Pretties UK

Ah, so nice to have a post without a picture of me . . .

So you may remember not long ago when I posted about the UK cover of Uglies.

Well, the trilogy is coming out at a fast and furious pace in the UK, thanks to a crack team of unsleeping translators, so I already have the British version of Pretties in hand:

You know, when the first UK cover came my way, I hadn’t seen any episodes of Nip/Tuck. Now I’m watching the show, and enjoying it, and realizing how much these covers riff on it. (Which is a good thing: intertextuality R us.) I think it’s the dotted lines that really make the connection for me, though I know that present-day plastic surgeons actually draw them on people before cutting them up. (All together now: Eww.)

Another nice symmetry is that the UK covers have followed the US color scheme so far. That is, blue/green for Book 1 and pink/red for Book 2.

Here’s all four covers for comparison:

Discuss.

PS Pretties comes out in the UK in July this year, and Specials in December. In the US, it’s May 9 for Specials.

“King of the Cool Codes”

Those are not my words, but the headline writer of The Melbourne Age, the biggest newspaper in Australia’s second biggest city. Eep. A bit blush-making.

The article, by the excellent Mike Shuttleworth of the Centre for Youth Literature, is a result of So Yesterday winning the Victorian Premier’s Award down there. It’s a great big article in the A section, with a big-ole photo of me in my, ahem, coolest T-shirt:


Jennifer Soo

Yes, that’s me looking off into the future of literature. Or maybe flexing my imagination, or thinking, “Hope I don’t look like a wanker.”

I’m always exceedingly nervous about any picture of me appearing that I don’t have TOTAL control over. Not to mention articles that quote me rattling along before breakfast on many cups of coffee. But Mike managed to make me sound smart, and Jennifer made me look (passably) cool. Much thanks to them both.

Here’s the article.

For a password, go to Bug Me Not. (If you’re already a Sydney Morning Herald reader, you don’t need one.)

And it starts:

Scott Westerfeld describes his lifestyle as “bi-summeral”. For the past five years, the laconic, softly spoken Texan has moved between Sydney and New York with his partner, Australian Justine Larbalestier (herself a young-adult fiction writer). They met at the Nebula Awards in New York in 2000 (“How geeky is that?” he asks) and now they divide their time between apartments in Manhattan and Surry Hills.

Westerfeld is a writer of young adult fiction, living the perfect life for exploring the teenage cool world. He is the author of more than a dozen books, including So Yesterday, a whip-smart thriller about a New York trend-spotter and a culture-jamming scam . . .

All very blush-making.

Ergo Telescopy

Westerfeld’s Law #1: When you live around the corner from the best Thai food in Sydney, you eat a lot of Thai food.

Westerfeld’s Law #2: When that food is next to a telescope store, you stare longingly into that telescope store frequently.

Westerfeld’s Law #3: When you stare longingly into a telescope store frequently, you eventually BUY A TELESCOPE!

The laws in graphic format:

Or to put it another way, I have bought a telescope . . .


iPod for scale

My little Celestron is very cool. It’s quite small and indestructible, as you can see, perfect for taking camping (or, say, to boutique hotels out in the country). It takes up zero room in the house, and swivels around quite pleasingly on its little base. The fact that I don’t have to set up a tripod means that I will actually use it, rather than it gathering dust.

But one thing I will say is, it’s really a stupid idea to have telescope stores open during the day. Like, what are you supposed to do for the hours between purchase and sunset? Well, I briefly watched this couple breaking up on the veranda of a nearby apartment complex, but one really shouldn’t do that sort of thing.

So mostly I looked at Centrepoint Tower, and experimented with putting my digital camera right up to the eyepiece:

Cool, huh?

But mostly I was waiting for friggin’ Mars to rise! Celestial dance, my ass. It took forever!

Finally, though, the splendorous red planet arose. And was really hard to find. That’s what I always forget about telescopes, all that looking through a narrow tube for a little dot. How did Gallileo and those guys ever manage to, like, discover stuff?

But finally I found Mars, and it was pearly and beautimous and red. I can’t wait for Jupiter to return to the southern night skies, and for the moon to reappear. I love my telescope. (And must now purchase a more expensive one.)

Also, I have vowed never again to use my telescopic powers for evil, even to find out what happened with that couple who broke up. I will only look at the moon and stars, and possibly Centrepoint Tower when bored during the day.

PS For comparison, this is what Centrepoint Tower non-telescopically looks like from my window:

I’ll see if I can take some lunar pictures, once the moon comes back. Stupid new moon.

Last Days Cover Redux

Okay, so the previous cover designs for The Last Days didn’t get such a great reception. Knives were drawn, tears were shed. But as promised, the drawing board was gone back to. And this time with vamp-tastic results!

Just to remind you, The Last Days is my not-really-a-sequel to Peeps. It’s set in the same parasite-afflicted New York City, but instead of the Night Watch, it follows a bunch of kids trying to start a band and get famous. Of course, making it in the music biz is a tough thing to do under the best of circumstances, but right in the middle of a Zombie/Vampire Apocalypse, it’s really a total pain in the neck. (Get it? NECK!)

Now, this is not a complete design. There’s no text yet, these aren’t the right color levels, and it’s probably not going to be cropped this way. You are seeing a raw image even before the marketing department does! But I just couldn’t keep it from you for another moment.

So here is the new and highly improved cover rough for The Last Days:

IS THIS NOT COOL?

I think that it is. And the fact that the only musical prop is a guitar neck (neck, get it? NECK!) is really great.

The oversized photophobic cat-like eyes are very much the way I imagined peeps’ to be. And the gaze is just the right combination of hungry, horny, and inhuman.

The book comes out in August 2006 in the USA. No, it’s not quite finished yet.

Also: Peeps has been awarded a BCCB Blue Ribbon Award, meaning that it made their top ten list of kids’ fiction books of the year. (Buy it here!)

And in other Peeps news, it seems like toxoplasma gondii, the cat-to-rat parasite that stars in Chapter 4, is all over the web. There’s been some new research about how it affects its human host. (Just typing the words “human host” gives me the chills, yo.)

Here’s a reference on BoingBoing, proving again that I am the sf-parasite-guy, and another at science writer Carl Zimmer’s site. Zimmer rocks, and without his book Parasite Rex, Peeps would not have been written.

New UK Cover

Discussions of Midnighters characters have taken over recent comment threads, and Blue Noon is my next book out (March 1), so maybe it’s time for some more news from Bixby.

A while back I blogged about the new covers for the Midnighters series in the UK. Well, they’ve changed since then. Here’s a side-by-side view of the new and old:

The new one (on the right) uses the same image as the old, the photo montage from the back of the US edition. But the new cover gives it more space, without the overwhelming type treatment. And of course there’s the change to cursive text, which screams “Oklahoma gothic” to me. The whole thing has a creepier, scarier vibe.

Justine says it looks like an airport paperback, which is a good thing. I think it will sell books.

In the UK they’re all coming out a few months apart, so the other covers are already designed:

Cool, huh?

Midnighters on TV

Okay, so this is NOT a done deal, but . . .

According to Sci Fi Wire, the chances of a Midnighters TV show have gone up a notch or two. Because of the success of Supernatural last Fall, they’ve ordered a pilot script for Midnighters. See here:

Now all this means is that a writer (a guy called Darren Lemke) has been paid to write a script. If the WB like his work and see a future in the series, it is possible there’ll be a Midnighters TV pilot in Fall of 2006. (Or 2007?)

This would be a gas. I’ve always thought that Midnighters was the most TV-friendly of my series. I just hope they do a good job . . .

By the way, I got this link from Jonathan’s fan site, midnighters.org. Midnighters fan sites seem to be proliferating, as witnessed by Morgan’s site, from which the excellent comics of my last post came.

Anyway, watch this space, and Jonathan’s and Morgan’s sites, for news about this possible series.

But when it comes to Hollywood, never, ever hold your breath.

Midnighters Comics

Recently on Morgan’s Midnighters fan site, I came across this awesome bit of fan art by Brianne K. It’s a sort of manga-esque version of Midnighters, my trilogy about the adventures of a disfunctional gang of Oklahoma goths in a small town where time freezes every midnight. (How’s that for a pitch?)

I love that the comic is written from Dess’s point of view, because she’s my favorite character. It’s also cool that Brianne doesn’t follow the book’s storyline—she’s just having fun with the characters. Her visualization of Melissa is great, especially that Mona Lisa smile on page 2. That’s Melissa and Rex above, in case you haven’t read the series.

The only drawback of the comic is that it’s only two pages long! But maybe if you click below to read the whole thing, and leave suitably rapturous comments right here, we can convince Brianne to do MORE. (The power of fanfic compels you! The power of fanfic compels you!)

page 1

page 2

And don’t forget to check out all the other cool stuff at Morgan’s site.

Writing Advice 3

While I was finishing Specials my fictional brain started to break, so I decided to take some time off from narrative. Fortunately, a collection of letters written by the great hard-boiled writer Raymond Chandler leapt from the depths of my Sydney storage unit and into my hands.

Chandler’s technique for writing letters was to stay up at night drinking and talking into a tape recorder (a wire recorder in those days, actually). The next day his secretary would type up his rantings and send them in the mail. This led to many a drunken tongue-lashing, and a fair amount of solid writing advice, being preserved for posterity.

As I re-read the letters, I realized that I’ve stolen a lot of Chandler’s writing techniques over the years, especially his “four-hour rule” (see below), which I’ve expounded to many a writing class. So I figured it was time to ‘fess up and show all of you the source material.

So here is the unalloyed Raymond Chandler on the subject of writing:

1. Letter to Frederick Lewis Allen, editor of Harper’s Magazine
7 May 1948
My theory was that [the readers] just thought they cared about . . . the action; that really, although they didn’t know it, they cared very little about the action. The things that they really cared about, and that I cared about, were the creation of emotion through dialogue and description; the things they remembered, that haunted them, were not for example that a man got killed, but that in the moment of death he was trying to pick a paper clip up off the polished surface of a desk, and it kept slipping away from him, so that there was a look of strain of his face and his mouth was half opened in a kind of tormented grin, and the last thing in the world he thought about was death. He didn’t even hear death knock at the door. That damn paper clip kept slipping away from his fingers and he just wouldn’t push it to the edge of the desk and catch it as it fell.

That paper clip image is very goosepimple-making, a classic noir example of the crumpled little guy facing oblivion. Of course, we all know that a guy trying to pick up a paper clip on a hoverboard would be cooler. And like, especially if the paper clip exploded . . .

This next motivational technique is one I always tell aspiring writers to try:

2. Letter to Alex Barris, an interview by mail
18 March 1949
The important thing is that there should be a space of time, say four hours a day at least, when a professional writer doesn’t do anything else but write. He doesn’t have to write, and if he doesn’t feel like it, he shouldn’t try. He can look out of the window or stand on his head or writhe on the floor. But he is not to do any other positive thing, not read, write letters, glance at magazines, or write checks. Write or nothing. It’s the same principle as keeping order in a school. If you make the pupils behave, they will learn something just to keep from being bored. I find it works. Two very simple rules, a. you don’t have to write. B. you can’t do anything else. The rest comes of itself.

Put those two rules on your refrigerator and you’ll have a novel within a year. Or at least someone else who uses your refrigerator will.

The letter below reminds me of something Kingsley Amis said: “Sometimes the hardest part of writing is getting the characters out of the pub and into the cab.” Writers don’t just get stuck at the earth-shattering, life-changing decisions that our characters make; the little details of reality management are actually quite tricky and frustrating. Never assume you’re a crap writer just because you can’t get someone across a room—it happens to all of us.

3. Letter to Paul Brooks, a publisher working on a Chandler collection
19 July 1949
When I started out to write fiction I had the great disadvantage of having absolutely no talent for it. I couldn’t get the characters in and out of rooms. They lost their hats and so did I. If more than two people were on scene I couldn’t keep one of them alive. Give me two people snotting at each other across a desk and I am happy. A crowded canvas just bewilders me.

This letter to Alfred Hitchcock contains fantastic advice for writers as well as film-makers. Just substitute the words “wicked-cool sentence” or “scintillating simile” for “camera shot.”

4. 6 December 1950
As a friend and well-wisher, I urge you just once in your long and distinguished career . . . to get a sound and sinewy story into the script and sacrifice no part of its soundness for an interesting camera shot. Sacrifice a camera shot if necessary. There will always be another camera shot just as good. There is never another motivation just as good.

Beyond his anti-Agatha Christie snark, there is an excellent point below about the difference between novels and short stories. A lot of writers who excel at the story level don’t think to “turn the corner” when attempting the longer form.

5. Letter to Dorothy Gardner, secretary of the Mystery Writers Association
January 1956
The trouble with most English mystery writers, however well known in their world, is that they can’t turn a corner. About halfway through a book they start fooling with alibis, analyzing bits and pieces of evidence and so on. The story dies on them. Any book which is any good has to turn the corner. You get to the point where everything implicit in the original situation has been developed or explored, and then a new element has to introduced which is not implied from the beginning but which is seen to be part of the situation when it shows up.

Speaking of snark . . . bet you didn’t know that Raymond Chandler’s brief foray into science fiction actually predicted the rise of Google as an information search service. Check this out:

6. Letter to H.N Swanson
14 March 1953
Did you ever read what they call Science Fiction? It’s a scream. It’s written like this: “I checked out with K19 on Abadabaran III, and stepped out through the crummaliote hatch on my 22 Model Sirus Hardtop. I cocked the timejector in secondary and waded through the bright blue manda grass. My breath froze into pink pretzels. I flicked on the heat bars and the Bryllis ran swiftly on five legs using their other two to send out crylon vibrations. The pressure was almost unbearable, but I caught the range on my wrist computer through the transparent cysicites. I pressed the trigger. The thin violet glow was icecold against the rust-colored mountains. The Bryllis shrank to half an inch long and I worked fast stepping on them with the poltex. But it wasn’t enough. The sudden brightness swung me around and the Fourth Moon had already risen. I had exactly four seconds to hot up the disintegrator and Google had told me it wasn’t enough. He was right.”
They pay brisk money for this crap?

Yes, Mr. Chandler, they do.

You can buy the collection, edited by Tom Hiney and Frank MacShane, right here.

Retouched Pretties

Since writing Uglies, I’ve been asked a lot whether I think it’s dangerous for kids to be exposed to so many images of beautiful celebrities. Well, yes, comparing your own body and face to “perfect” celebs leads to unrealistic expectations. But what most people don’t realize is how unrealistic these images are, because of this one important fact:

Celebrities aren’t as pretty as we think we are. Their flawless skin, gorgeous bone structure, and radiant faces are mostly the result of technology. No, not futuristic cosmetic surgery: Photoshop.

Here’s a great example from a Swedish site called G!irlpower:

The image on the left is the original photo; the one on the right shows it after typical magazine retouching.

Click here for the entire experience, which allows you to zoom in on all of the parts of the girl before and after the retouching.

But one word of warning: Don’t start thinking that this girl was in any way “ugly” before the retouching. She’s actually quite cute. And frankly, I think the original image is much more attractive and more human, less false and exaggerated. It’s only “ugly” if your eye gets calibrated to accept only flawless skin. (And blue eyes and blond hair . . . hmmm.)

It’s not just magazines that retouch people—films do it too. My sister-in-law does visual effects for Hollywood movies (like King Kong). And believe me, for every hour she spends making sure Naomi Watts and Kong have the same lighting, she’s spent ten getting rid of certain stars’ zits and pores and wrinkles.

For more retouching examples from magazines, check out Model 1 and Model 2. These examples will show you why photographs of you don’t look like photos of models in magazines. Because you don’t spend 20 hours Photoshopping your own image.

And really, why would you want to?

I got the G!rlpower link from E. Lockhart, via Justine, and the last two links from Boing Boing.