Heath 1

Amira Heath
Professor G. McClure
Writing 39B
24 October 2015
Extraordinarily Ordinary
-------still working-------(Intro)
Richard Mathesons, New York Times Bestseller novel, I Am Legend, written in 1954 is based
on a man, Robert Neville. Neville is the last man on earth filled with man-eating, blood sucking
vampires. Throughout the novel, Neville is fighting to find every way to survive and not become a
victim of the vampires. Initially, it is easy for the reader to assume that the vampires are the monsters
and Robert Neville is the victim. Through things like diction, organization, and tone, the reader is able
to conclude that Neville is the actual monster, trespassing in a world that is no longer his.
(Thesis)

Arguments:
o Matheson uses certain techniques that ultimately makes Neville a character with unreliable
credibility split personality/battle with self
o Neville is the actual monster extraordinary character in ordinary world
Evidence:
o Noel Carroll
o Passages
1, 10, 31, 22
o Matheson
Repetition, metaphors, language, imagery
(Finish thesis/ intro when finished with bodies OR **after talk w/ Professor**)
Questions for Prof.:
o Can you over quote?
o How many claims/ arguments can be made before its redundant/ wrong?
o What is the best way to tie all the claims together to make a strong argument for the thesis

Heath

Immediately, Matheson distinguishes Nevilles isolation for the reader. Robert Neville was never sure
when sunset came, and sometimes they were in the streets before he could get back (Matheson 1). From
there, the tone is set: him vs. them and at that assertion, the reader automatically assumes that Neville is the
victim. So, one goes through the book reading from the perspective that Robert Neville is the hunted and he
must find everyway possible to stay one step ahead of the vampires, as he is the sole human on Earth. But
soon enough, the reader is able to determine the switch, as Neville becomes a less and less credible character.
Through repetition and diction, Matheson begins to slowly strip Nevilles credibility for the
reader. It begins seem as though Neville is losing his mind and developing a split personality. He
brushed his teeth carefully and used dental floss. He tried to take good care of his teeth because he was
his own dentist now. Some things could go to pot, but not his health, he thought. Then why dont you
stop pouring alcohol into yourself? he thought. Why dont you shut the hell up? He thought (10) The
distinction of the characters thoughts illuminates this lost of credibility and begins to make the reader
question the validity of their first assumption. If the character is really losing his mind then how
does one really know who's the hero and whos the monster.
Being that the audience is only able to read from the perspective of Neville, they begin to feel
what he feels and thinks how he thinks. Forming empathy for the character, with no bias because
theres no way to know the perspectives of the said monsters. A sound of helpless terror filled his
throat. He didnt want to die. He might have thought about it, even contemplated it. But he didnt want
to die. Not like this (31). With the abruptness of the sentences and the repetition, Matheson creates
tension for the audience and capitalizes on the threat of the vampires, heightening the emotions and
building expectation. Noel Carroll, one of the leading figures in contemporary philosophy of art, and

Heath 3
author of the remarkable scholarly essay The Nature of Horror, states Thattheaudience'semotional
responseismodeledonthatofcharactersprovidesuswithausefulmethodologicaladvantagein
analyzingtheemotionofarthorror.Itsuggestsawayinwhichwecanformulateanobjective,as
opposedtoanintrospective,pictureoftheemotionofhorror.Thatis,ratherthancharacterizingart
horrorsolelyonthebasisofourownsubjectiveresponses,wecangroundourconjectureson
observationsofthewayinwhichcharactersrespondtothemonstersinworksofhorror(Carroll,53).
Therefore, because Matheson determined that Neville feels the vampires are dangerous and should be
feared, the reader too feels that the vampires are dangerous and should be feared. Carroll also suggests
that, Within the context of the horror narrative, the monsters are identified as impure and unclean.
(54) Matheson uses certain adjectives when talking about the vampires that give them animalistic
qualities and furthers their impureness as it pertains to Neville. Outside, they heard the bar being
lifted, and a howl of anticipation sounded in the night (Matheson 22). Also, it takes a while before
Matheson even states exactly what/ who Nevilles was hiding from, constantly using they or them.
This technique automatically makes the reader less familiar and detached from the vampires because
of the vagueness of the pronouns. Making it easier for the reader to feel that Neville is the victim, and
he the one that should be sympathized with, for his whole world has been destroyed and these impure
and unclean creatures are the reason he no longer has any family and will never experience any human
interaction again.