Gerald Brittle (1947–2022)

Maybe it’s just me, but there’s nothing like a “Based on a true story” message at the start of a movie that drives a horror fan to Wikipedia afterwards. I’m guessing that I can’t be the only one who came to this book after watching James Wan’s The Conjuring, and the truth is that I picked up the book to be entertained -- more specifically, to be scared. (Ed Warren may argue that this makes me a more inviting candidate for demon visitation, or a more innocent spirit show more manifestation, but at least I have better weapons now.) The Demonologist is touted as a reference book for exorcists-in-training, and you can’t get more authoritative than that -- provided, of course, you give credence to the preternatural in the first place.

So is it scary? Oh, it is -- but only if you’re a believer. And by “believer” I don’t necessarily mean a devout and practicing Catholics like Ed Warren, I mean anyone who concedes even the slight possibility of people lingering on -- whether as spirits or as mere energy -- after death. If you believe this, then from there it’s a slippery slope -- at least if you allow yourself to be seduced by the Warrens’ lucid explanation -- to accepting the existence of malevolent entities. But it sure helps if you’re a Catholic, and I guarantee you, you’ll be good and scared.

As a book though -- and not just in terms of the stories being told -- The Demonologist is a mixed bag. The chapters are divided somewhat arbitrarily, sometimes by case, sometimes by theme, and it’s confusing. Structurally, it’s repetitive, as the same practical advice gets duplicated towards the end. Stylistically, The Demonologist is a bit of a mess, as it’s written as a series of interview transcripts by Gerald Brittle, who isn’t the most critical raconteur. Some of the cases would have been more effective in the telling had they been fully narrated in the first person by Ed Warren. (Note that Lorraine Warren, clairvoyant and Ed’s wife, is as much a part of the interviews, but there’s only one demonologist in the title.)

At certain points one wishes Brittle -- and indeed, there’s not much of him in the book, which is why The Demonologist reads more like dictation -- would interject with questions of his own. Ed Warren would interpret, with seeming authority, a demon’s utterances -- and then turn around a page later and remind the interviewer that “demons are master liars” and that nothing they say -- ostensibly the basis for Warren’s pronouncements -- should be trusted. Or Warren would expound at length on the demonic realm, for instance, then glibly provide the caveat “I’m a practicing demonologist, not a theologian.”

What makes The Demonologist particularly interesting is how it stands as a kind of template / blueprint for just about every haunted house / demon possession cultural artifact in the past few decades -- far more so, I would argue, than William Peter Blatty’s The Exorcist. (I mentioned something similar in my blog entry on The Conjuring; it’s no different from previous movies, but that’s because of the source material.) Every film staple you’ve seen -- doorknobs that won’t turn, people that levitate, furniture that moves, mysterious knocks on the walls, footsteps in the middle of the night -- they’re all enumerated here as evidence of an “inhuman presence.” Even waking up the same time in the middle of the night (I felt the proverbial shiver down my spine just now, re-reading the passage below):

Most notably, the individual in an infested environment will have an unshakeable feeling of another presence in the house. This sense of presence will develop to a point where the individual… may begin waking up at fixed times of the night, or at precisely three o’clock in the morning.

And yes, I woke up at three in the morning for two successive nights after reading this book. show less

While I have never believed in possession, and this book does nothing to change my mind, it was a fun book. The cases they highlight are creepy as hell. In fact, listening to this on audiobook while vacationing at a cottage, I found I could not listen to parts of it when I was out walking at night. Listening to the narrator recreate some conversations with the demonic completely creeped me out and had me scrambling for the pause button.

So, for me, I treated the book as a work of brilliant show more fiction and had fun with it. Yes, there's some religion in there, yes, there's the typical supernatural mumbo-jumbo quasi-scientific speak (such as "spirit vibrations" and so on), but overall, just to go through some of the cases is absolutely worth the read. Though, the case that formed the basis of the film The Conjuring (an excellent and terrifying movie, by the way) is never mentioned in this book. show less

If you've spent any time in the paranormal, either as an enthusiast or a researcher, you've heard of Ed and Lorraine Warren. And, if you've spent as much time in the field as I have, you've heard a lot of varying opinions about them. The Warrens tend to be a polarizing element within the paranormal community, and most of it seems to depend on what experience, if any, an individual has had with them.

I've heard the opinions, good and bad, but figured that The Demonologist was essential show more reading, regardless of how valid the Warrens may or may not be. So, here we are.

The book opens by going, as the first chapter declares, "Beyond Amityville." This was the case that really made the Warrens' career. And again, it is a polarizing case within the paranormal community. Some people will tell you that the Lutz family made the whole thing up along with the DeFeo's lawyer to help his case for insanity, others will tell you it is 100% factual, even though there is no real evidence to back that up. Then again, as I read through the Warrens' cases contained here, 100% factual evidence is severely lacking.

Now, Ed and Lorraine will claim they have thousands of photographs, hours of tape recordings, and even video footage that exists as hard evidence that their lifelong battle with the demonic forces of evil is real and as horrible as they claim, but when asked to show said evidence they either claim it is too horrible to be seen, or show off some photos that could be legitimate evidence, but could also be easily staged. The tape recordings that Brittle is allowed to hear and publish in this book are the same. They could be legit, but they could also be the product of someone having fun with sound editing (especially the "demon" that gives credence to Ed's commands to reproduce specific animal sounds).

One problem I found as I read was Ed's immediate dismissal of parapsychologists. In Ed's own words, parapsychologists "don't want to find a ghost," so they apparently look for any possible excuse to deny that witnessed paranormal activity is actually a spirit (or demon, which is what the Warrens claim they have all this evidence of). I've known may parapsychologists, all of whom are willing to believe, but they need stronger verification than the "feelings" and adamant statements of people like the Warrens to go on. They are looking for hard, scientific evidence. Unlike the Warrens, they can't make claims at the drop of a hat and think that their colleagues will just accept it as the truth.

Another problem is the Warrens' attack on witchcraft and anything non-Christian. While Lorraine is quite clear to define a difference between white and dark witchcraft in the beginning, Ed seems to muddy the line between them later on. At one point, he claims a demon tells him that it is a "servant of Diane." When Brittle asks who Diane is, Warren tells him it is the "mythological goddess of the hunt." Mr. Warren, that would be DianA, not Diane (known as Artemis to the Greeks), and a goddess worshipped in Wicca. Ed has just put white witchcraft on the same level as demon worship.

Let's also talk about how every demon they face is compelled by the power of Christ. Crucifixes and holy water hurt them, standard exorcism rituals can defeat them. There are demons in every religion known to man, but they all recognize the Christian God as their enemy? There are also, apparently, two classes of demonic spirit the Warrens face, demons and devils. Devils are the top-ranked evil, the ones with all the power. Personally, I've always read that it's the other way around.

Ed will tell you that he's the only demonologist recognized by the Catholic church that isn't clergy, even though every resource I've ever found says you have to be a member of the clergy to ever be considered a demonologist. One wonders what Ed Warren has done to get such special treatment. Also, every clergyman they have called in to perform exorcisms or verify their finds seems to be a friend, or someone Ed is currently training. I mean, it makes sense that they would call someone they know, but it's also extremely convenient.

I won't claim one way or the other whether Ed and Lorraine Warren are the real thing, or exceptionally talented charlatans, because I simply don't know. The evidence does seem to point towards the latter, and I have plenty of friends who are ready to denounce them as frauds, but I don't have enough information to make a claim like that. However, when there is an instance in the book where, while being interviewed by Brittle, Lorraine bolts upright and runs into the bedroom (having heard nothing, but just having a "feeling") to find it trashed and a crucifix turned upside down, it does smack of pre-planning and convenient with the author right there. Again, unless Brittle himself saw it happen, we can't consider this hard evidence that the Warrens have been marked by the demonic for all the work they've done.

One does have to wonder, if all the souvenirs they have taken from their cases over the years are so dangerous as to keep the demonic spirits nearby and as a constant threat to Ed and Lorraine, why, instead of keeping them as museum pieces to the public (at a high price), why they wouldn't simply create a blessed vault where these pieces can never do any further damage (especially after the Annabelle doll supposedly caused a man's death after he taunted it and a possessed girl grabbed a black veil belonging to another possessed girl and added another powerful demon to herself). It feels like they want the potential stories they can add to their repertoire to me.

The vast majority of Ed and Lorraine's "evidence" is a series of anecdotal tales from their years working in this field, but where most paranormal investigators will say they can't really explain what it was that levitated that table (something I have had happen to me), the Warrens will immediately see the hands of an evil, demonic entity of some kind.

Lastly, I'll say this; at one point Brittle asks Ed Warren to describe what sort of activity goes on around his home (where, curiously, his museum of demonic paraphernalia is kept). After Ed's description of activity, Brittle then quotes a biography of Padre Pio which states activity almost identical to what the Warrens face on a regular basis. Now, it has been stated by Lorraine Warren that she carries a picture of Padre Pio with her whenever she and Ed investigate, so it's clear they know who he is and have studied his life. Am I the only one who sees the problem with Ed seeming to almost quote Pio's experiences as his own? It seems to me there should be some slight variation to the two narratives, but it sounds more like Ed just memorized Pio's ordeals with demons attacking his living space and made it his own.

Overall, this is a fun read. If you're interested in movies like the Amityville Horror and the Conjuring (or even Paranormal Activity, which was clearly influenced by the Warrens' stories), and especially if you want to know the "true" story behind those instances, this is a definite must read for you. Also, if you're interested in the theory and practice of demonology, this is also a must read (and is the reason I picked it up). But, if you are in any way skeptical to the world of the paranormal or expect someone with the kind of reputation the Warrens' have to provide solid evidence of their findings, you might come away from this book with a bit of a sour taste in your mouth. show less

It cracks me up how disparate the ratings are in this book's reviews. That's a sure sign of controversy about the book and its subject matter, with little regard to its quality. To rate a book 1 star because you believe the content is made up, yet being peddled as real is inappropriate. It would be like bashing [b:Frankenstein|18490|Frankenstein|Mary Shelley|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1381512375s/18490.jpg|4836639] or [b:The Malleus Maleficarum|771091|The Malleus Maleficarum|Heinrich show more Kramer|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1416873307s/771091.jpg|757149] for being unbelievable. I know, I know, the former was intended as fiction and the latter was from an unenlightened age by people who didn't know better. But does that imply there aren't books today peddling dubious concepts as fact by people that ought to know better...? I rest my case. I didn't make it ten pages into [b:Chariots of The Gods|91202|Chariots of The Gods|Erich von Däniken|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348588430s/91202.jpg|2015387] because not only was the subject matter ridiculous (which I knew before picking it up), but the style of presentation itself was ridiculous, like a street-corner preacher tugging at your shirt angry that you don't take his words as self-obvious fact. This book was nothing like that.

I thought this book was even better than [b:The Exorcist|179780|The Exorcist|William Peter Blatty|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1375168676s/179780.jpg|1945267]. The prose was clear, sharp, and intellectually rigorous. The plot, or rather the progression of the cases presented, was well-structured. The book oscillates, documentary-like, between the interview format and the narrative exposition of some of the cases. The cases are presented using simple, straight description. The interviewees give thoughtful, intelligent responses, dripping with expert knowledge. It is easy to tell the Warrens are well-read, humble individuals who love their work.

Do not pick up this book for a scare. Like [b:The Exorcist|179780|The Exorcist|William Peter Blatty|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1375168676s/179780.jpg|1945267], it is intended to inform the curious, not frighten an audience. The content can be appreciated for its explanatory detail regardless of the reader's level of skepticism. Theology can be a fascinating subject, but reading original documents can be tedious. This book succeeds in explaining theological concepts using secular language, and that is the source of its power. show less