I Am Legend (The Book)

Note: this post contains spoilers. I wrote the revealing and spoilish parts in white font, so you will need to highlight them to read. If you do not highlight your text you probably won’t get spoiled, but proceed with caution

Over the weekend I saw I Am Legend with Will Smith. You probably read my review, and perhaps participated in the mannequin debate (yes, go there now and tell us who moved Fred – we are loosing our minds over it). One of the disappointing things about the movie was lack of the big twist in the end. Everyone kept telling me how the book, and the earlier adaptations have this loopy ending so I decided to find out.

I Am Legend Book Cover

It turns out that I Am Legend is not really a book. It’s a collection of short stories. Btw, before I forget I should probably warn you not to read the main Amazon.com blurb about this book as it contains spoilers. I know, it’s retarded – I have no clue who writes these things.

Only the first, titular story is about Robert Neville. While it is one of the longer pieces in the book, it’s actually a fast read. Depending on your edition, you are looking at around 160 pages. In other words, you can read this in a single sitting. And you probably should, since if you take a break you will probably start pondering the ending, analyzing it, juxtaposing it with the movie and and in the end over think it. I kinda did that, and I pretty much figured out what this twist was going to be. I simply expected it – it’s not that hard to guess. If you saw the movie and you know there is a twist in the book that is different then there is a limited set of possible surprises that would work in this framework. And no, it’s not a dream – I will tell you that much. If you have an analytical mind, you will probably be able to deduce it from here. Personally, I saw it coming, but I still liked it. It is a much better ending than the one in the movie. In fact, if they managed to work this ending into the movie it would be spectacular, serious and profound picture.

But I guess the direction they took with the dehumanized CGI zombies instead of actors in makeup probably forced them to do things differently. The infected in Masterson’s story are vampires in the classic sense of the word – not Dark Seekers or whatever they decided to call them. They go comatose during the day, fear crosses and mirrors, are partial to garlic can be only killed by staking (bullets do not harm them). As the story progresses Neville slowly figures out that vampirism was indeed caused by some strange plague but it takes him a while. He is not a doctor or a scientist – he is just a regular, blue collar worker and a family guy.

Very different from the movie, eh? In fact the only thing the book and the movie have in common is the title, the name of the lead character, and the central theme of “last man on earth”. Everything else in the movie is just a creative interpretation by the writers and the director.

I do realize why movie makers changed the way vampires worked in the adaptation. Everyone does that. It is one of the inalienable, constant TV and movie tropes – your vampires must work differently. That’s the law. What I don’t understand is why they have changed them so much.

Matheson is not afraid to call vampires by their proper name. He gives pseudo-scientific speculations about causes of specific vampire traits – the allergic reaction to garlic, vulnerability to light, the fear of the cross. Why do vampires recoil when they see it? Is there biological basis or is it purely psychological? Wold a Jewish vampire fear the cross? Neville finds out when he tortures captured vampires with various religious regalia.

This Robert Neville is a far cry for the good natured, if quirky Will Smith and his faithful dog. He is a simple and lonely man. He is unstable, he drinks excessively and fights with demons of the past. In comparison, Will Smith’s character could consider himself lucky. His family died quickly and painlessly. The hardest thing he has to do is killing his dog after he gets infected. The Neville from the book has to bury his wife twice. First time when she succumbs to the disease and dies, then once again when she digs herself out of her grave and tries to kill him. It that isn’t something that would seriously fuck you up for life, then I don’t know what is.

He is a broken man who has been brutally raped by fate. To make it worse, all the vampires gather around his house at nights to taunt him, throw rocks at his windows and try to get past his defenses. Their attacks are viciously personal spiteful. And so he spends most of the days searching local neighborhoods and clearing out houses out of their undead inhabitants. The vampires are not as dehumanized as the Dark Seekers. They look as normal people (often deceptively so) and during the day they often sleep in their own beds making them easy targets. Their day sleep is so deep that Neville can easily try out different methods of vampire slaying on them. He stakes them, the gives them garlic injections, he drags them into sunlight, slits their wrists, shoots them point blank to see how they heal and etc… He is not really a good doctor looking for a cure – he is more of a modern Van Helsing in training. Of course he does want to find a cure, but he lacks in resources, knowledge and education.

So what is this twist I talked about at the beginning? Well, it turns out that (highlight for spoilage) there are two types of vampires. Those who haunt Neville’s house at night are the crazy, ones. They were driven mad by the disease, or had their brains affected. They reverted to bloodthirsty animal stage and they hunt for living prey. But they are a minority. The majority of vampires somehow managed to enter symbiosis with the virus/bacteria and kept their sanity. They slowly rebuild their society and they even start producing drugs that controls their cravings for blood, and let’s them walk in daylight for limited amounts of time.

These survivors are the folks that Neville is slaughtering in their sleep. They wake up every evening and find yet another family member or friend brutally killed by this strange, phantom that operates in daylight. Instead of a sole human survivor fighting against monster Neville turns out to be the monster. When the sentient vamps finally capture and confront him, he sees fear in their eyes. He realizes that he somehow became exactly what he was trying to destroy – a bloodthirsty, inhuman beast. He became a legend and his name will forever live in infamy. The movie flips this on it’s head and makes Neville into a hero.

You can probably agree that this is probably the superior ending. Much darker, much more twisted and ironic. It makes you wonder – what if Neville knew. What could he have done differently? What would you do if you were in his shoes. This is why Matheson’s book is a renowned literally masterpiece that was adopted for big screen 3 times, while Lawrence’s movie will just be a blip on the radar – a forgettable action flick with good stenography, and strong performance by Will Smith but not much more.

[tags]i am legend, richard matheson, books, book review[/tags]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.



10 Responses to I Am Legend (The Book)

  1. Zack UNITED STATES Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Now…see…that pisses me off even more with this movie. That would have been a great movie (with that plot line I mean). Even if Will Smith was the main character. Why change a story that is already so well done.

    Reply  |  Quote
  2. Mackenzie UNITED KINGDOM Safari Mac OS says:

    They should have used the 28 days version of zombies at the least. Personally I think the original would be too literary for the big screen. Hollywood wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole. Going into sleeping vampires houses and killing them in broad daylight with a stake? Not exactly mainstream cinema.

    Reply  |  Quote
  3. Matt` UNITED KINGDOM Mozilla Firefox Windows Terminalist says:

    Yeah, vampire slaying has to be done at night, when the vampire is at his most powerful… otherwise it’s not dramatic enough or something.

    See also the “Movie-people are idiots” theory.

    And your spoiler text is taunting me with the fact that I still want to see the film… must resist highlighting until after that.

    Reply  |  Quote
  4. Miloš UNITED STATES Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    I was considering seeing the movie, but now I’m not so sure. It’s just another example of how an original gets distorted on its way to the big screen. I agree with Mackenzie in that it is all about profit and marketing and the original probably wouldn’t work within the current movie rating system. What a shame.

    Reply  |  Quote
  5. Luke Maciak UNITED STATES Mozilla Firefox Windows Terminalist says:

    Yeah, Hollywood seems to be terrified of creating movies that would make you think or stray from the beaten path.

    As for the rating system and brutality of staking vampires in their sleep – it all depends on how you show it. I mean, Saw and Hostel movies are out there and are making money so why would this have to be worse?

    Reply  |  Quote
  6. Mackenzie UNITED KINGDOM Safari Mac OS says:

    **Possible Spoilers**

    Saw and Hostel are pretty generic hack.slashers- Crazy bad guy, students/random people as victims. The concept of an everyday family man experimenting on how he can kill vampires while they sleep using a variety of pretty nasty methods would be too much of a shock- It would be showing how desperation brings out the worst in people. On cinematic terms it’s on a par with making a movie about how people resort too cannibalism in times of crisis. Also, I think the broad daylight factor is a serious one- This wouldn’t be a desperate stake in the dark, it would be calm, measured, methodical gore from a Robert Everyman Neville. What he does in the book is neither heroic nor legendary from a hero perspective, it’s pretty brutal and desperate vengance.

    Reply  |  Quote
  7. jambarama UNITED STATES Mozilla Firefox Windows Terminalist says:

    Come out Neville!

    SPOILER ALERT: I’ll try to be as vague as I can while still making the point I intend to..

    I had a slightly different read of Neville’s discovery of the societal and biological bifurcation of the vampires. I think he indiscriminately killed both types. The one type is dead – the virus has taken over. The other type is live – they’ve stopped (with a pill) the virus from taking over.

    Of course you are absolutely right on your read of their fear, and his own monstrosity. Neville’s physical description in the book is spectacular, and I could really see him terrorizing the vamps. He, a shining god of a man, huge and muscular with a great golden beard and long golden locks, after these ashen, lethargic, generally weak and vulnerable people.

    The movie did shore up some of the holes in the book (while creating its own set). Why didn’t the vamps set his house on fire? The book mentioned this and just claimed the vamps (of both types) were dumb – this explanation doesn’t hold water in the end. How come the “stuff” came off at the end, but not when he chased down and tackled her? Why did the vamp virus all of a sudden spring up when it’d been around for ages? I won’t go on, but the movie writing had some merit.

    The movie doesn’t hold a candle to the book though in terms of Neville’s personality (and insanity), his anti-social behavior, the mental torture, and the endings are even close.

    I did wish that the book had a little more demarcation between “I am Legend” and the short story immediately thereafter. I read the whole thing about the carnival guy who never missed, and was confused for about 5 minutes before I realized the long story was over, and the carnival thing wasn’t related (and it was weird, wow).

    Reply  |  Quote
  8. Mackenzie UNITED KINGDOM Safari Mac OS says:

    I haven’t actually read it yet, though I will, to go on the shelf next too Robot Louie Stephenson’s novels

    Reply  |  Quote
  9. Luke Maciak UNITED STATES Mozilla Firefox Windows Terminalist says:

    Spoilers, etc…

    [quote post=”2219″]Why didn’t the vamps set his house on fire? The book mentioned this and just claimed the vamps (of both types) were dumb – this explanation doesn’t hold water in the end[/quote]

    I think the explanation was that the vamps that congregated around his house were pretty dumb. For example, when he forgot to close the garage they ripped out some wires from the wall but left the generator alone when they could easily destroy it. They also threw around cans of gasoline but they didn’t think of using them to set a fire.

    The intelligent ones didn’t really know who he was and where he lived. This is why they sent the woman out during the day. Note that she was wandering in a completely different part of the town. She also seemed surprised to see the crazed vamps outside Neville’s door.

    [quote post=”2219″]How come the “stuff” came off at the end, but not when he chased down and tackled her[/quote]

    I’m guessing it was some kind of tanning cream or makeup that held well at the beginning but dried up and started peeling after a whole day. Note that this was written in the 50’s so their cosmetics were probably not as good as they are now.

    [quote post=”2219″]Why did the vamp virus all of a sudden spring up when it’d been around for ages?[/quote]

    I think Neville pretty clearly identified the two major vectors: the mosquito plague and the dust storms. The insects carried the virus from host to host, and the dust storms carried spores over long distances and into water sources when the bugs were breeding. The two things coincided rapidly spreading the disease.

    Why there were dust storms, I don’t know – I’m guessing climate change, which would also explain the bug outbreak. I think in one of the flashbacks they also vaguely mentioned “bombings” and “war”. Again, this was written in mid 50’s so I’m guessing nuclear conflict was being a growing concern then.

    And yeah – nowhere on the book it says that it is a collection of short stories. But I kinda figured out that the story was over after the words “I am legend”. :P

    Reply  |  Quote
  10. Mackenzie UNITED KINGDOM Safari Mac OS says:

    I still think Master Chief is more Legend.

    Reply  |  Quote

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *