[granville1]

Different strokes for different folks, I guess… for me, the ambiguity in the novel works as a driving force of suspense, conflict, and dread – in the first three-quarters of the story. However, Blatty himself does all he can – again, in the novel, not in the Friedkin-influenced film – to resolve this issue at the _climax_ of the story.

Since he’s on record that he doesn’t want people to think the demon won, I think we can only interpret Karras’s last words – “No, I won’t let you hurt them – you’re coming with me!” – plus the glint of triumph Dyer sees in his eyes as he’s dying – as _vindicating_ the supernatural, genuine-possession view.

Otherwise, Karras’s self-sacrifice was for nothing – and remember, this is the opposite of Blatty’s intention – basically, Karras would have not committed “demonicide”, but suicide – worse, suicide based on a delusional belief in Regan’s possession.

Also, if the possession was not genuine and supernatural, there is no _unforced_ explanation as to why Regan’s possession ended with Karras’s inviting the demon to “come into me” and leaping out the window putatively carrying the demon with him.

Succinctly, the loss of the genuinely supernatural explanation:

1) vitiates Blatty’s authorial intention and so should be avoided, unless one is claiming that Blatty’s writing is so inept that it can’t carry thru his stated essential message;

2) vitiates Karras’s sacrifice, turning it into a sad, sick, unnecessary and meaningless suicide;

3) fails to explain Regan’s sudden recovery, immediate upon the seemingly genuine self-sacrifice by Karras;

4) fails to explain Chris’s summation of Karras: “I’ve never seen such faith”; fails to explain Kinderman’s nagging doubt that something strange still remains about the case, beyond mere mental illness and the rational conclusions of police forensics.

Therefore I believe, based on Blatty’s own statements and evidence internal to the novel’s structure, that the “genuine possession”/supernaturalist view is the correct one.

[Sofia]

Thanks for answering. 🙂

based on Blatty’s own statements and evidence internal to the novel’s structure, that the “genuine possession”/supernaturalist view is the correct one.

But the great thing is that Blatty leaves it up to the reader to decide what happened. He said in an interview once that in part, he thinks that is why the novel is so interesting; and you are always in some doubt and suspense, because at every turn there seems to be a new medical or psychiatric explanation for what is happening to Regan.

I like psychiatry, so that’s why I really enjoy those extensive discussions and theories on Regan’s paranormal activities.
I thought other fans here would like this aspect of the book too.

[granville1]

Yeah, part of Blatty’s art is to allow a modicum of multiple choice without forcing a conclusion on the reader. The book would have suffered if the author’s meaning had been chiseled in stone…

[ManInKhakiExorcist]

Interesting topic. I would just like to add that, as in life, Blatty’s piece of art here — the novel — is full of evidence, non-evidence, and anti-evidence to there being a reality consisting of the spiritual. This is what makes the novel and the film so scary and believeable; it’s realistic, three-dimensional — not simply a 1 or 2-D characature/cartoon. And Friedkin’s documentary style, and the unique tone/voice/style Blatty breathes into the novel help crystalize this.

M.I.K.E.

[Sofia]

This is what makes the novel and the film so scary and believeable; it’s realistic, three-dimensional —

I’ve chatted with some people who loved the book but didn’t really like the movie as it tends to convince the audience that the possession is genuine.

[Greg]

These are very great points by the way. I do have to make a point myself that if there was some doubt (in the film at least since a lot of its driving horror is through the observation of something you cannot control or understand) that it was not actual possession– the actual horror of it would fall apart, and as Granville perfectly put it, would fall apart on its conclusions. The great thing about a book is that you can offer many various ideologies and perceptions, but a film has to have a clear focus as to what the director/writer is saying (with hopefully some open ended discussion depending on the subject material) or otherwise the audience could walk away feeling confused or misguided. Nobody likes to be told what to think or feel during a film (or in any other way for that matter), but it is good to create a good balance where one can have a good understanding in what they just saw.

Has anyone planned to put any of these earlier points in an essay about Blatty’s work? Could make a great collage of views.

[granville1]

I would like to see a collage of views of Blatty’s work. Included might be an examination of his “Angel” theory (which he got from a friend) in Legion. In some ways it resembles a kind of Gnostic creation myth and it resonates with some of the Merrin stuff from the first novel…

[pazuzusreganistheonlyregan]

WHERES MY SOFI????

[pazuzusreganistheonlyregan]

WHERES MY SOFI????

[ManInKhakiExorcist]

Hey, guys. Don’t quote me, but I’m pretty sure there may be an essay or two on some of those specific subjects in MacFarland Publishing’s forthcoming essays book on the man’s works.

The wait will be even more agonizing than Dominion’s was, I predict! 😛 EARLY 2008. Here before we know it, in all major bookstores on and off-line, if not also minor ones. Stay tuned. 🙂

M.I.K.E.

Ps. Draft 1 of my essay on ‘Demons Five, Exorcists Nothing’ is nearing completion, then on to revisions. But it’s going great. I’d give genuine specifics on my particular essay or those of the other essayists, but I adore suprises kept by contract. 😉 I’m sure you understand. Hang in there, gang! 🙂 Early ’08! Quite literally DAYS away! Yes, DAYS. Weeks and months, TOO; okay, ya got me! 😛

[Sofia]

I love the mystery about whether or not Regan was really possessed in the novel. Medicine, psychiatry and its theories are so interesting. In the movie it’s obvious that she’s possessed, but I’ve read on Peter Travers’s book that Friedkin’s original intention was to keep that mystery:
“I would like there to be a great controversy about it. I would like to see people leaving the theatre arguing about whether it was possession or a disease with no name. But they won’t be arguing about anything unless they believe it.”
Too bad he changed his mind by adding the levitation scene; showing what happened to Karras at the end, etc.

[Author]

Posts