Book Review: Who Goes There?

Who Goes There?: The Novella That Formed The Basis Of "The Thing" by John W. Campbell

Source: Amazon.com

From the book’s cover:

"Who Goes There?": The novella that formed the basis of "The Thing" is the John W. Campbell classic about an antarctic research camp that discovers and thaws the ancient, frozen body of a crash-landed alien. The creature revives with terrifying results, shape-shifting to assume the exact form of animal and man, alike. Paranoia ensues as a band of frightened men work to discern friend from foe, and destroy the menace before it challenges all of humanity! The story, hailed as "one of the finest science fiction novellas ever written" by the SF Writers of America, is best known to fans as THE THING, as it was the basis of Howard Hawks' The Thing From Another World in 1951, and John Carpenter's The Thing in 1982. With a new Introduction by William F. Nolan, author of Logan's Run, and his never-before-published, suspenseful Screen Treatment written for Universal Studios in 1978, this is a must-have edition for scifi and horror fans!

Note: I'd have liked to read the screen treatment by Nolan, but sadly, it was not included in the audiobook version I had.

The review: 

Who Goes There? is definitely slower-paced than either John Carpenter's The Thing, or Howard Hawkes The Thing From Another World.  And of course, since its publication pre-dates both those, it also has some technical issues.  Solar radiation is consistently referred to as "cosmic rays," which made it feel a little like a Lovecraft story.  This was alright, as it gave the book some nice verisimilitude.  The reference to the fact that the nucleus of an atom had not yet been unlocked (atomic fission or fusion, not seen until the Manhattan Project and the first atomic weapons), also makes the material dated.  But again, this isn't too bad, as the story fits its time period well enough.

The author of Who Goes There?, John W. Campbell. / Source: nndb.com

The fact that there is a much larger crew at the station than any of the novella's derivative works is also curious, but does undermine the tension.  Yes, anyone in this large crew could be a monster, but since up through three-quarters of the work, only key characters are focused on, you don't feel the same uncertainty as with the smaller crews in the mentioned derivatives.  Maybe the guys being dwelled upon in the plot are all monsters, you might reason, or maybe they are the only ones who aren't.  Both are good ideas, but for me the intimacy - almost sheer claustrophobia in tight living quarters such as those portrayed in Carpenter's The Thing - was lost.

The scientific nature of the work is also both good and bad.  I don't mind losing the "plant monster" of Hawke's film, nor even the gorefest of Carpenter's evolving creature (though there is something both revolting and strangely appealing about the organism of the latter film), but the fact that so much attention is spent looking at ways to determine who is human and who is not is both interesting in a cerebral way, and yet at the same time takes away some of the tension that Carpenter's version in particular gave to the plot.  Maybe I am biased as having seen Carpenter's vision of this story first, and then Hawkes, and now the original.  Take that for what it is worth.

What I'm trying to say is that Who Goes There? just sounds old-fashioned, I suppose.  But the ideas involved are fascinating, just the same.  I'm sure by the end, (this being written three-quarters of the way through my reading) it will be satisfying.  The writer of the front notes, Nolan, mentioned that much of Campbell's sci-fi writings would not hold up to a 21st Century scrutiny, due to the fact that they are heavily weighted toward science, without much character-driven plot mechanic.  And yes, the writing is good.  No doubt about it.  But Campbell's characterizations could all be the same person in different extremis.  You don't get much of a sense of individuals, as you instead get individual ideas and perspectives. 

The poster for Howard Hawke's effort to bring Who Goes There? to the silver screen.  It wasn't all bad... / Source: sites.lib.byu.edu

For instance, Blair, who at first is the advocate of thawing the creature found in the ice (note that Who Goes There? lacks the Norwegian camp and the discovery of the creature by that group, as seen in 1982's The Thing) afterward states that they can't chance it getting away from the station and that he'll kill everyone else to make sure they neither he nor they are assimilated. He's about the most dynamic character in the bunch.  MacReady is stereotypical hero material from the period, so far (this may change, but I doubt it).  There is a character...  Conan, I believe, or Kinders, or somebody, who is locked away for fear he is a monster, and he is singing hymns and pronouncing doom.  This is sort of stereotypical of itself too.  The doctor, and the camp leader, and the cook, and the dog handler... all seem like different perspectives from the same man's mind on the idea of a creature who can assume forms and become one of the group as it takes over, person by person.

The fear of drinking contaminated milk from cows-turned-monsters was cool.  In fact, the whole process of trying to think of a definitive way to decide who is human and who is not is what gives the story its compelling aspect.  In this, it hasn't lost anything over time, and could be called superior to any other version I have seen yet.  But then again, I still have to complete the read.  Maybe it will get much better, or maybe it'll go bust.

***  Some time later.

The ending was pretty good, all things considered.  I see the genesis of the "hot wire test" that was used to such great effect in the 1982 movie.  But the pivotal moment of each reveal was a bit thin, as the author doesn't describe the scene, but seems to gloss over it as: "well, found another monster and disposed of it..."  Plus, I really don't buy into the whole "the baddies can read minds"-business.  Maybe when this novella was first written, it was not yet a hackneyed device, but in 2013, it has been done to death and has been pretty much shelved by most reputable fiction authors.  Sure, it could be done - and very well too - but in this version, its still just a cheesy way to explain things.  The dreams aspect of telepathy with the alien, and the results of that, are more convincing I think.

Growing up, I watched a lot of movies on the Disney Channel, so I was familiar with Kurt Russell (this was the 1980s, mind you).  However, I only knew him as a goofy teenager-type.  Russell's performance as MacReady in Carpenter's 1982 version of The Thing is definitive, in my opinion, surpassing Campbell's original version.  / Source: digboston.com

I also liked the blue light motif that was introduced in the end, and the way Carpenter took that  and played it to such effect in his film.  Of course Hawkes' version was black and white - and very stuck in its era (a candidate for Mystery Science Theater 3000 send up if there ever was one... heck, maybe they did, I'm not entirely sure), so no blue light there that I recall.

Oh, and speaking of the end, it was OK.  So-so.  I prefer the Carpenter ambiguous end, with the synthesizer heavy beat theme myself.  This one had the happy, we-got-'em-just-in-time-type end.  The sci-fi involved was neat - an anti-gravity pack and a "death weapon" - but the overall effect of shooting the alien and then burning it to death was thin.  I see the way Hawkes went in for much of the interaction of the un-masked monsters of Who Goes There?.  The Carpenter vision, gross-out factor noted - is still better, in my opinion.

A panoramic shot of the Canadian location used for 1982's The Thing.  This scene fits Who Goes There? almost perfectly, in my opinion.  Incidentally, up until a few years ago, the set above was largely still extant.  It's just rotting away slowly in the subzero Canadian icepack. / Source: outpost31.com  (not to hijack this review, but if you are interested, here is an article entitled "The 36 Things We Learned From John Carpenter's The Thing Commentary Track."  Good stuff.

Well, as for a recommendation, I'd say Who Goes There? was good, and worth the short read.  But if you are thinking it'll be a better version of the 1982 film plot, it isn't.  It's better than the films that have played off it, but not as good as some elements from them.  Well, maybe The Thing From Another World especially.  Sorry, but I found that pretty disappointing, even before knowing it was based on this short story and the 1982 Thing film was a descendent.  Just not very good, even for its time period.  And I'll leave the 2011 prequel to Carpenter's film out of this discussion, as Who Goes There? and that film are only related by pedigree. 

One small quibble, but certainly not the book's fault: the recording of the audiobook I had sounded like it was done with somebody using a dub straight from the PC's soundcard, and so anything they also were doing while recording over was picked up.  There were clicks like mouse input sounds, and some weird ‘boing’ sound effects like somebody was doing something that the PC was not wanting them to, or something (you know, PC error sounds?).  And a few other distracting noises too.  I couldn't quite figure it all out.  Not too distracting, compared to some things I've had to put up with on audiobooks.  But still, not first-class stuff.  

Learn more about Who Goes There? - The Novella the Formed the Basis of "The Thing," by John Campbell, on Amazon.com

The parting comment:

For you continuity error lovers, here's The Thing (1982) getting schooled in how to keep doors open, or shut, or open... or closing by themselves even.