced miracles do happen, you will see them even when they don't." [that might be an inverse. whatever.]
Point being: I think if someone investigates an incident, their worldview will influence (but perhaps not absolutely determine) their account of the events, one way or another.
I'm personally pretty skeptical with an agnostic base, meaning I don't believe we'll ever have access to all knowledge; but, given that, I don't then go on to believe any old thing. I don't rule out certain extreme possibilities, but I don't have any reason to believe them either.
I ride the fence until something knocks me off or I determine it would be correct to do so.
Pete--it's hard to say with the evidence that is parsed out to the public and without any background in psychology/psychiatry. I DO think, though, that there are things about the human mind we aren't even close to understanding. I read some absolutely mind blowing stuff about placebo affect that convinced me our little brains are incredilby powerful (like a study on placebo surgery...it worked..).
Oh I agree with both of you. That's why I'm torn.
I know it's not fashionable right now, but I'm pretty religious. But I also was originally going to school for psychology. I know what the human mind is capable of. And it never ceases to amaze me.
The contortionist's like positions, the crazy voices, the speaking in different languages, and even knowing things about people you shouldn't - all of that is explainable. But then just because we can explain it away, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I guess it's a Catch-22.
http://www.ubu.com/sound/occult.html
*listen at your own risk, I guess*
_________________________________
I know it's not fashionable right now, but I'm pretty religious.
Don't know about MI, but I've never seen it out of fashion.
I think more people read the book than discuss it. Sometimes it's hard because (at least for me) you have a whole month to read it. I might have read it a few weeks before discussion. It's no longer fresh. Or I just really enjoyed the book, but there's nothing I know of to discuss about it. Or the obvious things get said right away (which is what happened to me with Broken Piano).
I guess it's cool as long as people are reading. :)
I think the ending is terribly underrated, really. It comes through--what it all means--much better than the book, but even in the movie, it was one of those moments where you realize that horror doesn't have to scare you to move you. Although I agree with all the people who think The Exorcist was the scariest movie of it's time, and is definitely (for me) one of the scariest books I've read.
Im halfway thru the book. Figured id stir up this topic/discussion. First thing i have to say is i dont find it scary, just a bit creepy. The set-up to Regans full blown possesion is done extremely well, the scene when the the doctors are called in had some interesting tension.
Its definitely a great book but I dont find it scary. I've not gotten to the end yet but i think, for me, evil is much more disturbing when it cannot be stopped, or when we realize how insignificant we are in the face of it.
Cool. Just wondering. I don't remember us talking much about religion and our beliefs when this discussion was going strong a few months back. Which is strange. You would think there would be more religious talk concerning a book that centered on demon possession...
I do think it's important to acknowledge the possible mental disorder aspect too though.
Not religious, but this book scared the shit out of me. The only book I've ever read to do that. The book about the true story was equally as scary. http://www.amazon.com/Possessed-True-Story-Exorcism-ebook/dp/B002P3LAS6/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1