ŷ������

I Am Legend by Richard Matheson is our December 2020 book of the month. It is often published with some other stories such as in I Am Legend and Other Stories. I believe they vary a bit by edition, but it obviously means the novel is short so if anyone wants to discuss the short stories in addition, that's fine with me. Most of the stories are probably available in multiple other books. His stories have been reprinted a lot since they're so good.

There are also 3 movies that were made based on this book:
The Last Man on Earth (1964) starring Vincent Price
The Omega Man (1971) starring Charlton Heston
I Am Legend (2007) starring Wil Smith

The first one is the closest to the book. The other two just use the basic idea & go off on their own.

I read a collection of his short stories last month and was slightly disappointed. I saw the most recent movie made after the book, which I liked a lot. Looking forward to start reading it now.

This is a really appropriate read at this time, but perhaps we should post a trigger warning for those who are really depressed by the current plague.

Having read the story before seeing any of the movies, I found the 1964 version the best & truest to the story. It was B&W which helped capture the bleakness of Matheson's story & it kept the point which neither of the other two did.

It is on youtube. Great.

I read this back in March 2018 and it was good but not great. I gave it 3 stars. I liked the idea of having a scientific basis to the vampirism but it was a little weak. I think the problem was trying to include and justify all the usual vampire tropes that had been established over the years. The ending was also an interesting twist on the title.

I agree with what seems to be the general consensus that the Vincent Price movie was the closest to the book. I've seen it several times over the last 50 years and enjoyed it each time. I didn't see The Omega Man. The Will Smith version was a pretty good movie but not that true to the novel (or is it a novella?).

I didn't read the version that includes the other short stories. But I did read the collection Born of Man and Woman and a couple of the stories were in both books. His writing seems to be a blend of science fiction and Gothic horror. Sometimes it works well and sometimes it doesn't. I think he is much better at the horror aspect than he is at writing SF. The title story "Born of Man and woman" is a great example of a terrific horror story with no SF elements.

A friend of mine mentions a 4th movie, a direct to video film "I Am Omega" (2007)

I haven't seen it.

I've read & seen quite a few of Matheson's works over the years. "Steel" is another favorite. It was a really good original Twilight Zone episode starring Lee Marvin, too.

The last time I read I Am Legend and Other Stories, I wound up only giving it 2 stars even though I consider the title story to be a 5 star story. I listened to a Blackstone audio production & really didn't like the format or the narrators. My review has a list of the stories in that edition. No spoilers.
/review/show...

I am a huge fan of both this work and others by him. Richard Matheson is a genius. I have seen all three movies and think they are all interesting in their own way. I think my personal favorite is Omega Man, not the closest to the story or best made.

I started I Am Legend quite a while back but for some unremembered reason veered away. I've not seen the films (unless possibly the Vincent Price, decades ago), so the book will be fresh to me.
I've been reading SF Classics the last few months along with newer SF so this will be an important title to read.

Looking at Matheson's oeuvre in Scribd, I'm amazed at the quantity of his work that were films or TV episodes: Duel, The Shrinking Man ["The Incredible Shrinking Man"], Nightmare at 20,000 Feet [Twilight Zone], many many more so I guess I had more exposure to Matheson SF than I previously thought.

I'll be joining on this, but later in the month. Earlier this year I watched the Vincent Price film and really liked it. It's no masterpiece, but it is fun.

That was quick. I liked it better then the short stories I read.

I had mixed feelings about the book. When Neville was seriously forming theories about the plague, I was interested, but most of the time he was just thinking about sex. I mean, it’s only been five months. This guy is fighting loneliness and vampires daily. And the thing that is always on his mind is sex?

Twice he mentioned not violating women, as if that were a difficult urge to suppress. When he half-coaxed, half-captured Ruth, she was stuttering and cowering in a way that seemed more like an adolescent male fantasy than a real woman.

Instead of being a psychological study in loneliness, this seemed like what an adolescent boy would imagine a lonely man doing. When something upset him, he guzzled liquor straight from the bottle. He had tempter tantrums. And of course, he lusted after the female vampires.

It’s been a while since I saw the movie, but I thought it was much more subtle on this point. Will Smith talks to a mannequin out of loneliness and need for human contact, not merely sexual desire.

I liked the Neville of the book better when he was trying to win the dog’s trust. That more than anything else showed how lonely and eager for companionship he was.

'only 5 months'? That's a really long time. Made perfect sense to me & I'm not a teenager. Haven't been for more than a few decades.

That’s why women have to carry pepper spray. A few months without sex shouldn’t turn a man into a would-be rapist.

Susan wrote: "That’s why women have to carry pepper spray. A few months without sex shouldn’t turn a man into a would-be rapist."

I think you are reading too much into this. You have to take into account when this was written and what is happening with Neville. You say only five months, but it is five months of pure turmoil and evil. It is all struggle and no comfort. He is lonely and he is dreaming about what? Female companionship, which means sex. There is more than meets the eye. You are obviously uncomfortable and that is some of the point. Richard Matheson is letting you into the mind and it is not always a nice place. You are a bit disgusted, that is good because the entire world is disgusting and he drew you further in to make you feel this disgust.

The second movie based on I Am Legend is The Omega Man. There is a scene where Neville starts to hear every phone ringing. It is his mind playing games with him. The point is that it is a struggle just to stay sane.

I like the way Neville is portrayed in the Will Smith movie. The first half of that movie is a study in loneliness.

The scene where Will Smith talks to the mannequin is emotionally moving. It shows how the lack of human contact is affecting him. There’s nuance. What Smith’s Neville is feeling is more than mere sexual desire.

Even without a vampire apocalypse, there are men who have gone without sex for five months. Not all of them fight a daily struggle to not rape.

I have also read Somewhere in Time and based on the two books I don’t think characterization is Matheson’s strong suit. There’s an element of adolescent male fantasy in that book too ~ albeit a more romantic one.

Where Matheson excels is ideas, not personalities.

I agree Nevilles behaviour was a bit simplistic. As where the female vampires seducing him by lifting their skirts.
I found the lonelyness and desperation well done. And also I liked the change of perspective at the end, Neville realizing it was him being the threat for the others.
I was wondering, is this novel the first in his kind about a world filled with vampires or zombies and a lone hero or small group of survivors?

There's a big difference between thought & deed. I agree with Papaphilly about the time, too. This is "Leave It To Beaver" & "Father Knows Best" era. His thoughts are even more horrible & insane for that. Sex is often confused with intimacy.

Leo wrote: "...is this novel the first in his kind about a world filled with vampires or zombies and a lone hero or small group of survivors? ..."

It certainly isn't the first to have a last man. (See, for example The Last Man, by Mary Shelley.) But perhaps the first last-man plus zombies. I know of none earlier.

Jim wrote: "There's a big difference between thought & deed. I agree with Papaphilly about the time, too. This is "Leave It To Beaver" & "Father Knows Best" era. His thoughts are even more horrible & insane for that. Sex is often confused with intimacy...."

This story works on more than one level. When I noted about when it was written, I was not thinking about Leave it to Beaver or Father Knows Best, but they are excellent to prove my point. Those two shows were about "normalcy" of the times. Families were nuclear, mothers wore pearls and children's problems were laughingly simple. Dads sat and read the paper and wore their ties in the house all of the time. It was an age that never existed.

A couple of things were happening. The United States was in Korea fighting against Communism and the McCarthy Era was ending ugly. HUAC was still in power. There was real pressure brought to bear to make all Americans into the American Dream and fight the Communists.

At this time, there were plenty of stories and movies that examined and criticized this forced way of life or what could happen if "they" won. Much of it was metaphor. Science Fiction in particular was very good about getting away with these studies. This is one of those stories, except it is turned on its ear.

Instead of what could happen, it is what did happen or what happened to the losing side.

Richard Matheson works in the archetype. I think it is fair to note he does not work within personalities. He works much bigger and the individual does not actually matter except to serve as a point of view to the scene.

So what does Neville serve? The everyman. He is the normal. The American Dream and now the husband and father that has lost everything. His is the noble struggle. To maintain normalcy in an insane world. Why do the vampires not just burn his house and force him out? (view spoiler)[Because the entire story is not what it seems. This is about not force, but seduction. Come join us. Why fight the future? Women offering him sex and he is tempted. Yet he holds his ground. What finally gets him? The right seduction. They finally find his proper bait and it is his end. It is a choice about a way of life. He is the proverbial last man and when Neville goes, so goes the what he represents. (hide spoiler)]

Jim wrote: "'only 5 months'? That's a really long time. Made perfect sense to me & I'm not a teenager. Haven't been for more than a few decades."

I think it might just be all the stimulation you get from riding bareback on a horse!!!! (just kidding).

Papaphilly wrote: "Jim wrote: "There's a big difference between thought & deed. I agree with Papaphilly about the time, too. This is "Leave It To Beaver" & "Father Knows Best" era. His thoughts are even more horrible..."

I've noticed that there is a lot of in depth analysis of this book out on the internet by some very intellectual sources. Personally I think a lot of it is overreaching and is just a conduit for what the analyzer WANTS to think the book means. I think that the story is a basic platform to exhibit the horror of being "the last man Earth" being threatened by modern day vampires. The story then develops a new direction with the discovery of a third intermediate form of humanity between the two extremes of Neville and the vampires. This juxtaposition is used to develop the the new realization by Neville that ties everything back to a new definition of what the title means. What Matheson does, whether it's intentional or not, is leave enough vagueness behind the motives of everybody involved to allow people to put their own interpretation on the story. Matheson is a good storyteller with good ideas but I personally don't feel that he wrote this story to purposely lead people to develop all this interpretations about race and Communism and the pressures of 1950's conformity and all the other interpretations that have been proposed. To paraphrase Freud - Sometimes a story is just a story.

That's a good analysis, Jim. I agree, especially about the over-analyzing part. Sometimes there isn't any deeper meaning.

I've always read it as more of a story to knock down those who think we're the pinnacle of evolution & as a warning that we could create our replacements. It's thematically similar to many of the AI stories today.

I adore this book - I have been re-reading it since I was a teenager and I am on my third copy. Just waiting for a day when I have more than ten minutes to immerse myself in the reading.

btw - I loathed the 'I am Will Smith' movie so much it made my teeth ache! I would not have cared if they had not pretended it was based on this book. In my opinion the studios paid to use the title and then threw everything that was good about the story into the garbage... Am I alone on this?

You're not alone about your disgust of the Wil Smith movie, Deborah. On top of the issues you mentioned, the CGI was awful & they mangled everything. At least "Omega Man" changed the title to do its own thing & had decent monsters.

Although I will always have a problem with Will Smith acting in a movie not being a comedy, I'm sorry but I really liked that movie. Great to see him walking and driving through the silent, deserted city, always looking over his shoulder. Of course the unavoidable sort of happy ending was a pity.
I think Papaphilly must be right about the question "Why do the vampires not just burn his house and force him out?". I started the movie "The Last Man on Earth (1964)" and there Neville's house, windows, doors, are obiously only closed with some simple board. Must be easy to tear it down, but the vampires won't do it.

I can commiserate with many who have had a problem with the Will Smith movie because it doesn't follow the book that accurately, especially the ending. I have made similar comments about almost every SF movie adapted from a book. Over time I have been able to compartmentalize my mind between the value of the movie on it's own merits and how well the adaption conveyed the authors original intent. Based on the first criteria I found the Will Smith movie to be pretty good as a SF/horror film but I still always compare the movie to the book. Based on that criteria it did convey the loneliness and shock of being "the last man on Earth" with some well acted scenes early in the movie. The big difference was that the movie didn't convey the book's theme about the intermediate form of people with the virus who were destined to be the new form of humanity for the future. It also doesn't convey Neville's change of perspective that gives a completely different meaning to the title as it does in the novel.

I wonder how much the order in which the films & book were viewed matters. It's been too long for me to be sure which I saw first, 'Last Man', 'Omega Man', or the book. I was young at the time, so probably didn't pick up on a lot, but the overwhelming loneliness that led close to the edge of insanity was certainly one thing I was impressed by & remember clearly. By the time I saw the Wil Smith movie, I'd read the book & seen the other movies several times.

I hate it when the title of a book is used for a movie that bears almost no resemblance to the movie. Smith had just been in the "I, Robot" mess a few years before, so taking the name of another favorite in vain doubled my dislike.

One of the things that bothered me most about the Wil Smith movie was the CGI. I absolutely hated the deer. It was close enough to real to just be disturbingly grotesque - the uncanny valley. All the deer were identical, bounded the same way & speed. Completely unreal. I guess it's because I see the real thing pretty often.

There were 2 endings to the Wil Smith movie. I believe the one where he drives into sanctuary was the alternative. IIRC, the idea of a safe haven was started in "Omega Man", but we're never sure if it is real in that one. It was expanded on in "I Am Omega" which is pretty bad. (I still have about 20 minutes to watch.)

Anyway, the whole idea of a sanctuary undermines Matheson's main points - the loneliness of last of the breed & reconciliation/defiance at the end.

I finished "I Am Omega" (2007) & it was terrible. Didn't make much sense. The first half really concentrated on the insane loneliness, though. That was pretty well done, but that was about the only thing. Kind of an updated version of "The Omega Man" with less heart.

Jim wrote: "I wonder how much the order in which the films & book were viewed matters. It's been too long for me to be sure which I saw first, 'Last Man', 'Omega Man', or the book. I was young at the time, so ..."

I read about the alternative ending and I agree that neither ending transfers Matheson's major plot points to the screen. I didn't really notice the weak CGI but then I watch a lot of B&W noir movies and reruns of "Night Court" and "Hill Street Blues" so I'm overwhelmed by anything above that level.

It's interesting that you bring up Will Smith's "I, Robot". About 3 months ago I read "I, Robot: The Illustrated Screenplay" that Harlan Ellison wrote in 1978. I thought that Ellison's screenplay was a very good compromise in sticking to Asimov's ideas and concepts but updating the dated elements he found in the stories that were written in the late 1940's. Too bad it wasn't filmed in the early 1980's.

Leo wrote: "Although I will always have a problem with Will Smith acting in a movie not being a comedy, I'm sorry but I really liked that movie. Great to see him walking and driving through the silent, deserte..."

Ah, well - about he windows (I have just started the book) the boards are a backup for the garlic that is his main defense. He has a mirror on the door, which we hear does not work that well and he will replace that with garlic, which apparently always works. The boards are only there because he got sick of them throwing rocks from a distance.

On the topic of movies, sometimes I can comparmentalise the movie and the book, other times not so well. I Am Will Smith annoyed me particularly because of the stolen title more than anything ; the only resemblance in the movie to the book is that the main character is a male American and there are vampires. Nothing else. NOTHING.

It just defies imagination that they could not have given it another title and let it be what it was, another big budget, meaningless movie.

I agree, Deborah.

Jim wrote: "...About 3 months ago I read "I, Robot: The Illustrated Screenplay" that Harlan Ellison wrote in 1978...."

Interesting. I've never heard of that. Is it a book or what? Could you post a link?

I watch a lot of old stuff, too. I just finished watching the first season of "The 6 Million Dollar Man" & old B SF movies are among my favorites. I'm probably one of the few who think "First Spaceship On Venus" (1959) is a classic, so I can handle bad special effects, especially when their heart is in the right place. There's just something about getting it almost right, but then not quite fulfilling their promise by getting lazy that I found so disturbing. If they had varied the deer some, I probably wouldn't have been so turned off.

The Will Smith version is frustrating. It starts off very good and then falls into the big budget special effects ending. It is a shame because all three versions catch the loneliness very well in different ways.

For those of you that think his stories are just stories. His own words.

Jim wrote: "'m probably one of the few who think "First Spaceship On Venus" (1959) is a classic ..."

Oh, I like that, too. At least I like the bizarro special effects. I included some screenshots in my review of the book Astronauci. I think I actually saw the version "Der Schweigende Stern" which still includes references to Hiroshima that were removed from "Spaceship on Venus".

I do not remember this one. I looked at it and may not have seen it. I too love the bad science fiction movies of the 50's and 60's

Papaphilly wrote: "For those of you that think his stories are just stories. His own words."

Thanks. Interesting.

Papaphilly wrote: "For those of you that think his stories are just stories. His own words.

"

That is a great article! Thanks for the link, I found it cool that he mentions Theodore Sturgeon while he is discussing limitless possibilities - Sturgeon was, I think, the first author I read who opened my eyes to the boundless horizons of sci-fi.

Papaphilly wrote: "For those of you that think his stories are just stories. His own words....

That was interesting. Thanks. It certainly lends some credence to some analysis of his themes. It also makes the point that "I Am Legend" updates the old, fantasy idea of vampires into the modern world via science.

Ed wrote: "Oh, I like that, too. At least I like the bizarro special effects. I included some screenshots ..."

Wow! Super. Was "Der Schweigende Stern" the original or something?

My family all thinks I'm a freak for loving that old movie & I've read reviews which absolutely trashed it, too. It had some really great, new-for-the-time ideas though, IIRC. I find my memory hazy on too many specifics, unfortunately.

here's what Matheson himself says about the meaning of the book. And more in the article; his opinion about the movies based on it.



IAL Archive: Where did the idea for I Am Legend originate? When did you first begin work on it? Critics performing analysis of I Am Legend often say it is a metaphor for the spread of communism, especially since it was written during the height of the cold war; is there any validity to such claims, or are they merely reading things into the novel?
Richard Matheson: The idea for I Am Legend came to me when I was about 16. I went to see Dracula and the thought occurred that, if one vampire was scary, a world filled with vampires would really be scary. I did not write the book until 1952. We lived in Gardena, California and I set the story there, using our house as Neville's house. I think that ascribing metaphors to a book after it is written is silly. My son Richard provided a much more likely one- that it was prophetic because of AIDS. I don't think the book means anything more than it is: the story of a man trying to survive in a world of vampires. If people want to assume it later, that's up to them. It has been said that a writer is entitled to an interpretation of his work that people choose to give it.

Thanks, Leo. That was another really good article. I would have thought Matheson would have liked "The Last Man on Earth", but I see his point. I like that he can see how it is dated.

The handling of tech left in post-apocalyptic novels interests me. As we've progressed, our tech has become less durable. Cars are a good case in point. In Earth Abides (1949) they keep running for quite a while. In Alas, Babylon (1959) most start to fail soon after, but the old Model T keeps chugging away. One Second After (2009) most won't work since the EMP fries their electronics.

My farm truck is almost 20 years old & I have more trouble keeping it running all the time as things fail on it. Old gas caused an issue & cracked insulation on the wiring is very frustrating. If parked in the sun, UV eats up tires in just a few years & that led to putting tubes into tubeless tires. If the battery dies I have to charge it to start it unlike old farm trucks that we used to compression start fairly often. Even if it were a manual shift, a bad battery means the electronics won't work, so they won't run.

I'm almost finished with The Passage. They have windmills charging batteries, which run the lights they use to scare off the vampires at night. Those batteries are now at a point to start falling down, after they worked for a 100 years. They keep them running with all sorts and kind of emergency repairs. That seamed a bit optimistic to me. There are also some vehicles, humvees and other heavy military equipment functioning. And sometimes, if well maintained, fire arms. I wouldn't risk firing a 100 year old bullet though.

Jim wrote: "I agree, Deborah.

Jim wrote: "...About 3 months ago I read "I, Robot: The Illustrated Screenplay" that Harlan Ellison wrote in 1978...."

Interesting. I've never heard of that. Is it a book or wha..."

I, Robot: The Illustrated Screenplay

I had to relearn how to insert the book hyperlink!!

Jim wrote: "The handling of tech left in post-apocalyptic novels interests me. As we've progressed, our tech has become less durable. Cars are a good case in point. In Earth Abides (1949) they keep running for quite a while..."

One of the things I found interesting in Earth Abides was how indifferent the younger generation was to the “old�� technology. While the adults were still scavenging from the dead civilization and repairing things, the younger people preferred to do without those things they had never known.

While I Am Legend doesn’t cover a long enough period of time to have a new generation of children, it does something similar with the new breed of vampires.

If this says something about human nature, then tech only really needs to last as long as the lifetime of the first post-apocalyptic generation. Unfortunately, most stuff won’t last even that long.

Jim wrote: "I agree, Deborah.

Jim wrote: "...About 3 months ago I read "I, Robot: The Illustrated Screenplay" that Harlan Ellison wrote in 1978...."

Interesting. I've never heard of that. Is it a book or wha..."

I have seen the old SF movies many, many times and have recently switched over to film noir, which is my second favorite genre. I recently re-watched "Them!", a very good 50's movie, and "It Came from Beneath the Sea" a fair movie whose Ray Harryhausen stop motion effects are starting to look very dated.

I did notice Faith Domergue showing up again in her role as the scientist's daughter who is also a scientist and a "scream queen". It's a strange combination of being a role model image as a scientist but also having to fulfill the role of scream queen at the same time.

I also watched "The Trollenberg Terror" for the first time and it was not very good. I have seen the best 50's SF movies many times and it will probably be a few years before I revisit greats like "Forbidden Planet" and one of my guilty pleasures "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman".

I apologize if I am, as usual, drifting too far from the original intent of this post, Matheson's "I Am Legend" but my brain just seems to segue on it's own!!

Leo wrote: "I'm almost finished with The Passage. They have windmills charging batteries, which run the lights they use to scare off the vampires at night. Those batteries are now at a point to ..."

Yeah, that seems excessive to me too, but I'm no expert. I have dealt with a number of old trucks & tractors over the years, though. There's a lot of seals in vehicles that would likely fail like those around the crank shaft. When they go on a rear axle, no more rear brakes. I've had that happen a number of times.

I don't believe in a 100 year battery, but I expect it would vary a lot depending on the type. I remember trying to get a few more years out of old lead-acid car/tractor batteries in the 70s by emptying them, rinsing, & replacing the acid. Rarely worked well for any length of time & never worked on any that froze since they shorted. Sometimes just rinsing them would short them since the precipitants would wind up between the plates.

I wouldn't want to use 100 year old ammo, either. The propellant might still work, but I doubt very much the primer would. That breaks down faster & it's failed on some of my old ammo. It's worse if the propellant doesn't burn. I saw that happen in the Army once - very bad prank. The primer got the bullet into the barrel & flipped the spent shell out, but the next bullet hit the first in the barrel & it blew the right side of the M16 clean off. Luckily the guy shooting was a righty, so his hand got stung, but he didn't lose his face.

Susan wrote: "One of the things I found interesting in Earth Abides was how indifferent the younger generation was to the “old�� technology...."

I fully agree! I also found that somewhat bemusing since I constantly see it in reverse. Half my life I lived without a microwave & when ours died, it was a terrible hassle. Realized we didn't even have a tea kettle anymore.

Jim wrote: "I have seen the old SF movies many, many times..."

You seem to have a much better memory for the actors & all than I do, but otherwise we're on the same page & have even watched several movies in common. I have about 150 of the old public domain SF flicks. That doesn't include Kaiju movies like "Godzilla" of which I have an equal number or old TV shows. The differences in mores is extraordinary. So much that is totally unacceptable today was de rigueur 60 or 70 years ago. Watching them is a good way to understand some of the thinking at the time.

I find the scream queens quite jarring & obnoxious. They're as bad as the current crop of tiny women who are beating up bruisers twice their size. I'm glad Matheson managed to avoid that for the most part.