The 1932 novelisation of Merian C. Cooper's King Kong

 King Kong 1933: 3-sheet poster | Novelisation | Promotional material | Martin Sharp SEX! poster 1967

Edgar Wallace didn’t write any of Kong, not one bloody word. (Merian C. Cooper)

The Photoplay

I have long been a fan of the original 1933 King Kong movie - not a big fan, mind you, but a fan nevertheless. I had purchased the Peter Jackson-sponsored remastered DVD in 2005 and Blu-ray in 2019, and back in the eighties picked up a Macfarlane model of Kong chained and bound on the New York theatre stage. Unfortunately I had long ago lost the accompanying Ann Darrow / Fay Wray figure. I cannot remember when I first saw King Kong - probably on TV back in the 1960s, as a kid. I don't think I have ever seen it on the big screen, which is a shame, as I do remember seeing Frankenstein at the Regent Theatre, Wollongong, in the 1970s, and that was a memorable experience. But I know that I returned to King Kong every now and then over the years, as it was on my list of classics, alongside Metropolis, Forbidden Planet, Apocalypse Now, Jason and the Argonauts, Lost in Translation and a few others. I wasn't into 'monster' movies generally, and abhor horror such as The Exorcist and even Alien. However, I am drawn to the early black and white Universal horror of the 1930s, such as The Mummy and Frankenstein, and my interest in movie posters inevitably, and recently, led me not only back to them, but also to King Kong. It was therefore with some surprise that late in 2019 I came across a contemporary novelisation of the film - something I had never considered as it appeared to me to be such an original piece of movie magic, with no real antecedents, apart from 1925's The Lost World. 

So it was that, following some initial research, I discovered that in 1932 a certain Delos W. Lovelace (1894-1967) was commissioned by his old friend Merian C. Cooper (1893-1973) to turn the script of the forthcoming RKO Radio Pictures release of King Kong into a work of fiction for public consumption and promotion alongside the film (Lovelace 1932, Wikipedia 2020). For this, he was paid $600 (Morton 2005, Mullis 2017). Lovelace was a writer of short stories and reporter for the New York Daily News and New York Sun in the 1920s. He had written a number of articles and two biographies prior to King Kong, including one on Admiral Byrd and his recent polar expedition (Lovelace 1930). This undoubtedly assisted in bringing him to the attention of the producers and directors of the film, namely Cooper  - himself an experienced adventurer - and his partner and cinematographer Ernest B. Schoedsack (1893-1979). The former had for a number of years been working on a treatment concerning a big ape running amok in New York, though script development of King Kong did not begin in earnest until the end of December 1931 when the studio gave the production the green light. Thereafter it progressed with numerous changes through the first half of 1932, culminating in the commencement of substantial filming with the cast in August. Even then, the script was in a state of flux and in many ways evolved to accommodate the complex, and innovative, technological aspects. All told, King Kong was in production for a period of some fifty-five weeks, through to early 1933. Thus was not normal. The special effects work by Willis O'Brien and his team was a tedious process and continued to the beginning of the new year. Reflecting this lengthy period of development, filming and editing, at least five different versions of the script - from scenario to shooting script - survive in the RKO Archives at the University of California - Los Angeles, with substantial differences between the first and last (Glashen 2019). 

A number of writers over the years have attempted to analyse the origins and evolution of King Kong using archival records and subsequent interviews with the people involved. It is a complex tale, though the role of Lovelace in amongst this task was simple enough - he was paid to, just release three months out from the film's premiere, produce a novelisation in order to generate interest. He therefore made use of the 'final' script by Ruth Rose, as provided to him through July-October 1932, though even that varied from the film as eventually distributed. For example, the famous lost 'spiders in the pit' scene was cut very early, along with a number of other more violent, and less dramatic, character development and narrative exposition elements. Cooper felt it important to juxtapose Kong's naked brutality with his protective treatment of Ann Darrow above all others. As a result, Lovelace was able to produce a readable novelisation which contained action, romance and adventure. He did a more than competent job in fleshing out the script as provided to him. It is likely that, as part of that process, he also liaised with some of those intimately involved in the production, including, most importantly, Cooper and Rose. The latter, it has been noted, ultimately came up with ninety percent of the final dialogue and added a decided sense of reality to the story as presented on film. Lovelace/s King Kong novelisation was published in December 1932, ahead of the film’s premiere the following March and general release during May 1933. It's authorship was variously attributed to (alphabetically): Merian C. Cooper, James A. Creelman, Delos W. Lovelace, Ruth Rose and Edgar Wallace.

Original novelisation of King Kong by Delos W. Lovelace, Grosset & Dunlap, New York, December 1932. Shown above is the full-colour dust jacket with images by Glenn Cravath.

The hardback book (there was no initial paperback version) was printed in octavo size (8vo – 5 ¾ x 8 ¼ inches) by the firm of Grosset & Dunlap, New York, specialists in the production of photoplays during the silent and early sound era (Wikipedia 2020). A typical photoplay would comprise a previously published book, or short story, upon which a film – then also known as a photoplay - was based, or a newly written novelisation was created around the final script as shot. The latter was the case with the Lovelace King Kong. Though the term photoplay is no longer used, such practices had been associated with the earliest days of cinema in the late 1890s and continue through to the present day. For example, hardback, paperback and magazine serialised novelisations of the 1927 German silent film Metropolis appeared during 1926-7. Alan Dean Foster’s 1976 novelisation of George Lucas’s Star Wars and Ridley Scott's Alien in 1979 are good examples, as are the Disney corporation's publication of a new version of Lewis Carrol’s Alice in Wonderland in 2010 to coincide with the Tim Burton version of that oft filmed classic, and the 2017 novelisation of Kong: Skull Island. The Grosset & Dunlap photoplay series would generally feature a cover which referred to the film, and illustrations – usually still photographs – interspersed throughout, or as end papers. The latter was the case with King Kong.

  

 

End papers from the 1932 novelisation of King Kong.

In some instances, individual artworks, such as original paintings or drawings related to the film, would be included, as was the case with the 1937 ‘Author’s Edition’ of James Hilton’s Lost Horizon, also published by Grosset & Dunlap (Hilton 1937). The original photoplay for that film merely included illustrated end papers, while the Author's Edition contained watercolour illustrations of characters and costumes that had been prepared for the film.

Few, if any, original photoplays have ever been recognised for their literary worth. In most cases they disappear quickly amongst the fandom following the initial release of the film, reflecting, in many instances, the ephemeral nature of the films themselves. For example, Lon Chaney's 1927 London After Midnight no longer survives, though copies of the photoplay novelisation do. The Lovelace King Kong is an exception to this short-term, ephemeral nature, judging by the number of times it has been reprinted (refer listing below). This first took place in 1965, some 33 years after the original edition, and following an increase in fandom as part of the burgeoning pop culture during the 1960s. Since then it has remained in print, though reprints have usually appeared in association with remakes of the film - for example, in 1976 and 2005 - rather than as a result of the literary merits, or lack thereof, of the book itself. Interest in the film, and an ever growing fan base, spurred on by the activities of individuals such as the American Forrest J. Ackerman, have also been drivers towards reissue of the text. 

In some instances the success of a film overtakes the success of its literary precursor. For example, the aforementioned Lost Horizon, first published in 1933, the same year as the premiere of King Kong, was a slowly forming literary success, spurred on by the awarding of the British Hawthornden Prize in 1935. This brought it to the attention of Hollywood director Frank Capra. His stunning movie adaptation of 1937 has been identified as a rare example of a film bettering the book upon which it is based. As a result, Capra’s production is now recognised as a classic of the genre, while Hilton’s original novel remains in the background, though still in print. Examples exist where the photoplay novel which derives from a script stands alone. This is the case, for example, with Thea von Harbou’s Metropolis, published in Germany at the end of 1926, some three months before the Berlin premiere of the film in January 1927 (Von Harbou 1926). Von Harbou and her then husband and film director Fritz Lang had worked on development of the script since the middle of 1925. Von Harbou was both script writer and novelist, such that when it came time to commission a fictional account of the film – a photoplay – for promotional purposes and serialisation in support of the movie's forthcoming release, she was a natural pick for the task. What she produced, however, was something which was in many ways different to the script and yet intimately connected to it. Her novel is a literary work with its own identity - a romantic fantasy in the Germanic tradition - whereas Lang’s film has been criticised for being too technical, reliant on the visuals and having no heart - a heart which is to be found within the novelisation. In other instances, the original literary work and the film both attain classic status. We have this with, for example, Harper Lee’s 1960 To Kill a Mockingbird and J.R.R. Tolkien’s 1954-5 The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Subsequent movie adaptations respected their literary origins and did not sway too far from the authors intent. One was directed by Robert Mulligan, starred Gregory Peck and was released in 1962; the other was directed by Peter Jackson, filled with relatively unknown actors and premiered during 2001-3. It is unfortunate that Peter Jackson was not as successful in his adaptation of King Kong in 2005, though in that instant he and his scriptwriters were relatively free to adapt the original 1933 shooting script, rather than relying on the ‘definitive’ novelisation by Delos W. Lovelace.

All in all, the fate of published photoplays has generally been one of short-term interest followed by long term neglect and intermittent fandom interest. The literary value of such works, if present, is usually recognised, though photoplays primarily remain mere artifacts of the film from which they were derived. It is often the case that fans of a movie look to a novelisation to flesh out what they saw on the screen. In many instances that fleshing out is merely a rewriting of the script and offers nothing new in the way of plot or character development. In other cases, as with von Harbou’s Metropolis, the novelisation is worth reading for the additional elements which enhance the viewing experience and also provides a tangible record of the film's narrative. In the case of Star Wars, a whole canon of fan fiction has developed since its first appearance in 1976. This can also be seen in the case of Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy, though in a different form. Tolkien’s original 600,000-word, 3-volume work of fiction is dense and was never able to be presented in toto on screen. Jackson and his team did a good job with the initial release which ran over 8 ½ hours, and with the subsequent extended version which added an additional 2 hours. Of course, those fans who wanted more, merely had to go back to the original, classic text to delve into the almost limitless detail of Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium through publications such as The Silmarillion (1977). For King Kong there was only ever the film and novelisation.

Developing the shooting script

The King Kong novelisation of 1932, just like the movie released the following year, was, according to text on the dust jacket cover, conceived by Merian C. Cooper and then RKO script writer Edgar Wallace (1875-1932), with the screenplay further developed by James Armstrong Creelman and Ruth Rose, the wife of Ernest B. Schoedsack. All of these names were noted on the cover of the novelisation, along with the attribution to Delos W. Lovelace at the bottom. However, that list does not present a true picture of the origin, and ultimate development, of the movie King Kong as seen by the public at large. As Rudy Behlmer pointed out in 1976, Merian C. Cooper had, according to an interview in 1965, developing the story during 1929-30 (Gottesman and Geduld 1976). Subsequent to that, various individuals were brought in by the studio to help bring the film version to the screen and, in the case of the novelisation, to public attention. One of those was English novelist Edgar Wallace, who David O. Selznick, then head of RKO, convinced Cooper should be involved because of the reputational gravitas he would bring to the project. Ultimately that is all Wallace did bring, and nothing more - not a single word or idea. Lovelace was probably brought on board to fulfill the necessary writing duties following the sudden death of Wallace on 10 February 1932 from undiagnosed diabetes and pneumonia (Campbell 2015, Wikipedia 2020). The English Wallace, who had been engaged by RKO at the end of 1931 to develop both the script and novelisation of King Kong, was a high-rolling heavy smoker and prolific writer of fiction, plays and film scripts. He was one of the most popular author's at that time with some 170 novels under his belt. As such, his name was given prominence over Cooper's upon the novelisation cover and during the original release promotional campaign, where it featured on posters and in newspaper advertisements. One of the latter, from the Vancouver Province of 4 May 1933, and with no mention of Marian C. Cooper, stated:

R.K.O. road show attraction of a startling idea conceived by Edgar Wallace.

Similarly, upon the film's release in Great Britain,  it was identified as 'Edgar Wallace's King Kong' within promotional material. Though Wallace only worked with RKO from December 1931 through January 1932, Cooper and RKO were initially hoping that his popularity, reputation and speed as a writer would assist the project by his development of a novelisation and script. It was purely a marketing ploy. The resultant film would carry the label 'based on the novel by Edgar Wallace' and this would supposedly enhance its attraction to the general public. Cooper, however, was responsible for the substantial development of the original idea and draft outline up to the point of Wallace's arrival in the country, having pitched it to Paramount - unsuccessfully - and then RKO, where he was hired as an executive producer in 1931. It appears that Cooper came to regret this deal with Wallace, stating after the film's release:

Edgar Wallace didn’t write any of Kong, not one bloody word. I’d promised him credit and so I gave it to him. (Simpson 2014)

In a letter to Selznick dated 20 July 1932, prior to the film's release and following the death of Wallace, Cooper had stated:

The present script of Kong, as far as I can remember, doesn't have one single idea suggested by Edgar Wallace. If there are any, they are of the slightest... I don't think it fair to say this is based on a story by Wallace alone, when he did not write it, though I recognize the value of his name and want to use it.

Likewise, in a 1965 letter to Cooper, Selznick stated: 

I have never believed, and don't believe now, that Wallace contributed anything much to King Kong. But the circumstances of his death complicated the writing credits. (Gottesman and Geduld 1976)

Edgar Wallace arrived in New York at the end of November of 1931, employed by RKO on $3,000 a week. He was immediately tasked with developing new film ideas, along with the editing of scripts for those already green-lighted and writing new ones. It was also suggested that his work with RKO could lead to directing opportunities. As a writer he was prolific, and quick, pumping out articles, short stories, plays and film scripts at an unprecedented rate, and usually with the aid of a Dictaphone. We know this because he wrote letters and kept a diary during his brief time in America, outlining in detail his work ethic and engagement with Cooper on what became King Kong (Wallace 1932). For example, on 8 December 1931, just over a week after arriving in New York, Wallace noted in a letter to his wife Ethel of being asked by Cooper to work on, among other things, 'a story of prehistoric life!' This was perhaps his first introduction to what would become King Kong. By the following day he now had 'four pictures on hand', including the idea put to him of doing a 'prehistoric animals story'. Three days later he watched Cooper shoot some footage of men fighting an unseen beast: 

[12 December 1931] I then went to see him taking one of these process shots. The camera shoots against a blue background lit up by about fifty orange arc lamps. It was two men making an attack upon a prehistoric beast. The beast, of course, was not there: he is put in afterwards, and every movement of the men is controlled by a man who is seeing the beast through a moviola, that is to say the film of the beast, and signals by means of a bell every movement that the men make. It is called the Dunning process....

This was part of a reel Cooper and Willis O'Brien were putting together to present to RKO executives in New York in order to get the green light for the production. On 23 December Wallace went with Cooper to the studio animation room:  

 

[23 December 1931] I then went down to the animating room, where they are working on models of a prehistoric story, the script of which I am going to write.

On Christmas day, after getting approval for King Kong - or the innocuous 'The Eighth Wonder of the World' as the studio would prefer to call it - Cooper rang Wallace and they had a lengthy conversation:  

 

[25 December 1931] Merian Cooper called and we talked over the big animal play we are going to write, or, rather, I am writing and he is directing. He has just had an approval from New York, and I am going to turn him out a scenario. It will take six months to make. He's a terribly nice fellow and I get on well with him, as I do with David Selznick, who is a regular fellow.

Wallace also dined with Cooper on a number of occasions during this period, discussing numerous issues apart from 'the beast story.' Two days later he commenced work on the Kong scenario, writing, or rather, dictating onto wax cylinders with his Dictaphone machine. These would then be transcribed and typed up by his staff and, ultimately, the RKO stenography department. He noted that this script would be a relatively slow process for him, 'because it is all action'. On the 29th Wallace further noted somewhat tellingly in one his letters to his wife in England:  

 

[29 December 1931] An announcement has been made in the local Press that I am doing a super-horror story with Cooper, but the truth is it is much more his story than mine. I am rather enthusiastic about it, but the story has got to be more or less written to provide certain spectacular effects. I shall get much more credit out of the picture than I deserve, if it is a success, but, as I shall be blamed by the public if it's a failure, that seems fair.

This comment highlights the fact that Wallace had very little to do with the script as actually shot, as it was very much developed by Cooper and O'Brien, and, ultimately, Ruth Rose who was largely responsible for the day-by-day, on set, script development. The following day Wallace commented on seeing more of the background development work and discussions around the writing of the story / novelisation of Kong, with a by-line for Cooper.

[30 December 1931] I had an appointment with Merian Cooper at 11 o'clock, and we saw a girl for our play. I don't think she will quite do. She's got a contract with Paramount, so it doesn't matter. She was terribly pretty and had a lovely figure, but what we want is a very mobile kind of face that will express horror. We had a long talk about the scenario, which is not yet written but only roughly sketched, and came to a decision as to the opening. We practically know how the story is going to run. There will be a tremendous lot of action in it, but there will also be a lot of dialogue. I saw a length of the film which we might use. R.K.O. was going to produce a prehistoric animal picture and made one or two shots. They were not particularly good, though there was one excellent sequence where a man is chased by a dinosaurus. I went into the animation room and watched the preparation of the giant monkey which appears in this play. Its skeleton and framework are complete. He is, of course, a figure, but a moving figure. You have no idea of the care that is taken in the preparation of these pictures. Cooper insists that every shot he takes shall first of all be drawn and appear before him as a picture. The most important scenes are really drawn and shaded, and they are most artistic. Talking of the care they take, I saw a wood-carver fashioning the skull on which the actual figure will be built. In another place was a great scale model of a gigantic gorilla, which had been made specially. One of the gorilla figures will be nearly thirty feet high. All round the walls are wooden models of prehistoric beasts. The animation room is a projection room which has been turned into a workshop. There are two miniature sets with real miniature trees, on which the prehistoric animals are made to gambol. Only fifty feet can be taken a day of the animating part. Every move of the animal has to be fixed by the artist, including the ripples of his muscles. Of course it is a most tedious job.... I am going to write the story of our beast play in collaboration with Merian Cooper. That is to say, I will give him a "bar line", a bar line being credit as collaborator, because he has really suggested the story, though I of course shall write it, and I am to be allowed to use the illustrations that we are having drawn. It ought to be the best boys' book of the year. He doesn't want to take a penny out of it as long as he has a credit line.

This seemingly magnanimous gesture by Cooper was to have repercussions when Wallace died suddenly in February. Cooper, a man of his word and keen to make use of the Wallace name, stood by the agreement. Wallace was back to work on New Year's Day: 

 

[1 January 1932] I had a thoroughly lazy morning, and in the afternoon settled down to the scenario of the beast play. I had hardly started when there was a ring on the telephone. It was Fabia Drake, who is playing with the Stratford Players. I asked her to come round to tea. She was staying with an English girl who had come out here. Her name is Joan Carr. I thought there was a possibility of placing her in my beast play, as we have not yet settled on the woman, so I asked her to come round. She was quite charming, quite pretty, and has the requisite figure. After they had gone I went on working at the scenario and I have got 28 pages of it done, which is a good start. I can't do very much at a time because each sequence has to be approved by "Coop".

By 3 January Wallace was able to note in his diary:

 

Cooper was delighted with the first part of the scenario I showed him.

 

The following day he noted: 

 

[4 January 1932] I have nearly finished the beast scenario, and Cooper has the second part and is coming up to discuss one or two points which he thinks are important, but which are really unimportant since they can be altered terribly easily.

By the next day Wallace's work was almost done: 

 

[5 January 1932] Cooper and [Willis] O'Brien came and we went right through the script, except the very last two reels, which are not written. What promised to be a very tedious conference — it actually lasted from 9.30 to 1 o'clock — proved to be quite interesting and amusing, though we never got off the subject of the scenario and took it page by page. Cooper is very pleased, and to-day I am finishing the scenario and letting him have it. 

 

[Evening, 5 January 1932] I have finished the scenario of "Kong". That is the name.

It is interesting that the following day Wallace should note the important opportunity King Kong would provide him, if it were successful:  

 

[6 January 1932] The next month or two are very important for me. If this big film gets over that Cooper is doing it's going to make a big difference to me, for although I am not responsible for the success of the picture, and really can't be, since the ideas were mainly Cooper's, I shall get all the credit for authorship and invention which rightly belongs to him.

Wallace realised his role in facilitating the transfer to print of Cooper's vision. Though the draft script was 'finished', an alteration was immediately called for by the studio - the first of many:  

 

[7 January 1932] I am just changing the girl in "Kong", my animal story. There is a fight between New York and Hollywood as to whether "Kong" shall be the title. Hollywood is enthusiastic, New York says "What does it mean?" which is rather true to type.

And some more changes on the 8th: 

 

[8 January 1932] Cooper had been telephoning frantically, but it appears there were one or two slight alterations he wanted to make in the script of "Kong". Anyway, I drove down and had a chat with him.

The following week additional issues arose with the script: 

 

[12 January 1932] I went down to the studio this morning rather early to see Cooper. Apparently they are not going to accept "Kong" as a title: they think it has a Chinese sound and that it is too much like "Chang", and I can see their points of view. I had to rewrite certain lines of "Kong", but, of course, this sort of thing will go on all the time; one expects it. We are going into a huddle over it this week some time, and I hope that the executive are going to pass it quickly. 

The problem with the title would not go away:  

 

[14 January 1932] They are definitely not accepting "Kong" as a title, though Cooper still has hopes. If they don't take that I am going to suggest as a title "King Ape". Cooper is extremely pleased with the story and is going into conference one day this week.

Wallace's script was quickly recognised as a good foundation, and Cooper was very pleased with that: 

[15 January 1932] Cooper called me up last night and told me that everybody who had read "Kong" was enthusiastic. They say it is the best adventure story that has ever been written for the screen. It has yet to go past the executive, but I rather fancy there will be no kicks. We haven't yet got the girl. We've got to have a tiny for the part, but the tiny has got to act, and that, I think, is going to be the real difficulty more than the size.

By the end of the week, Wallace was now aware that, with the scenario / script completed, he had another job in front of him: 

 

[17 January 1932] .... I have then got to make a story out of "Kong".

This indicates that what Wallace had completed to date was merely what Cooper had developed - a shooting script, - and that he had merely recorded it in paper form. Wallace's fulsome 'story' version would never be completed due to his unfortunate demise on 10 February and the fact that the novelisation could now not commence until the script had been finalised - a process that was many months away. Any idea of Wallace quickly publishing a novelisation some 12 months out from the movie's premiere, and upon which the subsequent film would be based, disappeared with his death. The following day he noted:  

 

[18 January 1932] There was a conference on "Kong" which, however, I couldn't attend. I met Cooper afterwards. He was as happy as a schoolboy. He had met the man who was his partner [Schoedsack] and who had acted as camera man in "Chang". He'd just returned from India, and "Coop" was overjoyed to meet him. It was a tremendous revelation of his genuineness. He said he had worked with him for seven years and never had a quarrel.

By this time there was a buzz about the movie, and on 19 January Wallace noted in his diary that, following on the recent success of horror films such as Dracula and Frankenstein:  

 

[19 January 1932] I am hoping still to get a good horror picture without corpses, and I am certain that "Kong" is going to be a wow.

With his involvement with transcribing the script for King Kong at an end for the time being, on the 20th he turned his mind to another related task:  

 

[20 January 1932] Between now and the middle of February I hope to turn "Kong" into a story...

This, however, was not to be. Towards the end of January Wallace's short term contract with RKO came up for renewal, and though he had been busy working for them, he had precious little feedback - apart from Cooper - as to whether they were happy with his work or not. As he noted in his diary:  

 

[23 January 1932] With the exception of "Kong" I have no information whatever as to the reactions of the people who have read them. "Kong" itself, although it has been written over a fortnight, has not been read by the chief executive! In some ways it is rather like living in a madhouse. 

It is obvious Wallace was referring here to the draft shooting script, rather than a fully fleshed-out novelisation story for later publication. Wallace and Cooper obviously achieved a lot over those few weeks between the end of December 1931 and the beginning of January 1932, due to the experience of both men in their respective areas of expertise. The fact that Wallace features on the title page of the novelisation and the credits of the film are testament to his initial involvement and the weight of his fame as a writer, even following his death, if not to his actual involvement in the film as finally shot. Nevertheless, a 107 page ‘First Draft Script’ was typed up and presented to RKO on 27 January 1932. That document was titled ‘Kong by Edgar Wallace’ and was very different to the final film with, for example, the ape captive of a circus troupe. An annotated copy of the scenario exists in the Wallace family archive collection. Of course the title was not the truth - it should have read 'Kong by Merian C. Cooper' as that is was it is.

 

Following Wallace's sudden death on 10 February, Cooper brought in script writer James Ashmore Creelman who, on 9 March delivered an updated version with ‘dialogue and adaptation’ of ‘The Eighth Wonder, by Edgar Wallace and Merian C. Cooper’ on the cover page. Though shooting of the film then commenced, Cooper was not happy with the script and Schoedsack’s wife Ruth Rose was brought in to produce the final version. This now included elements of the life and adventures of Cooper and Schoedsack as she had witnessed herself during their time filming in Africa, just as elements of the Fay Wray character reflected Rose's own life, including a shipboard romance with Schoedsack. As a result, Rose added a real sense of excitement and drama to the story, building upon the previous work of Cooper and Creelman, with Wallace not having actually added any ideas, but merely recorded onto paper those of Cooper. Unattributed was Horace McCoy, who also worked on development of the script at some point following the death of Wallace, though his precise input is not known. 

Over time some confusion has naturally arisen regarding Wallace's input. For example, one reference accords to him the creation of the climactic encounter of Kong and the airplanes atop the Empire State building, whilst another attributes that scene to Cooper. Nevertheless, the first draft was the platform upon which Cooper, Schoedsack, Creelman, McCoy and Rose worked to develop the final shooting script, commence shooting, and give guidance to Willis O'Brien in his important animatronics work. For the ultimate success of the film rested not simply upon the script, but also upon the brilliance of O'Brien and the direction and cinematography of Cooper and Schoedsack. All of this script development ultimately paid off in providing RKO with the blockbuster it was hoping for and desperately needed as it struggled to come out of the Depression and deal with weighty financial issues.

According to a number of recent English accounts, the man who created King Kong was Edgar Wallace (Webb 2005, Campbell 2015, Clark 2015). This erroneous claim is made in numerous articles published around 2015 in connection with the release of a remake of the original 1933 film by The Lord of the Rings director and long-time King Kong fan Peter Jackson. It also features on the cover of the 2015 biography of Wallace by Neil Clark. Of course, to the Americans and, I would suggest, the rest of the world, that title goes to Merian C. Cooper - war hero, adventurer and film maker. Cooper's claim is well founded, as we have seen from the aforementioned comments, correspondence and within Wallace's own American diary and letters. A claim for Wallace as creator of Kong must therefore be rejected. 

 

Cooper and his partner, the cinematographer and fellow adventurer Ernest B. Schoedsack, had made a number of films featuring gorillas, wild animals and related scenes of devastation prior to King Kong. Cooper had also noted having a dream about a large ape running wild in New York, and this was his inspiration for King Kong (Wikipedia 2020). He also claimed, following the release of the film, that the idea had come to him 'fully formed', such that, by the time Wallace arrived in the country plans were well in train for the development of the movie, if much of the detail and production refinement was still to come (Goldner and Turner 1975). It seems obvious that Cooper and Schoedsack are more deserving of the sobriquet 'creator/s of King Kong' than Wallace, though it should be recognised that many others also played a part in bringing King Kong to the screen and its becoming the success that it was. This included the creator of the actual animatronic Kong, Willis O'Brien, alongside those involved in the production design and actual development of the shooting script such as Cooper, Wallace, Creelman and Rose. The actors also played an important role in the movie's success, especially Fay Wray as Ann Darrow, Robert Armstrong as Carl Denham and King Kong as himself. At the end of the day the issue of who had what input into King Kong, the degree and specific elements, will remain unresolved as there are so many conflicting contemporary and later accounts of what happened. Wallace appears to have added nothing original, but merely facilitated the capture on paper abd in script form of Cooper's detailed vision.

 

The novelisation

The novelisation of King Kong by Delos W. Lovelace is generally little known outside the realm of film fandom, auction houses and rare book dealerships. Yet, apart from the text, the book itself is of interest. The images on the Grosset & Dunlap dust jacket were by Glenn Cravath, a New York based illustrator who did the majority of the graphics for the initial American release campaign of King Kong. This included the design of posters, lobby cards, newspaper advertisements and even a comic strip. The original Grosset & Dunlap King Kong edition of 249 pages was a hardback in green cloth with brown or black titling on the front and images in sepia from the film on the front and back end papers. There were no illustrations within the body of the text. There appears to have been only a single edition issued in December 1932, though this may have been reprinted around the time of the movie’s New York premiere in March 1933. There are two variants of the dust jacket – one which includes the word ‘by’ twice, as in '…conceived by / by Edgar ….', and another which corrects that mistake to ‘…conceived by / Edgar …..'

 

Original dust jacket with the text error ‘…conceived by / by Edgar …. Cited by book dealers as the first edition, first printing.
 

 

Original dust jacket with the text error removed. Cited as the first edition, second state.

There are three images by Cravath on the dust jacket cover – one of Kong in New York, another behind bars, and a third in the jungle of Skull [Mountain] Island. Cravath specialised in adventure films and comic strips, such that he was ideally suited to work on the great adventure tale that was King Kong. His illustrations of this very scary and violent giant ape wreaking havoc in the jungle of Skull [Mountain] Island and on the streets of New York reflect the excitement present within the landmark film. Some of his poster images have become iconic, featuring as they do the tragic fight atop the Empire State building between Kong and fighter planes, while he attempts to protect Ann Darrow. 

 

The 1932 novelisation by Lovelace is also notable for the fact that it includes some of the material that did not make the final cut of the film, or was subsequently edited out or censored after the release and remains lost. As previously noted, Lovelace describes the famous snake pit scene that was cut from the film shortly after its release in 1933. More recently, this footage was recreated by King Kong buff and film director Peter Jackson for inclusion with the special DVD package of the original movie released in 2005, in association with his own 2005 remake. The Grosset & Dunlap book, with original dust jacket, is now quite rare and a fine copy sells for more than US$10,000. This is not unusual when it is noted that all King Kong memorabilia from the film’s original release brings high prices at auction, largely as a result of its popularity, both then and subsequently.

Later editions

 

Though not well known, apart from amongst die-hard fans, the Lovelace novelisation has been reissued on numerous occasions. The first was in 1965, as a paperback by Bantam Books, New York. This was followed in 1966 by Corgi, Great Britain, and an official Merian C. Cooper Estate comic book version in 1968. Since then numerous editions have appeared in many different countries, along with a variety of translations. These publications have usually been associated with a remake of the film and interest created therein. The reissues are not necessarily due to any inherent literary qualities, though this is largely irrelevant to the film's keener fans. The listing below contains reference to more than fifty known published variants of the original Lovelace novelisation. Adaptations in the form of comic books, graphic novels and picture books for children are not generally included, neither are the numerous derivatives of the original story. All later editions of the Lovelace novelisation listed below are simply titled King Kong, unless otherwise noted.

 

In 1976 a remake of King Kong was produced by Dino de Laurentiis and directed by John Guillerman. As a result, a number of reprints of the Lovelace novelisation were published around the world during 1976-7. This was repeated in 2005 with the release of the remake by Peter Jackson of The Lord of the Rings fame. An official novelisation of Jackson's version of the Kong story by Christopher Golden was also published at the time (Golden 1976). The 2017 Kong: Skull Island movie did not generate a re-release of the Lovelace novelisation due to the fact that that film was set in the 1970s and, unlike the previous versions, did not attempt to adhere to the 1933 film’s basic plot line. Kong: Skull Island was meant to tie in with a new Godzilla franchise, in much the same way as the Japanese versions of King Kong from the 1960s and beyond had done. As such, the relationship with the original 1933 film was ephemeral, with no direct linkage to the Carl Denham / Ann Darrow scenario.

King Kong novelisation versions

* 1965 – Bantam Books, New York, 152p. Illustrated cover. This is the first paperback edition and the first official reprint of the Lovelace novelisation of 1932. The cover features an image from the original film of Kong and a sacrificial Ann Darrow.

 

* 1966 – Corgi, Transworld Publishers, Great Britain. Paperback. Illustrated cover. This is the first British edition of the Lovelace novelisation. The cover features Kong atop the Empire State building.

 

 

* 1968 - Golden Key Comics, Western Publishing Company, New York. This is the first authorised comic book version of King Kong. Words by Alberto Gioletti - based on the Lovelace novelisation - and illustrated by George Wilson. It was reissued in a number of forms, including as a booklet in 1970 by Top Sellers Ltd., London, for international distribution.

 

* 1968 – Moewig 42, München, Germany. Paperback. German language edition.

* 1971 – Longanesi, Milano, Italy, 144p. Italian language edition. Note the erroneous sole attribution on the cover to Edgar Wallace.

 

* 1976 – Tempo Books, Grosset & Dunlap, New York, 219p. Soft cover reprint of the first edition with new cover art showing Kong holding Ann Darrow. Illustrated with drawings throughout. Note the correct novelisation attribution to Lovelace.

 

 

* 1976 – Tempo Star Books / Grosset & Dunlap, New York. Hardback library edition with illustrated cover by Walter Poop showing Kong and Ann Darrow climbing the Empire State building. Includes 16 pages of illustrations. A separate Book Club Edition has a photograph of a restrained Kong on the cover.

 

* 1976 – The Illustrated King Kong (Library edition), Putnam Publishing Group, New Jersey, 127p. Large quarto edition 4to (9 ¾ x 12 inches). Pictorial cover boards in red and black, with illustrations by Richard Powers. No dust jacket. Abridged version of the Lovelace novelisation. Also available in a second edition entitled King Kong: A Picture Book.

 

* 1976 – Longanesi, Milano, Italy, 144p. Reprint of the 1971 edition.

 

* 1976 – Albin Michel, Paris and Montreal, 220p. Octavo. French language edition. Paperback with illustrated cover copy of the painting by Walter Popp.

 

* 1976 – Der Original King Kong, Wolfgang Krüger Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 188p / 282p. Octavo. German language edition. Gives writing priority to Lovelace.

 

* 1976 – Ace Books, New York. Cover illustration by Frank Frazetta of Ann Darrow fleeing from Kong. Paperback.

 

 

* 1976 – Argos, Barcelona, 190p. Translated into Spanish by Horacio Gonzalez. Identical cover to the Grosset & Dunlap reissue.

 

* 1976 – Naarden, Strengholt. Dutch language edition.

 

* 1976 – München Goldmann. German language edition.

* 1976 - Newton. Italian edition. Gives sole authorship to Wallace.

 

* 1976 - Japanese edition. Film tie-in. Contains illustrations referring to the 1933 and 1976 movies on the cover.

 

* 1977 – Hki, Otava. Finnish language edition.

 

* 1977 - Arthur Baker Ltd., London. First British hardcover edition, including a dust jacket image of Kong atop the Empire State building. Octavo. Illustrated by Grant Bradford.

 

 

* 1977 – Futura Publications, London. Paperback. Similarly illustrated cover to the Arthur Baker edition.

 

*1977 – Editions J’ai lu, Paris. Illustrated. French. Note the correct sole attribution to Lovelace.

 

* 1977 – Oude Molen, Kaapstad, South Africa. Afrikaans edition.

 

* 1977 – Cypress, Jakarta.

 

* 1977 – Kbh, Lademann. Danish.

 

* 1983 – Forum, Barcelona, 78p. Spanish. Note the sole attribution to Lovelace.

 

* 1983. Step Up Adventures, Random House, New York. Adapted by Judith Conway from the Lovelace novelisation. Illustrated by Michael Berenstein. Children's edition.

 

* 1984 – Editorial La Oveja Negra Ltda., Bogota.
 

* 1984 - Mercado Libra, Argentina. Better Sellers series, #20. Image on the cover is based on the 1976 movie release.

 

* 1985 – Origen / Planeta, Mexico.

 

* 1988 - Random House, New York. Adaptation by Judith Conaway.

 

 

* 1989 – Wilhelm Goldmann GmbH, Munchen.

 

* 1990 – Tallinn Kuldsulg. Estonian.

 

* 1991 – Monster Comics, Seattle. Adaptation of the Lovelace novelisation.

 

* 1993 – Erika, Moska. Russian.

 

* 1996 – Andor, Poland.

 

* 2004 – Le Libraire. French.

 

* 2005 – Librio, Paris.

 

* 2005 – Kodkawa Shoten, Tokyo.

 

* 2005 – Underwood Books. Paperback. Possibly a graphic novelisation.

 

* 2005 – Modern Library, Random House, New York. With an introduction by Greg Bear. Paperback.

 

* 2005 – Modern Library Classics, Random House, New York. With an introduction by Jack Thorne. Paperback. 

 

* 2005 – Grosset & Dunlap, New York. Hard cover edition. Illustrated by Brian W. Dow.
 

* 2005 - Penguin, 224p. Hardcover. Includes photographs from the original movie.

 

* 2005 – Gollancz, London. Cloth cover. Published in association with the Peter Jackson film release, though this is a copy of the original Lovelace novelisation.

 

* 2005 – Christopher Golden, King Kong, Goldmann Wilhelm GmbH. Film tie-in. Official novelisation of the Peter Jackson Universal film by Christopher Golden, based on the script by Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson and Phillipa Boyens.

 

 

* 2005 – Merian C. Cooper’s King Kong, Via Medias, 307p; St. Martin’s Griffin, New York; DH Press, Milwaukee; Les Intouchables, Paris. A complete rewrite of the Lovelace novelisation by Joe DeVito and Brad Strickland. Issued in a number of editions, including a translation into Spanish by Guy Rivest.

 

* 2005 – Timun Mas, Barcelona.

 

* 2012 – Wald und Graf, Berlin.

 

* 2012 – Selector, Mexico.

 

* 2012 – V Prace, XYZ. Czechoslovakia.

 

* 2014 – Easton Press. Leather bound hardcover edition with gilt lettering on the spine. 8VO (8 x 9 inches), 249p.

 

* 2014 – Grupo Editorial Tomo, Mexico. Comic book version.

 

* 2015 – Ediciones MAAN, Mexico.

 

* 2016+ - Perfecto Commando Productions [print on demand]. Paperback, with cover illustration by David Blanchard.

 

 

* 2017 - StarWarp Concepts, e-book, 136p. With illustrations by Paul Tuma.

‐-----------------

References

Campbell, Duncan, Stranger than fiction: the life of Edgar Wallace, the man who created King Kong by Neil Clark – review, The Guardian, 30 July 2015. Available URL: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/30/stranger-than-fiction-life-edgar-wallace-king-kong-neil-clark-review.

Clark, Neil, Stranger than Fiction: The Life of Edgar Wallace, The Man Who Created King Kong, The History Press, London, 2015, 256p.

Erb, Cynthia, Tracking King Kong: A Hollywood Icon in World Culture, 2nd edition, Wayne State University Press, 2009, 336p.

Foster, Alan Dean, Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker, Ballantine Books, 1976.

Glashen, Ray, King Kong Screenplay [webpage], 5 May 2019. Available URL: http://freeread.com.au/@RGLibrary/EdgarWallace/Plays/KingKong.html.

Golden, Christoper, King Kong, Pocket Star Books, October 2005, 374p. Based on the film script by Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson and Phillipa Boyens.

Goldner, Orville & Turner, George E., The Making of King Kong, The Tantivy Press, New York, 1975.

-----, Spawn of Skull Island: The Making of King Kong. Expanded and revised by Michael H. Price and Douglas Turner, Luminary Press, 2002; Midnight Marquee Press, 2019.

Gottesman, Ronald and Geduld, Harry, The Girl in the Hairy Paw, Flare / Avon Books, New York, 1976.

Hilton, James, Lost Horizon (Author’s Edition), Grosset & Dunlap, New York, 1937.

King Kong Special, Midi-Minuit Fantastique, October / November 1962.

Lovelace, Delos W., Rear Admiral Byrd and the Polar Expedition, A.L. Burt, New York, 1930, 256p. (Coral Foster pseud.).

-----, King Kong, Grosset & Dunlap, New York, 1932, 249p. All known subsequent reprints are listed above.

Morton, Ray, King Kong - The History of a Movie Icon from Fay Wray to Peter Jackson, Applause Cinema and Theatre Books, 2005, 350p.

Mullis, Justin,  Kong Count #9 - King Kong (1932) The Delos W. Lovelace Novelisation, Maser Patrol [blog], 2 March 2017. Available URL: https://maserpatrol.wordpress.com/2017/03/02/kong-count-9-king-kong-1932-the-delos-w-lovelace-novelization/.

Ripperger, Walter, King Kong - the last and the greatest creation by Edgar Wallace [serialised in 2 parts], Mystery [magazine], February & March 1933.

Simpson, M.J., King Kong in Print, Classic Horror Film Board [discussion list], 14 December 2014 - 13 August 2019. Available URL: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/monsterkidclassichorrorforum/king-kong-in-print-from-book-magazine-collector-t57613.html?sid=eb3dbff100991d4768e4575c5ce74936.

The secret is out! Edgar Wallace's last story and how it was filmed, Picturegoer Weekly, London, 15 April 1933.

Vaz, Mark, Living Dangerously: The Adventures of Merian C. Cooper, Creator of King Kong, Random House Publishing Group, New York, 2005, 496p.

Von Harbou, Thea, Metropolis, August Scherl, Berlin, 1926.

Wallace, Edgar, My Hollywood Diary, Hutchinson & Co., London, 1932.  Available URL: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks14/1400821h.html.

Webb, Paul, Edgar Wallace: the thriller writer behind King Kong, The Telegraph, [2005], 1 April 2016. Available URL: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/edgar-wallace-the-thriller-writer-behind-king-kong/.

Wikipedia, Delos Wheeler Lovelace, Wikipedia [webpage], accessed 1 January 2020. Available URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delos_W._Lovelace.

-----, Edgar Wallace, Wikipedia [webpage], accessed 2 January 2020. Available URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Wallace.

-----, King Kong (1933 film), Wikipedia, 2020. Available URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Kong_(1933_film).
-----, Photoplay edition, Wikipedia [webpage], accessed 1 January 2020. Available URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoplay_edition.

Wray, Fay, On the other hand: a life story, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1989, 270p. 

-------------------- 

 King Kong 1933 3-sheet poster | Novelisation | Promotional material | Martin Sharp SEX! poster 1967

Last updated: 15 October 2023

Michael Organ, Australia