I need to read THE ROAD. But when it comes to the pain of children, it’s a hard subject for me to read. Not that I heard anything of the sort.

Oh, well. I’ll still read it. But based on your description, the book does sound much more shaded as regards who is good and who is evil. Of course we side with the narrator, until he has his ultimate revelation, which is just as eye-opening to us, a perspective we never considered, i.e., that the “vampires” consider themselves normal, and Neville the monster. Very cool.

I loved the movie, but I love Smith, and I didn’t have the book to compare it to. I found the death of his dog very moving, especially that HE was forced to strangle the dog, essentially embrace it to death.

Your comments, though, make me want to take a second look at the movie, perhaps after reading the book.

What I meant by some variations of familiar works don’t work is that the telling of it, as you stated, wasn’t done well. An example of this is I AM LEGEND, by Richard Matheson. His book has been made into a movie three times. Let’s look at the one starring Will Smith.

The main character Robert Neville is the last man on earth, surrounded by vampires changed by a virus. This book was really visceral for me because I felt his desperation for human contact, his need to find the cause/cure for the virus, his fears of being the last man, and his savagery when killing vampires.

In the book, a female vampire lifts her dress up to reveal her naked body and invites Neville to come out. Neville, holed up in his fortified home, wants to go out there because he’s horny, lonely. Later in the book, he finds a female survivor, and once Neville confirms she’s not a vampire, he turns to his need for human connection, sex. Very honest and emotional.

I didn’t feel any feelings of loneliness in the 2007 film. One because Smith had a companion dog throughout most of the movie. And when Smith does find human survivors, he threatens them, which doesn’t make sense, and has little connection to them once he accepts them. Wouldn’t he be welcoming of them once he found out they were humans?

In the book, I felt his need to find a cure and perform tests. Neville actually brought a vampire into his house, which created a lot of suspense and tension for me.

The 2007 film did portray Neville in his pursuit to find a cure, but there was no real suspense or tension. Mainly because the affected mutant Smith brought in was heavily sedated. Then the film relied on shock value to help create a feeling of danger.

The book used vampires, something the human soul has a deep seeded fear.

The 2007 film threw out the use of vampires, again relying heavily on shock value.

But the biggest setup was the ending. Throughout the book, Neville goes and kills hundreds of vampire during daylight hours. Vampires had been antagonizing him throughout, offering sex, calling him names, and even his former best friend calls him out.

But at the end of the book, civilized vampires capture Neville and pass judgement. Neville is to be put to death for the murders he’s committed against vampires. When Neville looks at the crowd of vampires, we see something that is wholly unexpected. We see vampires who are scared. They see Neville as their version of Dracula, a nightmare. Someone who goes into their homes, killing them during their sleep. And in a world full of vampires, Neville has become a legend. The last line of the book is given to him. He realized and said, “I am legend.”

It’s one of the rare times when I finished a book and sat back and was totally taken aback. I was speechless. It was a twist I couldn’t have predicted. It was a twist I’d rarely see in other stories. I don’t think I’ve seen that before, actually. But that book impacted me.

The 2007 film’s ending was blah. The ending was that Neville was a legend only because he found a cure. That ending sucked, compounded by the film maker attempt at forcing emotion down our throats instead of letting us feel.

As you can tell, I feel strongly about the book. I may be biased, but apparently a lot of other people felt the same.

For example, how many more Western movies can there be? Haven’t all those stories been told? Seems like it, until someone comes along and tells a compelling tale skillfully, such as “Unforgiven”. Really, what was new about that story? On the surface, not much. It was the details that made it fresh, the actual telling of the tale.

Have you read “The Road” by Cormac McCarthy? Powerful. But how many nuclear holocaust stories have there been? Who needs another one? And yet, “The Road” won the Pulitzer Prize. Imagine that. Why? The way McCarthy tells the tale. That’s it.

Yes, I agree. It is in how you tell the tale. That is why some variations of familiar stories don’t work. Having listened to industry professionals, I find that a lot of the talks are limiting. Including this idea of nothing new under the sun. My whole being is to see through the haze of shit and realize the fertile ground it can provide.

A very literate friend told me many years ago that his guilty pleasure was reading the western books of Louis L’Amour. I was surprised. “But they’re all basically the same story with interchangeable characters,” I said. He said, “I know, but that’s what I like about them. I know what to expect, and I’m never disappointed.”

Mostly it’s the telling of the tale more than the tale itself that makes it work.