My
honest opinion was asked for, and it shall be given. I Am Legend was lukewarm for me. I didn’t find it particularly
scary, or cerebral. It was an easy read, and not like pulling teeth, but it
still left something to be desired. After some long contemplation, I’ve finally
figured out why I Am Legend didn’t do
it for me.
It
lacked character interaction.
Going
into this book, I knew the vast majority was going to be about a solitary
character, pitted against forces beyond his control, and struggling for
survival. This actually excited me, because some of my favorite childhood
novels included Island of the Blue Dolphins,
Julie of the Wolves, and just about everything Gary Paulsen touched.
Solitary survival stories were my jam for a long time. So why was I Am Legend different? Why did the lack
of other characters leave me so cold?
Robert
Neville.
I will
be the first one to jump on a survival story with a solitary protagonist,
providing I like that protagonist, or at least find him compelling. I did not
like Robert Neville, nor did I find him compelling. For me, Robert was scene
after scene of excessive drinking and foolish mistakes. I like my characters
flawed, I do, but I also like them inventive, and resourceful, especially in a solitary
survival situation. In Island of the Blue
Dolphins Karana made a fence out of whale ribs and a lamp out of tiny fish.
I was totally underwhelmed by Robert Neville’s ability to plaster paper mosaics
on the wall, and then get drunk and destroy them.
The one thing Robert
did that did impress me, was teach himself relatively complex skills from reference
books. It was so impressive, that when we got to the part where he was using
the microscope to identify the bacteria that created vampires, I called bull.
Bull. Every surface of the world is covered in so many different microorganisms,
their numbers are uncountable. So when Robert Neville found the ONE bacteria
responsible for the vampire outbreak, I couldn’t believe it. It disillusioned
the fantasy. Why would he be so sure it was that ONE bacteria instead of the
hundreds of others he must have found crawling around on the slide or sample? Are
vampires entirely sterile microcosms? With their faulty lymph system and poor
waste processing abilities, I don’t think so.
Moving on. There was
another problem I had with Robert. I found him to be… incredibly Rape-y. There
is no better word to describe this. He was Rape-y, and the explanation I was
given for these very uncomfortable mental tangents, was basically, everyone was
dead so he wasn’t getting any nookie. I'm not a guy, so maybe I'm wrong, but I find
it a little hard to believe that when somewhat normal men go on a dry spell,
they become internally rape-y. This started off uncomfortable and remained
uncomfortable. There were several instances throughout the book, where I looked
away, said, “Oh my God, please don’t go there,” and then returned to reading. It
made me question Robert’s character, and it made me feel like I was trapped
alone in a dark room with a psycho. In horror, you’d think this would be a good
thing, but for me it wasn’t. He was not one of those compelling psychos you
love to hate. He was creepy, and sad.
However, so not to
leave the impression that the book was a total bust, the scene with the dog
punched like a twelve gauge, right in the chest. I was very impressed. It is
rare that the best scene in the film adaptation of a novel is the best scene in
the novel too. And they were so different, but both were outstanding.
I do not share your overall dislike of Neville, but I do agree that his attitude toward women was hardly enlightened. What did you think of that bit at the end of chapter seven? He's kidnapped one of the vampires to test out the aversion to the cross, and strikes her, but then the narrative jumps - "Ten minutes later he threw her body out the front door and slammed it again in their faces." I had to wonder, even that early in the book, what happened there. Matheson has a gift for understatement sometimes.
ReplyDeleteHis gift for understatement was, in my opinion, my favorite thing about the story. Sometimes less really is more. A flat statement about a dramatic thing, like killing, or the death of something close to you, can hit really hard, and when left to the imagination, some things can get really scary.
ReplyDeleteOh, Brian, I hadn't even really noticed that, and yet I too found Neville to be, as Amber put it, incredibly rape-y. (I ranted about that elsewhere.) Neville was overly rape-y even for a guy alone, even for a man of his time, and even for somebody drinking himself to death. It made me wonder more what had happened when he and Ruth "embraced," everything was so soft-focus confusedly stated that I couldn't tell whether anything happened between them. But yes, compare this dude to the people in almost any other post-apocalyptic novel? Not nearly as much rape temptation.
ReplyDeleteI didn't like Neville very much, either, but I enjoyed the rest of the story enough to not mind as much. Actually, I think disliking Neville made the ending more powerful for me.
ReplyDeleteHe really did get on my nerves in the early sections. Yeah, he was definitely rape-y. And all of his rambles about how morality doesn't matter because it's just him now were disturbing, as well. But again, that works well with the ending.
I didn't catch the bacteria weirdness at all. Maybe I'm just too willing to suspend my disbelief when it comes to science in cases like this.
Since I've already gone off several times about the rape-y section, I'm going to go on a tangent here instead. If the vampire women are out there being lewd and nasty, does it do anything to the vampire men? Especially the living ones? I mean, you get that some of them are slightly more intelligent, like Cortman, and that others have completely lost it and act more like animals. But isn't sex basically an animal act? And wouldn't the women displaying themselves like that be seen as a signal to the other men too? Maybe that's something a little too graphic to get into for a novella written in the 50s. But it's something to consider.
ReplyDeleteAmber, I had similar reaction to Neville controlling his libido. Thinking "Really, man? Really?" But I had to remember what you already mentioned--this is from the male perspective, thus I'm not going to relate to certain things. Also, Neville's celibate lifestyle was forced on him, which I think is important to remember. Maybe his reaction to the vampire women would have been different if he had taken vows of celibacy before the epidemic. Speculation, I know, but something to keep in mind.
ReplyDeleteTo go off of what Chris said, sex without love is essentially an animal act. While these vampires are basically animals, I think showing Neville's sexual desires also shows how his life has shrunk to appease the most base of all instincts: survival.
Honestly, I still like Neville as a character. He does a lot of things that should make me hate him, like hunt down and kill his neighbors because they are different from him, especially women in a weird rape-y sort of way that I find VERY unsettling in this read-through. Why didn't I ever notice THAT before? But, for some reason, I still like the drunken jackass. Weird, right?
ReplyDelete