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.

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?

Readers of Uglies will know all about my so-called “bungee jackets.” Basically, they’re a futuristic way of escaping a burning building in a magnetic levitation harness. Of course, my tricky uglies and drunken pretties tend to put bungee jackets to much more amusing uses.

Well, it wouldn’t be the future if someone wasn’t already working on it. Howard Price of the Trades (which gave Uglies a great review for my birthday) pointed me to this article in the Economist. It’s about a backpack-based inflatable device that allows you to jump safely from a building and bounce to a halt.

The Lavochkin Association in Moscow demonstrated this device (using a 1/6-scale model) at the Paris Air Show in mid-June. They don’t have a working prototype, but the overall concept seems sound, or at least better than burning to death. (Or jumping with, say, nothing.)

You leap with the backpack on, pulling the cord, and the outer rim inflates as you fall. The aerodynamic shape of the device turns the point downward (putting you on the top) and slows your fall way down. Hopefully the pointy front end is soft enough to protect you from the ground, and any earlier jumpers from you.

The full-size version is six meters (20 feet) across, so imagine a flock of them coming down the street at you on a windy day!

Anyway, I want one. (After the testing. Lots and lots of testing.)