Talk:Pazuzu (The Exorcist)

131.178.241.194
Just to add a little bit: in the Exorcist III the main demon / devil inside Father Karras was Legión, Pazuzu was a secondary one who asked Legion's help fallowing the plan traced by the Devil himself in order to revange against the ones involved in the exorcist of Reagan.
 * Um, what? 104.169.16.37 (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge?
It seems a little strange to have separate pages for Pazuzu and Captain Howdy when they are essentially the same character. Coudln't Captain Howdy be merged as a section on the Pazuzu page? user:Mr. Blonde 139 16:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Captain Howdy was never a "character" in "The Exorcist". That was simply the "friendly" name that Regan used to refer to the demon before anyone fully understood what was going on. As father Karras did research to try and prove/disprove it an authentic case of possession, the name was thought to possibly have something to do with her father, whose name was "Howard". Such psychological theorizing, along with the name "Captain Howdy", was discarded once the possession was believed to be authentic.ShirleyPartridge (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

hgbr
The demon Pazuzu was in no way "invented" by William Peter Blatty; it belongs in Assyrian Demonology and was thought to be responsible for draught, famine (due to sandstorms and invading scavenger grasshoppers) and plagues. It is mentioned in many works on this subject, and is known by several names ("The demon/evil spirit/of the southwest wind" et al.). The referece to the possessed person being occupied by several evil spirits is of course a reference to Jesus conversation with the possessed man ("Call us Legion, for we are many.") though the Bible makes no mention of there actually being several demons involved in this particular case, the spirits, when cast out, invades a herd of swine and runs to their self destruction/doom. The Bible does, however, mention that Mary Magdalene was cleansed from seven evil spirits by Jesus. Hence "Legion".

"The demon is a liar...he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us..." says Father Merrin. The demon claims to be the devil, he gives the appearance of being Pazuzu by omens and apparitions. On this, Blatty says that "...the invading demon would probably be Pazuzu, the old Babylonian demon of the Southwest wind...". On the other hand, Father Merrin says "There is only one!" and to me, that implicates that the possessed might be occupied by the Satan, and no other. The apparitions of Pazuzu are symbolic, the way I see it; a message to Merrin. User:hansgbruggener,1st March 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansgbruggener (talk • contribs) 06:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually no, that is covered pretty well in the novel "The Exorcist". According to Blatty, the demon possesing Regan was Pazuzu, not "Satan". The demon went to great lengths to delude and confuse those around it, often by pretending to be different identities. That was part of the demon's "charm", though Merrin knew him to be the singular Pazuzu, whom he had a history with. ShirleyPartridge (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The invading spirit...
Yes, I see what you mean. This was my first interpretation also, but nevertheless William Peter Blatty is quoted correctly from his book "William Peter Blatty:On The Exorcist", where he says the demon is PROBABLY Pazuzu. William Friedkin goes even further, when he says the film MIGHT be one about possession, and as much as I like the works of Friedkin, I found this a bit strange. Suddenly it was up to us as viewers to decide what we thought after what we had been shown. /HGB Hansgbruggener (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that makes sense, there were different things that the possessed Regan did to throw everyone off, like assuming different personalities (Burke Dennings, the drunk in the subway...), claiming to be the devil itself, reacting violently to the holy water even though she knew it was not blessed... So whatever it was that possessed Regan, it was intentionally deceitful. But I mean, who's to really say? A demon is kind of a difficult thing to define, not sure there are any real rules about them - Whether you're in Ancient Syria or a Jesuit University in Georgetown in the 70s... As I recall the novel was mostly about Karras's struggle to reconcile his loss of faith. As he investigated the case to determine it's "authenticity" he was more skeptical than any other major character in the story. Much of the research he did focused on how to explain it as some kind of psychological disorder. And there was lots of evidence to do that with. Even when he finally went to ask for permission to do the exorcism, he remained unconvinced that it was "real". So even though Karras's faith is restored in the end, there was ample exploration in the film to explain the events in non-spiritual terms. But remember, because of Merrins' discovery of the Pazuzu relic alongside the St Christopher medal in the beginning, and his confrontation with the statue of Pazuzu in Iraq, he knew he was going to confront his old foe. According to the book, Merrin knew Pazuzu from an exorcism many years before in Africa. I remember that when the delivery boy delivered the message to Merrin that he was being called to Georgetown, he didn't even open it. He didn't need to because he just knew. Seems unlikely that Blatty would forget he wrote the demon to be Pazuzu, because the sequel he wrote, "Legion" also included the same Pazuzu that had possessed Regan... Maybe he just recognizes that nobody really knows about things like demons for sure, and they remain open to interpretation. In the end though, The Exorcist really is a story about spiritual faith. If you've never read the book, its really very good, and explains a great deal that was not included in the film. ShirleyPartridge (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)