So, last night I saw Willard. I saw the original a LONG time a go and frankly, I don't remember it disturbing me as much as this version did. I really DID have trouble sleeping last night because I couldn't get certain images from the film out of my head.

Anyway, reflecting on the film in Sorcerer terms prompted some questions. Movie spoilers follow so if you haven't seen it or at least don't know the plot stop here.

1) Is Socrates a Demon in Sorcerer terms? I'm tempted to say no and it relates back to that "Sympathy For The Demons" issue I've mentioned a couple of times. If Willards/Socrates relationship is disfunctional in the same sense as the Demon/Sorcerer relationship is supposed to be then there is no reason to feel the intense emotions that Socrates' death invokes. God, knows I cried.

What's disfunctional is all the OTHER Rats. Not necessarily Willard's favored pet. So really, I see Ben as the only demon and The Binding Ritual having been something like "accepting Ben's brood." Even if Willard never accepts Ben himself.

Obviously, going from film to game is sketchy at best but I was just curious if my thinking is sound.

2) This is far more generic and the film only reminded me to ask this question. Can Demons be killed outright? If so, what happens exactly? Does it have to be banished but "in game world" we describe it as having been fought and killed? Or can a Demon be killed via flat out combat? I know, it probably depends on a thousand factors, but in general what are the guidelines for this? What happens to the binding? What physically happens to the demon?

Thanks.

Jesse

Hiya,

Jesse, I'll have to wait on your movie question until I see both the original and the remake, but here are the basic notions that come up at this point.

I think you're taking kind of a binary approach toward demons: "functional" vs. "dysfunctional," equated with "always good" and "always bad." There are such things as dysfunctional relationships that still invoke "higher" feelings and virtues, sometimes consistently, and sometimes fleetingly.

The novel Lolita is the best example that comes to mind at the moment - Humbert's and Dorothy's relationship is wrong and utterly fucked-up throughout, and yet, at their final encounter, his fleeting understanding that he has ruined her life, and that his love for her at that moment is utterly the opposite of what he thought was "love" throughout most of the story, is profoundly moving. As he listens to children at play at the end, it's not the thoughts of gratifying his lusts that moves him, I think, but grief at the innocence that will be lost to them, and that he has been instrumental in destroying in Dorothy's case.

Nabokov wrote in his introduction to another novel, Despair, that Humbert, very emphatically in Hell, was nonetheless granted a brief walk in the garden section on rare occasions.

I think Willard's relationship with Socrates is dysfunctional - Socrates is a rat, fer chrissakes, and Willard is unable to deal properly with humans. But if it were a relationship with a human, then it would be a good, functional one. See how that's different from a dysfunctional relationship with a human (his mom, his boss)? Pretty much the opposite.

I can help right away with the demon-death issue (thought it was clear in the rules).

Give a demon lasting penalties equal to twice its Stamina. Now: is it currently Bound to anyone?

1. If so, then it dies. Really dies. Totally gone.

2. If not, then it's Banished.

Best,
Ron

Thanks, Ron, I see what you're saying and I agree, I was being a bit too black and white about it. So, I can see how Socrates is a demon whose abilities confer to Willard and Ben is a demon whose abilities confer to itself.

Also, thanks for the clearification on Demon death. Oddly enough it seems that demons are made slightly more "vulnerable" by being bound.

Jesse

Hi Jesse!

Or, if you want to look at it a little sideways, a demon might prefer to be killable - that means that its "life" really exists.

But that's putting maybe a bit too much intentionality and assumptions about motives into the metaphysics.

Best,
Ron