Sign in with Facebook
Bel's Reviews > I Am Legend
I Am Legend
by
by
Four fifths of the way through and the only thing on my mind was how incredibly boring and one-dimensional Robert Neville is. You would think that someone forced into solitude and surrounded by death and insanity would have a wonderfully colourful and twisted mind - if you're going to have a book revolving around a single character, make him a really good one. So, it wasn't until he began chasing, abusing and kidnapping a woman in the name of science (everything in this book was tunnel-viewed 'in the name of science' and dismissed any other possibilities and ways of thinking) that I let my imagination take over the plot.
I Am Legend is actually unintentionally Nabokovian. Robert Neville is a delusional psychopathic woman killer safe in his fantasy world of vampires and violence where he presents himself as the last vestige of rational thought. Closing himself off and leading a hermitic life, he spends his time dreaming about killing the filth of humanity who haunt his dreams and bitterly reflecting on his "wife", a woman who he was unhealthily obsessed with and murdered when she became a "vampire" ie he realised that she was not his misogynist vision of an inferior, man-worshipping, overly-emotional cretin lower than a dog (who he treats with more respect). One day, he finds, abuses and kidnaps a woman and locks her in his bedroom and she tries to win her freedom through seduction (though in the end finds that hitting him over the head is more effective). He gets arrested and is made to face what he has done, his victim even developing Stockholm syndrome, but further retreats into the safety of his self-deceptive mind where he twists the conventions of the world to point himself out as a legend, the lastmacho, narrow-minded, patriarchal"real" man.
I give this book an extra star from all the fun I had trying to salvage something interesting and in the wise words of The Smashing Pumpkins: "The world is a vampire, sent to drai-ai-aiiiiiin"
I Am Legend is actually unintentionally Nabokovian. Robert Neville is a delusional psychopathic woman killer safe in his fantasy world of vampires and violence where he presents himself as the last vestige of rational thought. Closing himself off and leading a hermitic life, he spends his time dreaming about killing the filth of humanity who haunt his dreams and bitterly reflecting on his "wife", a woman who he was unhealthily obsessed with and murdered when she became a "vampire" ie he realised that she was not his misogynist vision of an inferior, man-worshipping, overly-emotional cretin lower than a dog (who he treats with more respect). One day, he finds, abuses and kidnaps a woman and locks her in his bedroom and she tries to win her freedom through seduction (though in the end finds that hitting him over the head is more effective). He gets arrested and is made to face what he has done, his victim even developing Stockholm syndrome, but further retreats into the safety of his self-deceptive mind where he twists the conventions of the world to point himself out as a legend, the last
I give this book an extra star from all the fun I had trying to salvage something interesting and in the wise words of The Smashing Pumpkins: "The world is a vampire, sent to drai-ai-aiiiiiin"
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
I Am Legend.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
May 25, 2011
– Shelved
May 25, 2011
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-19 of 19 (19 new)
date
newest »
newest »
"Killing his wife who had recently, after great tribulation metamorphosed into something that wanted to eat him does not make Robert a misogynist." Whaat? Where did I write that? I read this such a long time ago but I'm pretty sure my putting "wife" in quotations referred to a euphemism where Robert was, in actual fact, not married but stalking a woman who he was deluding himself into believing to be his wife.
I don't agree that any kind of reading of the text can be limiting because I don't believe that there is any 'right' way to read, even when reading non-fiction. Every reading is going to be mediated differently and if you're interested in this, I suggest Roland Barthes' Death of the Author.
You say that I'm focusing on "feminist implications" but my interpretation of Robert's deceptive mind is a result of, as you put it, having parts of the book left up to my own imagination (the entire second paragraph of my review).
Sooooo, yeah.
:^D
Thomas wrote: "Killing his wife who had recently, after great tribulation metamorphosed into something that wanted to eat him does not make Robert a misogynist. He had contemporary working-class social moorings, ..."Ahh I see, the relativist view of literature being that nothing can ever be literal.
I get it, but it seems like fuzzy logic to me. But to the creative mind I suppose it's more entertaining.
K that was a fun review. There are some great ones for this book! You've GOT to admit that calling Neville a "woman killer" is a bit much tho, yes? lol ;)
Michael wrote: "K that was a fun review. There are some great ones for this book! You've GOT to admit that calling Neville a "woman killer" is a bit much tho, yes? lol ;)"I'm glad you liked it! Yes, it is very exaggerated but I believe interpretations are only limited by how far the imagination stretches :)
Clearly some people like the review so I doubt most would agree with you that it's "TERRIBLE." Those who study communications & media - like me - understand that most people want to be not simply informed/educated, but also entertained. This was one of the more interesting, entertaining reviews I've read in a while - notice the engagement, whereas most reviews have 0 comments. I guess it's not just Bel that doesn't know the "proper" way of reviewing a book (especially in a social medium...) Notice Bel gave specific critique in her feedback, which is more than can be said for your vague and dislikeable attack. So lighten up, k? Nobody will take you seriously otherwise and you will be powerless to influence others (this aside from the fact that contempt and lack of respect of others will lose you friends, if that matters to you.) It's a transparent world and all you have to take with you is your brand, you may want to reflect on this.
If you want criticize a review maybe you should take some of your own advice. Reminds me of something that happened yesterday: I was walking past some try-hard hippies writing with chalk all over the sidewalk. As I walked through the middle of them making special effort to drag my feet, I notice one fantastic slogan. It read 'stop all war'. What I loved about it was the complete absence of detail... Not even a hint, no suggestions as to how or why. It didn't even equivocate to being a point of view, it was just chalk, bereft of meaning or insight. Pointless.
I'm pretty unworried about defending someone who is sharing a review from a forum troll (read: inflammatory, unsubstantiated), Thomas. Clearly I wasn't not following my advice, since the conversation here is about criticizing a book review and what is "proper." Thanks though. Good luck.
Thomas wrote: "If you want criticize a review maybe you should take some of your own advice. Reminds me of something that happened yesterday: I was walking past some try-hard hippies writing with chalk all over..."
I was not addressing you... that comment was directed at Riju. *awkward* ;)
No one is fighting or arguing - just reviewing your review of a review.
Riju, your review of the review is "TERRIBLE" !
I actually don't find it much of a stretch to say he is a woman killer or at the very least misogynist. Even he asks himself why it is he kills only the female vampires, bypassing males to do so. He also seems overly obsessed with the women. I also found it odd how turned on he'd get by the female killers' undead lewdness in front of his house. He's patient (too patient it turns out) with the dog but chases the woman and hits her and rips her dress(and oddly her pretend tan stays intact). Lastly, he admits that if he had found her earlier he would have raped her. Maybe had I found one redeeming quality in the 'last man on earth' I would not see him as so one dimensional.
Totally agree with your review. I was about 20 pages in when I started thinking this guy was a misogynist.I'm actually commenting because it was about that point (when I decided to have barely any respect for Robert) that I decided to read the rest of the book the way you describe: Robert being a psychopathic hermit with a distaste for women and distrust of everyone. It made finishing the book much more enjoyable.
Thanks for that. I felt similarly about Neville while reading this to be honest. It became fairly obvious that this book hates women early on. I also became somewhat skeeved out by Neville's weird obsession with sex. It's been 10 months since his last lay and he's losing his mind. Sorry, but contrary to popular belief in the '90s, men can function fine without sex and don't think about it constantly unless he's suffering from some kind of addiction. There's clearly something wrong with Robert in this book aside from loneliness.
Thank you for the review, I think that is an interesting take on the book. My imagination wandered down a similar path as I read. It was very odd how Robert reacted to women.
One of the best and funniest reviews I've read in a while. You really skewered the elements that left a bitter taste in my mouth after reading the book. Neville has to be one of the most unpleasant protagonists in all of literature.
I know this is really late, but I don't think misogynist means what you think it does. Silly take on the situation. GL DB
Oh my god, THANK YOU! No one is talking about how Neville treats women in this book. I get it; it was written in a different time, but it's still incredibly disturbing just how much hatred Neville seems to have towards women. He actively blames Ruth for getting frightened at the way he treats her - he not only behaves like an axe murderer, he also outright admits to himself that if she'd happened to show up at the wrong time, he totally WOULD'VE hurt and victimised her. She's right to be afraid of him, even ignoring the twist; but he treats it like her fault. Like she's being ridiculous, even though he admits that he a legitimate threat to her. I would love the book a lot more if I could actually bring myself to root for the main character - but by the end, I don't care if he dies. Say what you will about the movie - at least they fixed Neville's character.
I much prefer this interpretation of the book!
Mel couldn't get past the fact that Robert kept spilling booze on the floor, you think he hates women and I personally was less than impressed by the ending. But there was something interesting going on in the book!
The humans amongst the mob of monsters, his complete emotional and physiological break down. In my view the best part of the book was were everything was left up to your own imagination. Matherson should have embraced that, he should have left it as a micro story rather than trying to go macro... if you get me.
:^D