Fragment 45

In this "Fragment" I am going to review two books and two movies. As I am writing, the Autumnal equinox is just days away. So I decided it is a good time to look at some occult fiction. I will explain the term "occult fiction" later in the "Fragment". The two books are both by Dennis Wheatley, they are "The Devil Rides Out" and "To the Devil a Daughter". The two movies are "Dr. Strange" released in 2016, and "Dr. Strange, and the Multiverse of Madness" released in 2022, hereafter referred to as "Dr. Strange 1" and "Dr.Strange 2". My two favorite novelists are H. Rider Haggard, and Sax Rohmer. My favorite novel of all time is "She" by H. Rider Haggard. The problem I was having is that I have read through almost all of the books by Rohmer and Haggard, so I was searching for someone else to read, someone similar to Rohmer and Haggard. Even though I had watched the two Hammer movies that were adapted from the above mentioned books, I had not thought to read them, but recently I came across his name in another context; he worked for British Intelligence during WWII. like Ian Fleming. I read most of Fleming's "Bond novels'' as a teenager, so I decided to give Wheatley a try. Wheatley has written 11 "Black Magic" novels of which I have read 4. In other words, I liked his novels. As I was reading Wheatley I began to compare him to the occult fiction of today. This is why I chose the movies. It should be noted I said occult fiction, instead of horror fiction. So what is the difference? I believe "Occult fiction" to be a genre even though it almost always overlaps with other genres. The line I draw is that occult fiction must have some connection with real occultism. and should promote occultism. This is why I am not discussing books by Stephen King, Peter Straub, etc. Occult fiction would include J.K. Rowling, but not King. As an occultist I am, of course, interested in fiction that uses and promotes the occult, and especially the fiction that interests the younger generation in the occult. Fiction is the greatest recruiting tool of occultism. The trouble with the younger generation is that society does not promote sustained and deep reading. I know most people can read, but they are still semi-literate. I have an example that should make this clear. One of my friends is a philosophy professor at the local university. In his Intro. to Philosophy class he makes his students read a book cover to cover. Every semester students come up to him and tell him that this is the first book they have read cover to cover. Focused reading has declined, if they do not read books cover to cover, how are they going to read a series of books on a subject? Since I am using philosophy as an example, it is impossible to become competent if one cannot sustain a reading schedule. How can one become competent in British empiricism if one had not read books by Locke, Berkeley, and Hume? Back to the books. Both the Wheatley books I selected were turned into movies by Hammer studios, so let us start here. The two movies are not equal in quality. "The Devil Rides Out" is a much better movie, in all ways; the acting, the writing, and production values. "To the Devil a Daughter" was the last movie Hammer Studios made, and it shows. Both moves star the great Christopher Lee. In "The Devil Rides Out" he is the hero, in "To the Devil a Daughter' he is the villain. "To the Devil a Daughter" also starred Richad Widmark, which was a mistake. Hammer would have been better off saving Widmark's salary, and instead hired Robert Morley to play the villain, the reason for this choice shall become clear later. The two books have a similar plot. The plot being a group of good guys trying to foil the plans of a powerful Satanist. Even though both books have different heroes they seem to be alter-egos of Wheatley. In the "Devil Rides Out" the hero is the Duc de Richleau, and in "To the Devil a Daughter" the hero is Colonial Verney. Both enjoy luxury living, being gourmets, and connoisseurs of fine wine. Wheatley came from a family of wine merchants and his knowledge shows in the books. His knowledge of food and wine is evident everywhere in the books. The Duc de Richleau is an exiled French nobleman who makes his home in England, and Col. Verney is a high ranking member of British Intelligence. Col. Verney is referred to as "C.B." short for "Conky Bill" his nickname because of his large nose. Around both heroes is a team of good guys, Wheatley was inspired by A. Dumas's "Three Musketeers" stories. Let us now move to the villains. The villains are always the most interesting characters in an occult novel, because the villains drive the action. The villain of "The Devil Rides Out" is a " Mr. Mocata". Mocata is based on Aleister Crowley. I wonder if Wheatley had met Aleister Crowley, since both of them were involved with British Intelligence. The villain of "To the Devil a Daughter is "Canon Copley-Syle" Copley-Syle is based on Montague Summers. This is why I suggested Robert Morley be cast as the villain. In my opinion Copley-Syle is the more effective villain. this might be because so many authors have based villains on Crowley. The other reason I think Mocata is a less interesting villain is because Crowley was just not that sinister. It is true he indulged in some outrageous behavior, but he did not really promote any sinister causes. Montague Summers did promote the works of the Witch-Hunters; he translated many of their works. These were people that were torturing and killing innocent people. The other reason is Montague Summers has not been fictionalized much compared to Crowley. This gives the Copley-Syle a freshness that Mocata does not possess. Let us go to some selections from the books that I found interesting. The first selection seems to show some of Wheatley's metaphysical views. He believed in reincarnation like Rohmer and Haggard, but added a Manichean view of the universe. These views run through all his books and are expanded on in later books. "By all means de Richleau foisted himself out of his chair and began to pace softly up and down from the fine silky Persian prayer rug before the fireplace while expounded again the Esoteric doctrine just as he had to Rex two nights ago. Simon and Richard listened in silence until the Duke spoke of the eternal fight which hidden from human eyes has been waged from immorial between the Powers Of Light, and the Powers of Darkness. Then the latter, his serious interest really aroused for the first time, exclaimed: "Surely, you are not proclaiming the Manichean heresy?" The Manichees believed in Two Principles, Light and Darkness and the three Moments, Past, Present, and Future. They taught that in the Past Light, and Darkness had been separate: then the Darkness invaded the Light and became mingled with it, creating the Present and this world in which evil is mixed with good. They preached the Practice of aesheticism as the means of freeing the Light imprisoned in human clay so that in some distant future Light and Darkness might be completely separated again. The Duke's lean face lit with a quick smile "Exactly my friend!" The Manichees had a credo to that effect. Day by day diminishes. The number of Souls below. As they are distilled and meant above." Wheatley's books are laced with Manichean ideas, he also seems to be familiar with the works of Dion Fortune. Wheatley believed in the existence of evil and its activity in the present world. Let us now move to the villain of "To the Devil a Daughter". Who I think is the better villain. Copley-Syle is based on Montague Summers. Unfortunately, most younger readers and those not well read in early twentieth century occultism will miss the allusions. "C.B. thought John's description of him was good. He was a shortish and plump bothe in face and figure. His cheeks were rosy but tended to say little; the rest of his skin had a such childlike pinkness that it was difficult to visualize ever having a need to shave. His forehead was broad and smooth; his long silver hair swept back from it to fall in curls on the nape of his neck, but gave no impression of untidiness, suggesting rather the elegance of a Georgian parson. His eyes were hazel, but very pale and his expression benign. His features were well cut, the only thing unpleasant about them being an exceptionally thick and out jutting lower lip. He was dressed in a black Jrock-coat ribbed satin vest, clerical collar breeches gaiters and black shoes with silver buckles, all of which added to the impression that he was a divine of a past generation" Later in the book Wheatley describes his beringed fingers. This is, of course, a description (and a good one) of Motague Summers. Needless to say I like the books, but in today's society I do not think they will do much to promote occultism. If one knows a lot about early twentieth century occultism they are fun to read. If not then the reader shall not get all the references. They have everything in them from magic circles to ascended Masters. Another reason they shall not be liked by the younger generation is that Wheatley is very conservative, and anti-communist. He is also not politically correct. Politics and the occult are intertwined and probably cannot be separated, but that topic shall have to await future "Fragments". I have to give praise to J.K Rowling, even though I was not a fan of her books. She promoted occultism, and got the younger generation to read books cover to cover. Which seems a magic feat in itself. Let me now move on to the movies. The "Dr. Strange' films are visually impressive. Before going on to my analysis and criticism I want to say the special effects are stunning. The special effects are a double edged sword, not only are they the best thing about the movies, they also show the weakness of the movies. It seems especially with "Dr. Strange 2" they wrote the movies around the special effects. Even "Dr. Strange 1" lacks any compelling writing or acting. This is the defect of the movies. In "Dr. Strange 1" Stephen Strange goes from shallow surgeon to a Magus without much effort or trouble. No big conflicts, he just seems to fall into the hero role effortlessly. Before I go on to criticise the acting I want to give praise to the one standout performance in the movies. It was the performance by Chiwetal Ejiofar as "Mordo". I do not care when they change the gender or race of a character. The problem is that most of the time they do this to be "woke". I would rather they use this flexibility in casting to bring out hidden dimensions of a character, or deepen the character. This is what happened in the character of "Mordo". If they intended it or not. In the comic books "Mordo" is pretty much a cookie cutter villain. By playing him as a man of impeccable integrity Ejiofar became the stand out performance. It is interesting to note, and says something about modern society that the character with impeccable integrity is a villain. In the modern progressive worldview one is saved by faith and faith alone in doctrine, like in Protestantism. Now I shall give my criticism of the acting. When I was young I used to watch all the old classic horror movies. There were not a lot of special effects, but there was a lot of overacting; think of Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, Lionel Atwill, and of course Vincent Price. Horror movies were a vehicle for "ham" acting. I realized watching the "Dr. Strange" movies I would rather have "ham' acting than no acting. There are no long soliloquies, or overblown dialog. Instead it has been replaced by how well an actor can pretend in front of a green screen. Maybe I am just too old or acting has to be judged by other standards today. All the characters seem to be flat, it is hard to identify or care about what happens to them. The villain in any occult fiction should be the most interesting character, since it is the villain that drives the action and the story. In "Dr. Strange 1" the villains are much better than "Dr. Strange 2" Which is not saying much, there is not much development of the villains, why they do what they do. The big villain in "Dr. Strange 1" is a godlike entity by the name of "Dormammu" , he is more like a force of nature than a character. And Dr. Strange defeats him with a cheap trick, which I found disappointing. The villain in "Dr. Strange 2" is even worse. The "Scarlet Witch" who is a hero turned villain. It seems she just needs some therapy. The ending is again a let down, since it is P.C. A character we know almost nothing about except that she checks a lot of the "woke boxes" defeats the villain. It is the triumph of "girl power". Which seems the whole point of the movie. The occult is just window dressing for the special effects, and the story is just an excuse to promote girl power. To sum up, I do not think the "Dr. Strange" movies are going to be a recruiting tool for occultism. I will mention two older movies that I know were good for promoting occultism and also good movies. They are the 1985 movie "Ghoulies" and the 1996 movie "The Craft". Both are based on real occultism, and have strong action and writing. Yes, they are also good movies. The "Ghoulies" is inspiring to anyone who is interested in ceremonial magic. I was working in a bookstore when "The Craft" came out and I remember lots of young women coming in and asking for the occult section. The movie "The Craft" also has scenes in it that most occultists have experienced. I am referring to when the girls make a series of traffic lights, I remember after some intense occult work that I make eighteen traffic lights in a row. In conclusion, see the "Dr. Strange" movies. They have stunning special effects, but not much else.