Which is what makes John Carpenter and Alan Dean Foster the MacReady and Childs of their respective fields * - Carpenter's remake of The Thing and Foster's novelization of that remake are individual efforts that endure in a way that Jim McBride's remake of Breathless and Leonore Fleischer's novelization of that remake do not. It's rare for a tie-in book to establish itself indepent of its cinematic source, or for a rehaul to emerge from the shadow of a classic movie. I don't have official figures on this, but I'd guess that 99 out of 100 people would prefer to tough it through a single viewing of Ghost Dad than to peruse Mel Cebulash's paper edition. Novelizations also have a reputation for being bland copies, little more than slightly-altered semblances of the screenplay they're adapting, and often enough that's true. I'm surprised I have to explain these things to you. Take it back to the video store and exchange it right away, and while you're at it go pick up a case of Nehi Sangria. This, for instance: that's not Robert Wise's The Haunting. But the excitement and innovation is pure second-hand simulation. They imitate older, better movies and they imitate 'em perfectly, adapting the original film's title, characters and story, in the process shaping their own celluloid to imitate it. He wondered if the thing had a sense of irony, or humor, and decided it probably did not." THE NOVELIZATIONS OF JOHN CARPENTER THE THING Complete paranoia would soon take control of the human survivors and they'd reduce themselves to a manageable level. All it had to do was let you know it was around. The thing didn't even have to show itself.
![the thing alan dean foster the thing alan dean foster](https://d3525k1ryd2155.cloudfront.net/h/658/024/1294024658.0.x.jpg)
![the thing alan dean foster the thing alan dean foster](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1263265484l/7546208.jpg)
Maybe this was how it had started at the Norwegian camp. "Something had to be done, and fast, Macready knew.