Distorted Dialogue in Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend: A Bakhtinian Perspective

Hamed Faizi, Ali Taghizadeh

Abstract


Based on the theories of Mikhail Bakhtin, a dialogue can necessarily take place only in a two-sided communication. But if a party creates a hierarchical situation for the domination of its voice in the context, the communication will no longer be dialogic. In I Am Legend, Richard Matheson depicts a post-apocalyptic world that is destroyed due to the spread of a disease which metamorphoses people into bugs. The bacterium of this disease is denotatively and symbolically the aftermath of a war in which every party attempts to suppress the other parties to establish a monologue to its own advantage. But Robert Neville, Matheson’s main character, tries to find a cure for this exasperation. As he kills the new creatures, his attempt is a measure to delete the factors which make the “other” intolerable for him. When the new nonhuman race is ultimately at the threshold of creating another society, they look upon him in the same way he used to look upon them. However, the new society finally decides to execute him. A Bakhtinian reading of the novel shows that almost all the position-holders try to erase the dialogue and establish their own authority. It causes disastrous consequences like violent exclusions. The present research takes it to analyze the attempts in the novel which want to destroy dialogue, and to expose the disastrous results of each participant’s efforts to exclude the other party. These efforts lead each party, especially the marginalized one, to an alienation where they have to spend their times in violence and frustration.

Keywords: I Am Legend, Matheson, Bakhtin, Dialogism, Monologism, Post-apocalypse


Full Text:

PDF

References


Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics (C. Emerson, Trans. Vol. 8). University of Minnesota Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981).The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. (C. Emerson and M. Holquist, Trans.). University of Texas Press.

Bemong, Nele and Pieter Borghart. (2010). “Bakhtin’s Theory of the Literary Chronotope: Reflections, Applications, Perspectives.” in Bemong Nele et al. (Eds.). Bakhtin’s Theory of the Literary Chronotope: Reflections, Applications, Perspectives. Gent: Academia Press. pp. 1- 16.

Dentith, S. (1995). Bakhtinian Thought: An Introductory Reader. London: Routledge Publications.

Freedman, S.W. and A. Ball. (2004). “Ideological Becoming: Bakhtinian Concepts to Guide the Study of Language, Literacy, and Learning.” in Ball, A., & S. W. Freedman. (Eds.) Bakhtinian Perspectives on Language, Literacy and Learning. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1-33.

Holquist, M. (2002). Dialogism: Bakhtin and His World. London: Psychology Press.

Kershner, R. B. (2001). “Mikhail Bakhtin and Bakhtinian Criticism.” In Julian Wolfreys. (Ed.). Introducing Literary Theories: A Guide and Glossary. Edinburg University Press. pp. 19-32.

Matheson, Richard. (1997). I am Legend. Kindle version. PDF.

Vaagan, R. W. (2007). “Open Access Scientific, Electronic Publishing and Bakhtinian Dialogism.” Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 4(2), pp. 85-99.

White, E.J. (2008). Bakhtinian Dialogism: A Philosophical and Methodological Route to Dialogue and Difference? New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington Press.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2010-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.