CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Nice find, Magus, thanks for sharing. I don’t find much of it really convincing. Especially since he doesn’t seem to know Chris MacNeil’s first name. Every time he mentions it, it sounds like he is saying either “Sam” or “Sarah” MacNeil. Does it seem that way to anyone else? I hear Sam or Sarah, not “Chris”…
I don’t recall anything about a ouija board or any other occult dabbling in Felicitas Goodman’s book. Anneliese’s first experiences – visions of demonic faces – were unmediated, “out of the blue” impressions.
I don’t believe the possession was genuine because it was fed by folk-fundamentalism, clerical gullibility, and medical incompetence.
Goodman demonstrates that the condition was aggravated by misdiagnosis and mis-prescription. Moreover, the content of Anneliese’s ravings, while unpleasant and “wickedly” nasty, did not exhibit any truly supernatural intelligence or activity.
Goodman suggests that Anneliese was undergoing a spontaneous, classic shamanic initiation experience, an event not uncommon in circumpolar and other native cultures.
The difference – and the harm – being that her culture did not recognize it as such. Its religious custodians saw only demonic possession, and its medical custodians were not broadly educated enough to see in her symptoms a classic shamanic vision-pattern.
The resulting mis-readings and mis-diagnoses killed the unfortunate girl.
Goodman shows how the peculiar but quite natural brain events involved in the Michel “possession” were holistic – with a definite beginning, middle, and denouement. The shamanic brain events are “meant” to unfold in a particular way – if allowed to do so, and if “correctly” interpreted by the custodians of a shamanically-knowledgable culture.
Tragically for Anneliese, no one knew what was really going on, and clerical and medical intervention interrupted the
necessary unfolding of the shamanic syndrome before it could reach its natural climax and return the subject once again to social normality.The result of this cultural failure was Anneliese’s descent into madness, starvation, and death.
Jolen hurmenske schtiditeken sluut por lefke skanska jebimini farlu karliskin Von Sydow nissi mujurlesness Skarsgaard fluniharmska riminismorken dar puur cinemakinen Harlin perjorur!
Only “if it meets the guidelines set down in the Ritual”. Anything short of that would smell of hoax and hysteria. Also the Ritual demands that the exorcist be spiritually strong and holy. That leaves me out.
Good to hear from you, Blizzi.
magus – yes, both novel and film terrified me, but especially tne novel, cuz I was raised in the Catholic church, and I could tell after reading the first twenty or so pages that Blatty knew his Catholic stuff – he was obviously writing as an insider. And the stuff he wrote about resonated with the Catholic world as I experienced it, from his descriptions of priests, to the theological issues, to the humor, etc., there was a colossal documentary “feel” that was utterly convincing.
His descriptions of the initial poltergeist activity on thru the ultimate stages of possession were absolutely shocking and dread-inspiring.
The movie, somewhat less so. I wish Regan had been red-headed and slender, as in the book. Blair was fantastic in the part, but she didn’t look much like Regan as I had imagined her. Her apple-cheeked round face was not able to suggest the extreme emaciation that the book describes. Also, her voice was not the “booming deep male bass” as portrayed in the novel – granted, when Merrin arrives toward the end of the film, we finally hear a montrously loud voice (“MMMMEEEERRRRRIIIINNNN!”), but before that, the demonic voice was too feminine. Sly and nasty, yes, but not the “basso profundo” that would have suggested a powerful “male” demon. As when the nightstand drawer opens by itself and Karras asks, “Did you do that?” – the “demon” answers, “Un-huhhhh” in a way that’s always struck me as just too cutesy-coy.
Also I think the film had some misplaced dialogue. In the novel, Karl asks – in context – if “she (Regan) is going to be well?” In the film this line has been transposed to the stairs scene when Chris is asking where the crucifix came from. As a reply to Chris’s query, “She is going to be well?” is weak at best, and incongruous at worse. Same for the line, again spoken by Karl, “It wants no straps”, which is incongruous for the reason that the audience does not yet know that Regan has been strapped to the bed for her own safety. People I’ve watched with are baffled by the line and they keep asking, “What did he say?”
But those are relatively trivial complaints. The film remains one of my all-time favorites.
No, I did not realize Burroughs tried these out! Though it sounds like him – as a “seeker”, he was involved in Scientology for a while…
Yeah, I don’t know if there is a current copy available… I got a dog-eared edition at a used book store maybe 20 or more years ago…
I don’t believe in “the real thing” except theoretically. If a case, after stringent analysis, indicates a truly supernatural ivasion by a discarnate malevolent spirit, I’d look into it. But in all my admittedly limited reading I have never come across anything faintly resembling “the real thing”.
Blatty’s genius was to indicate, mostly thru Regan’s possessed dialogue, a supernatural being. He took the most sensational aspects of possession cases, fitted them onto the Regan character… then gave the demon lines that indicated a personality so different from Regan’s that the reader is strongly propelled to consider demonic possession a reality.
That this has not occurred in a single case of possession is suggestive that, to date, there is proof of the supernatural in any reported case of possession. A peculiar mental illness that goes by the name “possession”? Sure. Occasional paranormal events during said “possession”? Okay. A truly supernatural, superhuman, preternaturally intelligent, fallen angelic possessing entity? Zero evidence for that – at least, thus far – although, as I mentioned, I’m willing to accept persuasive evidence to the contrary.
Correction – should read:
That this has not occurred in a single case is suggestive that, to date, there is NO proff of the supernatural…
Sorry.
Interesting book. Jung suggested reading backward as a model of psychological development, i.e., start with the clear light from which the psyche (theoretically) evolves and follow the chain back down to the crystallized ego.
Re: the Maryland asylum inmates’ reaction to the priest – I think Blatty cites a similar case where a priest went to give Communion to a Catholic patient in a mental ward. He was not wearing priestly clothing, but he was carrying a pyx (a small container for the Hosts) hidden on his person.
According to Blatty, a significant number of patients reacted strongly as the priest passed thru the ward, tho’ he was dressed in civvies. Purportedly, they were able to sense the “Eucharistic presence of Christ” in the hidden pyx. To me this sounds like aggrandizing, edifying urban legendry. Also, as you mention, it hints at the superstitious, nasty notion that mentally ill people “have demons”…
