Is The Conjuring 2 On Crave

[Willy Aucoin]

Weasked Brian Klaas, who writes The Garden of Forking Paths on Substack, for advice on finding great ideas. Brian is a social scientist and professor of global politics at University College London. He is the author of four books, including Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us, which includes interviews with torture victims, CEOs, cult leaders, and more.

Great writing is a conjuring trick. The reader watches, mystified, as a powerful idea appears on the page or the screen, fully formed, as if plucked from the ether. Poof! Where did it come from? A true magician never reveals their secret.

Every writer is therefore a thief. But what we are guilty of is not a crime, but creativity. Ideas are additive. Einstein discovered relativity by riffing off and refuting existing scientific ideas, not by plucking an entirely new one from the ether. Hercule Poirot had a trusty sidekick because Agatha Christie was dazzled by Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. She was inspired, then created something astonishingly original.

Could you use some advice or inspiration from a fellow writer about creativity, motivation, and the writing life? Submit your question for consideration for a future advice column by leaving it in the comments below.

We asked , who writes on Substack, for advice on finding great ideas. Brian is a social scientist and professor of global politics at University College London. He is the author of four books, including Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us, which includes interviews with torture victims, CEOs, cult leaders, and more.

Brian\u2019s Substack explores the mystery and marvel of the world we live in, and how evolutionary biology, history, neuroscience, anthropology, and philosophy relate to challenges we face today and our possible futures. He writes for The Atlantic, created the award-winning Power Corrupts podcast, and is a self-professed \u201Chistory nerd,\u201D offering guided tours in his local southern England. Read on for his advice, or listen to Brian read it aloud above.

Meanwhile, the bad ideas are like dead rabbits, martyrs made when the magician failed to extricate them from the hat with skill and care, innocent victims of \u201Cpractice makes perfect,\u201D never to be seen or mentioned again.

But here\u2019s the truth: a newsletter requires glimpses of those dead rabbits. They allow us to treat our Substacks as an intellectual proving ground, a place to try new tricks. But eventually, we all run out of rabbits, dead or alive, and nobody clicks \u201CSubscribe\u201D when looking at an empty hat.

So where do we get good ideas\u2014or even mediocre ones\u2014when we\u2019ve run out? (A fair warning: If I had the perfect answer, I wouldn\u2019t write just once a week and I\u2019d have a hell of a lot more subscribers.) But there are two insights I\u2019ve found useful. So here, among the initiated, I\u2019ll reveal my secret.

In the Middle Ages, beautifully illustrated anthologies of writing were produced called florilegia. The name means \u201Cgathered flowers,\u201D and these \u201Cflowers\u201D were wise written snippets taken from sages past and present, smooshed together and bound. These were the original medieval mixtapes, an aggregation of insight, creativity, and knowledge. The creators of these books understood that all ideas are remixes\u2014and that genius is relational.

Every good idea I\u2019ve ever had has come, in part, from someone else\u2019s good idea. Two of my most-read Substack articles, \u201CThe Myth of the Secret Genius\u201D and \u201CBillionaires and the Evolution of Overconfidence,\u201D emerged when I took a less familiar realm of knowledge\u2014evolutionary biology, in this case\u2014and combined it with my expertise on the nature of power. It created something fresh.

Concretely, this means that when I\u2019m stuck, I take the florilegia approach: I read wise snippets from those who know things I don\u2019t, contemplating ideas that are completely new to me. (I\u2019ve recently been inspired by neuroscience ideas from \u2019s , \u2019s insights and observations in , and the consistently out-of-the-box thinking on science and psychology from \u2019s , to name a few.)

Seeking out unfamiliar intellectual terrain isn\u2019t always natural to us, because humans are reinforcement creatures who crave familiarity and loathe uncertainty or the unknown. As a result, we fall into the trap of reading writers who are most like ourselves, figuring that inspiration is most likely to flow from intellectual proximity. In my experience, that\u2019s a mistake. Nobody wants a mixtape full of songs from the same band.

Every writer has deep expertise, parts of the world they intimately and intuitively understand. The best ideas, I\u2019ve found, emerge when writers plant that knowledge somewhere a little different, an economist who brings game theory to sports, a poet who writes about politics, or a journalist who, every so often, looks inward and makes themselves the focus of their story. Take what you know and introduce it to something you don\u2019t.

Unfortunately, hastily arranged introductions don\u2019t always work. Trying to force an idea into the ether so that you can pluck it out and plop it down onto the page is as effective as an insomniac trying to will themselves back to sleep.

This is the second lesson I\u2019ve learned: to rely on a strategy known as \u201Cleisure-time invention.\u201D It draws on the experiences of great thinkers past and present who tried, and failed, to explain the process by which they came up with their best ideas. Einstein swore that his mind was most inventive while playing the violin. The Wright brothers developed the prototype for their flying machine after seeing buzzards during a picnic. Galileo invented the pendulum clock while gazing at a chandelier swaying in a cathedral.

Henri Poincar\u00E9, a mathematical genius who paved the way for the discovery of chaos theory, toiled with a problem for weeks, to no avail. Then, one night, he wrote, \u201Ccontrary to my custom, I drank black coffee and could not sleep.\u201D Soon, \u201Cideas arose in crowds; I felt them collide until pairs interlocked.\u201D When he woke up, he marveled, \u201CI had only to write out the results.\u201D When he stopped trying to solve the problem, he solved it.

When I\u2019m stuck, I take my dog for a walk. I let my mind wander. It\u2019s unfocused thought, giving my brain a bit more space to experiment without a goal. Writing, then, is like learning to be a sponge that never gets wrung out, always observing, absorbing, thinking.

And when the rough blob of an idea flits into my mind, I capture it\u2014not with paper and quill, like the more romantic figures of the past, but with a note on my phone or an email to myself. Sometimes the idea turns out to be a dud. Other times, it takes some time to mature, then collides with another rough blob of an idea months later.

It works. And I swear by it, because I\u2019ve learned the hard way that a forced idea, willed into existence while glowering at a blank page, will almost always end up being a dead rabbit that never had a chance.

This is the 13th in a recurring series of longform writer advice, following Kristen Hawley\u2019s advice on facing the behemoths, Hilary Fitzgerald Campbell\u2019s advice on prioritizing your to-do list, Lauren Wolfe\u2019s advice on tackling difficult stories, Holly Whitaker\u2019s advice on writing like it matters, Lucy Webster\u2019s advice on writing from lived experience, Scott Hines\u2019s advice on cultivating connection in the internet age, Robert Reich\u2019s advice on sharing your personality, Helena Fitzgerald\u2019s advice on isolation, Alicia Kennedy\u2019s advice on learning to listen, Kate Lindsay\u2019s advice on creating trust with your readers, Anna Codrea-Rado\u2019s advice on learning to celebrate how far you\u2019ve come, and Mason Currey\u2019s advice on creative growth.

I normally do not like scary movies. I like movies that are a 'parable' which says something in a way that changes my outlook of life. I think most scary movies don't fit into this parable model. But 'The Conjuring' is, I think, an exception. 'The Conjuring' is a movie that helps engage the Church and the culture with the scriptural Truths, as disturbing as it may be to some, about the reality of the supernatural.

Theological Enough for Hollywood

I liked Conjuring for multiple reasons

1. It is based on a true life incident.

2. It is based on the work of paranormal researchers (Ed and Lorraine Warner) who looked for rational explanations for the paranormal but also believed sometimes it is reasonable to believe in the reality of the supernatural.

3. If they sensed the supernatural was involved, then they resorted to the Catholic tradition of exorcism, (which I believe is more or less theologically sound). Of course, there were parts where the movie veered away from Christian principles of exorcism.

I want to expand a bit on point # 3 a bit. Here is one scene in the movie which I felt the movie accurately portrayed the Christian worldview.

At the beginning of the movie, Ed and Lorrine Warner interview a family that has experiences some weird stuff with their doll. They contend to Ed and Lorrine that the doll is demon possessed. Ed hears their story and then says something like, "the possession of the doll is only an illusion. What is really going on is the devil, if it is possessing something, it is you. Devils like to possess other living beings." I believe this way of thinking ties well with the Biblical principles of demon possessions (there are some devils that have dominion over places Dan 10:13 etc... but that is a different topic). We see in the Bible that the Devil's job is not just to tempt people to sin. We do see the Devil possessing people. We see Jesus exorcising them. We see Paul doing likewise too. I would suggest that some of us may be called to imitate Jesus and Paul on that (Matt 10:1,8, Mark 6:13, Luke 9:1, Luke 10:17).

The movie ends with a quote from Ed Warren which went something like this, "The world is filled with unseen forces... forces of good and evil... forces of light and darkness... the destiny of man depends on which force you elect to align with". When I read that, I was in the movie theater praising God! You couldn't get more theological than that... for a Hollywood movie, if you know what I mean.

A Vehicle Carrying Disturbing Truth that can Save

Here is what surprised me... when the quote was put up on the screen, I could distinctly hear people hissing, sighing aloud... Their hissing gave credence to the view that such Truths disturb people. I read umpteen movie reviews about how this movie is scary - don't see it alone, will scare the underpants off, an uncommonly frightening experience. The fact of the matter is the movie in and of itself isn't really scary at all. What scares people is the Truth depicted in and through the movie.

I know at least one person who told me he became a Christian after he saw the original movie classic 'The Exorcist'. I have heard of others having similar experiences in coming to Christ. The basic thrust of such movies is not so much scare people into the arms of Christ as much as helps them realize the bigger Truths and bigger Realities (of the principalities and power of evil Ephesians 6:12) that they have been oblivious to. Such exposure to the Truth helps some people reorient themselves to the bigger realities of life that revolves around God and His goodness in overcoming evil. Movies can be vehicles of such disturbing Truth that can save people.

Truth is a powerful weapon. I am not alone on this view. Dave Mustine the Christian Heavy Metal legend, the founding-member of the heavy metal band 'Metallica' and later the founder of the heavier metal band 'Megadeath', who was originally into witchcraft and such, before he became Christian, talks about how he would cast spells on people when he was into into witchcraft. Towards the end of the video interview, Dave replies (presumably to a question from the interviewer if he was a dangerous guy when he was into witchcraft), "I am actually more dangerous now (after becoming a Christian)... because, I am armed with the Truth now". Boom!!! You can see the video.

The Evangelical Christian Response: Fear, Suspicion and/or Indifference

What I was surprised by even more than the hissing of the (presumed) pagans in the movies, is the response to the movie on the evangelical Christian side. A Christian posted on Facebook that it was the most 'uneasy disturbing' 2 hours of his recent life. Other Christians commented empathizing with him. I almost commented saying, "Don't we all worship Someone whose miracle workings involved exorcisms?", but then I didn't. I decided to write this post instead. As Christians, we shouldn't fear these evil spirits or their manifestations. After all we worship the God who has bequeathed to us 'His dominion and authority in the world'.

Then I was speaking with another friend over lunch and told him about my thoughts on the movie and that Jesus did not shy away from exorcisms, he encouraged his Disciples to exercise dominion over demons (Matt 10:1,8, Mark 6:13, Luke 9:1, Luke 10:17). Paul didn't shy away from exorcisms either (Acts 16:16-18, Acts 19:13-16). My good friend said he belonged in the John MacArthur school of theological thinking where things such as exorcisms are view upon with suspicion. MacArthur's position, as my friend stated, is that we are called to preach and teach the Gospel, not to exorcise. I believe this position is 'very narrow' reading of he Scriptures. Jesus commissioned us to sent people free which may or may not involve exorcisms. My friend replied, "I don't disagree. But we need to be careful that exorcism shouldn't become an obsession either".

My friend had a valid point. Yes, it is true that we shouldn't develop an obsession for exorcism. It is true that may be 0.00001% Christians are obsessed with exorcisms. But this does not mean that rest of the 99.99999% of Christians have to run a million miles in the opposite direction and not even talk or discuss or teach about demonology and exorcism. Unfortunately much of evangelical christendom chooses to forget that Christ taught his disciples about exorcism (Matt 17:18-20, Mark 9:28-29) out of fear that talking about it would cause people to misuse it or talking about it wouldn't help the cause of evangelism, on the contrary, may even hurt it. Christ wasn't reticent about exorcisms. Neither should we be. He did not sweep it under the rug. Neither should we. Christendom treating the topic of demonology with sheer indifference pays heavily for it. As C.S.Lewis says in 'Screwtape Letters', the key strategy of the devil is to make us believe he and his 'minions' do not exist. Anyways, isn't is a pity when 99.99999% Christians become the foil for his strategy by being indifferent to it. (Of course, I love the 'Despicable Me' 'minions' as the next guy, just saying).

People of the Truth Who Embrace Complexity

Again, I want to stress the point that Evangelical Christians have good reasons to be suspicious of potential for obsession of Christians about demonology. The culprit here is a character flaw that humans have, which is that humans crave simplicity. We see this craving for simplicity even in philosophy, from Greek Anaximenses who wanted to explain everything in terms of air to post modern Sartre who wanted to explain everything in terms of the absurd. Evangelical Christians rightly fear that if someone gets into exorcism, then they will explain everything in terms of demonology and miss the point of the Gospel. Evangelical Christians, as is normally the case, have rightly diagnosed the problem of obsessive demonology, but unfortunately the strategy evangelicals appear to be pursuing, of running a million miles in the opposite direction, suffers from the mistake exchanging simplicity for a complex all encompassing worldview. Instead of embracing a complex world which involves a nuanced theology of demonology, creation's fallen-ness and God's sovereignty held in balance they want a simpler version where demonology is removed from the equation.

As my friend and Bible teacher Kemper Crabb teach in his class 'The Revolutions', as Christians we need to embrace the complexity of theology and hold a nuanced view of life that reflects Biblical worldview. Or as my other friend and Bible teacher Chuck Dotson would say, we should resist the tendency to put theology in small neat boxes with every looking perfect and tidy... nothing overflowing. NO! life is too terrible, complex and beautiful to fit into cute little cubes.

Called to be People of the Truth

We as Christians are called to be 'people of the Truth'. Truth is never simple. Truth is complex and mysterious as Christ is. As we live this life and get more and more sanctified, by the work of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God and the community of the Saints, we get to a deeper and more complex understanding of the Scriptures, and consequently of life too. As we bring every thought 'captive to Christ', the world/culture around us will follow too. We are called to live the Truth in the culture around us, even if 0.00001% people misuse the Truth. There will always be people misusing the Truth. We need not let them dictate the manifestation of Christian Truth in the culture, whether it be the topic of exorcism or exercise of Gifts of the Holy Spirit in the Church for that matter.

Back to the Parable

A parable is a simple story told in a way that can disturb us from a sense of complacency and awakes us to that ubiquitous truth we have consciously or subconsciously been oblivious to. Movies can be such 'parables' which engage the culture/church with the Truth of the Word of God. If Christ were to have incarnated into the 21st century world, it wouldn't have been very far off for him to make movies to communicate his 'parable-Truths'. People who find movies like 'The Conjuring' disturbing, may be in a good place after all, for they are being woken up to the Truth which some part of their subconscious mind acknowledges to be true, no matter how much their conscious mind may try to resist it.

3a8082e126