If you live in or near Chicago and are 21 years of age or older, you should strongly consider coming to The Hideout TOMORROW, which is Tuesday August 1st, to see Funny Ha Ha, Claire Zulkey's fantastic reading series. I will be reading. The show starts at seven. It's at the Hideout. (I think I am going to read the oft-maligned blow job scene from Alaska, but I am still undecided.)

And now, your questions answered:

Q. Will there be copies of Alaska for sale at this event?
A. Yes, thanks to the fabulous Book Cellar.

Q. Is this event free?
A. There's a five dollar suggested donation. It goes to support some kind of charity. I mean, a good charity.

Q. Are there bad charities?
A. Well, I don't like to talk politics in this blog, but yes.

Q. Will you sign my copy of Looking for Alaska at this event?
A. Yes. My rule is that I will sign anything anywhere for anyone, except bare skin. I used to say that I would happily sign bare skin, but A. I am a married man, and B. no one ever wanted me to sign their bare skin, and it got kind of depressing.

...will be announced shortly. They would be announced right now, except that there were a few more entries than I expected. Specifically, I expected around four, and I got more than 100. Also, many of them are extraordinarily good.

In the meantime, let us enjoy great recent jokes from comments:

Dean, having looked at the IMDB message boards about the Looking for Alaska movie, writes: "Last I checked, though, I believe the consensus picks were: Shannon Elizabeth as Alaska, Bruce Willis as Miles, President Palmer as Takumi, and Dakota Fanning as the Colonel. I agree that these are all perfect, but I'm on the fence about having the Weekday Warriors played by snakes on a plane."

n.b.: That's the last funny snakes on a plane joke ever.

Also, John argues that the movie should be set on "the planet Naboo. All the weekday Warriors could be played by Gungans."

Any other suggestions? I'll be sure to pass them along.

Before we get to the day's proper blogging, My dear friend Dean has recently taken a break from constantly complaining that I don't link to his web site often enough to begin improving this Web site in various ways. For instance, I now apparently have an RSS and/or Atom feed, whatever those are. More exciting improvements forthcoming.

Also: Tuesday is the last day for you to enter the Contest Contest, wherein the person who suggests the best idea for a Contest to give away copies of "An Abundance of Katherines" will themselves win a free autographed advanced copy of "An Abundance of Katherines"

But about that movie: Lately I have gotten a lot of questions about the "Looking for Alaska" movie, and so I thought I would answer some.

Q. Is "Looking for Alaska" being made into a movie?
A. That depends on what your definition of is is. About a year ago, the movie rights for "Alaska" were sold to Paramount, with Josh Schwartz (who created The O.C.) agreeing to write and direct the movie. The producers are also really great. Things are moving forward, but it will be quite a while before a movie starts shooting, so don't start standing in line outside your local theater just quite yet. (Incidentally, did you know that famous author Cecil Castellucci stood in line for like four months for Star Wars: Episode I?)

Q. How do you feel about the idea of "Alaska" being a movie?
A. Good. I think Josh is a very good writer, which helps keep me from worrying. But regardless, you can't worry too much about these things. To me, a book and the movie it is "based" on are only tangentially related. I've never been worried about the movie being an accurate adaptation of the book--partly because I'd rather have the movie be good than faithful, and partly because I don't think it's possible to make an adaptation that's "true" to a book. There's no way Alaska will look on screen like she looks in your head, is what I'm saying. And that's okay.

Q. Who is going to play Alaska? Pudge? Takumi? Do you think they'll cast the movie with people from The O.C.? Will Mischa Barton play Alaska? Etc.
A. I have no idea who will play anyone, but I rather doubt the cast of The O.C. will be featured in "Alaska."

Q. Have you met Josh Schwartz?
A. I have.

Q. Is he really really hot?
A. He's a nicely put together fellow.

Q. Is he hotter than Seth Cohen? Does he look like Seth Cohen?
A. Let's talk about issues of substance. (Also, this is not really one of my areas of expertise.)

Q. Will there be any open casting calls?
A. I don't know. But if there are, I will certainly let you know via this very blog.

Q. Do you know what's going to happen next year on The O.C.?
A. No. Honestly I don't even know exactly what happened this year on The OC, because we're always busy on Thursdays and so I wait for the DVDs to come out.

Q. Marissa dies.
A. Thanks, jerkface.

Q. Everyone says that Hollywood is dirty and horrible. Do you agree?
A. I don't know. It has its dirty and horrible parts. And I would never move there on account of how it seems to work out poorly for people in my family. But some of the writers I like the most live and work in Hollywood, and through the "Alaska" movie project I've met some people who I really admire. My experience has been very, very positive.

Q. So far.
A. Right. So far. You're quite pessimistic, aren't you?

Q. It's my nature.
A. Fair enough. Any other questions?

Q. I think that's it.
A. Okay. Well if anyone else has any questions, they should feel free to leave them in comments.

I got married two months ago today, and to celebrate the fact that my marriage has now officially lasted longer than the union of Ethel Merman and Ernest Borgnine (32 days), I thought I would try to re-create our wedding photographically.

Now generally--and I know this from experience--when people show you wedding pictures, they show you 11,426 pictures. It's not so much a photo album that these people share with you; it's a four-hour long stop-action animation. Now believe me, we have 11,426 wedding pictures. But I'm going to try to tell the story of our entire wedding in two photographs.

First, we posed for about eleven hours:



[n.b.: I probably don't have to point this out assuming you have eyes and aren't an idiot, but Sarah is clearly the most beautiful bride in human history.]

And then I put to rest any lingering doubts my lovely bride might have had by proving myself to be an erudite, sophisticated, and mature young man:

It recently occurred to me that some of you may not be googling the phrase "An Abundance of Katherines" every 37 minutes, and that I might should bring you up to date on what the Internets are saying about my new book.

But first, some news from the print world: "Katherines" has received a starred review (which is good; it's like remember in third grade when the best fingerpaintings got stars put on them? It's like that) from Booklist. Incidentally, you should read the Booklist Blog. It's great.

But back to the Internet: I should warn you in advance that many of these reviews/comments contain "spoilers," which is to say that they tell you a little bit about what Katherines is about, and maybe a little bit about what happens. But fear not. I will give you a good sense of the degree of spoileration in each review. I'm including every review indexed on google, positive or negative, with the most recent first:

Bookshelves of Doom
Gist of Review: "As much as I loved and appreciated Looking for Alaska, I enjoyed Katherines more." So that's good.
Spoiler Level: Very low. Nothing is revealed that happens after page 25.

Barbara Gordon
Gist of Review: "A funnier, more experimental book than Alaska."
Spoiler Level: Moderate. There may be a few things you'd rather not know, but nothing terribly important is given away.

Gwendabond [Scroll down to #29.]
Gist of Review: "Such great fun and beautifully done."
Spoiler Level: Zero, although she promises a "full review" closer to the pub date, which could be spoilerific.

Little Willow
Gist of Review: "Fans of John Green's Printz Award-winning novel Looking for Alaska will not be disappointed by his sophomore effort. Though the stories themselves are vastly different, with Abundance being much lighter in tone than Alaska, both novels boast intelligent writing and memorable characters."
Spoiler Alert: Pretty low, considering how long and thoughtful (and nicely written, I think, although obviously I am biased because the review made me happy) it is.

Zubon Book Reviews
Gist of Review: How does one follow up winning the Printz Award on his first novel? How about writing another one that could win it the next year?" [nota bene: *EDIT*I meant to say The Book Thief WILL win the Printz Award this year. In a landslide. As it ought to.]
Spoiler Level: HIGH. But it's a great read after you've read the book.

Pinky's Paperhaus
Gist of Review: "I thought it was great."
Spoiler Level: Slightly high, considering the whole review is about thirty words.

Propernoun.net
Gist of Review: "I can't imagine a better follow-up to Looking for Alaska."
Spoiler Level: Moderate, but lower than the average print review. It does reveal that the book has an appendix, but hey, I just revealed that, too.

Llew's Reviews
Gist of Review: "Overall, it's a highly amusing teen book and had me in stitches. It's no great work of literature, nor is it as emotionally strong as Looking For Alaska."
Spoiler Level: Quite low, although the reviewer does reveal--spoiler alert!!!--that I'm "not an uggo." Nice!

Cedar Librarian (scroll down to #5)
Gist of Review: "Overall, not a bad book, and definitely a great addition to the "literary" genre of teen books, but nowhere near the Printz (but then again, I personally didn't much care for Looking for Alaksa, either)."
Spoiler Level: High, and I'm not just saying that because the reviewer and I have a profound disagreement about what constitutes dialogue.

My friend Dean
Gist of Review: "Good times." [It should be noted for the record, however, that Dean has not technically read the book.]
Spoiler Level: Low.

So basically, the reviews have largely been good. Which I can only assume means that all the reviewers who hated it just haven't gotten around to writing about it.

Ladies and gentlemen, I can now post links in my blog again. Thank you, Chris Higgins, and thank you, Firefox.

A few weeks ago, I promised that "tomorrow" I would post something about unusual German words. That promise, like almost all blog-related promises I have ever made in my entire life, was not kept. And I'm sorry for that, although since neither of my parents mentioned it, and since they are my primary blog readers, I don't think it tore anybody up too much.

But anyway, An Abundance of Katherines (see I can ever do italics!) is about this 17-year-old washed-up child prodigy named Colin Singleton. Colin is extremely good at anagramming (he could tell you in pretty short order, for instance, that Britney Spears' name anagrams to Presbyterians). And he's also pretty good at languages. He speaks 11 fluently, including German.

Colin and his best friend frequently use what was until recently my favorite German word, which is sitzpinkler. Sitzpinkler literally means "a man who sits to pee," and in Germany, it is slang for wimp. It should also, clearly, be slang for wimp in America. So you should really get on that, youth of America.

But ever since I watched the finals of the Scripps-Howard Spelling Bee with the incomparably brilliant Lindsay Robertson, I've had a new favorite German word: Weltschmerz. Weltschmerz, which adorably Canadian Finola Hackett misspelled on her way to finishing runner-up, means the depression that results from comparing the actual world to the world as it ought to be.

For instance, when I think about certain American Presidents, I feel the weltschmerz. Or when I think about Britney Spears' enduring fame.


p.s. The contest continues.

I'm in Fairview, North Carolina, spending the week with my parents and working hard on my new novel, tentatively titled I DO NOT HAVE A TITLE FOR THIS BOOK SO IF YOU KNOW OF ANY GOOD BOOK TITLES FEEL FREE TO SHARE THEM WITH ME. (I like this title, but I worry that it might be a little long to fit on the book jacket.)

The writing is going reasonably well, at any rate. This is my favorite place to write in the world; I wrote a lot of AN ABUNDANCE OF KATHERINES here, and much of Alaska was written in a different house, not far away. Why is North Carolina so good for writing? I don't know, but it works for Sarah Dessen. Speaking of Ms. Dessen, her new book is good. If you are among the eight Americans who do not yet own it, you should go out and get yourself a copy.

(You will note that there have been several excellent opportunities for hyperlinks so far on this web page, but I still have not quite mastered the art of hyperlinking and/or italicizing on my new MacBook. I really love this computer's ability to, for instance, let me take pictures of myself making funny faces. But if I could learn how to italicize stuff, that would also be fantastic.)

Readers who have had the perseverance to get this far into the blog post should know a few things:

1. I will be reading in Chicago on August 1st (as that tiny poster tells you. More info forthcoming).

2. Even before then, I will be reading at the Fairview Public Library in Fairview, North Carolina tomorrow at 7 PM.

3. I am going to give away some advanced readers' copies of "An Abundance of Katherines" as a contest. But what should the contest be? Should it be the person who emails me with the funniest chicken crossing the road joke? Should it be the person who comes up with the best anagram of their own name? (Katherines has a lot of anagrams, but--I promise--no chicken-crossing-the-road jokes). Okay, how's this:

The person who gives me the best idea for a Contest to give away galleys of "An Abundance of Katherines" will, him/herself, receive a copy of An Abundance of Katherines. It's so meta!*





*Katherines also has a lot of footnotes, so you might want to use that. Anyway, this contest will be open for a week. You can leave a comment here or email me at soundnfury *at* yahoo.com. And I know that my email address is kinda lame, but in my defense I came up with it 10 years ago and so now I have a sentimental attachment. Okay. That is all.

My friend E. Lockhart has just created a fascinating and hilarious quiz entitled, "What Teen Angst Novel Are You?" One of the possibilities is Looking for Alaska.

I took the quiz, and I--this is a pretty stunning result--am Alaska. But more importantly: What are you?

It's such a wonder that I think I'll stay in bed, as Rufus Wainwright put it.

I'm in L.A. this weekend, for a wedding and a little bit of work-related stuff. California is one of those places, like Neverland, that sound great in theory but then in practice is a bit wearisome.

Anyway, the hotel we're staying at has a tennis court, which gave the lovely Mrs. Sarah Urist Green the opportunity to beat me silly. When Sarah and I play tennis, she is the United States and I am Grenada: Our conflict is brief, largely bloodless, and an unadulterated rout. The problem, basically, is that I am not any good at the parts of tennis where you have to run around and hit a ball over a net. Now, I don't want to sound immodest, but I am extraordinarily good at some facets of tennis, such as A. the part where you get mad and throw your racket around, and B. the part where you pretend to be John McEnroe and loudly insist that a ball was in even though it was clearly and inarguably out. But I'm wretched at the sports part of tennis; in fact, I'm wretched at the sports part of all sports. Fortunately, my wife is a patient opponent and a gracious winner.

Okay, so I will now close with three questions:

First, is there a single librarian among the 18,000 people who attended the ALA's annual conference in New Orleans to whom I did not give the flu? Seemingly there is not. By the way, I would like to publicly apologize to Justine Larbalestier.

Second, does anyone know why ever since I got my fancy new Mac, I don't have a button to hyperlink in blogger? I don't like the idea of blogging without hyperlinking; it seems to me like playing air guitar.

Third, and this is from the excellent new novel KING DORK: Is or is not "Tennis with Guitars" the greatest name for a hypothetical rock band in human history?