Some books take you to strange places.Not all of them are fiction.I began Nightmares with the Bible as a way of understanding the many, disparate ideas of demons I encounter in popular culture.(I can’t tell you too much about my conclusions, otherwise you wouldn’t be tempted to buy the book!)One of those nagging questions is: what does “based on a true story” mean?I’ve known of Walter Wink’s powers trilogy for many years.Because of my research I’ve now settled down to read Unmasking the Powers (number two, for those keeping count).This book will take you into strange places.Wink was very much a Christian in his outlook and orientation.At the same time, he raises questions I’ve had other Christians put to me—were the “gods” of other nations, as in the Bible, real?That word real is slippery, and Wink tries to hold onto it.
Unmasking the Powers is a kind of systematic exploration of the various “spirits” found in the universe we inhabit.One of these is the Devil, and although Wink doesn’t see him as necessarily a “being,” neither does he find the Bible making him entirely evil.Indeed, one of the great conundrums of monotheistic belief is theodicy; how is it possible to justify the goodness of a single, all-powerful deity in a world with so much suffering?Wink approaches this question from an angle we might not anticipate.He then deals with demons.Since this is my subject in Nightmares, I found his discussion apt.And yet again, strange.Powers emanate from the institutions we create (you might have correctly guessed this was the book I wrote about on Tuesday).Wink is willing to challenge materialism and take such powers seriously.
Finding a new perspective when we’ve been reared in a materialistic one, can be difficult.For those of us raised religious, there was an inherent schizophrenia involved.Our teachers told us of a mechanistic universe, but had Bibles on their desks.(Yes, this was public school, but let’s not kid ourselves.)While physics taught us everything could be quantified, church taught us that spirit couldn’t.At least not by any empirical means.Wink will unblinkingly take you there.He offers both scientific and spiritual points of view on these entities, although he tries to refrain from calling them such.Still, he records many people who have seen angels.And although quantum entanglement wasn’t really known when he wrote this book, if it had been, Wink would’ve been nodding his head.
A story in Discover back in December discusses cave drawings from Indonesia.Dating back almost 40,000 years before the creation of the world, these cave paintings represent the oldest yet discovered.The interesting thing about such cave art is the representation of figures—both human and animal—that are instantly recognizable.Scientists studying the art are able to identify likely species, but, as John Morehead pointed out on his Theofantastique Facebook post, there are also fantastical beasts.We might call them monsters.It’s interesting to see how scientific writers shift from their awe at life-like illustration to a nearly palpable embarrassment when the creatures become mythical.Indeed, the article itself suggests such figures point to a very early sense of either fiction or spirituality.The monstrous and religion have long trod parallel paths and we are only now beginning to explore the implications.
Monsters are beings over which we have no control.They don’t abide by human rules and often the only recourse against them is religious.When monsters come knocking, it’s often wise to drop to your knees.Or at least reach for your crucifix.Many rationalists like to claim that human civilization developed without religion.The discoveries at sites such as Göbekli Tepe gainsay that assessment, indicating that humans first gathered for religious reasons and agriculture and all the rest followed from that.Perhaps they came together for fear of monsters?That’s only a guess, but I recall the defensive tower of Jericho.The archaeologist lecturing us as we stood by this neolithic structure asked “What were they afraid of?”He never answered that question.
Bringing monsters into the discussion isn’t an attempt to make light of these significant discoveries.Rather, we need to learn to appreciate the fact that monsters are serious business.Religion, whether or not literally true, is important.Civilization has been running the opposite direction for some time now.When surveys emerge demonstrating that the vast majority of the world’s population is still religious, analysts frown.It does make me wonder, however, if nature itself programs us this way.To other sentient creatures who experience us as predators, humans must look monstrous.We come in a variety of colors and textures (clothing), we smell of deodorant, shampoo, soap, aftershave, or none of the above.We emit strange sounds (our music).Are we not the monsters of the natural world?And should animals develop religion, would we not be one of the causes?It’s just a guess, but I need to sit in my cave and think about it for a while.
Childhood has a powerful draw.I first started reading Dark Shadows books when they were published for (I kid you not) 60 cents.I got them for cheaper than that at Goodwill.Every time I read one I wonder what my young imagination found so compelling in them, but in an effort to trust my younger self I keep on.So I read Marilyn Ross’ Barnabas, Quentin and the Witch’s Curse.The book doesn’t really say anything about a witch’s curse, providing as it does some of the backstory for Quentin.If you aren’t familiar with that background, and you want to be, Barnabas is a vampire and his cousin Quentin is a werewolf.Both were made so by curses, a plight the Collins family has long faced.
In recent years I have read the 19 volumes in the series preceding this one.They tend to be formulaic, and often show the signs of having been written quickly.W. E. D. Ross is sometimes listed as the most prolific Canadian author ever.He wrote over 300 books, mostly in genre fiction.It’s no wonder many of them sound the same.Still, I have to admit that both from watching Dark Shadows and from reading these novels as a kid, I liked Quentin.Yes, he was smug and self-confident, but as a werewolf he had the ability to become someone else.Unlike other books in the series, this one focuses on Quentin and points a pretty heavy finger to him being a Satanist.That seemed pretty harsh to me.There’s a difference between being the victim of a curse and being a Devil worshipper.
Now I know I shouldn’t take this as belles lettres.Ross is not remembered as a great stylist, master of character development, or for being all that creative.Dark Shadows was a soap opera—one of the more intelligent of the genre—and there’s only so much you can do with it.Satanism was a cultural concern in the 1970s.In the following decades it would bloom into an outright panic.I’m pretty sure that I never read this particular volume when I was young.Even now as a relatively mature man I found the implications somewhat disturbing.The Scooby-Doo ending doesn’t do much to ameliorate the undercurrent of evil.Quentin always seemed like such a sympathetic character to me.Maybe it just goes to show what happens when you go for a quick read rather than choosing a book of substance.Childhood can be that way.
I might excuse writing a post on Satan on Christmas Eve by positing that I misread the title of this book as Santa.After all, as Ryan Stokes explains, the Greek form of the title is ho satanas, which clearly contains the first of the canonical tripartite “Ho, ho, ho.”The reality, however, is that work on Nightmares with the Bible continues despite the holidays, and there’s so much reading to do that not all of it can be seasonal.I’ve known about Stokes’ book for some time, even as I’ve known his name through his various articles about the Satan.This book, while not exhaustive, is certainly comprehensive for the time period covered and lays considerable groundwork for future discussions of the Devil.What becomes obvious working through it, however, is that many different ideas about the Satan are represented in the Bible and related literature.
Long ago, as far back as my dissertation, I realized that it’s a problem for modern readers to systematize what ancients viewed disparately.The Bible has no single idea of the Devil.We’re quite accustomed to saying that “Satan” (which Stokes shows may not be a name in the Bible) and “the Devil” and Lucifer are all synonyms.That’s not really the case.Ancient peoples had many names for beings that caused problems, but not all of these entities were evil.Belial, Mastema, Melchiresha, Beelzebub (and the list could go on) were designations used by different groups at different times.These entities are sometimes agents of Yahweh, doing God’s will.At other times they seem to be enemies of God, adversaries.“Executioners,” is Stokes’ emphasis in these roles.In early (and more recent) attempts at systematization, readers have tried to roll these various images into one.With but limited success.
Ancient peoples didn’t feel the necessity that more modern ones do to make everything fit “scientifically.”After all William of Ockham hadn’t shown up yet to suggest complicated ways of explaining things should be simplified.We get the sense from reading ancient texts, including the Bible, that lots of ideas were floating around as to who these nasty beings might’ve been.And their nastiness was really the result of human perceptions of who they were because often they were in league with the Almighty.Theirs was not a simple, binary world of black and white.It was more like a photo that we would still designate by that term but which is really grayscale.Grayscale shades from white to black with the chiaroscuro preventing simple explanations.Although it’s not about Santa, this book is very informative and will raise any number of questions at any time of year.
The blog Theofantastique started a couple of years before this one.I remember that sense of childhood wonder that flooded me when I first saw its posts about books and movies with monsters—the kinds of things l always liked to read and watch.But it was more than that.This particular blog presents the very tangible connection between religion and horror.Not only horror, though.As the title indicates, this is a place for genre fiction of three closely related kinds: science fiction, fantasy, and horror.The three are separated by mere degrees of semantics, and all three play very near to the third rail we call religion.In my way of thinking, horror is probably the closest of the three, but I shift among this secular trinity and often wonder in which genre I am at the moment.
For someone who grew up being taught that religion was all about history—including a history of the future, mapped, plotted, and planned just as carefully as a summer vacation—seeing the connection with genres that are all acknowledged to be fiction was, at first, a little shocking.I’d been taught in literature classes that genre fiction wasn’t really literature at all.“Pulps” were printed on cheap paper because, as you might again guess from the name, they weren’t worth much.Many of those books are now collectors’ items and cost a pulp mill to purchase.My list of books from my childhood that I’d like to recover has me looking with some worry toward my bank book.The thing is, these are often insightful statements about religion.
Monsters were always a guilty pleasure for me.Being small, shy, and insecure, it was easy to understand things from the monster’s point of view.And very often religion was implicated.Sitting in my apartment in New Jersey, at times unemployed, I began to explore the connection between religion and horror.I thought I was the only one.Eventually I discovered kindred souls, and soon came to understand that monsters are perhaps the purest representations of what religion can do.Even after writing two books about this subject, Theofantastique is a place unlike any other I know.It has far more readers than I ever will, but this isn’t Godzilla v. Mothra.No, we’re all in this together.And we’re gathered together for one purpose.In any other circumstances you’d say it was religious.
“Since childhood I’ve been faithful to monsters. I’ve been saved and absolved by them because monsters are the patron saints of our blissful imperfections.” Guillermo del Toro’s quote came to me via my colleague John W. Morehead’s wonderful Theofantastique (actually its Facebook page).I get the sense that those of us in the field of teratology parallel play a lot.At least I console myself that way because so few monster sites link to my blog.Nevertheless, I have great respect for del Toro and his drive to bring monsters into the mainstream.His quote, however, hits upon a central theme of what I try to do here and elsewhere—reflect on what monsters have to do with religion.
Notice the religious language (obviously intentional): faithful, saved, absolved, patron saints.Monsters are indeed self-reflections, and they play on the same field as religion does.Often at the same time.Religion, even in the best of circumstances, entails fear.If everything were fine all the time, what need would we have of it?Instead, aspects of life we don’t cherish or anticipate come at us.Winter comes far sooner than we expected.Monsters lurk in that brief season between summer and winter, that autumn of the soul.They know us quite well.Our weaknesses are evident to them.But as del Toro notes, they absolve.And more readily than any Episcopalian.The religion of monsters is fierce and forgiving.When we watch them on the screen, we’re watching the drama of, in del Toro’s nomenclature, salvation.If we didn’t require saving, again, why would we need religion (or monsters)?
Being faithful to monsters again bears comparison with the divine.Should you become one of the lost while the 99 don’t require any assistance, your monsters will come find you.In fact, that’s what they most specialize in.What are dark nights of the soul without a little company?It’s not sacrilegious to map the divine world with that of monsters, for any language regarding such high stakes beings must be metaphorical.Our standard version of God is often a large human.Generally he’s male, and he doesn’t always display compassion, although capable of doing so.Monsters may be creatures of our own imaginations.They are cast large on the screen since they too stand in for those to whom we owe some tribute for this is not a safe world in which to raise your kids.Guillermo del Toro understands; we should listen.
Like those who write long books, those who write very many books ask for some level of commitment from their fans.I’m sure I’m not alone in wishing I had more time to read.I tend to be driven to Stephen King’s novels by the movies made around them, and there’s nothing wrong with that I suppose.I decided I wanted to read Cujo some years back when I was on a werewolf kick.I knew it wasn’t a werewolf story, yet as one who suffers from cynophobia even a large household pet will do.I didn’t know the story in advance, and I had no idea how it ended.It’s good to read novels like that sometimes.
I took it with me to San Diego and read most of it on the plane, finishing it somewhere over the mountain west.It is a bleak story, one of King’s more drawn-out and wrenching tales.It’s made more so by the fact that it could happen, at least in the main storyline.Or could have happened.Maybe I waited too long to read it, but I kept thinking as I was going through—today we have cell phones.A large part of this story unfolds because of Donna Trenton’s inability to contact anyone while a rabid dog keeps her trapped in her car during a record-breaking heat wave in Maine.I suspect it’s kind of a story about redemption, but I really need some time to think about it before rushing to such conclusions.There’s not much you can really consider religious in this particular tale, and perhaps it’s because Cujo is a very natural kind of monster.
I saw my first rabid dog when I was maybe five.My brothers and I reported a dog acting strange to our mother, after which she kept us in the house.That wasn’t the origin, I don’t think, of my cynophobia.Two of my brothers were bitten by a family dog when I was little, and I was once chased by a dog about as big as I was, certain that it was going to eat me.At the same time, we had dogs as pets, and apart from the one that liked to bite, they never gave cause for fear.Cujo tapped into those memories and made me reflect on what it means to befriend wolves.It won’t be my favorite King novel, but it did help to pass the time from coast to coast.