This week we got to read 30 Days of Night by Steve Niles. Which is about a town in Alaska that is overrun by a clutch or coven of vampires. It the spirit of honesty I must confess that this comic has been on my to-read list for a while. I cut my teeth on comics growing up (Mostly Marvel and mostly X-men though) so when I found out there was a horror comic I was like I'm in. I just never got around to reading it. I did, however, see the movie. I freaking love the movie. But I digress, I'm here to talk about the book, not the film. But if you haven't seen the film you should because it's awesome.
I actually really liked this comic. That said te drawings were really weird and unique from what I am used to. Like I said I read lots of Marvel growing up....and then The Crow comics later on. But none of that prepared me for the odd way the people and vampires are drawn. They are just off. I can't put my finger on, but even the humans are just drawn oddly. Which I know comes down to style. And I don't have a problem with that. I just thought it was worth remarking on. Becuase it's the drawing that makes this comic so unique.
This book has monstrous vampires! That's right, really, real monster vampires. Thank all gods in creation for monstrous vampires. I was never going to not like this. I made my dark little darlings evil again and after the damage done by...other book series/movies who will not be named, it was refreshing and awesome. It warms my blood to see a real blood drinking, flesh tearing, murdering vampires again. I think my black little heart skipped a beat the first time I saw a trailer for the film. I know therapy I'm aware. But I can't help it. I prefer my vampire to be...savage...and dangerous. Not saving damsels in perpetual distress. Thank you, Steve Niles. Thank you sooooooooooooooooo much.
Overall story moved really quickly I would have liked to have it noted a little better as time passes...but I guess that's not really a criticism because I got drawn in any way so I guess that doesn't really matter.
I also wanted to talk for a minute of the film (Also titled 30 Days of Night). And how amazingly they capture the characters. No seriously look.
From to comic.
From the film.
It's kind fo crazy how well they captured the way they were drawn. In fact, I remember the first time I watched the film wondering why everyone looked so weird. And now I know why.
Here's the movie trailer.
Overall, I really enjoyed this book. I prefer the movie. But I can pin down exactly why I prefer the movie. For one, I like that the vampires speak a foreign language. It makes them scarier when you don't know what they are saying (without the benefit of captioning). Second, I like that the second master vampire was omitted. And third, I'm never going to not enjoy the additional backstory we got on all the characters in the movie that we didn't get in the book. That said lack of those things didn't break the book for me. I just prefer the film, that's all.
Plus you know...this.
and this.
It was a good comic though and it inspired a great film. What more could any writer ask for?
Works Cited.
30 Days of Night. Dir. Ben Ketai. Perf. Josh Hartnett, & Danny Huston Melissa George.
2007. DVD.
Niles, Steve. 30 Days of Night. San Diego: Idea
and Design Works, 2007. eComic.
This week we got to watch the 1988 version ofThe Blob. Which in case you were not aware is a remake of the movie 1958 version also titled The Blob. And from what I understand they are trying to remake this film again due out in 2016, with again the same name The Blob. This movie is about a giant placenta looking monster that rolls around eating every living thing in site and growing out of control. No really, it looks just like a placenta. Look here. I'll wait. Gross right? Well, what did you expect it's a killer monster. It's not going to look like Tom Hiddleston (all though that would be lovely all be it illogical if it did).
The trailer. Enjoy all of the cheesetastic 80's mullets.
Anyway, it the spirit of full disclosure this is not the first time I have seen this film. I saw it when I was really little (hear this as 5 years old...and if you wondered why I write horror now you know why. I was corrupted ever so lovingly by my mother to adore all things that go bump in the night). My mom was a huge monster buff and if it had monsters in it then I saw it with her. So yeah, I haven't seen this movie in ages. In fact, I barely remember it. Which is weird because there are some of the most epic mullets I have ever seen in my life in this film. You would think that sort of hair travesty would stay with you...but it appears that I blocked it out...perhaps as a form of self-protection from bad hair choices.
The first thing I want to talk about this film is how sexist it really is but how under the radar it tries to be about it. The first instance is when the main female character Meg gets knocked out. I mean she literally gets bumped into a wall and gets knocked out. I'm calling BS on that. I hit a dashboard at 50 miles an hour, sustained a fracture to the skull, and frontal lobe damage, but I never lost consciousness for one moment. So yeah I found this offensive that as a girl she's deemed to be so dainty (hear this as useless and ineffective) that a simple bump to the back of her head can knock her out. They may as well have had her swoon and pass out Victorian style. Then there is the implied pending date rape...I mean that one speaks for itself and Mr. 'I have a blender in my trunk, please have a roofy-colada,' deserves every bit of what he got and more. Third why when during the scene in the sewer does the blob look like a deformed cervix (see what that looks like here)? I mean I shouldn't have to say that that is symbolic of women eating people. This whole movie really chapped my ass, that it seemed so anti-female. I left this film thinking that someone had some serious issues with women. And it really put me off.
As far as the special effects go, I feel like I had seen them all before. If you have ever seen Creepshow (1982) and Creepshow 2 (1987) you know what I am talking about. The scene with the homeless man poking the blob with a stick smacked of the scene in Creepshow titled, 'The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill.' I half expected the homeless man to say "I got meteor shit on me." It became funny rather than scary. Then there was the scene after the afore mention date rape scene that is directly ripped from Creepshow 2, titled, 'The Raft,' where an unsuspecting girl is also killed in a very similar manner. Nothing really seemed all that different than what had already been done. I was meh, about the efforts to make this unique. Also, if you haven't seen either Creepshow or Creepshow 2 I highly recommend that you do.
I also thought this movie felt very dated in how the government/scientists are portrayed. I felt very 80's to me where government = bad. I'm not saying that's not true now...I'm just saying that in 80's films it seems to scream that equation a lot louder. And g it also got used as a scapegoat more frequently in 80's films than in other decades.
I did however like the in movie satire about the Friday the 13th style movie. I like that it parodied the movie in this movie. I like that it wasn;t afraid to lampoon its own genre. That took balls so good on them. I also liked the addition of the harbinger character in the priest. I think you can't really have a good horror movie without a harbinger of doom. And you can't go wrong with the crazy priest or religious figure as your harbinger.
Overall, I didn't hate this film...but I wouldn't watch it again. I may give the next remake a whirl..hoping that it will not be so dated and sexist...but I will not be watching this one again. It's not the worst movie I have sat through. But, it definitely be the last time I watch this version of the film.
Works Cited
The Blob. Dir. Chuck Russell. Perf. Kevin Dillon & Shawnee Smith. DVD. 1988
Creepshow. Dir. George A. Romero. Perf. Leslie Neilson & Ed Harris. DVD. 1982
Creepshow 2. Dir. Michael Gornick. Perf. Tom Savini & George Kennedy. DVD. 1987
This week we watched John Carpenter's TheThing. A movie about an alien that mimics life forms from earth at the peril of a very beardy Kurt Russell. I've seen this movie several times and its prequel and I like them both. This film more than its prequel though.
Anyway the first thing I want to talk about is the special effects. Yes they are a little 80's and some of the creature effects are a little plastic looking. But for the time it was awesome. I just have one thing to say in defense of that. Bloodcicles. That's right icicles of blood. Frozen so fast that they are still connected to the veins that they sprang from. And it was f'ing glorious. Sure at times the blood looked like strawberry syrup...but there was just so much of it that it didn't put me off...it kind of made me want some ice cream though.
I would also like to put forth two alternate titles for this film. The first 'A Series of Bad Decisions.' Because seriously this movie would not have happened if they hadn't made so many bad choice. Bad decision number one: Let's take Ina stray dog (it's not like it could be sick or anything) . Bad decision number two: let's bring the half burnt mutated body back from the Norwegian camp (what could possibly go wrong?). Bad decision number three: Let's just let this stray dog wander about (because letting it do whatever it wants is a great plan). And last but not least bad decision number four: Let's keep the bodies around and hope they are dead. See nothing but bad choices.
My second offering for a title is 'Kill It! Kill It With Fire!' Because seriously...they got to flame throwers pretty fast. Why would they even have a flame thrower up there? I'm not sure why, and I'm not complaining (because flame throwers are awesome) but they she got to kill it with fire pretty quick.
The last thing I want to talk about is the legacy this movie has left. Show of hands, who like the ResidentEvilfranchise (movies or games)? *Hops up and down waiving hands* I know I do. Now look at how the aliens open up to eat. Then look at how the symbiotes in ResidentEvil open up (specifically the dogs). Is see a clear lineage there. One clearly inspired the other. Which is awesome. It also shows how influential this movie really is. Aliens to symbiotes. Monsters all. What a beautiful horrifying connection.
Over all I really like this film. That said it is not my favorite Carpenter film. That would be Vampires. And if you haven't seen it you should. It's awesome. Anyway this movie was awesome, and dated or not this movie is assume too.
Works Cited TheThing. Dir. John Carpenter. Perf. Kurt Russell. 1982. DVD ResidentEvil. Dir. Paul W. S. Anderson. Perf. Milla Jovovich. 2002. Blu-Ray Vampires. Dir. John Carpenter. Perf. James Woods. 1998. DVD
"Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright," - Maleva (Johnston).
This week we got to read The Wolfman by Jonathan Maberry. Which is a novelization of the 2010 film The Wolfman. In the spirit of honesty, I should state that I saw the movie first. Because I love werewolves. A new werewolf movie comes out of course I went to go see it. Plus have you seen the cast of the film? They are brilliant actors and they nailed it. So I went into this book knowing exactly what was going to happen and how it would end.
So for me I didn't really care for this book. But I think it's important to say what it did right as well as what I didn't like. The first thing I loved in this book was (and I know you may all die of not shock after reading this) the gore. There is so much beautiful, lovely, dripping, severed, ripping, tearing, arterial spraying gore in this book. Which is not shocker for anyone reading this. I love gore, I love dismembered appendages, blood spray, entrails that have become extrails, and heads rolling across the ground...and this book has all of the lovely bits of gore and blood that my black little heart could desire. I'm not sure however if it's because the movie has just as much (sometimes more) gore or if it's a style choice though. But since the source material has a ton of gore I am going to favor the source material as the influence here. Usually in the book assigned for class we don't get a lot of gore...but not in this book. I loved the gore. I always say it's not a werewolf book (or movie) unless a head rolls across the ground. And this book didn't disappoint. That said the film gives us a couple rolling heads so again it come out on top.
And let's get on with what I didn't like about the book. There were a lot of scenes that were added to the book that were not in the film and didn't add anything other than sex and boobs. It was very obviously something the writer had stuck in his craw when he was writing the book. I have the unrated version (as well as the rated) and never is anyone in the film naked. The scene where he gets the letter in the beginning? Nope everyone is fully clothed..drunk and a few kisses but no sex acts. Then again with Gwen in home above her father's shop...nope no boob popping out, she never even gets undressed, they have one kiss then get buzz killed by the cops at the door. So it really left me wondering why the writer felt to fabricate these scenes? They serve no purpose, They don't move the plot forward, they are just there to add sex to a book (and a film) that was perfectly fine without it. Totally unnecessary addition IMO.
On top of the fabricated added sexy stuff, they cut one of my favorite scenes in the film to pieces for no known reason. And cut my favorite line from the film. Which for me was unforgivable. What is my favorite line you ask? Here it is "Never look back, Lawrence. Never look back. The past is a wilderness of horrors," (Johnston). I just love that line for so many reasons. Because for one, it's delivered beautifully by Sir Anthony Hopkins (Whom I adore). Two the scene itself is beautifully done and very meaningful to the subplot. And three because that line rings true in my life and I firmly believe that when you experience a horror you should not waste time looking back. Ever. And to have it cut from the book...makes me completely insane. For me omitting that line was like writing a novelization of The Crow and leaving out the line "Buildings burn, People die, but real love is forever," (Proyas). Also a cardinal unforgivable sin. The author added useless scenes and cut good ones. Which makes me a crabby Patty. Not cool, man, Not cool.
Another thing I wanted to note about the book and how it strayed from the film was the obsession with the moon and the goddess of the hunt. It got to the point that for me I started rolling my eyes every time it showed up. I seriously got sick of it. I get it. It's a werewolf that is controlled by the moon...now stop beating me over the head with it. In the film, we get a couple long shots of the moon (for obvious reasons) but we don't get this obsession with the book that the books felt the need to mention it every fifteen minutes. It got real old, real fast.
There are also some weird style choices made for this book. take page 8, the second to last paragraph:
"Ben heardthe sound of his own death. He saw the flash of claws as they tore at him. He heard his clothing rip, heard the separate sounds of parting flesh and tendon, heard the scrape of claw on bone. He heard all of this from a great distance, detached from the pain that must be coursing through his nerves. He heard, but did not feel. The tethers that held him to the broken flesh were stretching, stretching," (Maberry, 8).
Holy word echos Batman! Also, If I were to write a paragraph where all but one line (in the paragraph) started with personal pronouns or a character name I'd get a good firm talking to in my writing program. It's also heavily filtered. Those "saw" and "heard" words making it very filtered away from the action in a moment where he could have really gone for the gut. Opportunity missed.
The POV of the werewolf and the wolfman were both very weird for me as well. I'm not sure why that was done, and while it was brief it just didn't work for me. If your werewolf is a killing machine then I don't want the writer to try and think it through for the reader. It ruins the fear element. I don't want to know what the werewolf/wolfman is feeling. I just want it to eat someone head...or arm...or leg. Dealers choice. Just don't try to put me in the werewolf/wolfman's head, it sounds contrived and unnatural.
I also thought that the use of what appeared to be raccoon footprints as section breaks was a little odd as a style choice as well. that however I will not blame of the writer. That was probably the choice of someone much higher up and in publishing. I'm not sure why it was done...but generally a raccoon does not inspire fear...and it doesn't really fit with the book either.
This is the front paw of a raccoon. Look familiar? It should it was the standard section break in the entirety of this book.
...And this is a raccoon. It's not scary and doesn't belong in this book.
In case you haven't seen it here's a trailer for the film.
Overall I didn't hate this book. I just didn't like it. I much prefer the film version...in fact I'm not really sure why we needed a novelization of the film. I've read a few novelizations of film and they are always bad, and always worse than the film. I really wish they would stop making them. There is so much that can be done in film that can't be done in a novel. The scenery in The Wolfman film is gorgeous and looks vintage, and Gothic as crap just by existing. If you try to capture even a fraction of that in a book it drags. Not that this book even attempted to capture it. It supplanted old words and names for things in place of any real scenery or setting. And so lost one of the key features of the film (IMO). So if you are curious about The Wolfman (or you have only read the book) I heavily encourage you to watch the film. It's a thousand times better.
Works Cited
Maberry, Jonathan. The Wolfman. New York: Tor, 2010. Book.
The Wolfman. Dir. Joe Johnston. Perf. Benicio Del Toro & Anthony Hopkins. 2010. Blu-Ray.
The Crow. Dir. Alex Proyas. Perf. Brandon Lee. 1994. Blu-Ray
This week we got to watch the movie Alien starring Sigourney Weaver. I'm not going to summarize it for you though... Because if you lived through the 80's or 90's you already know what is about. If you missed those decades stop reading this and go watch the movie. I'm not kidding. Go. Everyone should see this film. Everyone. No, exceptions.
The first thing I want to talk about is the beginning of this film. There are approximately 6 minutes we don't see characters. All we get is scenery. Which in fiction we are good not to do. Ever. But here in this film it's shameless about is wanting you to notice and appreciate the scenery. I love that. It's so very wrong in fiction that it seems decadent and lovely in film. It's one of those things that film can pull off, but fiction cannot. Which is kind of a bummer.
Another convention that works in film but not fiction is the repeating scene. Specifically the 'we just woke up from hypersleep and we're starving scene.' This scene occurs in every film in this franchise. Go check. I'll wait. Even the prequel Prometheus has almost the exact scene. Which is great for a film franchise...but a big giant no-no in fiction. If we use the same scene in every book in a series we get called unoriginal and the scene gets cut. Which I guess is maybe a filmmakers privilege. Even more so if your name is Ridley Scott. I guess being awesome lets you make that call.
One of my favorite parts of this movie is Ripley. For one very specific reason. Ripley was not intended to be a female character. She was written gender androgynous but intended to be male. But when they were doing casting they decided Ripley would be a female. And here's why that's awesome: she doesn't feel gender swapped. A lot of times in sci-fi/action/horror, the female characters that started as male characters don't seem authentically female. This is not one of those stories. Ripley may have started male, but she feels female. A strong, smart, capable female. And for that I love this film.
Can we all take a minute and appreciate that all the bad choice in this movie are made by the men. Usually in horror we get the "dumb blond running up the stairs when she should be running out the front door " type. I mean seriously it's a problem. We get girls who accidentally open boxes and release demons, girls who tell others about their dream demon allowing him to jump to others dreams, and girls who decide that smoking pot while having underage sex at camp and let a child drown and turn into a monster. But not in this film. In Alien, we get the guys making epically bad choices like: I'll just touch what's clearly an alien egg then stand here like a dumbass while it hops out and attacks me, or let's open the hatch and let the guy whose face is getting raped by an alien inside the ship, or let's cut off the leg of this unknown alien, and we can't forget the worse choice of all, we'll just let the guy who was face raped sit and eat with us, no need for quarantine. And who is the voice of reason? Ripley. Always Ripley. Because she's the shit.
Can we all just agree that if an android appears in a horror or sci-fi movie that they are going to be evil. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point. That said I would still like someone to explain to me how they went from David (in the Alien prequel Prometheus) to the Ash model (in this film) of android? Seems like a downgrade to me. While he's just as culpable to Ash I much prefer the Michael Fassbender (David) android. Still evil but pretty. I'd sign up for a David android. No problem.
The last thing I want to talk about is the cat. It's no surprise I'm a cat person. I have a cat asleep behind me and one in my lap as I type this. But to be fair I love all animals I just find cats to be allies as I'm allergic to rodents. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But I digress. The point I was trying to make (ineffectually) was that they didn't go for the shameless emotional appeal with the cat in this film. They could have, but they didn't. They took the high road. In my opinion too often horror writers go for the lowbrow emotional appeal of killing a pet instead of going for a real scare. I think it's a crutch and it's never effective for me when they make the scare mostly about killing house pets. I hate that. To me, it's pandering and I'm glad they didn't go that way in this film. The cat is there it's in peril, just like the humans, but it's not the scare. Instead, its peril adds to the overall scare without the last ditch effort of emotional appeal over its death. And for that I say, "Thank you," to Ridley Scott.
The alien/xenomorph on Family Guy...because this post was way too serious and I can't let that stand.
Overall I love this movie. I think it's awesome on so many levels. If you haven't seen it go watch it. You won't regret it.
Works Cited
Alien. Dir. Ridley Scott. Perf. Sigourney Weaver. 1979. Blu-Ray.
This week we got to read Cycle of the Werewolf by Stephen King. And I really don't think I need to tell anyone that when you combine Stephen King and werewolves I'm in and I'll love it. And this is book lives up to that. This was closed to my 15 read of his book. I didn't have to buy it for class because I had a first edition book that my mother bought when it came out. My mother had great taste. Anyway without further ado here are my thoughts on this book.
Can we take a minute and talk about how this book starts, "Somewhere, high above, the moon shine down, fat and full--but here, in Tarker's Mills, a January blizzard has cooked the sky with snow. The wind rams full force down a deserted Center Avenue; the orange town plowed have given up long since," ( King, 13). It starts with ever scenery and weather. Two things as writers we are told ad nauseum ad infinitum not to do. And yet here it is and by the amazing Mr. Stephen King. I'm just saying, that is pretty awesome. It gives me hope. A lot of hope.
I also wanted to talk about the style choices that are made in this book. We don't meet the main character (Marty) until page 61. That's highly unusual... But it works. This book is almost like a series of short stories based around a central theme. That in my opinion is a really cool style choice and I really like it.
*Spoiler Alert* Can we talk about how the May chapter tells you that Reverend Lowe is the werewolf. I knew reading through this time who the wolf was. I challenge others to go back and reread the May chapter and see how masterfully King tells you it's him without telling you. I mean why wouldn't you stand up and accuse everyone else in town of being the wolf when you are yourself the wolf. Also the werewolf dream. In werewolf fiction dreams are huge and usually only occur to those who are turning or are werewolves themselves. And that's why Stephen King is the man.
The last thing I want to talk about is the body count and gore in this book. Nine dead people (if you don't count the Reverend), and nine pigs... That's a huge body count and yet there is very little gore. And that makes me sad. I want gore. I want buckets and bathtubs full of blood. I want severed appendages flailing and heads rolling. In fact my only compliant is that I wanted more gore.
Over all I really enjoyed this book. I have read it before and I'll read it again. I love werewolves. I love Stephen King. In my book that makes this book a Reese's peanut butter cup. Two great taste that taste great together.
Works Cited
King, Stephen. Cycle of the Werewolf. New York. Penguin Group, 1983
This week we read The Funeral by Richard Mathesen. A short story about a mortician who performs funerals for...well let's call them questionable monster types since it never says outright says what they are.
I'm not quite sure what genre this short story is supposed to be in. Because it certainly didn't feel like horror. In fact the campy nature of this short seemed almost like a kids story. It wasn't scary and at times seemed like it was written for people who don't read horror. I got serious Munsters feels from this short. Monsters as the quirky neighbors not as being scary.
It was super campy, and the monsters very cliche. I have no problem with campy monsters. I love camp....yet I didn't like this very much. I think that was for two different reasons.
The first being that I wasn't sure where or when it was set. The language made it sound old. The language also made it seem...British. I say that because through word choice it sounds way more highbrow and proper than an American song. Words like "pendium"(Mathesen, 261) "diffident" (Matheson, 263), "solicitude" (Matheson, 262), "Indeed" (Matheson, 264), and "felicitous" (Matheson, 266), among others made this sound both old a British to me.
The second thing that annoyed me in this short story was that it totally lacked character ark. Morton Silkline doesn't change at all. He's the same money grubbing guy of questionable repute on page 269 as he was on page 261. He had no ark and for me that left no real point for the story.
That said I did like the variety of creatures that appear in this short story. I'm not quiet sure what the last monster is but he's definitely unique. Which is always awesome and refreshing. I probably won't read it again. I'm glad I read it...even if I'm no quiet sure what genre is supposed to fall into.
Works Cited
Matheson, Richard. I Am Legend. New York City: Tom Doherty Associates, LLC, 1995. E-book.
The first book we read for our Reading in Genre Horror Monsters class was I am Legend by Richard Matheson. If you haven't read it it's definitely worth a read. It's about a man who is slowly going crazy set against the backdrop of the vampire apocalypse.
What I Liked
First things first last semester we read Hell House by Matheson...and I was not a fan to say the least. This one I liked a lot more. Overall it was way shorter and it progressed faster.
Some Great Lines:
One of the things that made me really like this book is that there were some really well written lines...or at least lines that stuck with me or that jumped out at me. Here are a few of my personal favorite that showcase some of the books highlights: "If she became ill, it irritated her. She was annoyed by sickness. She seemed to regard it as a personal affront," (Matheson, 39) and "Suddenly, like the eyes of a sleeper who has a definite job to do upon awakening; who does not move into consciousness with a vague entry, but with a single, clear-cut motion, knowing just what is to be done,"(Matheson, 45). I think what appeals to me the most about both of those lines is how well they show you the characters without telling you. They are so well written that you see them so vividly. I also like the first line because it perfectly describes myself when I get sick. So only a slight personal bias on that one.
Viral Vampires:
After having read two of Matheson's books I have noticed that he really likes to ground his horror in science. Which for my science loving self is just awesome. I definitely get the sense that he did his research on this one. I love that the vampires are viral. I love the logic/scientific explanation of the vampires. It helps make the fantastic seem real.
What I didn't like:
Things We Are Warned About As Writers:
I would really like to draw attention to pages 21 and 23. As I was reading these pages I noticed a repetition of the ending ing. The dreaded ing-ing. Each of the aforementioned pages have it occurring no less than 18 times each page. That's a long of ing's. when you combine that with the ly's that pop up in conjunction then it kind of makes those pages a hot mess. It's one of those things that I wouldn't have noticed before enrolling at SHU but now I can't not see it. While it does annoy me...it also comforts me. Matheson sold a lot of books so even though we are told it's wrong, it still gets through.
Can we take a moment and talk about page 24 and the horrible word echo that for me stood out like a sore thumb. We get one sentence ending with the word consciousness and the next starting with the word consciously. Yuck. Just yuck. I don't know that I have ever read anything that had that blatant a word echo and it really got my hackles up.
Characters:
So again I have to compare this book to Hell House also by Matheson and I am left wondering what does this dude have against women? On page 44 we get almost a tiny bit of meta on this when it says "Why do you always experiment on women," (Matheson). And honestly I was wondering why are the women always weak, evil, or victims in his books. Seriously?!?! What kind of misogynistic crap is that? Not cool Matheson, not cool. That is actually one of the main reasons I could never really say I am a fan of Matheson. When you are female, and all the female characters are bad, evil, weak, or victims, you can't really connect with the story.
And yes I just used a meme from the film to shame the book. For which I am not sorry.
George R.R. Martin's getting it right.
And so is my spirit animal Joss Whedon.
The Ending:
Okay, this one is going to be short. The last three words of the book are the title. Ugh. Just ugh. I'm not sure why but it seriously annoys me when the title of the book is placed in the book. It just seems like the author was trying way to hard to make the title fit the book. Yuck. I don't like it and I really wish writers wouldn't do it.
Final Thoughts:
Over all I liked this book. Will I read it again...probably not. To be honest and I know this will probably get me a lot of boo's but, I like the 2007 movie I Am Legend more than the book (and it's not just because in the film I got to look Will Smith for almost two hour...although that didn't hurt he's very easy on the eyes). I prefer it because it basically sidestepped all the problems of the book. Gone is the sexism, and the above mentioned writing flaws. That said the movie did make them more zombie than vampire...but hey it worked. Anyway I am glad I read the book, and I would recommend others read it at least once, but I won't be reading it again because I can't connect to any of the characters.
Yet another reason to love the movie: He talks to mannequins and it cracks my ass up.
Works Cited
Matheson, Richard. I Am Legend. New York City:
Tom Doherty Associates, LLC, 1995. E-book.
