I’m headed down to my local bookstore today to pick up copies of my new book:

Mind Rain:

Your Favorite Authors on Scott Westerfeld’s UGLIES Series

I had a negative writing day yesterday. Which means that if I was the kind of writer who had one of those little word bar thingies going on on my blog, you’d see more white space on there today than you would have yesterday. A lot less. Four thousand words less, as a matter of fact.

This is problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, I’m not the kind of writer who tends to go around throwing out scenes, let alone several chapters. I don’t generally have a whole bunch of “cut scenes” to share with you all after I finish a draft, and if I were to cut 60,000 words of banter from my book, there’d be no book left. Well, in the SSG books, anyway. There’s a definite dearth of banter in the unicorn books, but that’s because I have to leave room for all the bloodshed. There’s a lot less bloodshed in SSG. Anyway, there’s no cutting of 60k from my books.

Except… I did that in Rampant, when I rewrote the book from being in three points of view to being in one POV. It also took about six months to do, and unfortunately, I don’t have six months to finish this book. But, it’s okay, I tell myself. I’m not the only one who has had these types of birthing pains. Look at Scott, who had to toss 16k of one of his manuscripts and start over from another POV. Except, this book isn’t going to be in a different POV book. This is not Extras. It’s more like Pretties. And I already made the choice over a year ago that this book was not going to be about a different character, it was going to be about Astrid.

Also, POV issues is not why I had to throw that 4k away. It was, rather, a plot element that wasn’t working, and every time I looked at it I thought to myself that it wasn’t working, and I tried half a dozen ways to make it work and all of them, to me, read like “this author is really trying to make this plot element work and it’s totally not working” but I didn’t want to go back and change it, because I’m not the quickest writer in the world and tossing out four thousand words and changing the plot is a very, very hard thing to do and the new words would seem insurmountable, but as time passed and my words slowed down becuase every tiem I went to write I kept thinking to myself “not working, not working, not working” and it was like a sour key on a piano that keeps wrecking your melody and all of a sudden I realized that cutting this element, like starting Rampant over from one POV, was the best thing I could possibly do for this book, even though itossing away forward motion on the word count is a very, very painful thing to do.

Why wasn’t it working? Well, I can’t go into details, because that would be too spoilery, but suffice to say that it was a relic of a time when the book was not supposed ot be about Astrid, that it was too coincidental, and that the solution to the coincidental problem not only didn’t resolve the coincidental issue, but it also took the story in a direction that was a little too off-course.

But as soon as I opened up the possibility of getting rid of it, another, far cooler and more relevant plotline popped up to take its place. It will not be 4k of plotline, btu I don’t think 4k will be needed in this case, because I will not have to go through the writerly machinations to shoehorn this one in. It’s much more natural.

And the reason I’m sharing any of this with you (and probably terrifying my editor in the process) is to illustrate that books do not pop out of our heads full formed, like Athena from Zeus. They’re actually quite a bit of hard work to put onto the page. And no matter how solid your idea is, or how fully-formed your world and premise (hey, I’ve already written a whole book about it!) there is still a lot of work to be done actually getting word on the page in a good, readable, powerful, thrilling order.

Okay, that’s aside. Today’s excerptlet from Tap & Gown:

I always confuse fencing outfits with beekeeper uniforms. Not that I’m personally familiar with either one. But if I were watching a movie about beekeepers, and a bunch of folks turned up in fencing outfits, I probably wouldn’t think it was strange. (Unlike, watching, say, a Regency-set piece where they’re all in Victorian clothing, but then again, I’m a Lit major.)

Also, must share. I got an email at 4:22 AM this morning from someone who’d been up all night reading Tap & Gown. And it wasn’t my mom (she, however, was up until 2:30 AM reading it). W00T!

I’m helping to kick off the first ever NYC Teen Author Festival (March 16-22, 2009) this Monday with the following, absolutely unmissable event:

Juvenilia Smackdown
Monday, 16 March, 4-6pm, Tompkins Square Park branch of the NYPL, 331 E. 10th Street

Join Holly Black, Cassandra Clare, Alaya Dawn Johnson, Justine Larbalestier, David Levithan, Diana Peterfreund, Scott Westerfeld as they read some of their (ahem) less accomplished work from their teenage and pre-teenage years. Hosted by Libba Bray.

I don’t know if I’m going to be able to go through with it, frankly. Not because I don’t have the guts to read my old dreck, but because, as I was picking the finalists this morning, I was barely able to get through some sentences for the laughter. And I know I’ll probably already be half in hysterics from the other laughing. (Holly, I know from experience, is especially adept at reading aloud for humorous effect.)

Sadly, my high school magnum opus, a futuristic post-apocalyptic fantasy written in longhand in a marbled blue spiral bound notebook, has mysteriously gone missing from its place of honor on our living room bookshelf. And by “magnum opus,” I mean I managed to actuallyw rite some of it. What I’ve discovered in going through my paperwork is that I never actually wrote as much of these stories as what lived in my head. I had this idea I had half a hisotrical romance lying around, but when I put hands on it, I realized I only had about three pages. Again, longhand.

I am now even more impressed with myself that I have managed to complete nine whole novels. I often tell the story that I joined RWA after winning a bet with myself that I could write a whole book. Now I see that I was right to have made that bet.

Speaking of, my ninth novel (9th to be written, 4th to be published, and #8 will be 5th — if you follow all that) just arrived on my doorstep in beautiful ARC form. I would do the usual picture of me surrounded by my ARCs, but alas, my camera, she died in Ireland. Poor girl. So just trust me that Tap & Gown looks splendiferous. I really love the interior design on this one. We were able to go hog wild with the decorations and every confession is wearing a jaunty little mortarboard and tassel.

So… I’m thinking I should do a giveaway. What say you? Want to be the first person on the block to read it? (Okay, the eighth person, since Carrie, Erica, Julie, my editor, my agent, and my copyeditor have all read it, and my best friend just snatched up her copy of the ARC and was like “Awesome, now I get to find out what happens to Amy and Poe!”) But it’s unlikely that any of these people actually live on your block, so I guess that’s cool.

I think the first giveaway will be right here on the blog. Lasts until Friday. Leave a comment here, and because I’m especially evil, and spent the last week in Limerick, I’ve decided that to be eligible for entry, you must include a limerick on the subject of the SSG books (unicorns optional).

Yeah, it’s annoying. But not as annoying as that dude who made us sing for our whiskey at the local pub. Fill the comments section below with limericks, and win yourself an ARC OF TAP & GOWN!!!!

Enter as many times as you dare (Multiple limericks will count as multiple entries, so do me a favor and post them as separate comments.) You have until Friday.

See you New Yorkers at the Tompkins Square Park Library tomorrow at 4!

A lot of people have been asking me, and the rumors are out on the internet, so though I have not been given the go-ahead by TPTB over at Harper, I have decided to respond, since “I can neither confirm nor deny…” sounds kinda silly in the face of “I saw on Amazon…” So:

• The publication date of Rampant has been pushed back to August 25, 2009.
• This has absolutely nothing to do with the reorganization that occurred at Harper last week. I have known about the date change for over a month.
• The date change also has nothing to do with the preparedness of the manuscript. ARCs have been out since last fall, as is usual for a spring book, and the only changes made to the final book concern the usual typography errors and copyediting changes that did not, for some reason, make it into the galley version. (This is common, and has occurred with every book I’ve written. That’s why most ARCs have huge disclaimers on them that the text is NOT the final version.)

So, that’s the news. Now, the bad part of this news is, obviously, wah, three more months until killer unicorns take over the world! Additionally, it means that my little romance will not be out in time for the RWA conference in my hometown of DC, and also, that I am less likely to be able to throw a joint launch party for Tap & Gown and Rampant, since they are no longer being released a week apart. (Then again, if one party is good, two is twice as good. True for everything but weddings and funerals.) But the good parts, in my opinion, far outweigh the bad. The extra time gives me the opportunity to plan some truly exciting promotional tidbits. Also, since Rampant is now a fall ‘09 book, it means that KU2 is a fall ‘10 book, which means that my deadline has been pushed back. Yay, extra time! Finally — and this is really the best part of all — I’m now being released very close to a few of my YA writer friends, which means that we might end up doing some cool events together! More to come on that front, obviously. But as I’ve waited for over two years to become an official YA author, I’m hoping ot take as much advantage of that as possible!

Which brings me to my next bit of news. Next month, there’s a Teen Author Festival in New York City, and I’m going to be attending,and speaking at the following panel:

NYC Teen Author Festival
Juvenalia Smackdown Panel
Date: Monday, March 16, 2009, 4-6pm
Location: Tompkins Square Park branch of the NYPL, 331 E. 10th Street

Join Holly Black, Cassandra Clare, Alaya Johnson, Justine Larbalestier, David Levithan, Diana Peterfreund, and Scott Westerfeld as they read some of their (ahem) less accomplished work from their middle school and high school years.  Hosted by Libba Bray.

See the whole festival schedule here.

I am so excited about this panel. Justine has done it before and she says it’s the most fun you can have at a conference. Now, the only trick is to choose which of my works of early genius to share with you all. There’s the apothecary romance, in verse, natch. There’s the historical about the scarred debutante being stalked by her dead sister’s lover (who set the fire that killed her family and burned her half to a crisp). The best thing about that story is how most of the scenes centered around the heroine’s cousin, who was secretly in love with her childhood best friend (not that this was more familiar to my own high school experience than arsonists and burn victims). Oh, and the best friend had just discovered he was an earl. Because what’s a story without a secret inheritance? Then there’s the teen Christmas story which, I’m sorry to admit, I actually faked sick from school for several days in a row so I could stay home and work on it. (Kids: don’t do this. Stay in school.)

Choices, choices.

Oh noes! The killer unicorns! They have taken over my website!

Thanks to ‘brina for the cornification.

In other news, the killer unicorn takeover of the known world continues apace. At the School Library Journal, kidlit blogger Fuse #8 casts her vote in the ever popular “What supernatural beings are next?” discussion:

“Werewolves turn out to be the obvious answer, though there’s a surprising push for mummies, mermaids, and angels.  My vote is for evil unicorns.  And if Rampant is any indication, I’m on the right path.”

I am always surprised to see the question framed thusly, as if the point of any smash book is dependent on the type of supernatural creature that appears within its pages. However, Tea Cozy isn’t the only one to ask it. Publisher’s Weekly was doing so three months ago. I remember, back before Twilight ever came out, attending conferences where the industry pros inisted that vampires were played out. I know several folks whose vampire YA novels, out before the zeitgeist, withered on the vine, and others who chug along merrily, such as Scott Westerfeld’s Peeps books or the novels of Amelia Atwater-Rhodes. Christine Feehan has been peddling vampire romance since 1999, but it was Anne Rice who reinvented the genre in the mid seventies. Buffy’s cult-classic status revitalized the genre of urban fantasy. And vampires are still super strong. The saga may be over, but Meyer is still on the top of the bestseller list, and ongoing series, such as the Casts’ House of Night or Richelle Mead’s Vampire Academy novels (I’m a huge fan of these!) keep her company there. Not to mention the reissues of LJ Smith.

Tea Cozy says, “First it was vampires, then zombies.” There may be a rash of zombie novels in the YA field right now, but the vampires haven’t gone anywhere, and for my money, it’s fairies that are all over the place. Fairies and boarding school girls. I can think of half a dozen fairy books that are either out or out this spring, and three times as many boarding school books. I heard a rumor that a large chain bookstore declared a few years back that “fairies would be the next big thing.” A few authors may have consciously responded, but in most cases, these books were written by people who were unaware of market edicts, and were just telling a story that spoke to them.

I don’t believe that ‘the next big thing’ comes courtesy of a certain strain of supernatural creature. People didn’t buy Twilight because it was about vampires. (In fact, it was advertised heavily as “a vampire book for people who don’t like vampire books.”) They bought it because the book spoke very strongly to them. After all, before it became popular, everyone was basing their opinion of “the next big thing” on a far younger series starring a boy wizard. Now of course, the people who may not have liked vampires are converted, and many will buy anything with a fang on the cover.

In the comments of the Tea Cozy post, some postulate that angels or demons will be “the next big thing.” If so, they should probably thank Cassandra Clare, who has been writing a bestselling series about part-angel demon hunters (a very few of the “demons” are, in fact, vampires) for years. People don’t love this series because it’s got demon hunters in it. They love it because it’s great.

Another thing people love: future dystopias populated by action heroines. But I’ve yet to see the article that credits the immense popularity of Scott Westerfeld’s Uglies series with helping to boost the enormously well-received The Hunger Games last year. (For the record, I loved both.) But instead of people going, “Oh, I think the next big thing is these futuristic female-focused thrillers,” they are still talking about “insert paranormal creatures here.”

HUNGER GAMES SPOILER WARNING (mouseover): Or does The Hunger Games count as a “werewolf” novel? END SPOILER WARNING

And sometimes, these “trend” books have very little in common. Take the so-called zombie trend. Generation Dead is a satirical metaphor about discrimination. You Are So Undead to Me is a humorous, Buffy-like approach to the topic of zombies, Soulless is a classic horror novel set up: “escape from New York’s zombie apocalypse”, and — my personal favorite — The Forest of Hands and Teeth is a literary exploration of human survival that doesn’t even mention the word zombie. (The zombie novel for people who don’t like zombie novels?)

I may be in trouble now for calling it that.

Seriously, though, “the next big thing” as defined by “what there will be twelve dozen books out about” may be based on a particular paranormal creature, as publishers scramble to recreate the Meyer magic. But the “next big thing” as defined by “what will capture the public’s imagination en masse?” That will not be so simply defined. I believe it is the love story that draws Meyer’s fans, not the bloodsucking. (There is, in fact, very little bloodsucking.) But the last big thing, Harry, had only very minor romantic elements, and that only at the very end.

Is the next big thing unicorns? I’m sure Bruce Colville Coville (sorry, curse my butterfingers!) would be thrilled to hear that. I, on the other hand, write unicorn books for people who don’t like unicorn books. (Or maybe, based on the stories I’ve heard of people who have refused to read the book on the grounds that the characters kill unicorns, what I write is books that people who like unicorn books don’t like? Hmmm… something to ponder.) When I sat down to write Rampant, it wasn’t from a position of “hmmm, what paranormal creature is next?” And that is probably because unlike many of the usual urban fantasy creatures, I’m not writing about something humanoid — they don’t blend (except for their fangs/wings/fins/tendency to howl at the moon). They aren’t magical creatures falling in love with mortals (or other magical creatures) and causing romantic/political/cultural/physical agony. It’s a gorgeous paradigm, but I’m not writing it.

The book I’m most excited to read this year* is Leviathan, by Scott Westerfeld, which I’m positive will start the alternative World War I living airship trend. It’s totally the next big thing.

_______

* Because I’ve already read the other two I’m most excited about: The Forest of Hands and Teeth and Justine Larbalestier’s newest. Yeah, I know you’re jealous.

Hey, guys! I’m back from New York and back to work. No rest for the weary ’round these parts. Is anyone else doing Seventy Days of Sweat? Every time I get started, a new pile of work lands on my desk — revisions, first page proofs, you name it. Check out the Sven blog today for another post by me — this one about how tough it is to work in the face of outside forces. But work we must; especially since we have due dates.

TUESDAY’S GIVEAWAY WINNER: Megan S.!

WEDNESDAY’S GIVEAWAY WINNER: Dulce!

By the way, these are random drawings, care of the good people at random.org.

Ah, New York! So I got in early Tuesday morning and popped up to Harper Collins to pick up my First Page Proofs. Oooooh, pretty. Because I am horribly challenged when it comes to the order of the non-numbered streets in Manhattan, there was a little east/west confusion with the whole Lexington/Madison/Park thing and I wound up all the way on the East side before I figured out I was going the wrong way. Anyway, I had a nice chat with my editor’s assistant, Corey (Hi, Corey! If you read the blog!) and then headed out to work on them. I spent the day working with Libba Bray, Cassandra Clare (who has an AWESOME new cover), Maureen Johnson, and Bennett Madison. I did not get a lot of work done. I mostly bugged them all in turn. It’s pathetic. I’m sure if I  saw these folks more often, I would actually write during writing dates, rather than play catch up and show them all my cover mock up and tell Libba all about our house-hunting adventures from last summer.

(In passing, I’m going to another one today, with Bennett and Lavinia Kent. And I will WORK!)

Anyway, after the writing date, Maureen and Bennett and I headed over to Butter for Melissa Walker and Marianne Mancusi’s book release party, which was a lot of fun. You can see all the details here, along with Marianne’s pictures, and here, along with Melissa’s.

Scott Westerfeld, Marianne Mancusi, Me, and Melissa Walker

Me, I didn’t take pictures. I was too busy drinking martinis and not eating food, sadly. I was tipsy. Justine made fun of me, rightly. Note to self: have dinner before going to book parties. I also saw Chris Keesler, Elizabeth Kerri Mahon (who has an amazing blog called Scandalous Women), Hope Tarr, and Liz Maverick.

After the party, Marianne, her boyfriend Jacob, and I went back to Marianne’s place where I met Molly (oooh, adorable! So much cuter than even her pictures!) ate deli food, and watched a hilarious episode of South Park about goths vs. vampires.

(This is Molly. She has excellent taste in books.)

Looking at Marianne’s dog made me very homesick for Rio. I’ve hardly been away from her overnight since we got her.

The next morning, I caught the subway into Manhattan, which was surreal. I lived in Astoria for almost nine months, back in 2001-2002, and took the N train every single day, and it was like I’d never been there before in my life. I had to reacquaint myself to the elevated trains and all. I can’t believe my memory is so pathetic. (Then again, between my horrible landlords and my horrible job, I think I blocked a lot of that year out. I mostly remember lunches with my friend Lauren, Buffy nights at Rachel’s, and the most amazing Seder dinner ever.)

Anyway, I met my editor, Kerri, for what I’m sure we shall remember in the future as a legendary breakfast, and we talked about books and went over the full cover of Tap & Gown, which I love! Then I went back to work on those pesky page proofs, discovered a huge continuity error in my book, called Carrie Ryan to have a panic attack over it (she calmed me down, thanks Carrie) and returned to DC with Bennett Madison in tow.

In honor of the book party, today’s giveaway is a signed copy of Melissa Walker’s VIOLET IN PRIVATE. Leave a comment here to be entered into the giveaway.

Off to work! Poor Rio’s got another day of kennel thumb-twiddling in her future!

The winners of yesterday’s JESSICA Z Giveaway are:

Leslie of cuteonthecheap.com

and

Maureen McGowan

You know the drill!

In passing, if you are one of the winners of previous days’ giveaways and you do not contact me by Monday, I’ll draw new names. I’m totally hard core like that.

So if I’d been on my game, I’d be having a fun guest blog with the author of today’s giveaway right about now. Unfortunately, between deadlines, the new house, Rio, and family emergencies, it kind of got away from me. Bad, Diana.

Today’s giveaway is two copies of the debut novel CYCLER, by Lauren McLaughlin. The book has one of the highest-concept premises I’ve heard in a while (unsurprising, given McLaughlin’s screenwriting creds): Once a month, teen Jill McTeague becomes a boy for four days.

Talk about a bad period.

Her family’s horror at their daughter’s “condition” has led them to take extreme measures. Jill’s “boy self” is imprisoned in her room during his cycle, and Jill is instructed to repress all memories of her time spent as a boy. But their actions backfire, creating in Jill a split “boy” personality named Jack who is not only interested in Jill’s portion of their shared life, but doesn’t want to be imprisoned anymore.

Sailor Boy and I both devoured this novel, and I was fascinated with its exploration of gender identity. From the description above, you might imagine that this is a very dark book. Not at all! But there are some chilling underpinnings to the story. In an effort to make sure that Jack doesn’t “bleed” into her portion, Jill — in concert with her anti-feminist mother — has ruthlessly excised any aspect of her life or personality that may be viewed as “unfeminine.” Stuff like sports. Yeah, you read that right. Scary.

I was regularly reminded of the activities in those “scared straight” camps, where the instructors are under the delusion that men who act like men and women who act like women are no longer homosexual, as if forcing traditional gender roles will have an impact on sexual orientation? If Jill acts “like a girl” will the boy inside her disappear? As the first in a series. many of these question are not fully answered by the end of the book.

As my books regular deal with issues of the intersection of feminism, femininity, and cultural expectations of the same, I was fascinated by this exploration. (More on that when I talk about RAMPANT. RIght now we talk about CYCLER.)

It’s a great book for discussion, and we definitely had a lot in my living room after we finished!

Read more about Cycler and the story behind it on Scott Westerfeld’s blog, and at John Scalzi’s Whatever, and leave your comment here to be entered into the giveaway.

The internets are abuzz with conversations about YA:

At Publisher’s Weekly, a panel of YA authors, booksellers, agents, etc., discuss what makes a YA a YA, and why there is such a stigma about it. National Book Award winner Sherman Alexie says:

“I thought I’d been condescended to because I’m an Indian,” he said. “That was nothing compared to the condescension I get because I’ve written a YA novel.” He said that fellow writers have also accused him of chasing a lucrative market. “Because I’ve written a book about a 16-year-old,” he said, “that means I’m a capitalistic whore.”

At Print Magazine, there’s an article about how to package at market YA throughout the ages.

That means that any clues that the cover isn’t current, whether it’s a highly graphic rendering (so early ’80s!), an outdated star (like Courteney Cox and Lori Loughlin, who modeled for the Sweet Dreams romance covers ), or a wispy romantic typeface (so ’70s dime-store romance!), can hurt the book’s chances with prospective readers. “If someone is an unconventional beauty—or even not white—that’s usually a more contemporary novel, clearly different from the conventional homecoming queen and Ken doll boy who might be on the cover of an older book, which kids will see as out of date,” Pattee says. “But ultimately, it has more to do with what they’re wearing. If the cover looks lame, then it’s all over.”

I didn’t know that about Courtney Cox and the Sweet Dreams books. (However, I do know that Marley Gibson, who was obsessed with SD as a child and spent all weekend talking about how much her love of those novels are to account for her current foray into YA, will be excited to hear it!)

The fashion element is an interesting one to me. One fashion-savvy writer I know was able to discern very quickly that the cover of her YA novel had a dated look. I didn’t even know what she was talking about. (She managed to get it updated to something more in the moment or timeless.)

But then again, sometimes they make inaccurate choices in cover fashions to make a point. I’ve received responses to my books where the reader was definitely judging the character based on the cover clothing. (The term “prep school girl” comes up a lot.) Amy, who never attended prep school, would never wear the outfit she wears on the cover of the first two books. She’s strictly a jeans and t-shirt kind of girl. Still, the preppy look is also a popular one at the moment, and for some strange reason, it indicates “ivy league school” to people. (The only people I ever saw dress like that at Yale were the ones channeling affectations worthy of Tom Wolfe. There was one guy who wore a straw hat and a raccoon coat, too, but it certainly wasn’t the style!)

But since I don’t get to stand there every time someone picks up a copy of my book and explain that to them, they need an image that will capture the feeling of the novel. And they do — Amy looks strong and independent on both covers, the bright colors indicate that it’s going to be a light story, and the outfit indicates that it’s set at an elite school. Both of the foreign markets who have published the book to date have used the same image.

I was really pleased, when I saw the cover of the most recent novel, that Amy was in a bathing suit and board short combo she’d actually wear. It’s definitely my favorite cover to date!

Back to YA: Cory Doctorow, who just released a YA novel, is discussing the phenomenon of adults not daring to venture in the YA section. Apparently, Doctorow has noticed that people wanting to buy his new book Little Brother are walking out of the bookstore empty handed, because it’s not in the adult science fiction section with the rest of his books.

I feel your pain, dude. My books are in the adult section, though they are much beloved by teens, and I am constantly hearing from writers (just writers who know me online and for some reason think my YA books are already out) who can’t find my book in the YA section. To wit: the Secret Society Girl books are adult novels. They have been published by an adult publisher and are shelved in the adult section. They are not YA novels, have never been YA novels, were not written to be YA novels. When the first book made it into the NYPL Books for the Teen Age list, it was under the sub category of “adult novels appropriate for teens.” I think teens would love them (I know a lot of teens that do), and fortunately, you’re more likely to see a teen venturing out of the YA section than an adult venturing in.

And I know why this is. It’s hard enough for an adult to bear the stigma of reading for fun (oh, the horrors!). Imagine the stigma of reading a teen book for fun! We live in a society where the prevailing attitude is that it’s okay to go see a romantic comedy, or to watch Grey’s Anatomy, but to read a romance or chick lit novel is supposedly akin to opening up your skull and pouring acid on your brain. Why entertainment is cool if it’s images on a screen but akin to treason if it’s text on a page is beyond me.

A year ago, I was in my local chain bookstore and witnessed employees ridiculing a grown woman to her face for browsing the YA shelves. Multiple employees. My sense of righteous indignation got the better of me on that occasion, I have to be honest. I’m not saying that a bookstore employee needs to love every book in a store. I am saying that they need to not dress down a customer for attempting to put money in their pockets. I am saying that the correct answer to, “Do you have XYZ YA novel?” is not

a) “What do you want with that?”
b) “Take ABC instead, they are all the same, right?” (please note that she was not looking for a packaged Gossip Girl book, but instead an award winning YA novel)
c) To roll your eyes, turn to the employee next to you and say, “Why they think I’d know anything about kids books is beyond me.” Commence snickering.

And when another book buyer approaches you, wondering why she can’t find Holly Black’s masterful VALIANT, under the author-B section, do not speak to her as if she is somehow mentally disabled, do not point out that B is between A and C, and, most of all, do not explain to her (slowly, using tiny words and short sentences) that your YA section is separated into “fantasy” and “realistic” while pointing at the supposedly “realistic” author A-C section which includes, among other things, Libba Bray’s Rebel Angels and M. T. Anderson’s Feed.

Especially not if said book buyer is me. Turns out the browsing woman was a school librarian.

To make a long story short, Doctorow posits that the most interesting stuff happening in science fiction today is happening on the YA shelves, and if you don’t go there, you’re totally missing out. John Scalzi, who is like me a huge Scott Westerfeld fan, and who also like me has a teen friendly book coming out from an adult publisher, backs Doctorow up on this position.

So, to sum up, what are the big issues facing both readers and writers today:

1) The tyranny of stigma, whether it be the stigma of genre or market.
2) The tyranny of judging books by covers.
3) The tyranny of shelving bias.
4) The tyranny of people who don’t think reading should be fun.

Fight tyranny! Go to a new section! Ignore what it says on the spine or the cover of a book! Read something for pure fun! Read YA. Read adult. Read anything! Read read read! Viva la Revolucion!

The final winner of THE REMAINS OF THE DEAD Giveaway is: Celeste!

Sailor Boy and I spent some time yesterday doing life maintenance, which we’d been neglecting a bit since we got married (Hey! Honeymoon!) We spent a lot of time on the phone with various and sundry representatives of businesses. The words “wife” and “husband” were thrown around indiscriminately. We also wrote some thank you notes.

We also saw The Golden Compass. My opinion was a solid B+, though I’m torn. I don’t think that books should be precisely like movies, but I do think that the changes that are made should benefit the movie. I thought all the changes in Lord of the Rings, for example, were a great benefit to the movie — it was awesome in all the places that the books kind of sucked. I’m not sure how I feel about the changes in the film.

Still, I enjoyed it. I thought it was fast-paced, did a very good job of explaining what was an extremely complex set-up, looked perfect, and was acted extraordinarily. The girl playing Lyra did a pretty good job — there were only a few weak scenes, which is great for an actor her age, and Nicole Kidman brought the house down as Mrs. Coulter. The ‘gyptians and Lee Scoresby were great as well!

SPOILERS START HERE: (scroll over to see)

Certainly, the role of Billy Costa changed dramatically, and that one was a good change, I thought, because it added more drama to that whole section. Unfortunately, I think they whitewashed the infamous “Ratter, Ratter” scene, which remains, in my mind, as one of the scariest scenes I’ve ever read in any piece of literature ever ever ever (I can’t even think about it without crying). I understand that they were trying to make a children’s movie, though, and they couldn’t have presented it as they did in the film, or you know, the kids would be screaming in the aisles. But it does detract somewhat from the power of the Bolvanger scenes (especially when Lyra is captured). Also detracting from that plotline is the fact that they cut the scene early on where Pan tries to walk away from Lyra, though I suppose the scene where Mrs. Coulter smacks her daemon makes up for that. Plus, I odn’t htink they made it clear that the Bolvanger residents had been “inoculated” — or, as they call them later, “zombis.” And then — the ending. Wow, what was up with that ending? I suppose again, they couldn’t have ended it as the books did — we must think of the children! — but it made the ending feel very abrupt, and filled with, IMO, false hope. Unless they are going to change everything. Oh, and I was so sad that Hester didn’t have golden eyes.

SPOILERS END HERE

Scott Westerfeld, who edited The World of the Golden Compass Anthology I’m in, went to a panel at the Boston premiere. It was run by the Religious Studies dept. at Boston University, and he blogs about the experience here. Scott’s comments trails always include a bunch of his young readers, and every time I’ve seen him post about our anthology, I’ve been surprised by the number of commenters who have proclaimed that they are not allowed to read the books or watch the movie because their parents “heard” that in the His Dark Materials books, Lyra “kills God.”

In his latest post, Scott actually confronts that rumor directly:

We also discussed the bogus controversy around the series and movie, especially the persistent disinformation campaign that claims the protags of HDM “kill God” in the third book. (As those of you who’ve read it know, the Authority is an impostor posing as god, and Lyra and Will don’t actually kill him. Ah, if only the people who love to ban books would, like, learn to read books. Think of all the effort they’d save.)

I think that’s one interpretation. My interpretation of the character of the Authority is that he was one angel who held a coup of sorts, then styled himself a god when he won. And then there were further coups and blah blah blah and by the time of the book, the Authority is not so much the one in charge anymore anyway. And no, Lyra and Will don’t kill him, nor is that their purpose, ever, in the books. She has one purpose, and that’s to save Roger.

But I don’t see why, even if that were the purpose of the books, that it should be something for religious types to get up in arms about, no more than they should be getting up in arms about the latest edition of Edith Hamilton, which also presents gods who are acting in manners totally unlike those the religious types believe in. It’s fiction, people. And some of the characters in this fiction style themselves as gods. I’m a person of faith, and I wasn’t at all offended by the theology presented in the novel. NOVEL.

What the books are really about (and what I think the movie did a great job of explaining) is the fight for free will, which of course is a huge topic of debate among the various tenets of Christianity (and religion in general), but I think Catholics are on the pro side. Pullman is clearly pro free will as well. (One of my favorite scenes in the series is when the mulefa tells Mary Malone the version of the creation myth that exists in her universe. There, the acquisition of knowledge is not presented as “the fall of man” but rather as a true positive — for more on that, read my essay.)

I wonder if the people interested in banning the movie would have gotten farther by presenting it that way. Probably not. It’s much more sensational to say that the books are about “killing God” — not true — than that they are about the evils of religious totalitarianism and the battle for free will. In this country, people tend to be against religious totalitarianism, so not a lot of fans there. However, there are some sects that have a lot of folowers here that lean more towards the anti-free will side of the equation. Hmmmm….

In this interview on MSNBC, Pullman talks about how the religious aspects of the book are an exploration of the fact that both good and bad things have been done in the name of religion — the Magisterium is an example of religious totalitarianism. Religious totalitarianism = bad. I can’t speak for Pullman’s personal beliefs (and I don’t think they much matter), but I can speak for what is in the books. In fact, I had the books originally recommended to me by a woman who was a devout Christian.

But I think the real problem here is what Scott said — that the people who are joining in on the boycott don’t know anything more about the books or movies than what they’ve “heard” in the disinformation campaign. And they probably aren’t interested in informing themselves. Some of the comments in his post bear this out. It’s a shame that people would rather believe some bit of disinformation they heard from others who haven’t read the books than either listening to an expert (hey, he edited a whole book on the series!) or better yet, to read for themselves and make their own judgment.

So about a dozen people found their way to my blog yesterday by searching under “Azkadelia.” Is there something I should know?

Yesterday’s Winner of The Remains of the Dead: Christine! Christine, email me your address.

And to the rest of you, there are still more chances to win. Just leave your name in the comments section of this post for tomorrow’s drawing.

Some interesting blogs up elsewhere:
* Donald Maass interviews with Writer Unboxed.
*Associate Editor Jessica Wade of Roc/Ace guests on the Penguin blog.
* Erica Ridley talks about writing funks and escape from same on Manuscript Mavens
* Colleen Gleason has her hot new cover and is running a “Pay it Forward” contest
* The always-enlightening Allison Brennan talks about pacing on Murder She Writes
* Robin Brande reveals a few of her adolescent foibles (you honestly couldn’t pay me enough, though my mom has been holding onto my juvenilia for years for blackmail material)
* Scott’s hoverboard derring-do is fabulous and notable, as per usual.

Also, I watched the end of this “volume” of Heroes. About what I expected, given the disjointedness of the season thus far. Come on, guys, pull it together. Peter’s pissing me off big time, I must say. I also saw the end of Tin Man (I’m seeing more Azkadelia Googling coming on, but for the record, I have no idea what names her tattoos had, except for Zorah the flying monkey.) It felt kind of “unfinished” to me. Where was the epilogue where we either saw her back in Kansas, or on the throne, or whatever it was? Also, I was a bit disappointed that the one time we actually witness Zooey Deschanel emoting, it was in soft-focused buried-alive darkness? I loved loved loved watching her on Weeds. She was, IMO, the only reason to watch the show that season. But I think she’s better as a character actor than as a hero. Playing a crazed sociopath fits her strengths better, because there her blank face made her even creepier.

Finally, in my browsing yesterday (I was reading the reviews of both of the above on EW.com), I came across a list entitled: Keira Knightley: Her Memorable Roles. Which, as far as I could tell, was all of them. Okay, not fair, since according to IMDB, she’s been a part of 19 non-TV/TV movie/video game roles, and there were only 12 films on the list. But when you have to use each of the “Pirate” movies as a separate role and then tack on both Domino, which, as far as I can tell, was seen by approximately five people, and that time she played Natalie Portman’s body double (okay, that was memorable, if only because I didn’t realize it wasn’t also played by Natalie Portman, and then when I saw the first Pirate movie I was like, this chick looks a lot like Natalie Portman!)… I don’t know if the girl’s reached that point in her career. Just sayin’.

It’s supposed to snow today. I must prepare…