Matheson's novel seems like it can easily be a 'contemporary' piece written in the early 2000's. The sense of isolation is as dense as the vampire's fluids. Some aspects of the novel are certainly challenging, namely the use of the-last-man-on-Earth trope. Granted this trope was handled quite well, it proved a tough aspect to get through.
Admittedly, I enjoyed this novel. The apocalyptic sub-genre of Horror still holds strong today, Matheson's novel, should it be compared to The Mist, would prove challenging, due to mainly how the main characters are handled in the events of the respective stories. Neville has been in survival mode for several years when he is introduced. In order to survive the utter annihilation of the human race, he holed himself in his home, which turned into his own prison on more than one level. His home turned into a psychological torture chamber, his entire life was spent in that space. Worse: he's a prisoner of his own mind, the confines of his skull turned into his own prison during his years in near isolation.
In order to compare this piece to King's The Mist, each main character must be examined. Drayton (The Mist) is certainly an everyday man, much like Neville. They parallel in certain ways: each has lost any form of familial support, Neville more so. Each character is driven to extremes in order to survive and protect their family. However, the comparisons end there. Neville, by a margin is certainly the more tragic character: his had to kill his own family and in the end he was meant to be killed.
Neville's character was certainly realistic, but was 'cookie-cutter', though this criticism is from 'contemporary' sensibilities, Neville's character is not without merit. One could draw parallel's, but in terms of writing, Matheson's novel does leave something to be desired. I am Legend, seems like a piece made too short. Is Neville killed or not? It Matheson does lead one to believe Neville does meet his end. What did make Neville a legend? Does he think of himself a legend for how long he has survived? Or has he gone mad?
Madness is ever present in this novel and is exquisitely handled. One would go mad if they had to slay their own family and burn their corpses, one would go mad if all they had known had devolved into a vampire utopia. But, the madness lies in Neville's seemingly selfish character. When he takes Ruth, he does in caveman fashion: he bludgeons her and takes her home. As comical as this seems, this does show how much his psyche has deteriorated over time. Perhaps Neville's madness was a saving grace from him in the end as he meets his end. He had to resort to child-like fantasy to cushion his fall into madness. Perhaps he met his end with a smile?
Rating: 3.5/5
Hey Shawn!
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the class. This is my last RIG, but second time taking Scott's Horror class. I too enjoyed the novel, however I would argue the contemporary. When I approached the book, I usually don't do any research, just to keep an open mind and not be swayed by what others had to say. If anything, I might check to see how many stars it was given. Anyways, back to my comment on not being contemporary. While I agree, it could be, however a couple incidents in the book made me think the book was older. The first was Neville's reference to a "Negro," and the second was his relationships with women. Those two stem back to decades old mindsets.
That's not to say that a contemporary writer couldn't write a historical piece and use them terms, however that would take me to my second point--maybe slightly off topic. Times Esias posted a question in the SHU FB section asking whether historical writers should use terms that were relevant during the specific era. It had mixed reviews, however there was a strong argument supporting the use of terminology that is considered outdated by progressives.
Anyhow, I didn't meant to go deep into the weeds with the contemporary thing. This is the second book I've read from Matheson, the first was Hell House. While I did enjoy both, I preferred the latter, then again, I believe that I am Legend was one of his first books so it makes sense to say he got better over time.
You know, I never considered that maybe Neville was insane. Maybe that is why the science of the piece was so bad. It was all from Neville's POV. Maybe it was supposed to not make sense....Hmm, that gives it a whole different spin.
ReplyDeleteAll his scientific theories were junk and if that is the case, then that would explain why Ruth and the other infected ones chose to execute him rather than imprison him and use his knowledge for their greater good. When I look at it that way, the book comes off in an entirely different.
I was so jaded throughout the book with Neville's stupidity coupled with his brilliance all tucked in to a 1950's "Real Man" machismo that I hated it from almost the very beginning, now, though, perhaps I should re-examine it from an "unreliable narrator" POV and see if I feel better about it.
Thanks for voicing that theory.
Joe-la
Comparing "I Am Legend" to "The Mist" is interesting. I think "The Stand" is a better book for these purposes, or "Under the Dome" since all three are 'end of the world' type scenarios. You can certainly see Neville in "The Stand", particularly in terms of the everyday man trying to understand a crazy situation, in Stu. Neville lacks the gentleness of that book, but maybe it's because he's so alone and without any kind of spiritual guidance.
ReplyDeleteNeville does die at the end, and in a very non-legendary way. He takes the poison pill that Ruth gives him and takes the painless way out rather than turning himself over to whatever they had planned to do.