In a discussion between Douglas Adams and Lewis Walpert, the argument was made that the individual is unimportant in science, but is paramount in art. Walpert proposed that scientific discovery is inevitable, as the confluence of ideas often produces linear developments of the same theories, such as with Newton and Leibniz, or Darwin and Wallace.

However, I would venture that this is equally applicable to the arts, where movements develop out of shared influences and social concerns. The process of an artistic movement developing is often geographically precise, and more an indication of shared influences than of proselytism.

The vast cited influence of this book, then, is not difficult to comprehend when one begins to look at the nature of movements and ideas surrounding it. The themes of horror always follow scientific discovery, as the Industrial Revolution brought forth Frankenstein, or the Communist scare and 'alien threats'. This book draws upon those very sources and brings in the idea of apocalypse--newly popularized by the nuclear age--to create something which is not altogether as insightful as it is inevitable.

The apocalyptic nature of the book is even reflected in earlier works, such as Shelley's 'Last Man' and in religious eschatology; the nuclear age created a new series of questions about the apocalyptic, bringing it again to the forefront (in a way more pervading than the religious sensationalism of every other year).

The vampires themselves may also be linked to 'The Last Man'. Matheson also took influence from the 'Communist scare aliens' and bodysnatchers of the pulps to create a force which is mindless, anti-individualistic, and inhuman. This characterization comes up over and over as a representation of any military enemy, not only the communists. One can look at this as an early recognition of the danger (and power) of viral memetics.

These same ideas will contine to be carried on after this work, not only though the oft-mentioned zombie stories, but also through speculative fiction as represented by the Twilight Zone and Outer Limits (which Matheson wrote for). Beyond this, you may see 'I Am Legend' as prototypical of the trope of the story hinging on a shift of point-of-view where the protagonist's view of the world is shown to be the opposite of his reality. The Twilight Zone often delivered this realization as a twist ending.

All these movements and ideas are rife with opportunity for writers looking for a paradigm shift, but I would argue that 'I Am Legend' fails to take advantage of these plentiful ideas. One might point out that it is an early example, but this alone does not save it, as we may point out earlier writings which tackle similar issues with a greater depth and sense of conceptual exploration.

There is Shelley's 'The Last Man', Bierce's 'Can Such Things Be', or the works of Mann, Hesse, and Conrad, who explored similar themes of inhumanity, hopelessness, sex, death, loneliness, and who did so much more fully and with a sense of joy and artistry.

There are many cases where pulp authors are later found to have overcome the simplicity of their genre, whether by sense of psychology, or character, or tone, or theme. Indeed, Shakespeare was considered a populist, and in all his fart-jokes, cliches, and story borrowing, we might compare him to 'Family Guy' or 'The Simpsons'; the chief difference being that they draw their allusions from 1980's culture and he drew his from Greek Myth.

But I digress; Matheson as an author does not bear these strengths, and misses many opportunities to take advantage of the themes he explores, which may be new in their particular combination, but in no way without literary precedent.

Matheson often explores his characters' psychological motivations. His every statement of action (or interaction) is followed by an explanation of the thoughts and events which have just occurred. However, his explanations do not expand our understanding of the characters. Instead, the accompanying narration is so simple that one begins to feel that Matheson is simply telling you the same thing twice; or even three times.

If our protagonist asks a question, Matheson inevitably follows with 'he asked, incredulously'. It seems the fact that the character was both clearly incredulous and asking a question did not seem self-evident enough. Then again, nothing in the book is too self-evident to prevent Matheson from painstakingly explaining it several times.

He tells us what his characters are thinking almost constantly, despite the fact that it rarely offers any further insight. One might achieve a similar effect by taking a Hemmingway story and having a high-schooler add in how the character would be expected to feel after every piece of dialogue.

Matheson doesn't have a flair for psychology, and so his characters' reactions are often either unjustified or oversimplified. Instead of writing characters who fit the story, Matheson seems to constantly change the characters or the story to try to maintain unity. Then again, the characters aren't really deep enough to build the story around in the first place.

The main character often becomes a surrogate for the author, which Matheson tries to deflect by suddenly changing the character's personality or emotions, before slowly creeping back.

Comparisons to Stephen King are apt: another author whose sense of storytelling is rather jumbled and rough despite some interesting concepts driving it.

It is not difficult to understand why this book was so influential: in the process of reading it, I was constantly thinking of things I wished the author would do with the story. Every time he overstated a point or underexplored a theme, I began to imagine how I might do it differently. It's not hard to imagine Romero finished this book having already built an entire movie in his head by simply extending where this author faltered or ceased.

Indeed, the book often reads like a screenplay, and if the plodding character descriptions were meant to keep the actors in line, I could not have been surprised.

In the end, Matheson does that which seemed unpredictable in that no one had yet done it, but seems equally inevitable in light of the social and literary movements surrounding. He also breaks the rule of authorship, in that we should always strive to show instead of to tell.

I will not deny that this work exists in a certain nexus along the development of some very important and interesting genres and works, but it works more like a rough draft than a groundbreaking original.

It is less an inspiring work than the one which revealed that there was a lot of space for other authors to re-introduce old ideas by new means and methods. If only Matheson had been able to take up this challenge himself, instead of making the void conspicuous by inhabiting it, we might remember this book not from where it happened to squat, but from what it managed to do there. ( )

This is a great book about the haunting loneliness of being utterly alone, not to mention a classic novel that laid the foundations for the horror genre. Read this, but don't watch the movie! ( )

How would you deal with being the only living man alive on the earth?

This book follows Robert Neville through this question and his fight to find out what caused it and also his inner fight against loneliness, suspicion and revenge.

He seeks to know what caused all of his neighbours and his family to change to vampires and how to kill them without getting himself dead. He changes from a man to an ideal of survival of the fittest. If he does not kill and destroy the vampires they will kill him. Over time though he meets Ruth - is she like him? Is he not the last human alive and untouched?

Tests show him the truth to this question and also in the end lead to the final realisation that once as he feared the unknown he is now the person that is feared.

Read it and see how the world can be a very suspicious place when you are slightly different from the "norm". ( )

Two points I want to make: A) the movie was crap, especially when compared to the book, and B) this is so much more than just a vampire novel.

First, the whole movie thing. In both, Robert Neville is the last human alive on Earth--and that is where all similarities end. If you've seen the movie, it won't ruin the book for you as the two are nothing alike. The setting is different, the protagonist is different (except for a shared name), the creatures are different (vampires in the book and nocturnal zombie-like creatures in the movie), and the plot points--don't even get me started on the plot points. I can understand why diehard fans of the novel were upset by the movie. This is a case of film ruining a superior narrative. Robert Neville's pain, perfectly captured by Matheson, just doesn't translate to the screen.

Second, sure it can be classified as a vampire book, but the vampires are somewhat in the background. What takes center stage in the book is Robert Neville's aching loneliness as he confronts the reality that he is destined to live the rest of his life without the hope of human contact or companionship--what's outside his door at night isn't nearly as terrifying as that prospect. The portrayal of his progression through the stages of acceptance is heartbreaking (the dog chapter was almost more than I could bear). Moral issues abound: what's the point in trying to survive if you know you're the last of your kind? Does it matter if you live to see another day? There are no easy answers, especially as his situation is given complexity by human nature's innate tenacity and stubborness. There's a lot to think about here, which makes it more satisfying than your run of the mill horror novel. ( )

Good book.