CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
- This topic has 14 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I found this blog post interesting:
This is wrong for several reasons. First, Pazuzu is not a demon at
all, but rather an ancient Neo-Assyrian deity. His functions are to
bring pestilence and to control the southwest wind. His most famous act
was to vanquish the evil goddess, Lamashtu, who was considered to be the
cause of miscarriage and childhood illness. Hence the Iraqi museum
curator’s comment on seeing Merrin handling the Pazuzu amulet he has
uncovered from the dig, “Evil against evil.â€Â Neither author Blatty nor
director Friedkin suggest that Pazuzu is a demon or is any way involved
in the MacNeil possession.
Second, the Pazuzu amulet and later the large Pazuzu statue, figure
in the Prologue as projection carriers for Merrin’s mounting sense of
dread. Merrin’s unconscious mind seizes on these ancient pagan symbols,
which begin to trigger premonitions and feelings of dread within the old
priest. They are the stimuli, not the causes, of his apprehensions. The
Iraq dig becomes for Merrin an omen, a foreshadowing that he must soon
“face an ancient enemyâ€. This enemy is not Pazuzu, but a nameless demon
that Merrin confronted and defeated in Africa some twelve years
previously. Nowhere in the novel or the film is the demon named.
Certainly if Merrin thought the demon was Pazuzu, he would have called
it by that name. Instead, Merrin c0nsistently refers minimally, curtly,
to the possessing entity merely as “the demonâ€.
I've never really looked at it that way. They have very good points. Has Blatty ever blatantly referred to the demon inside Regan being Pazuzu? I think Friedkin has – but I'd say the official word comes from Blatty.
He's mentioned twice in the novel – prologue and when Karras is going through some books on the occult. That's all.
From the novel:
“He stood up and moved closer; then felt a vague prickling at the base of his neck as his friend at last moved, reaching down for an amulet and cradling it pensively in his hand. It was a green stone head of the demon Pazuzu, personification of the southwest wind.”
…“At the palace of Ashurbanipal he paused; then shifted a sidelong glance to a limestone statue hulking in situ: ragged wings; taloned feet; bulbous, jutting, stubby penis and a mouth stretched taut in a feral grin. The demon Pazuzu.
Abruptly he sagged.
He knew.
It was coming.”
…
“Karras breathed deeply, exhausted. Then exhaled. Dropped his head. No way. Doesn't cut it. He glanced to the plate on the facing page. A demon. His gaze flicked down idly to the caption: “Pazuzu.” “
Â
The implication seems to be that Pazuzu is evil and is the posessing entity or at similar to the posessing entity or maybe one of the names by which it was historically known. But, still, it's not explicitly stated. And of course Pazuzu is never mentioned by name in the film. But the statue image reappears during the exorcism. It was once part of Catholic doctrine (and still might be in theory if not in practice) that all pagan deities were demons. My uncle was a Passionist priest and a missionary in China before communism. In a recorded interview he gave, he mentioned that he never felt so close to God as he did there, but that the pagan shrines reminded him of “the closeness of the devil, too.”
I've quoted this here so many times in answer to this question. Here we go again…
Blatty's words on the subject from his 1974 book “Exorcist From Novel to Film”
“Even in terms of my novel, I have never known the Demon's identity. I strongly doubt that he is Satan; and he is certainly none of the spirits of the dead whose identity he sometimes assumes. If I had to guess I would say he is Pazuzu, the Assyrian demon of the southwest wind. But I'm not really sure. I know only that he's real and powerful and evil and apparently one of many and aligned with whatever is opposed to love.”
fraroc said:
yet another “Is it Pazuzu or Satan himself” debate…..
That's not exactly what this thread is about and I never once mentioned Satan. I'm simply interested in hearing people's opinions, since whenever similar a topic comes up the general consensus is that the demon is Pazuzu. I've never looked at it any other way, but reading this blog post gave me another perspective… it might do others, too.
ÂJagged said:
I've quoted this here so many times in answer to this question. Here we go again…
Blatty's words on the subject from his 1974 book “Exorcist From Novel to Film”
“Even in terms of my novel, I have never known the Demon's identity. I strongly doubt that he is Satan; and he is certainly none of the spirits of the dead whose identity he sometimes assumes. If I had to guess I would say he is Pazuzu, the Assyrian demon of the southwest wind. But I'm not really sure. I know only that he's real and powerful and evil and apparently one of many and aligned with whatever is opposed to love.”
There's nothing a little more recent? That was written a year after the film's release. Friedkin has certainly changed his tune on many things since then, it's highly possible Blatty has too. I've always believed it to be Pazuzu, but it would be interesting to know what Blatty has to say about it now.
Justin said:
I found this blog post interesting:
This is wrong for several reasons. First, Pazuzu is not a demon at
all, but rather an ancient Neo-Assyrian deity. His functions are to
bring pestilence and to control the southwest wind. His most famous act
was to vanquish the evil goddess, Lamashtu, who was considered to be the
cause of miscarriage and childhood illness. Hence the Iraqi museum
curator’s comment on seeing Merrin handling the Pazuzu amulet he has
uncovered from the dig, “Evil against evil.â€Â Neither author Blatty nor
director Friedkin suggest that Pazuzu is a demon or is any way involved
in the MacNeil possession.
Second, the Pazuzu amulet and later the large Pazuzu statue, figure
in the Prologue as projection carriers for Merrin’s mounting sense of
dread. Merrin’s unconscious mind seizes on these ancient pagan symbols,
which begin to trigger premonitions and feelings of dread within the old
priest. They are the stimuli, not the causes, of his apprehensions. The
Iraq dig becomes for Merrin an omen, a foreshadowing that he must soon
“face an ancient enemyâ€. This enemy is not Pazuzu, but a nameless demon
that Merrin confronted and defeated in Africa some twelve years
previously. Nowhere in the novel or the film is the demon named.
Certainly if Merrin thought the demon was Pazuzu, he would have called
it by that name. Instead, Merrin c0nsistently refers minimally, curtly,
to the possessing entity merely as “the demonâ€.
I've never really looked at it that way. They have very good points. Has Blatty ever blatantly referred to the demon inside Regan being Pazuzu? I think Friedkin has – but I'd say the official word comes from Blatty.
Hey, Justin. Imagine my surprise and delight to find that you posted from my blog, http://rennyo01.wordpress.com/ – having been away from here for such a long time I just had to comment 🙂
Yes, Blatty “guessed” that the demon might be Pazuzu, but ultimately he “doesn't know”… to me that perfectly preserves the aura of mystery that the novel conveys. I suppose we'll never know, but it's fun and scary to speculate…
As Father Merrin said, “There is only one.” ugot quoted lines from the novel referring to Pazuzu. Regardless of Blatty's postulations or musings after the fact, the written material speaks for itself. The evidence is clear … the demon is Pazuzu in the novel.
Father Bowdern
But the written material is not clear. That's the cleverness and subtlety of Blatty's skilled writing.
Merrin never names the demon, never “calls it out” it by name during the exorcism (which is a crucial bit of manipulative data extremely helpful in the ritual), and always calls it “the demon” – never “Pazuzu”. Merrin thinks of it only as “that Other who ravished his dreams”.
And this is after he has held the Pazuzu amulet in his hands and gazed at a Pazuzu statue. If Blatty was really imagining that the demon was Pazuzu, he missed the literary boat, and in the process made Merrin such a dullard that the senescent priest doesn't recognize this “ancient enemy” even while consciously handling a charm and viewing a statue that he knows are representations of Pazuzu. Moreover, archeologist and exorcist Merrin would not be likely to mistake a defunct mythical Iraqi god for the very real personality he had combatted twelve years earlier. And, in fact, Merrin does not commit this error.
The novel's references to Pazuzu are representational, not literal. After all, Pazuzu is not the only “demonic/premonitory” symbol in the Prologue: there are also “the bones of man”, a highway that “flung itself headlong into dread”, a speeding droshky that nearly collides with Merrin … not to mention ancient gods besides Pazuzu, namely, Nabu and Ishtar. Pazuzu – together with all these other brushstrokes of the demonic – are what make Merrin intuit that his ancient enemy is stirring again.
Unfortunately, the film muddies the water by its plastering Pazuzu on Regan's bedroom wall (extended version) and projecting it as a vision during the exorcism. But the novel is sophisticated enough not to stoop to such literalism.
It's so nice to hear from you again, granville!Â
Â
Hmm.. I have to agree with granville on here, FatherB.
Well, Sof, how kind of you, it's so nice to hear from you. Hope all is well with you. Guess I'll be stopping by now and then, though most of my, errr, “creative writing” these days is devoted to the imdb movie discussion boards 🙂
Hope you have a great week.
Sofia said:
It's so nice to hear from you again, granville!Â
Â
Hmm.. I have to agree with granville on here, FatherB.
Sof, no need to agree or disagree on this subject … you guys know the novel better than I do. I only based my reply from what you and ugoto… gave reference points to from the novel about the name “Pazuzu.” That made it seem clear that it is what it is.
Actually, I should have paid more attention to what Jagged wrote because he is quoting the author who knows his own material better than any of us:
“I've quoted this here so many times in answer to this question. Here we go again…
“Blatty's words on the subject from his 1974 book “Exorcist From Novel to Film
'”Even in terms of my novel, I have never known the Demon's identity. I strongly doubt that he is Satan; and he is certainly none of the spirits of the dead whose identity he sometimes assumes. If I had to guess I would say he is Pazuzu, the Assyrian demon of the southwest wind. But I'm not really sure. I know only that he's real and powerful and evil and apparently one of many and aligned with whatever is opposed to love.”'
XXXOOO,
FatherB
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.