The story itself keeps the eye of the reader focused on Neville to keep the reader from ever even thinking about sympathizing with the vampires. The vampires themselves, being classical vampires following most of the traditional rules, do not need explaining beyond that they're there and the methods work. The focus of the story becomes Neville's desire to cure them and understand them to a scientific level and the intrigue that keeps the reader is his success on finding out why they work the way they do. It is telling of how human's first reaction to anything new is to kill it and study it, which reminds me of books or films about aliens where the human reaction is always aggressive. Neville embodies human aggression, primitive instincts, and his desire to survive which even he cannot understand.
His desire to possess and control ultimately leads to the accumulation of the dog and the vampire woman, Ruth. It is with these two characters the reader witnesses Neville's division from what or who he once was to the monster we get to see him as at the ending of the story. In retrospect, trying to visualize the story from Ruth's perspective, every action Neville took resembles a genocidal maniac or serial killer who is ruthless (ha, Ruth...Ruthless) and praying on his victims when they are of no competition to him. Although he is not gender biased on who he kills, he definitely seems more interested in the women. In speculation, the reason why the ghoulish vampires that were always dead outside of Neville's door in the morning were most likely offerings, at least it is the only way to justify why they were always women.
Matheson excellently keeps the reader sympathizing with Neville until his last few moments before execution, where Ruth reminds Neville that he has been as terrifying to them as they are to him. Neville criticizes the gang of vampires killing the ghouls savagely, but as he states they could do it while they are sleeping like he does. It plays with the subject of honor killing, killing to defend oneself, and killing just for the pleasure.
There are certainly three types of monsters presented in the story. The mindless ghouls at the beginning of the vampire evolution, the vampires who are trying to adapt to the new world from being human, and Neville, the last remaining human. Each one tackles the concept of monster in a different way. Neville is killing people he once knew because they have become rabid. He does not stop to differentiate between the ghouls or the vampires, he just assumes they are all the same. This is reminiscent of killers who take out their anger or frustrations on others who are similar. The ghouls are the literal monsters of the story. They act on pure instinct and it is that instinct that makes them a danger to the other apex predators in the story. The vampires at the end are the most identifiable. They are doing what they must to survive, and the fact that they are a classifiable monster outside of the book is the only thing that makes them monsters in the book. Otherwise, the vampires like Ruth, are the most civilized of all of the characters.
Hey Vince,
ReplyDeleteWe had very different takes on this one.
I felt the ending was botched. I felt there was no reward. I had no sympathy for Robert. I like your point that Matheson uses repetition and redundancy to show how tough Neville's life is, but I felt it skimped the reader a lot. He could have filled those chapters with more intense horror and experience. Redundancy is something many readers can catch onto fast through little additions in the writing whether it be dialogue, imagery, or even symbolism. Matheson had the same chapter after same chapter for merely eight in a row.
I did not sypathize with any of the characters in the novel, Robert, the vampires, Ben (I wanted more), Ruth, or the seemingly helpless vampires he would go around and stake. I even remember making a comment every time he killed another vampire without a fight, "And another idiot is erased from the world."
Neville's desire to cure and study them was something that was great. His detail on the bacteria, blood, and his studies was amazing. I wish it were the entire focus of the novel. We all have this desire to learn more and understand. Neville could have easily been a likable and fascinating character that displays the characteristics you mention had the POV been tighter. I am comparing to to The Restrictionist by Hudspeth. Dr. Spencer Black was fascinated by dissecting and creating hybrid creatures. His obsession turned into him losing everything, and it was SHOWN rather than told. Imagine the entire novel revolving around Robert's obsession and human desire to understand these creatures, much more interesting than Matheson being repetitive for the sake of doing so (not to mention, this over redundancy made me feel Matheson feels I am stupid as a reader and incapable of understanding).
I also felt the vampires were poorly done. They came off as idiots, especially when they jump from the lamppost in attempts to fly. Also, what vampire is going to let death come so easy upon them as a man sticking a stake in them? Or even the scene where he over-powers the female and drags her out into the sunlight. She is supposed to be horrifying, powerful, and threatening. She couldn't even stop a mere human from dragging her by her hair into the sun. Vampires should have horrifying characteristics, these vampires had less brains than a box of rocks.
However, I love your point about Neville as a killer. I thought about this when he would repeatedly go out and kill sleeping vampires. In fact, Matheson does well in displaying Ruth's pity for her kind. She even conjures up this lie about her husband and later claims that Neville killed him. It was a nice psychological thrill with her and Robert together.
-Alexis
Yeah, I totally agree. I think it is incredibly obnoxious to read the repetitiveness of it. It would have been just as successful if we followed Neville as he dissected the vampires and tortured them to figure them out and still ended with the same ending. I don't think it would change the story but it would make it more obvious that he is the monster in the end when the intelligent vampires appear.
DeleteI did not like the idea of him being the monster. Serial killers are psychos but then again, what is Van Helsing considered aside from a monster serial killer? Nice point, now I am thinking about it.
DeleteVince,
ReplyDeleteI think I am one of the few people who also liked the ending of the book like you did. However, I didn't like it for sympathizing with Neville. I didn't sympathize with him at all. I liked the ending because of the objective flip on its head of who is the monster or not, and him becoming the mythology. I didn't care whether Neville lived or died, or whether he suffered or took the pills instead.
Vince –
ReplyDeleteI like that you mentioned trying to visualize the story from Ruth's perspective. I think the entire book would have been so much more fascinating if the entire thing had been told from her (or any other vampire's) perspective. It would accomplish what Matheson set out to do in terms of inverting the reader's sympathies and reversing the role of monster and protagonist, but it would have been so much more interesting to read a vampire's struggle of coming to terms with their new life than Neville's constant moping and pointless violence. I disagree with you that Matheson was able to keep the reader sympathizing with Neville until the end—I found him an entirely unsympathetic character from page one, but I do like your point that his motives for killing raise an interesting question about justification and whether there ever is any justice or honor to be found in this kind of situation.
Also—I hadn't considered that the vampires might have been leaving female victims outside Neville's door on purpose, but I really like that theory!
– Rebecca