Wednesday, August 28, 2013

I am Legend

I am Legend
by Richard Matheson
1954

It is difficult to say in a single sentence what I am Legend is about. It is in a simple sense a book about a man fighting vampires. Arguably it is also a book about zombies. Certainly it is a book about loneliness. Alcoholism. Science and superstition. The dangers of atomic warfare (see page number . . . er . . . location . . . um . . . it’s in chapter six. Anybody else find it annoying the kindle app doesn’t do page numbers?) I think if I had to summarize how I feel about the book, I would say that Matheson makes some mistakes, but I am willing to forgive him for all of them because of the story.

I am Legend is a study in contradictions for me. Robert Neville is one of the best portrayals of loneliness I think I’ve ever come across. But right along side this brilliant character study are scientific explanations for vampirism that pull me right out of the story. Overall I think Matheson’s description work is amazing, but it is regularly bogged down by the Urge to Explain.

Part one, comprising Neville’s “frenzied” period, is easily my favorite part of the novel. It’s almost entirely description - Neville is a man driven to the brink, and in some ways far past it. The first and last chapters of part one end much the same - with Neville in his bed, mourning his lost wife. His character is static. His inability to explain what is happening is an accepted facet of the situation.

Yet in part two that life changes, somewhat dramatically, in favor of trying to understand what he is facing. The reader gets more and more information about his research and less and less interaction with the vampires. With that change, the menace of the vampires steadily diminishes. Cortman, the ringleader, becomes Oliver Hardy the clown. The vampire antagonists take a back seat to the new conflict - Neville the Scientist versus The Mystery of the Vampires.

Not to say there aren’t saving graces to part two - the flashbacks (the reveal of his former working relationship with Cortman is one of the highlights of the whole book) and the heartbreaking episode with the dog are two examples of Matheson hitting his stride again. The last line of chapter thirteen is one of the most powerful I’ve ever read.

Part three continues the trend, further distancing Neville from his beginnings and more deeply alienating him from his original circumstances. What was once a terrifying struggle for survival is now an almost monastic, peaceful, dull existence. Hunting Cortman is a pastime, not a struggle for survival. The vampires are no longer a threat. Neville has beat his curse, by apathy as much as by anything else. This is, in my opinion, the low-point of the novel - Ruth's character never develops, and Neville’s attitude toward her (particularly his constant assurance that he’s not attracted to her side by side with constant description of her womanly bits) is more annoying than anything.

So why does it work? Part four saves it. Neville only survives by killing the part of himself that made survival difficult, and Matheson makes that the focal point of the story - ironically by explaining it more explicitly than perhaps he needed to. Neville, in a very literal sense, becomes a monster by abandoning his humanity - we don't like him as much by this part of the story because he's the monster now. The vampires are even painted sympathetically - he has more in common with them than he does with the new society.

I've mentioned what I consider to be instances of over explanation - let’s look at some specific examples of what I am referring to. In chapter 8 Neville begins experimenting by driving the stakes into different parts of the vampires’ bodies. He finds one woman and the stake causes a “sudden dissolution”, reducing her to a pile of powder in moments. Initially it is explained away by the probable age of the vampire, and Neville ponders the dreadful implication that his own wife might look the same way in her coffin. All well and good - there is nice balance to the scene. The scene serves a purpose for the narrative and, taken on its own, does not leave me with any real questions about how or why it happened.

Skip to chapter 17, where Neville explains everything there is to know about vampires and revisits the scene. She dissolved, we discover, because air was introduced into the body via the insertion of the stake. The bacillus responsible for vampirism is a “facultative saprophyte” that creates impenetrable “body glue”, causes abnormal growth in the canines, and turns “violently parasitic” when exposed to air.

It’s worth noting that this and the various other explanations of vampire behavior takes up almost the entire chapter - it's far too much at once. Going into scientific detail at that level really just robs the monsters of their immediacy - I could no longer suspend disbelief. Instead of explaining away the lingering questions about the vampires in the story, he has drawn attention to them, and left me unsatisfied.

I think the moral of the story is that even great writers can be the source of their own undoing sometimes. If we learned anything from Alien and Jaws, it’s that sometimes it’s better if we leave the monster in the shadows. Resist the urge to explain.

7 comments:

  1. The science bogged down the story for me as well. Even more so, the incredible detail the explanations went into actually invited me to pick them apart until I found faults. I would have accepted the vampire bacteria explanation, if it were left at that. But instead I got Neville discovering THE bacteria on a slide, his whole process, even him putting a sheet over his work area to keep the contaminants off the slides (really? A sheet?). The more details I was given, were also the more opportunities I had to find faults. Sometimes with writing, less is more.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you're on to something here in terms of Robert Neville being one of the best depictions of loneliness in a novel. I'm sure there are even better examples out there, but this comes pretty close. In the early chapters, watching him struggle through each day and coping with his bleak routine with alcohol abuse, seems fairly realistic to me. Especially given the time in which the novel was written. I might have the same reaction if I found myself completely alone in a wasteland filled with vampires. Well, at least I'd get good and drunk before walking outside and taking my chances with the undead.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The science was jarring, and the info dump in the last part of the book was a little much. Especially the sudden revelation of the vampire bat bite. Where was that earlier on? Very out of left field for me and threw me out.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Definitely agree with the science aspect. Too much information all at once. And not just all at once, but repeated and repeated and repeated... you get the idea. Several chapters in a row of him going over the same information in different ways. While it definitely seemed like something that a lonely guy would do, we as readers just don't care enough to hear it so many times.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Am I the only person who thought all the science stuff was awesome? It's one of my favorite things about the book! I thought those sections were interesting, although the vampire bat thing definitely came out of nowhere. I can see how those sections slowed down the story a bit, but I liked seeing how he was going to dissect all the vampire lore and explain it scientifically/psychologically.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What I want to know is why didn't it ever occur to Neville to look at his own blood? He certainly cut himself enough for it. If I were the only person immune to whatever the heck plague was going on, and I were science-y enough to research bacteria, wouldn't looking at my own blood to see if I could figure out what made me immune be an immediate thought? Also, why didn't the new infected society think of that either? Sure they synthesized a drug to keep the infection at bay. But why not think of the possibility that Neville's blood may hold a cure? I don't think that would have been too far-fetched to think about, even being written in the 50s. I'm not an expert on medical history, so I can't say. Just seems like it would be an idea to explore.

    ReplyDelete
  7. While at first I liked the scientific angle Matheson took to explain his vampires, once the science terms entered the mix, it was hard to remain focused on the story. I don't think there should have been two explanations for the vampires--first by the narrator, second to Ruth. I think it was too much, and the second explanation was easier to understand. Maybe it would've worked better if Matheson had left the readers in the dark until the end.

    ReplyDelete