Well, the bad news is that I can’t announce contest winners yet. Not because I don’t want to, and not that there are no winners, but because the producers would prefer I wait until the deal is all signed, sealed, and delivered. Sorry for being naive, but I didn’t think it would take this long.
But I will say that many of you have made excellent suggestions for casting, including Emily Browning, who I was already thinking about (but for what part? I can’t say). And one of you has actually got the producers right, but not the book. None the less, that person will win a great big signed author’s copy of whatever you want. (But, frustratingly, I can’t tell you guys who this lucky winner is yet.)
In the meantime, I can announce that Uglies and Peeps have been been chosen as School Library Journal best books of 2005. I’m very pleased about that, and would like to thank SLJ for all the support they’ve given me over the last two years.
I’m in Melbourne right now talking to school librarians, and next week we move into the new apartment, so I won’t be posting as much. But hopefully by the time we get internet access sorted out at the new place, I can share all the great news with you.
In the meantime, keep making casting suggestions. I can tell you that the producers are reading this blog . . .
A quick post to answer many of your questions in posts and via email (and a contest).
Midnighters comes out March 1, 2006.
Uglies comes out May something, 2006.
The sequel to Peeps comes out late August in 2006.
The Midnighters TV show is an option the WB owns. So far, it’s in a holding pattern for a possible Fall 2006 pilot.
The movie deal of Book X is still with attorneys. I will let you know once that’s all over.
And now for the contest, which has two options. You can:
Cast the Movie
If you want to guess about the movie deal, feel free to use this comment thread to do so. But you can’t just guess which book is going to be (maybe) made into a movie. You also have to cast at least one part!
To win:
a) You must get the title of the book right.
b) Your casting choice must amuse or edify me.
And you can also:
Guess the Producer
To win:
a) You must get the title of the book right.
b) You must also name a title of a previous movie produced by the person who is buying the rights to make a movie of my book.
Make only one guess for each game, please. Do not enter if I told you already (duh).
Winners both get: Something that you don’t already own from my author’s copies bookshelf, signed to them by me.
(And if it turns out that someone actually gets a casting choice right, I will give them something really cool.)
A trip to my local Barnes & Noble today reveals that PRETTIES IS OUT! On the local favorites table, there was a stack of ten, right between Eragon and Sisterhood of the Unwashed Pants.
And I also hear that Amazon is shipping them right now.
Excellent . . .
And now as part of Pretties Week, a quick note on fun with facial symmetry.
In Uglies, there’s a scene in which Tally and Shay choose which side of their faces is prettier, and use that side to base their future pretty-face on.
You see, everyone’s face has two different sides, but the pretties in my world have perfectly symmetrical features. So the two sides are exactly the same. Scientists think that symmetrical faces are more attractive (to most people) because major differences between the left and right half of your face can result from malnutrition and other developmental problems. Attraction to symmetrical faces is evolution’s way of steering you toward well developed mates.
But it’s really fun to see what you’d look like with symmetrical features. Take a picture of yourself, then take one side and flip it over. However, as the result above shows, you have to get a good, straight-on photo. And as these pictures from a Regents Exam Facial Symmetry activity page show, make sure NOT to tilt your head when taking facial symmetry photos!
Because this:
can turn into this: 
Which is not a good look.
Pretties comes out on November 1, just over a week away, so it’s time to begin the celebrations!
For those of you who don’t know, Uglies and Pretties are set in a world in which cosmetic surgery is not optional. The society has lots of theories about what makes a face the right kind of pretty, and this week I’ll be discussing the science behind those theories.
So let’s start with . . . face averaging!
One of the ways scientists generate fake pretty faces is to visually average the general population. Basically, you stick a lot of pictures of faces into a computerized blender and morph the results together. See how the third face is pleasanter to look at than the first two?
It is believed that averaged faces tend to be more attractive because it’s good to have a wide variety of genes from across the local population. People with a wider set of ancestors are (by definition) less in-bred, which means they’ll have more disease resistance and other neat superpowers like that. So we’ve evolved to think that people with genetically average faces are good mating material.
So how do we know what’s average? Answer: By looking around at the people where we live.
The faces above are from a German University, which is why they’re white. In a recent University of Western Australia study, however, researchers found that in a mixed-race society, the faces considered most attractive have mixed racial characteristics.
Australia’s population is composed mostly of Asians and Europeans, so when reporting the study the Sydney Morning Herald chose a model with Scottish, Spanish, Phillipine, and other Asian ancestry to make their point:
A definite hottie. Of course, the US version would have more African ancestry and probably more Latin American in the mix as well.
Anyway, averaging faces is only one technique that the Pretty Committee in Uglies uses to create beauty. And of course in the real world, we find all kinds of extremes attractive, as well as personality, accomplishments, and shared personal history. We’re just talking about statistics here, not individual preferences.
For me, averaging (especially by computer) often leads to a bland beauty. Like, say, these two faces composed of 64 Germans each:
Generic + Vaguely Creepy = Yawn
Just got this from Simon & Schuster, a treatment for the cover of Uglies in the United Kingdom:
A really different look from the US cover, but I love it! It has a much creepier feel, because of the surgical pan. (Well, and the body parts, too.) I give it the simple-but-effective award.
Plus, the color scheme is cool. (Or is that a “colour” scheme?)
I don’t think it comes out there until April 2006. Because, you know, they have to translate it into English.
Well, I’m off to Mexico tomorrow. I may photoblog from San Miguel a bit, but I’ll mostly be working.
So before I go, here’s my big news: This morning I sent off the finished first draft of Specials, the third book in the Uglies series. There are rewrites and edits to be done, but I’m basically done with the trilogy. Yee-hah!
Wait? Book three! Well, to answer once more the most common question in my fan mail, Pretties, book two, comes out in less than two months!
I know, crazy isn’t it? I’m a whole book ahead of my publishers. But that’s the way it goes. The text has to be edited, reviewers’ copies have be sent out, marketing campaigns planned, and that’s before book stores fill out their order forms. Justine explains it here.
Watch this space for the cover of Specials, which I’ve been promised is coming my way soon.
In the meantime, I’m off to Mexico to relax, recreate, and start on my next book, which may (or may not) be a sequel to Peeps.
Sorry I haven’t been posting much. Specials is due next Tuesday, and I’ve been writing at a screaming pace. But the fact that I was in Uglies visualization mode made the following un-not-point-outable.
Those of you who’ve read Uglies may remember the roller coaster scene on pages 63-5. It’s all about how kids who ride hoverboards (personal flyers halfway in size between surf- and skateboards) use the rusting metal in an ancient roller coaster to assist their magnetic levitation to new heights.
If that sounds hard to visualize, dont’ worry. I just came across this Photoshopped image in a Fark contest on the subject of theme park fantasies, and am happy to see that somebody shares my insane hoverboard/rollercoaster vision.
For the rest of the images, click here.
Okay, I really don’t have very much to write about today.
After getting Boingled, though, my hit rate was sky high, and it’s drying up faster than a dead dog on a Texas highway. I just can’t stand to see all those readers slip away. So I’ll use the time-tested strategy of so many regular blogs, and tell you random crap about my week:
Random Thing 1: Today I wrote almost 2,000 words of Specials (Book 3 of Uglies). That’s an excellent day’s work, which is what I’ll have to manage from now until September 12, when it’s due. I think they were good words, but I never know until the next day. Plus, there will need to be an action scene soon. Or perhaps a hoverboard chase.
Random Thing 2: On September 13, Justine and I are headed to Mexico for a month. It’s a writing holiday for her to start on the third Magic or Madness book and me on a possible sequel to Peeps. I can’t wait to show you pictures of San Miguel.
Random Thing 3: The night before last we went to a party hosted by our friend Lauren Cerand, and the blogtastic Maud Newton was in attandence. It was tons of fun, although yesterday was spent with bodacious hangover.
Okay, that’s enough of this. Next time, a real post. But first, since we’re being a regular blog today, a cat picture:
This is Millhouse, who came with an apartment we borrowed in Buenos Aires. He is named after the Simpsons character, and made us love him with his quiet wisdom and impeccable comic timing.
Whenever I see my writer friends react to reviews, I’m reminded of a certain Gary Larson cartoon:
Owner says to dog: “Get the stick, Rusty! Come on, get the stick! Good dog, Rusty! Isn’t Rusty a good boy!”
Dog hears: ” – - – - – Rusty! – - – - – - – - – - Rusty! – - – - Rusty! – - -.”
But it’s not our names that we writers get all hyper-aware about in reviews. It’s the snark.
Here’s an example: I once wrote to congratulate a friend of mine whose new novel had just received a fabulous, glowing review in Publisher’s Weekly. She wrote me back a one-word email: “Overwrought?!?!?!”
Oops. I hadn’t noticed that one bit of snark among all the praise. I had read the following words, “This extraordinary and accomplished novel, while overwrought in places, is hands-down one of the best books written this year, maybe of all time!” But my friend had seen only, “- – - – - – - – - overwrought – - – -!”
This Rusty-dog-like vision is why when writers see emails from their publishers with the subject header KIRKUS REVIEW, we flinch a bit. Okay, we flinch a lot. Kirkus must have some sort of snark-inclusion rule in their guidelines, and their anonymous reviewers follow this rule with relish. Even in their most positive reviews, there is always at least one damn phrase guaranteed to gets up the author’s nose.
Being as Rusty-dog-like as the next writer, I remember exactly two words from the Kirkus School Library Journal review of Uglies: “although lengthy.” (Gads. It’s that “although” that kills me. Like “lengthy” things are such a trial. “Although lengthy, my vacation was very enjoyable.” “Although lengthy, our marriage is a true union of two souls.” “Although lengthy, World War II defeated facism and saved democracy.” Argh.)
So when my upcoming Kirkus review of Peeps appeared in my in-box, I braced myself. (Plot purists take note, mild spoilers.)
(STARRED) Both medical thriller and science fiction, this fast-paced, captivating modern vampire story is enriched with biology and history. Nineteen-year-old Cal is a hunter. He works for the Night Watch, New York City’s clandestine organization to capture “peeps,” “parasite positive” people infected with an ancient disease that causes vampirism. They’re cannibalistic, violent and wildly strong. Cal tracks his line of contagion: an exgirlfriend, whom he unwittingly infected, and then his progenitor, the girl who gave it to him. Yes, Cal has the parasite, but he’s a carrier rather than a full-blown peep. Forced into secrecy and celibacy but possessing peeplike superhuman senses and strength, Cal simmers with adrenaline. He succeeds at his job in the dank, oppressive urban undergrounds, but he discloses secrets to an unauthorized, uninfected girl his age who becomes inextricably involved. Conspiracy issues arise; the parasite’s centuries-long history holds a profound revelation. Westerfeld intersperses relevant chapters on how various real-life parasites operate in nature. Entrancing throughout–but squeamish readers beware. (afterword, bibliography) (Science fiction. YA) (Aug 1 issue)
Rusty says: Not much snark here at all! In fact, it seems that the snark-quota was entirely expended in the phrase, “but squeamish readers beware.”
But this is good snark, because it will bring the non-squeamish running in droves! So when I performed my second writerly duty (after snark hunting) and cut the review down to a jacket blurb, here’s what I came up with:
This fast-paced, captivating modern vampire story is enriched with biology and history. Entrancing throughout–but squeamish readers beware.
See? The snark is in the jacket quote! Hah! Snark on that, anonymous Kirkus-oid!
My only regret is that they didn’t put an exclamation point after the word “beware.” That would have been much cooler. Maybe I’ll just, you know, add one. Who would notice?
ONE MORE THING: The release date for Peeps has been moved up to August 25. That’s four weeks and three days from now!
ONE OTHER MORE THING: Kirkus reviewers are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings in the whole world. Any implied disrespect was for humorous purposes only. ‘Nuff said.
___________________________________
UPDATE! (in the sense of humiliating retraction)
OMG! I just got an email from my no-longer-anonymous Kirkus reviewer. (Not anonymous to me, anyway. I shall name no names.) She informs me that those haunting words “although lengthy” are actually . . . not from Kirkus! That review was from School Library Journal.
Mea culpa, oh, quasi-anonymous one!
It just goes to show you that although memories can be haunting, they don’t have to be, you know, accurate. So, like I said, Kirkus reviewers are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings in the whole world. And this time, it is meant without the Manchurian Candidate vibe.
While working on Specials today, I was poking around in my Uglies folder and discovered this pairing:
These were the two covers first given to me by Simon and Schuster, who were good enough to ask my opinion. Like design departments everywhere, the artists misspelled my name, and also managed to get the title wrong. (It’s Uglies, people, not The Uglies.) And let’s not mention the coffee stains.
They’re both really good designs, though. But Justine and I, and everyone else we showed them to, prefered the one on the right. More importantly, S&S agreed, and used that as the basis for the final cover.
So why is it better?
Well, first the leftmost design: The expression is much more intense, like someone secretly watching a terrifying ritual unfold. The lines of grass across the face create a more interesting composition. On the other hand, I don’t like the squarish font of the title as much. And I don’t like the black boxes around my name, which remind me of those machines that insane people use to make sticky labels to put on everything. In trying to make the text readable, the cover winds up with one too many design features.
The one on the right succeeds by being simpler, more direct. Although the eye is smaller, its gaze isn’t muddled up by the foliage. The rounded sans-serif font (without sticky label backing) helps simplify, intensify, and focus the cover. (I also like the black/white treatment of the title, except that it wasn’t the title.) Instead of the terror of the rejected cover, we have something intimate and quietly intriguing.
So simple seems better to me. And I’m glad the final cover zoomed in even closer to the model’s face.
But what the hell do I know? I’m, like, a writer. What do you guys think?
As you can see, my website has had its first makeover in many years. This is to celebrate the fact that my first new series in years, Leviathan, comes out this autumn. (October 6, to be exact.)
Things may be wonky for a while as we play around under the hood. But I hope you enjoy the new look. Let me know what you think!
Click here to contact Scott Westerfeld.
Jill Grinberg
Jill Grinberg Literary Management
244 5th Avenue, 11th floor
New York, NY 10001
212-620-5883
info@grinbergliterary.com
