I’ve seen the film adaptation of The Exorcist multiple times before I ever picked up the novelization. I don’t think this skewed my perspective of the book outside of knowing what was going to happen. I will say that if I read the book prior to watching the film, I’m not sure if I would have been as apt to see it played out on screen. The Exorcist is on the short list of novels where I actually think the movie is superior.

The novel is good – not great. The theatrical version depicts Reagan’s possession visually better than William Peter Blatty paints it with his words. The written description does do an excellent job of depicting the grosser aspects of her possession. The film depicts her as physically grotesque but the novel does an excellent job of describing the demon’s behavior as crass and disgusting. Any possible romanticization of demons is completely dispelled. Blatty makes it clear that demons are grotesque in not only their nature but in their behavior just as much as in their appearance.

Something that stood out to me is that the book doesn’t do a lot of hand holding. The plot progresses from scene-to-scene sometimes within a paragraph, not in sections. There aren’t any cutaways or breaks in plot to transition from one scene to another. This forces the reader to really pay attention as it’s easy to lose track of where the scene is with this writing style. The book is under 400 pages, but Blatty makes use of each word with great efficiency. A lot happens and there isn’t a lot of build up or lulls between scenes once the story hits its stride.

Going back to hand-holding – or lack thereof; there isn’t a lot of explanation. It’s not explicitly stated but instead heavily implied that the Ouija Board Regan plays with in the beginning is the conduit for Pazuzu to enter into her. However, it’s never stated as to why Regan was chosen. The reader can eventually put two-and-two together that Merrin and the demon, Pazuzu, are familiar with one another and have unspecified history, but again Blatty doesn’t get bogged down with giving the backstory of either.

Not a lot of answers are given in the novel, which can be frustrating if you need every question answered but I personally think giving less can sometimes work tremendously well. Leaving questions unanswered breeds mystery which the novel does really well. Where I think the novel pales in comparison to the film is in the depiction of the horror. It does a good job of unsettling with its depiction of Regan’s possession but the visualization of the film does a much better job at outright scarers than the novel.

I’m not sure if Blatty was looking to creep us out but the novel doesn’t seem invested in showing the terror of the possession. We see the psychological and emotional fallout of Regan’s possession on her mother, Chris, but it doesn’t touch the film in terms of pure scares. Speaking of Chris – I disliked her in the novel. Likable characters aren’t paramount to a good story but she was kind of shitty. I hated how she allowed Dennings to speak to Karl while in her house as if it were his own. I also disliked the relationship between her and Dennings. She seemed keen to cozy up to the film director which came off as fake. She was also off-putting with the way she spoke to Sharon, her secretary, and Willie and Karl, her home aides. She was verbally rude and off-putting even prior to Regan’s possession, so that can’t be used as an excuse. Chris sucked.

Father Damien Karras is the high point of the novel. His shaken faith and humanization makes for very compelling and intriguing reading. He’s a great character whose death seemed unfair but his untimely demise provided a bittersweet ending that gives the novel emotional depth. Karras is losing his faith in God, so his searching for a psychiatric cause of Regan’s possession is because his acceptance of her possession means that he would have to subsequently re-accept his faith. I know we needed to see pushback to the acceptance of Regan’s possession but Karras began to get ridiculous with the reaches he was making to twist her obvious bewitchment into a mental disorder. His psychological explanations for her possession became more illogical than simply believing in the possession. This section was annoying and silly and I wish that it could have been written better. At no point was there any suspense or ambiguity to suggest that Regan’s affliction was anything other than possession. A modern example would be the film The Exorcism of Emily Rose. That film did a good job of giving just as much credence to her not being possessed as there was evidence for her being possessed. Father Karras’s objections would have landed better if the same approach was taken here.

Overall I enjoyed The Exorcist. It’s a book that once you pick up is pretty hard to put down. The book is good but the only reason it should be heralded as a classic is because it’s the basis for the legendary film. The film far exceeds the novel, which is no slight. This is a unique circumstance because a lot of times the film cuts secondary plot points from the novel but that isn’t the case here. The novel is pretty bare-and-bones in a way, with not a lot of fat to trim. This served as a sketch and a launching pad for the entire Exorcist franchise to be made. Some of the follow-up movies in The Exorcist franchise are shaky but nonetheless, it’s still impressive that a novel can spawn an entire film series.

- 8.0/10