After reading “I Am Legend”, I have noted many differences between the vampires in this book and the vampires of “Dracula”. Besides the obvious distinction of the transformation which I have already discussed as it is what makes “I Am Legend” controversial as to if it is a vampire story, there are other prominent differences as well.The strengths of the vampires are slightly different. Dracula is very powerful; he is strong, can transform into various animals, etc. The vampires in “I Am Legend” have considerable physical strength, but that seems to be their only real advantage when hunting. Also, their strength doesn’t come from the bacteria as much as their minds telling them that as a vampire they are supposed to be strong.
Both vampires have more or less the same weaknesses. Dracula and the infected cannot stand garlic, crosses, mirrors, daylight, and the like. However, they suffer when faced with these objects for different reasons. Dracula can’t tolerate these objects because he is a supernatural being with certain limits. The infected of “I Am Legend” fear these objects (for the most part) from a psychological standpoint. They believe that they are vampires like Dracula and they will die if they come into contact with garlic or a cross.
There is an odd situation concerning the personalities of the vampires and their desire for blood. Dracula, as we know, is a cruel bloodthirsty monster willing to do whatever it takes to feed. The infected that are dead are the same way. However, the living infected are not in any way similar in personality to these two examples. They are able to live with the virus and they don’t need blood because they realize that they aren’t truly vampires in the sense that Dracula is.
Both vampires are killed in the same way as well. Dracula-type vampires can be killed with a stake through the heart or other very serious injury. The vampires in “I Am Legend” can be killed in this way, but Neville gives a scientific reason for why it works. The bacteria in the host can live with or without air. When they live without air, as it normally does, it causes the vampire-like behavior in the host. On the other hand when it lives with air, as it has to when a deep cut is made, it becomes parasitic and “it eats the host” (134).
I thought that “I Am Legend” was a very good book. The movie twisted most of the story, but it was also acceptable for entertainment purposes. It wasn’t quite the best pick for vampire information, but it was good to see a 1950’s view of vampires. For them, vampires were still scary, still a force to be reckoned with. I cannot wait to see what differences may lie in Anne Rice’s “Interview with the Vampire”.
2 comments:
I think its good that you distinguished the difference between the two because when i watched i am legend in the movies i felt as if the nightly creatures were vampires.I was wondering are there any other creatures that have been discovered that have vampire chracteristics?
Well, that depends on your interpretation. Obviously there are vampire bats and leeches which feed off of the blood of others. Then you could interpret the way they eat differently to say that vampires drain the life out of people. This interpretation can lead one to say that parasites and viruses are also vampiric.
The writers of the movie could have based the movie off of the book more; however, I believe this is the 4th movie based off this book so they probably wanted to make it different.
Post a Comment