I Am Legend Pt 2

After first being assigned this book, I honestly thought it would be fairly similar to the movie. thank god i was wrong. The two are different but i love both. The book was phenomenal in the sense that it really depicted feeling for the vampires. Initially when looking at them, we are grasped with the feelings of disgust, and an almost hatred for the vampires. After reading about Ben Cortman's death however, there was a sense of sympathy for them. I believe it was during that point when the book took two rather large turns.


The first turn being that Robert Neville did not get his last great stand with Ben Cortman. Upon reading this passage, I actually had sympathy for both Ben and Neville. Ben went down in flames so to speak, he was shot on the roof, he died, simply because he was a "dead" vampire. I had sympathy for Neville because the anger that is portrayed at this point on Neville's behalf, is a hard feeling to not side with. He wanted Ben, it was almost like his only friend, acquaintance if you will was being taken down before his eyes.


The second turn the book took was that of Neville being the odd man out. As stated in the other post, he is the one that is feared, he is the one that has something wrong about him. Just because he is "normal" by our comparisons, does not mean so in his world.


This idea is a hard one to ignore, because it is one that everyone can relate to, which is what i think makes the ending so difficult. Everyone has had that feeling of being the odd one out looking in. That's why this ending, the final passage is so gripping. It really makes a point of everyone staring at him, in fear, shock. It finally wasn't Neville looking at them, it was everyone looking at him.


This book was absolutely fantastic in the sense that there weren't many unanswered questions, other than that of "why didn't he kill himself to begin with?" Pushing that notion aside however, it explains a relatively plausible event. A bacteria infecting many people, and one man figuring out how to cure it. Upon this reading, i do feel suicide would be a little much.

I Am Legend Pts 2-4 -- Richard Matheson

Being a text that defines the antagonists as vampires, I first found this story slightly out of place in a class about zombies. Much of the book talks about garlic, crosses, and mirrors as ways Robert Neville defends against the blight that has taken over his entire existence. But, in this sense, it’s not what the monsters are that should define them, but how they act as a social group, and the situations and challenges they place on the protagonist. Vampires are mostly seen as secretive creatures, very sensual, and up until recent films, relatively solitary. In “I Am Legend”, however, they seem to act as one mass. Not individual antagonists, but one collective evil; as zombies are. So, in this sense, I would define this story as a zombie narrative, based on theme, and meaning.

One theme that stood out most to me in this story, and in many zombie texts is the mob mentality. The social phenomenon that makes us “go along” with the group, and not wish to stand out. A horde of zombies, to me, can represent the mindless masses blindly following. It can represent a theoretical image of what can happen when people don’t think for themselves.

In the second through fourth parts of this story, we really begin to see what an emotion and psychological tax surviving by one’s self takes. Neville is given glimmers of hope, of possibly a pet dog, or a shred of information about his enemies, and in many instances, it is taken away from him. This leads him into periods of deep introspection and remembrance, and takes great psychological tolls on him. Once he realizes that the vampires aren’t magical or mythical, but the product of a bacterium, he can begin to demystify his enemy. On page 142, Ruth says to him, “You and your bristly beard. And those wild eyes.” Someone’s eyes are very prominent displays of emotion and personality, and the description of “wild eyes” shows someone who has been through many hardships, or is becoming desperate. Because of this, I believe that the greatest way zombies damage humans is not by physical harm, but by psychological and emotional harm. Neville combats this by using logic and science, because he is trying to remove the stigma of the vampire.
The stigma of the undead, the mystery around them, I believe is what peeks our society’s interest in them. One of the scariest things is the unknown, and that’s exactly what the undead are. They’re shrouded in mystery and fantasy; rumored to be repelled by religious symbols. In the ending of the story, we see this reversed, but almost exactly the same.

“They all stood looking up at him with their white faces. He stared back. And suddenly he thought, I’m the abnormal one now. Normalcy was a majority concept, the standard of many and not the standard of just one man.

Abruptly that realization joined with what he saw on their faces—awe, fear, shrinking horror—and he knew that they were afraid of him. To them he was some terrible scourge they had never seen…” (Page 169)

In this sense, the roles of Neville and the vampires are reversed. They know nothing about him, so they fear him. They think he’s a killer and an evil man, only because they know nothing about him

5 Scientific Reasons A Zombie Apocalypse Could Actually Happen

http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen.html

I thought I'd drop this gem off for you all. I sure enjoyed it.

Zombie Outbreak Simulator

Image Credit: Scott Beale / Laughing Squid

In case you have ever wanted to play out various scenarios of the zombie apocolypse, or if you just want to kill a few minutes, the "Zombie Outbreak Simulator" is here for you. You can change settings like the number of civilians, the number of police officers, the number of zombies, and the amount of armed civilians to see how long civilization will hold out against the undead uprising.

Check it out at the link below (apologies for the annoying ads):

http://www.class3outbreak.com/zombie-outbreak-simulator/

A Point of Little Hope:Hippie Horro Films and the Politics of the Ambivalence

The reading of A Point of Little Hope : Hippie Horror Films and the Politics of Ambivalence took a different turn on looking at the horror genre. The way of looking at it as a way to rebel against establishment and other hippy like things is rather interesting. It is important to look at the horror genre in different ways, but I never would have thought to look at it at this angle. The post apocalyptic world overrun by these undead creatures usually sparks just fear and terror, but when taken at the angle talked about in the reading it can be looked at as a way to get attention. The hippy movement with these kinds of works can be looked at ways to show just where the world can be headed with the way things are run with the government. However it isn’t just a cry for help, but a way of victimizing the creatures in the films. Again this is a good way to look at these films and works because people don’t usually see the creatures in this light. Most of the time they are objects of ridicule because of how they are portrayed and therefore are the “bad guys” when it comes to how the works of fiction are laid out. The way that zombies are they really don’t have a choice in the matter and looking at them as a different kind of victim other than those that become the victims of the creatures can help people analyze the works and possibly enjoy them further than they may already. In a way the victims of the creatures are actually the victims of what caused the creatures to come into existence in the first place. While having a sympathetic like view of the zombie we can see that they are not always the villainous evil thing that they are usually laid out to be. This alone is important to keep in mind because that may have been what the makers of these works were trying to go after. After all in the reading it mentioned that Craven wanted to show that America was not always benevolent in its forgiven affairs. Looking at what should be something that we know as something that is evil and something that should be good and reversing the roles can help others to think critically about the works not just with zombies but with other things to. After all zombies are just doing what they know, and that doesn’t seem to be much with how the zombie is normally shown. How can others just label zombies as something bad, but that has just become the norm in terms of them. To understand the zombie as a whole I feel that they should be looked at in different aspects and angles. If this is done then when the zombie becomes the focus of discussions different views will come up while talking about them, therefore if you have already looked at them in a different way then you will be able to understand where they are coming from even if they may have a different view then what may be normal for the topic.

I Am Legend -- Part 1

Richard Matheson's I Am Legend, while not a work of zombie literature, technically speaking, shares many similar traits of other zombie works. The most obvious is Matheson's treatment of the “vampires” very similarly to what we would call zombies. However, Matheson is very clear that Robert Neville's foes are in fact vampires as evidenced by the mythos behind warding them off such as the use of garlic, mirrors, etc. Despite this treatment of the vampires in I Am Legend, these creatures exhibit very zombie-like traits. For example, the vampires of part one have a “mindless” quality to them in which they have no advanced level of thought beyond their need for blood. Attacking Neville's house on a nightly basis and never really gaining any progress in killing him, they share a similar goal discussed in class: the absolute need to ingest human flesh.

One particular segment of chapter three that piqued my interest was Neville's string of thoughts on the nature of the vampires and why he possesses such a hatred of them and feels the need to kill them. He compares and contrasts vampires to various humans that have done considerably worse things than sustain their basic need, “the hunger”. Eventually Neville snaps out of his line of thought and decides that indeed the vampires are his enemies due to their need to kill him and his will to survive.

One of the main issues to take away from Matheson's work is whether his vampires truly fall under the category of zombies and, regardless of the result, why I Am Legend is included with other zombie works. Brahm Stoker's Dracula clearly is a vampire tale, but it lacks certain qualities that would associate it in the zombie genre. So, what can we take away from I Am Legend in the context of a course dedicated to the study zombies? Primarily, that the treatment of zombie-like creatures is not limited strictly to zombies themselves, but rather any human which has lost its intellect or any other method of controlling its urge to consume uncontrollably. Neville treats that which is different than himself with severe hostility, but do they truly deserve it?

I am Legend

While reading through I am Legend by Richard Matheson what stood out to me most was the point of view that it was being told in. The way that the reader was able to get into the head of the main character, Robert Neville, really gave a feeling to how being the last known human around can get. Sure there are a lot of undead humans out there but they don’t seem to make for pleasant conversation when they just see you as another meal. The psychological aspect of what is happening to him is really fascinating when you get down to it. This plague of undead creatures that has swept over the land forcing him to hide within his home as they try to get him to come out really shows that undead creatures aren’t all claws and rip you apart. As Neville slowly begins to break down he begins to question if staying alive is really worth all that he has to go through, but he continues to fight in hopes of finding others that have survived. One part that really stood out to me was when he discovered that the radiation from the sunlight could kill the creatures that have been terrorizing him for so long. Sure its common knowledge for us today, but it does show what could happen without the kinds of things we know about certain undead things that we take for granted. Without even telling the reader that these things are vampiric in nature, Matheson only tells how Neville barricades his home against them. Garlic seems to be a universal ward for vampires due to the strong smell of the stuff that Neville has grown somewhat used to, something I wouldn’t want to have to do myself. The strength of this mans will is quite great from what I can see, being able to hold off till morning night after night with them howling at his home while he can hear them. Eventually he does soundproof his home against them, further showing that he can hold off while they continue to come back. The importance of being prepared is also focused on through Neville. The generator that he has is one of the most important things that he has, however the creatures don’t think much of it. Without that generator he would have no food and would eventually starve, but because he takes good care of it he doesn’t have to worry too much about it. He also seems to have a lot of supplies for fixing up his barricades that he has around his home, and has routes to get more when he needs them. In all from what I have read this story really is captivating in the way it is told. Without having to focus on the undead creatures that revenge the land it shows how big of a problem that they really are. The reason that I think this is important to the class overall is in the way that it shows the undead creature being a test on the psychological level rather than making it just an object of fear, at least that’s how I see it.

A Point of Little Hope

Personally this is one of my favorite genres of film as well as my favorite era. These three directors are not only icons of the horror genre, but extremely talented as far as Hollywood popular cinema is concerned. This article laid out these films plots and the social and political context in which they were made. By going against the normal, classic Hollywood conventions these filmmakers emulated the discontent that many hippies felt when their politics and ideas didn't pan out the way they had hoped. They also broke Hollywood ideals by intentionally making films they know would cause a physical reaction from their audience. In early cinema, films that were comedies or horror films were considered low culture due to the physical reactions people have towards them. People physically laugh during comedies and people scream or wither in fear during horror. These films did just that. They were also made for more then entertainment. During the late 1960s and early 1970s people were tired of being witness to violence. The war in Vietnam was raging, important political figures such as Martin Luther King Jr and Robert Kennedy were assassinated, students were being shot by police officers. All these things caused distrust with the government and those surrounding them. By showing this ultraviolence in their films, these directors did two things. One of which was was reactionary in a political sense to the earlier times of peace and love and how it fell apart. They make two statements, first to the government "Look at what you have done to us." The second to their fellow counter culturists "Look at what we have done to ourselves."

These reactionary films aren't first of their kind. Horror films have waves of popularity. These high waves coincidentally come at times of war or political turmoil. Take for instance the attacks of September 11th and the wars in Iraq and Afganistan that soon followed. In 2002, a group of directors; such as Eli Roth, Rob Zombie, Alexandre Aja, and James Wan, were coined the Splat Pack. They directed movies with excessive gore and violence. The narratives contain evil characters with no motive to kil, they just do. This motive, or lack thereof, is extremely similar to that of Romero's zombies, Hooper's Leatherface and his "retired" butcher family, as well as Craven's drug addicted serial killers. So why do people, in times of unfortunate world events, spend 15 bucks per person at the movie theater to be scared? Its easier to be scared by something you know isn't real than it is by something that is.

I also found a video of Eli Roth basically saying the same type of stuff on youtube. You might enjoy it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5nOl1oeP4Q

I am Legend (Part I)

Richard Matheson's I am Legend certainly grasps readers from the start of the novel. The main character, Robert Neville is surrounded by undead beings of some sort and is forced to live in his house at night: which is when the undead come out to play.

The highly controversial "zombies or vampires?" question immediately pops into one's head through the author's descriptions. The use of garlic and the fact that the undead creatures come out only at night will lead one to this popular question. Also, the creatures have some of the typical characteristics of zombies: mentally incapable of communication, and hungry for flesh. The question of "zombies or vampires?" creates a mysterious aura about the novel. This speculation is one of the most noted topics of this book and is extremely important.

Neville is constantly tortured by these undead creatures on a mental level. He is faced with some dfficulties such as lust, temptation, and sleep deprivation. Many of the creatures are unclothed, and he is a lonely man. Neville cannot bear to see these undead creatures of beauty, yet he is lonely and has great amounts of lust. Therefore, he is tempted to go outside, which would lead to his death. Also, he cannot sleep well at night because the creatures bang on his house constantly at night. He is constantly exhausted and in a way, he is trapped in his own hell.

The beginning of this novel holds a certain amount of mystery and excitement that readers of this genre should expect. With plenty more action to come, readers will look forward to Neville's future and whether he can survive these undead creatures of the night.

Sigmund Freud's The 'Uncanny'

Freud begins by addressing the common definitions of 'uncanny' in several languages. He follows this by explaining how it holds a complete opposite definition in the German language and in its translation, Heimlich.

To follow Freud examines the work of E.T.A. Hoffman's "The Sand-Man." The story chronicles the tragic and somewhat bizarre tale of a boy who witnesses the demise of his father at the hands of the Sand-Man. Freud examines this piece of literature to explain how the author deploys a writing technique that pushes the reader in to accepting or embracing the vision of the main character; whether he be sane or not. In the story, the main character also falls madly in love with a lifeless doll, Olympia.

While reading Freud's work I was reading close and trying to examine how it pertains to the class overall, and first noticed an appearance of just such a moment in the lines, "a doll which
appears to be alive . . . particularly favourable condition for awakening uncanny feelings is created when there is intellectual uncertainty whether an object is alive or not, and when an inanimate object becomes too much like an animate one."

Sounds familiar, no? Freud explains how there is generally no fear in the reanimation or animation of lifeless objects. He does, however, place a level of fear when one creates or views their "double." A creation of the ego. Freud goes on to explain why many experiences in our youth can be contributed to the creation of our fears or opinions of the uncanny when older, and this (I believe) is what Freud is trying to explain. That the creation of what we perceive as uncanny is founded in the choices and experiences of our youth.

Freud explains how with reason and logic that it is easy to understand why such thoughts of resurrection or other such fictional ideas can enter our thoughts. However, he explains that even though scientific evidence fails to support these uncanny ideas that regardless of their improbability, if coincidence arises it will still provoke thought of the possible (and yet unexplainable).

Overall it seems Freud is attempting to explain how it is difficult or possibly impossible to rid one's self of the overwhelming urge to fall prey to the uncanny ideas that are the result of our psychological development as children. That there could be something else in the darkness; that we can wield almighty power; or that the unexplained is merely the yet to be solved.