Meidt 1

Lorelle Meidt

Gregory McClure

Writing 39B

18 February 2017

Russian Vampirism: Analyzing I Am Legend

In Richard Mathesons novel I Am Legend the protagonist Robert Neville is first

portrayed as an antihero, however, is later revealed to be the true monster. Neville fits Nol

Carrolls definition of an art horror monster: an extraordinary individual in the ordinary world of

the vampires (Carroll 52). I will prove Mathesons usage of rhetorical devices, subversions, and

fulfillment to the horror genre shapes the audiences perception to reveal the protagonist as the

true monster. Neville fits the definition of an art-horror monster; he is threatening, impure, and

interstitially incomplete (Carroll 55). Matheson unveils Neville as the monster and presents Ruth

as the new hero to convey his message that stereotypes are not always accurate. Matheson

conveys to the audience that American stereotypes about the Russians in the Cold War era are

false.

Matheson initially portrays Neville as vulnerable so the audience will feel sympathetic

towards him to fulfill the aspect of vulnerability in the horror genre. Mathesons depiction of

Nevilles house being attacked nightly by vampires sparks sympathy from the readers who

understand the fear and anger that one feels when his or her safety is threatened. What the

audience does not realize is Matheson has tricked them into feeling compassion for the monster

in Neville. As Magistrale and Morrison state in the introduction to their essay A Dark Nights

Dreaming: Contemporary American Horror Fiction, The horror monster is seldom wholly
 Meidt 2

unsympathetic; the reader is always aware of the Gothic villains tortured mind and soul

(Magistrale and Morrison 4). The audience is aware of Nevilles tortured soul and pities him for

it. The audience, however, does not realize it is a monster with whom they are sympathizing.

Matheson both subverts and fulfills this aspect of the horror genre. He fulfills it by causing the

audience to feel sympathy for the monster, Neville. The last immune character, typically the

hero, now becomes the monster (TVtropes).

Matheson presents the reader with the painful idea of lost love and family: Nevilles past

therefore serves to humanize him and thus the reader empathizes with him. Neville is shown as a

still grieving husband and father and as the lone survivor of an awful pandemic which cost him

both his wife and daughter. The questions Why couldnt he have Kathy there too? Why had

he followed so blindly, listening to those fools who set up their stupid regulations during the

plague? conveys Nevilles pain (Matheson 25). These questions are rhetorical. Neville knows

he cannot change the fates of his wife and daughter, but nevertheless blames himself for not

being able to save them. Horror consistently reminds us of human vulnerability and Matheson

shows Nevilles weakness early on to depict him as a believable hero (Magistrale and Morrison

2). The reader believes Nevilles weakness contributes to his representation as the hero, but it is

Mathesons way of fulfilling the human vulnerability feature of the horror genre (Magistrale and

Morrison 2). Nevilles lack of control over his life inspires pity and sympathy from the reader.

People understand the feelings that come with helplessness and the desire to alter the past, but

lacking the ability to do so. Mathesons depiction of Nevilles vulnerability relates with real life

horrorsthe death of a loved oneand lets the audience better sympathize with Nevilles

character (Magistrale and Morrison 3).

 Meidt 3

Matheson shows that Nevilles actions violate the norms of a conventional hero and

causes the reader to question how heroic Neville truly is. Neville is repeatedly shown as an

extraordinary individual in the ordinary world especially when after lunch, he went from house

to house and used up all his stakes. He had forty-seven stakes (Carroll 52, Matheson 17). After

lunch is an extremely casual statement and it emphasizes the impact of the following part of the

sentence because people do not normally go out to murder forty-seven people after their lunch

break. This is one of the first times the reader feels a sense of disquiet and unease caused by

Nevilles actions. Matheson wants the reader to be awed by Nevilles ability to vanquish what is

deemed evil. Yet he also wants the reader to recognize the atrocious act of essentially murdering

forty-seven defenseless people. Even in a society overridden with bloodthirsty vampires, the

murder of forty-seven people who are unable to defend themselves is evil. This action alludes to

the notion that Neville is not the hero of the story.

Matheson shows how the death of the dog triggers the disintegration of Nevilles

humanity, signaling his transition into a monster. The dog symbolizes Nevilles final chance at

happiness. This chance is inevitably crushed when the dog dies. With its death, the shift in tone

of Mathesons writing becomes apparent. Preceding the dogs death, Matheson uses descriptive

adjectives like gently and invitingly to entice the reader into believing Neville might have a

chance at love once more (Matheson 93). Following the dogs death Matheson no longer

employs the more hopeful and optimistic tones in prior scenes. Mathesons shift in tones displays

Nevilles new lack of emotions, and subverts the readers thoughts of Neville as the hero by

showing Nevilles lack of humanity. A hero cannot lack humanity. The driving force behind

heroes is compassion and the need to right wrongs done to an individual or individuals in a

society. Nevilles lack of humanity demonstrates his lack of a major component of what it means
 Meidt 4

to be human. Following the dogs death Neville does not drink to alleviate his feelings anymore

because he is no longer able to experience emotion (Matheson 106-107). Nevilles inability to

feel emotions makes him categorically incomplete. Nevilles lack of emotions mark him as both

living and dead. He is physically alive, yet emotionally dead. According to Nol Carrolls essay

The Nature of Horror, Many monsters of the horror genre are interstitial and/or contradictory in

terms of being both living and dead and Nevilles categorical incompleteness defines him as

impure (Carroll 55). Not only does this disqualify him from being a hero, but also shows Neville

holds half of the qualities required of an art-horror monster: being both threatening and impure

(Carroll 55). Nevilles impurity thus conveys that the readers initial perception of Neville as the

hero is false.

Matheson proves Neville is threatening through the scene where Neville and Ruth meet

for the first time. Nevilles impurity has been shown by his lack of humanity and inability to feel

emotion. Nevilles threatening demeanor is only truly confirmed once he encounters Ruth. Ruth

does not even hesitate to begin running once she sees Neville attempting to get her attention.

Even though it is later revealed that Ruth was tasked with the effort of spying on Neville, she is

so frightened of him initially that she tries to escape him (Matheson 143). Matheson uses Ruths

initial reaction to Neville as evidence that he is not only physically threatening but also

cognitively threateningNeville is regarded as much a monster to Ruth as the vampires are to

Neville (Carroll 56). Matheson shows that not only does Ruth feel threatened by Neville, she

also feels disgusted by him. She physically recoils when he reaches towards her. Throughout the

scene, the audience feels discomfort on behalf of Ruth. The discomfort increases when Neville

finally captures her and manhandles her into submission. The reader feels physically

uncomfortable as result of Nevilles actions. No hero would ever treat another human the way
 Meidt 5

that Neville treats Ruth. Matheson presents Ruth as disgusted and threatened by Neville, and thus

the audience also feels disgust towards him. Matheson causes the reader to question whether

Neville is the hero of the story because of his actions towards Ruth, who at the time is considered

the only other uninfected human alive on the earth. Their mutual lack of the vampire disease

should establish an instant connection between the two, instead it does nothing to close the gap

of distrust between them. Neville must be the monster of the story because Threat is

compounded by revulsion, nausea, and disgust and monster[s] [are] regarded as threatening

and impure (Carroll 53, 55).

Matheson makes it difficult to decisively classify all the vampires as monsters. Vampires

are initially thought to be the main monsters of the novel but the vampires prowl relentlessly in

the periphery (Clasen 318). Much of the novel is spent following Nevilles actions and how he

feels concerning the vampires; Neville is seldom shown battling the vampires. If vampires were

truly the monsters of the novel their role would have been more prominent. Instead vampires

share the stage with a host of other, more abstract monstersthe most abstract monster being

Neville himself (Clasen 318). The reader can sympathize with the vampiresthey did not

choose to become vampires. The deranged vampires are undead souls who are compelled to

roam the earth without any remnants of sanity or humanity. The living vampires are obligated to

take the life force of living organisms to continue their own existence. Matheson creates two

subcategories among the vampires, making it even more challenging to definitively designate

them all as monsters. The undead vampires are less complicated to categorize: they are crazy,

without sense, and are consistent with the normal stereotypes that label vampires as monsters.

The vampires who are still alive, however, are more difficult to classify as monsters. The living

vampires are, according to Mathias Clasen in his essay Vampire Apocalypse: A Biocultural
 Meidt 6

Critique of Richard Mathesons I Am Legend, dangerously similar to normal human beings in

certain respects (and vice versa) (Clasen 321). Matheson describes these vampires as still living,

still breathing, and still having a heartbeatthe only thing that truly makes them different from

an uninfected human is the way they acquire sustenance (Matheson 15). Matheson illustrates the

living vampires as intelligent and able to make conscious decisions. They have begun

construction of a new society and use pills to counterbalance the effects of the disease. While the

undead vampires are easily classified as monsters, their living vampire counterparts do not fall

easily under the same category. This makes it impossible to clearly define all vampires as

monsters.

As we realize Neville is not the true hero of the novel, we are forced to look elsewhere

for a herowe are forced to look to Ruth. The subversion of Neville from the role of hero is

complete when Matheson introduces Ruth as the true heroine. Matheson deliberately introduces

Ruth following Nevilles realization that the so-called vampire phenomena could be purely

psychological in nature that such traumatic shocks could undo what mind was left (Matheson

105). The irony of Nevilles realization should not be ignored by the reader: he applies the

statement to the vampires, yet fails entirely to connect it to himself. The reader by this point

recognizes that Neville is less than completely sane and the same logic that he applies to the

vampirestheir traumatic transformation has broken their sanityshould also be related to

Neville himself. Matheson introduces Ruth after this to immediately supply the reader with a

replacement hero now that Neville has unknowingly defined himself as slightly psychotic.

Matheson uses Ruth as a metaphor to show that American conventions regarding the

Russians as evil is incorrect. Mathias Clasen states that Matheson seems to have hit a nerve in

the fevered American Cold War imagination with I Am Legend (Clasen 326). Matheson
 Meidt 7

successfully shows that the stereotypes associated with a certain group can be entirely false:

Neville, the last human alive, emerges as the monster of the novel; Ruth, a vampire, is the

unanticipated heroine. Matheson uses Neville and Ruth as a metaphor for the Americans and the

Russians. The reader initially believes Neville is the hero and the vampires are monsters because

Neville is considered normal and vampires are regarded as outsiders. The readers initial views

of Neville and the vampires parallels with the way Americans considered themselves to be the

norm and the Russians as evil monsters. Matheson deliberately defies the stereotypical

conventions to make his readers realize that the Russians, like the vampires, are not all evil. Ruth

proves to be more in touch with her humanity than Neville is, which goes against the

stereotypical ideas of vampires as cold and unfeeling. Ruth feels compassion and care for

Neville, the man who killed her husband (Matheson 143). She does her duty of spying on Neville

when given the task, yet still develops feelings of love for him (Matheson 144). When it becomes

clear that her people will inevitably try to kill Neville, Ruth goes against them and pleads with

Neville to escape because she can feel the emotion Neville cannotlove. The reader inevitably

realizes that Ruth is an ordinary person trying to adapt to the changing world, whereas Neville is

the outsider, unable and unwilling to participate in the brand new vampire world (Clasen 322).

The outsiders in this case, like the Russians, are not all evil. Neville is deliberately ignorant of

the new vampire world; he will not alter the way he lives to fit in the new society. Mathesons

message is that the Russians should not be classified as evil simply because Americans view

them as outsiders. The reversal of Ruth and Nevilles roles demonstrates that stereotypes can be

proven false.

Throughout I Am Legend, Matheson steadily reveals Robert Neville as the monster and

names Ruth as the heroine. I Am Legend is meant to show the parallels between the Russians and
 Meidt 8

the vampires. It supports the idea that stereotypes are not always legitimate. The international

tensions of the Cold War are paralleled with the prejudice against the vampires. Mathesons goal

is to have the reader to make a connection between Ruth and Nevilles final roles and the

Russians and Americans. The Americans and Russians are not complete opposites, but rather are

all humans and should all be treated as such no matter the circumstances. Neville in the end

realizes he is no longer the hero but a monster in the world of vampires. His revelation occurs

only because of his personal connection with Ruth. Matheson shifts Nevilles perspective to

allow him to see the point of view of the vampires. Showing the audience the importance of a

personal connection and rejecting stereotyping when it comes to truly understanding someone

else.
 Meidt 9

Works Cited

Carroll, Nol. "The Nature of Horror." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.

Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Aesthetics, 1982. 51-59. Print

Clasen, Mathias. Vampire Apocalypse: A Biocultural Critique of Richard Matheson's I Am

Legend. N.p.: John Hopkins UP, 2010. Print.

"I Am Legend (Literature)." TV Tropes. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2017.

Matheson, Richard. I Am Legend. Forestville, CA: Eclipse, 1991. Print.

Morrison, Michael A., and Tony Magistrale. "Introduction to Dark Night's Dreaming."

Introduction. A Dark Night's Dreaming: Contemporary American Horror Fiction.

Columbia, S.C: U of South Carolina, 1999. 1-7. Print.