Perhaps it's a result of living within a current pandemic, but having come directly out of reading World War Z straight to I Am Legend, I was struck by the similarities regarding specific themes- themes of survival, of perseverance, and, beneath it all, the cause of a disease run rampant. It was strange reading a book written in the 1950s that has such a strong parallel to the world today- or at least what the world could be in a near future.
However, one thing that I do want to call attention to specifically was the intriguing and unique take on vampires, in terms of what causes them. Going into the book, having watched the movie a few years back but honestly not remembering much of it, I had expected the book to be about zombies, based off of the little I could recall from the movie. I was definitely surprised to find it about vampires instead- but not the vampires that current trends have made them to be. These vampires are not dangerously seductive (though the constant references to the "lewd poses" of the women that the main character, Richard Neville, makes might suggest otherwise); they aren't living in a Victorian mansion with a penchant for the dramatic and in actuality centuries old, and no, they don't sparkle (in which I should mention that I'm coincidentally in the middle of watching the Twilight movies for the first time. Blame the friend who got me to do it). Instead, the vampires are created by a bacteria that Richard names "vampiris."
At this point the novel becomes a post apocalyptic horror story mixed with science fiction elements. Richard becomes obsessed with trying to figure out the mysteries of the vampiris bacteria- what causes it, how it spreads, and why the stereotypes of vampires that hold true really effect it, especially when in relation to the wooden stakes, being exposed to sunlight, and, in particular, why garlic repels the vampires. Certain things made sense to him, and how the bacteria reacted to these things became evident: the wooden stakes exposed the bacteria to air, where it shriveled and attacked the body, and same with sunlight. Eventually Richard even deduces that it's the smell that repulses the vampires, even if the chemical composition of it has no effect. There are other mysteries of course, such as why running water, mirrors, and crosses (or other religious symbols) effect them, but primarily Richard is obsessed with why and how they die.
As a character, however, I largely found myself disliking Richard. He's a man driven to the brink of madness, yes- that I understood. He smokes. He drinks excessively- more than excessively. He's desperate, and hasn't been around truly living people in months and years. He had to kill his own wife when she came back as a vampire. He has to listen to the vampires prowl outside his house every night. However, it was the comments that he made that had me wary of who he was as a person (though this might just as much be a fault against the author). The references Richard makes to women, and how they are portrayed in the book- how the vampiric women are constantly "posing like lewd puppets in the night on the possibility that he'd see them and come out." When he's shooting one of the more notable vampires, a "woman block[s] his view of Cortman and start[s] jerking up her dress"- this scene in particular struck me as off, namely because of the choice (inherently from the author) to, instead of doing something more active, a woman instead decides that stripping and seducing is more effective.
There is, of course, the references later to how Richard within the first year of his isolation would not have had any qualms about violating a woman, and in fact how "no normal man could dedicate himself to any life that excluded sex." Maybe this book was more of a product of its time, and evidently some of the standards haven't lived up to today's world- yet ultimately I felt I wouldn't be able to trust myself around Richard, especially as the book progressed.
However, this does call attention to the title of the book itself. Richard, perhaps the last surviving person that is fully human, finds himself captured by the living vampires- all of whom are terrified of him because he has made himself into a monster to their standards, going out and killing them while they slept. He is no longer what is considered "normal"- he has become the monster, the abnormal, and the legend.
I can certainly agree that Richard was such a cringe-worthy character that made it difficult for me to connect with him on a personal level. For your exact reasons mentioned of him always looking at women in a sexual tone just made it impossible for me to think of him as a human being. I won't say that these thoughts are connected with the author in how he views society, but rather how he creates scenes with the women makes me judge the author in a similar sense as Richard. We get female vampires that only try to be lewd in some way or they are sleeping. There is very little action that they perform beyond those two things and doesn't exactly add to the story in any way compared to the other vampires. He even decides to comment on how when he experiments, he almost always has a female vampire. These are obvious choices the author made and something we ourselves should consider when we are writing as well.
ReplyDeleteI will also add, the fact that this was a vampire book instead of a zombie book did surprise me as well. I never watched the film *gasp* but I always imagined from the previews that it was a zombie movie. In a way, I think that affected how I saw the vampires in my head because they were much more early-stage zombie like versus vampire like in my mind. With the bacteria being the cause of the vampires, it seems they are actually more zombie-like in reality than vampire in how they behave and are created. The only true vampire situations being their weaknesses which he quickly explains away as psychological. This brings up the question: what then is the difference between a vampire and a zombie in the end?
Overall, I am glad to see that someone else views this book in a similar light as myself and I look forward to hearing more about what you think regarding other books.
Hi Sen, thanks for this take on *I Am Legend*. You pinpointed many of the reasons I wouldn't say I liked Richard, and by extension, Matheson's choices for the character. You bring up the point that some of the fifties' cultural norms might have had something to do with that. One thing I would ask Matheson is, how did the vampires know that he was not gay? It seems logical that some male vampires would have tried luring him with sexual posturing, too--just in case. I'm a little tongue-in-cheek, but having only the woman pose that way bothered me, also.
ReplyDeleteYou mention how you wouldn't trust Richard, citing the passage, "how Richard within the first year of his isolation would not have had any qualms about violating a woman, and in fact how 'no normal man could dedicate himself to any life that excluded sex.'" How could I not have mentioned this in my post? Your observation is a good one, and the passage is objectionable on the author's part. According to Neville, rape is a reasonable option as a response to a situation that demands too much of him (celibacy.) What I don't like is that Matheson doesn't highlight this as abhorrent thinking.