The Exorcist: A Terrifying Classic of American Horror

In terms of “classics,” the way this one is written would fit in well with a lot of more recent well-written works.I don’t know if it can still be called “the most terrifying book ever written,” but I’m sure it was up there in its time, and still holds up well today.I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. Not that I thought it would be “bad” or anything, I just expected a lot of religious stuff that isn’t my cup of tea. It wasn’t like that at all though. I enjoyed the cast of characters and the so-called “exorcism” happens amongst people who don’t believe in such things, making the whole situation more relatable for me.And overall it was just an easy, enjoyable read.

It's no wonder horror enthusiasts continue to sanctify and adore this book. It has not been canonized with mere surreptitious praise, for Blatty performed a rare feat, a paradigmic shift in horror fiction. There was horror before The Exorcist and that which came after. He forced us all to peer into those dark corners of our life experience and shiver at the unknown. And what he unfolds in us is deep and frightening. To call this book a demon story is like calling The Old Man and the Sea a fish story. The only real problem is the movie, the 1973 film. We've all seen it. The film not only didn't diminish the literature, as most book-to-screenplays routinely do, but it amplified, it illuminated, it brought the book home, and brought the book into our psychies. Few screenplays have managed that: Gone with the Wind, To Kill a Mockingbird, or The Godfather perhaps.I too, like so many who now remember, dared the chill night air, and stood in a line of eager cinema-goers; a queue two and a half blocks long complete with hotdog vendors and hippie flower girls selling whatever they were selling that night. Like most youngsters of the era, I liked to be swept into a scene, in the thrall of the human condition, and then shocked and assaulted by creatures of a really good writer's imagination. I'm not unique by any means. I mean...the line was long.But as an adult, a work of fiction has never startled me, never thrown my head back in fright, never made me bite my nails, never done what the visual intensity of a film can still do to my emotional makeup. The written word has another, more settled, more careful, circumspect connection with a reader than does the film version. And if you've seen the film before you've read the book, the film may dominate the writing. Of course, some books simply cannot be adapted to the screen: flights of fiction-slash-philosopy such as The Brothers Karamozov, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, or Gravity's Rainbow. Then there occur those books which are made and remade into film, each generation re-attempting to convey the richness of the textual narrative, reinterpreting to a modern ear, using the newest cinematic tools at hand: Beau Gest, The Four Feathers, Hamlet, Lord of the Rings (actually Peter Jackson may have hit the mark with this book.) I cannot envision another remake of The Exorcist. The character cast of the '73 film is already set in stone in my visual cortex, so much so that it illustrated Mr. Blatty's narrative as I read the book.The strong correspondence between book and film gives the reader no quarter to create the characters, architecture, or landscapes in his own mind. Thus the faces of 13 year old Linda Blair, Ellen Burstyn, Max von Sydow, or the wonderful, late Lee J. Cobb cannot help but come to mind as one pours through the book. The filmmaker's perspectives of Blatty's beloved Georgetown, and not my own experience there, sets the textual backdrops. But this may merely represent the weaknesses of this reviewer's imagination and not trouble that of another reader. On to the book.The tale begins in Iraq. ( The first generation that read this book would not come preconditioned with the baggage with which today's reader is burdened. In 1971, Iraq meant bible lands, nomads astride camels and deeply ancient mysteries. ) Father Lankester Merrin, an archaeologist-priest exhausted with life, has just completed a dig and is now faced with returning home to the states. But his heart is heavy with an "inchoate presentiment" of impending evil, evil which he believes he will be called to face and overcome. Having long ago stripped off a youthful fancy that Lucifer, the one-time angel of God, the angel of light, was still trying to get back to God the Father, he now knew that evil sought no such return. Evil is pure evil, and will always come up against the light and against any goodness in this world, and once encountered, must be fought.In his dig he had come upon a clue to his dreadful prescience of an impending confrontation, a small talisman against Pazuzu, a demon bringing sickness and disease. Before he leaves Iraq, to know at least the face of his enemy, Merrin seeks out and finds the full scale icon of Pazuzu in the ancient ruins of the palace of Ashurbanipal. Though Mr. Blatty doesn't explain his reference to Ashurbanipal, the student of history, or anyone with an encyclopedia, could easily find out why the author alludes to this ancient Assyrian king. Ashurbanipal ruled his world by sheer terror and the dread of his evil passing. By his own words he would routinely flay the skins from his living enemies and drape them from their own battlements and corpse mounds. He took their people into slavery, but not before he had thrown their infant and adolescent children alive into great human bonfires. Therefore one can sense the horrible character of the demon god Pazuzu, evidenced by the evil king that revered him. And Merrin knew. "He bowed his head. He knew. It was coming."The exorcism brings the cast of characters to a face-to-face encounter with all of their own alternate realities, whether it's Father Karras's penury and loss of faith, or Chris MacNeil's illusory world of luxury, fame, and wealth. Pazuzu, Satan, Lucifer, devil or demon; whatever invests the life of Regan, soon infects everyone else concerned, and all the previous cares and woes of the world drop away as they face this stark and dominant truth about our existence.Why do we continue to honor and praise this story? Because it deserves praise and merits honor. Blatty changed horror as we understood it. How often does that happen?

At the end of it all... it's about a man's loss of faith and his return to it.There is no greater gift than to sacrifice one's life to save another. ✨️

The depth you get to know the priests, especially Karras, works really well for the book. Sometimes in these movies one half of characters are skeptical, and one half are too eager to jump in. Mulder/Scully. But Karras really goes as much as possible trying for this not to be true. I found it fascinating how some ESP and telepathy was ascribed as NOT being evidence for possession. This moved fast, wasn't too bad of a relic of it's time (Chris can be somewhat insufferable at times though). I might actually do the sequel!

It is a twist and turn and the pages kept me wanting to read more and more. Definitely not like the movie

I was terrified to even attempt to read this novel. I was extremely surprised it did not even come close to being as horrifying, for me, as The Amityville Horror by Jay Anson. Nor, does the film adaption of Blatty’s work bring half as much fear to my bones as the film The Exorcism of Emily Rose.With that said I felt as though this was a novel that the film outshined the novel by leaps and bounds! Although there are differences here and there I felt the film adaption was done extremely well, actually better. I felt Linda Blair portrayed a far better Regan than what I pictured from William’s book. Also, I felt that Ellyn Burstyn portrayed a far more enjoyable Chris than Blatty wrote. I felt that Blatty made Chris very flat, repetitive, and downright annoying. Actually, Blatty made Chris a really crappy person as well, and she treated her housekeepers and secretary like garbage. I felt like Father Damien and Father Merrin were the best as far as Blatty writing them, and the casting was on par with the novel.I was very surprised that this book didn’t terrify me the way I felt it would, and if you are a fan of the film I feel in this case the novel actually was weaker than the film. Although an entertaining read, and fun to say I’ve read it, I wouldn’t really say it is a must read.Overall, I wouldn’t even put this in my top 5 scariest Horror novels. It was good, but not great. Sometimes I really enjoy when the movie is far more superior to the source material itself. That is precisely the case with William Peter Blatty’s The Exorcist. For that I will give it 🌟🌟🌟 1/2 stars since without it there would not have been the chilling adaptation to the silver screen.