Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

"Who Goes There?" is the novella that formed the basis of John Carpenter's film The Thing. Campbell's classic story tells of an Antarctic research base that discovers and thaws the ancient, frozen body of a crash-landed alien—with terrifying results!
This Wildside Press edition is the only ebook version of this classic story authorized by the Campbell estate.

I've just found out that there is a recently-discovered longer version of this story published as Frozen Hell. As I understand it, this longer version adds a few extra chapters at the beginning, and then is basically the same afterwords. Read whichever version you prefer.

Ed wrote: "I've just found out that there is a recently-discovered longer version of this story published as Frozen Hell. As I understand it, this longer version adds a few extra chapters at t..."

Thanks, Ed. Is this version linked here as well? I'll plan to read that one.
I have good memories of John Carpenter's classic film "The Thing," which I saw on the Wide Screen in Stillwater, Okla when I was just starting to read this stuff.

Did the group ever read Campbell's "The Cloak of Aesir"?
VERY atmospheric proto-hard SF tale by JWC. Those rustling atomic wall-torches! Pretty sure I have a hc copy of this from a library discard-sale. Those old greenback library-binding special eds! Might be worth $$$ now . . . 😇

O, that walking head - I will never forget that. Really magnificent movie. I started the book yesterday but I would be interested in Frozen Hell.

Leo wrote: "O, that walking head - I will never forget that. Really magnificent movie. I started the book yesterday but I would be interested in Frozen Hell."

The Walking Head! I'd forgotten that part. 1982 movie. That can't be right? Much later than I thought....

Peter wrote: "...Is this version linked here as well?.."

Yes, there is a link to Frozen Hell in my message above, and again in this sentence.

"Frozen Hell" was published from a Kickstarter project, btw.

I think I will read the standard version. It is a classic and I'd like to experience it the same way most people have. But if you read the longer version, let us know what you think!

Frozen Hell is what I own and will be reading. Looking forward to it! Just finishing off a Simak novel and then I'll be good to go...

I've just purchased an ebook of four of Campbell's books for less than three dollars, so I'm in(the original story).

I read Frozen Hell. It is indeed essentially the same as Who Goes There, with three extra chapters at the beginning. The extra chapters cover an overly descriptive, detailed extraction process that does not add much to the story IMO. From the intro in Frozen Hell, it seems that Campbell removed the extra chapters to avoid what I just described.

Ryan wrote: "I read Frozen Hell. It is indeed essentially the same as Who Goes There, with three extra chapters at the beginning. The extra chapters cover an overly descriptive, detailed extraction process that..."

Thanks. Maybe I'll stick to re-reading the classic!

Ed wrote: "I've just found out that there is a recently-discovered longer version of this story published as Frozen Hell. As I understand it, this longer version adds a few extra chapters at t..."
The first 3 long chapters of "Frozen Hell" were condensed using a flashback format in the first 2 chapters of ""Who Goes There?". From that point the story is pretty much the same as I can tell without comparing them line by line. I liked the edited version much better. Those 3 extra chapters didn't add anything for me and just slowed the story down.

Ryan wrote: "I read Frozen Hell. It is indeed essentially the same as Who Goes There, with three extra chapters at the beginning. The extra chapters cover an overly descriptive, detailed extraction process that..."
I agree.

thanks guys for the info on Frozen Hell.

I had read Who Goes There? as the basis for both The Thing and The Thing From Another world and enjoyed it. Have to track down Frozen Hell

I started reading Frozen Hell last night and I've now read the first three chapters, which I think is possibly all the material previously unpublished. So in theory, all that's left is more or less the "original" story.

I found the first chapter a bit of a drag and the characters are all hard to differentiate. Pretty much the only thing that sets them apart for me is the association with their live-action incarnations. It's easy to see why this material would have been cut, although I did enjoy the 2nd and third chapters. There are some good moments that I think are effective in developing a bit of dread for what's to come. What's interesting is there are several portions that to me feel very reminiscent of The Thing from Another World, since these chapters focus on (view spoiler)[the excavating of the ship, the discovery of The Thing in ice, and discussion over how difficult it is to look at the eyes, with a decision to cover it up with a tarpaulin for the sake of sanity (hide spoiler)] - all of this reminds me of the original film. There's also a speculative line about it being "a perfect imitation" which reminded me of Blair's speech in the Carpenter movie. Unless this stuff was repeated or reincorporated in the later portion/originally published version, the association is uncanny.

It is clear to me why all this would have been cut though, as the writing is indulgent with a bit of unnecessary technobabble. There's also (view spoiler)[an explicit statement of the concept and nature of the creature before anyone has even encountered its behaviour post-thaw (hide spoiler)]. I read the two introductions that come with the edition, one by Silverberg, and it's funny how they both more or less say "the new material is inferior" without outright saying it. I think the most positive thing Silverberg says is something like "comparing the two is an interesting insight into Campbell's growth as an editor" (paraphrase).

Interesting. I finished it today and it was very quick, so I will now start to read the first 3 chapters of Frozen Hell.
About the book: I could not help comparing it to Carpenters movie the whole time I was reading. Because of that it was hard to judge the book as a work on itself. Characters are flat or non existent, and there was a lot of things I missed or could have added something in the description of events. The ending was a bit sudden. Despite all that the book created the haunted atmosphere that I thought it should have with the events happening. It is great to have read this original story.

Leo wrote: "Interesting. I finished it today and it was very quick, so I will now start to read the first 3 chapters of Frozen Hell.
About the book: I could not help comparing it to Carpenters movie the whole..."

I echo Leo's sentiments. I found it very uneven and the language stilted and unclear. It was very good in terms of ideas, but he wasn't real adept at getting them across.

I read them both. Frozen Hell first. I liked the Frozen Hell best . It gave a really good intro to the characters and how they found the spaceship etc. I liked the introduction before the start, also the intro by Silverberg.
WGT had a bit of an info-dump explaining a bit about the back story, but I felt it lacked a lot of the character development.
I'm not really a fan of horror, but I do like action/adventure stories - maybe why I liked FH.
I felt he may have cut out the first three chapters to get the word count down. It's something I have done when writing essays - just pick whole paragraphs and delete them.

^^ I don't think it was a word count issue. He had tried and failed to sell it over time and I believe then published it when he became editor for Astounding Science Fiction (with input from colleagues). I'd speculate it was more to do with pacing.

I finished Frozen Hell last night. Here's my review: /review/show...

I finished the first 3 chapters of Frozen Hell and liked them. They form a solid and exciting introduction for the events following in Who Goes There.

This has been a very interesting discussion with a split between "Who goes There?" and "Frozen Hell". Some people like the expanded beginning in Frozen Hell and some liked the shorter "Who goes There? version. It appears Wildside Press made the right decision in releasing the original version to the public.

Leo wrote: "I finished the first 3 chapters of Frozen Hell and liked them. They form a solid and exciting introduction for the events following in Who Goes There."

Yes. I liked it too

WGH is all exposition and action. Not much in the way of character. It was hard for me to read without thinking of James Arness lurching around.

I agree, Thomas. There was not much in the way of character. It was confusing at times due to lack of details.

Cordelia wrote: "I read them both. Frozen Hell first. I liked the Frozen Hell best . It gave a really good intro to the characters and how they found the spaceship etc. ..."

I read the original story. This is my first time to experience any version of the story. I've never seen any of the films.

The characters were flat and hard for me to tell apart. So I might have appreciated having some introductory chapters to help me know who was who.

I got confused also with some of the action. Not sure exactly why, but several times I had to stop and re-read a few paragraphs.

I really didn't like the prose style. Too many unnecessary adjectives, for one thing.

The science parts were unconvincing. Does anyone know whether a blood test such as described here would work? Can you really see a reaction quickly with just your bare eyes?

The scientists jumped to conclusions pretty quickly. The idea that (view spoiler)[the monster's cells could reconfigure quickly into a perfect replica of a human with all that human's memories, etc., is a pretty big leap to take based on not much evidence. (hide spoiler)]

With all that said, I still like the idea of the story and the atmosphere of fear an paranoia. I've seen later SF shows play with this idea. So, 4 stars for the idea. Not so much for the writing.

When I first read the original story the main emotion that struck me was paranoia. It seemed to carry the main weight of the story and because of that i didn't notice many of the poorer attributes of the story mentioned here by other readers. It just caught me up with my focus on the feeling of fear and paranoia carrying me to the end. I thought the original adaptation regardless of the limits of 1951 film carried that same feeling. And I think that Carpenter's "82 version did the same and was able to follow the story much closer than the the 1951 attempt.

I think that after finishing "Who goes There?' some of you might be interested in the short story that tells it from alien's POV.

I concur that the sense of paranoia is the story's main strength.

Jim wrote: "... some of you might be interested in the short story that tells it from alien's POV. ..."

Thanks for that!

I didn't really like it, and it seems to refer to events that are not in the story (but maybe in the movies?). Even so, thanks for alerting us.

I did like this line: "I can still feel joy, should there be sufficient cause." Me, too!

And I liked the description of the brain as "thinking cancer".

There is a third movie version that is not often mentioned:

^^ that's a prequel to Carpenter's film rather than a fresh adaptation.

I believe Carpenter has also teased coming out of retirement for a sequel previously. Who knows if that would ever happen (or should happen) though.

Jimmy wrote: "There is a third movie version that is not often mentioned:

"

I didn't mind the prequel at all. But the 1982 version is still my favorite. The original black and while film is a kick because it was directed by Howard Hawks, but he wouldn't take credit because Sci-Fi films were poorly looked upon in those days. If you watch the film, you can see his hands all over it, especially in the snappy dialogue.

Two thumbs up for Hawks. Thanks, RJ.

RJ - Slayer of Trolls wrote: "The original black and while film is a kick because it was directed by Howard Hawks"

Christian Nyby directed it. It was produced by Howard Hawks. Although there is some debate as to how much control he exercised and whether or not there was some backseat directing.

The Scribbling Man wrote: "RJ - Slayer of Trolls wrote: "The original black and while film is a kick because it was directed by Howard Hawks"

Christian Nyby directed it. It was produced by Howard Hawks. Although there is so..."
I found this from the L. A. Times.

A ‘Thing� to His Credit
By Henry Fuhrmann
May 25, 1997 12 AM PT

“The Thing� was produced by Howard Hawks and supposedly directed by his editor on “Red River,� Christian Nyby. . . . Howard Hawks was listed as “presenting� the film, with Christian Nyby listed as director, but chances are that Hawks also had a sizable share in the directing. . . . Ostensibly directed by Christian Nyby but generally considered the work of its producer. . . . Many consider [Nyby’s] contribution to “The Thing� to be minimal.

You’re no doubt familiar with the Hollywood blacklist. Let me introduce you to the Hollywood hacklist, unjustly headed by one Christian I. Nyby, the late editor, director and--not incidentally--younger brother of my father’s mother.

To many film historians and fans of the science fiction genre it helped begat, my Uncle Chris did not actually direct “The Thing,� simply because there’s no plausible reason to believe that he could have. (And the above-cited quotations are some of the more measured criticisms that have appeared in print.)

“The Thing (From Another World)� (1951) was his feature directing debut, and although he went on to direct a handful of other features and several hundred hours of television, nothing he did afterward quite approached that film’s brilliance.

Nyby had served Hawks admirably on a number of films--editing “To Have and Have Not,� “The Big Sleep� and “Red River�--but the relationship was clearly that of protege and mentor. Hawks directed “The Thing,� the argument goes, and gave Nyby the credit; this was Hawks� way of thanking him for salvaging other editors� botched first cut of “Red River� (an effort that earned Nyby an Oscar nomination) and launching him on a new career as director.

The Scribbling Man wrote: "Christian Nyby directed it...."

Nyby was credited as the director but many of the actors on set considered Hawks the director and some have characterized Hawks the "director on the side." One actor said Hawks directed every scene except one. Cinephiles can see Hawks' fingerprints all over the film. You can read the Wikipedia entry for the film or the article above to learn more.

The Scribbling Man wrote: Christian Nyby directed it. It was produced by Howard Hawks. Although there is some debate as to how much control he exercised and whether or not there was some backseat directing.

To my mind the evidence that Howard Hawks was the true director of The Thing is fairly minimal and circumstantial. The insistence by some of the film’s aficionados that Hawks rather than Nyby directed reminds me a bit of those “anti-Stratford� theorists who, because of his relatively humble origins, are skeptical of William Shakespeare’s authorship.

Same with Spielberg and Tobe Hooper with Poltergeist.

The month is almost over and I just started the book. I read (or listen) it as a part of The Science Fiction Hall of Fame: Volume II A. While the concept is fascinating, the characters are a bit too crazy acting

I found it hard to tell the characters apart.

Rosemarie wrote: "I found it hard to tell the characters apart."
I agree! I think the author succeeded at creating tension but the story seems to be more about conveying the concept of an evil alien taking over.

I've finished it and I agree that it was hard to tell the characters apart. Also their state a lot of hypotheses as facts, which irked me

For a short story that has plenty of flaws, it has spawned four movies and other short stories. And it was written during the golden age of Science Fiction and is still remembered. Not too shabby.