Today I went to Westerblog (Scott Westerfeld's blog) again, to get the info on that issue of Locus that I wanted (and now have). I couldn't help but notice that he has a post on whether or not Uglies is a girl book. Evidently he's been getting some e-mails and comments that have raised questions about how people perceive the book.
I won't presume to try to answer that question. Nor will I raise the question of whether or not it is bad to be a girl book. I do want to say, though, that I am still trying to get over my "wealthy-girls-gone-bad" book experience, and those things are definitely, definitely girl books. (I cannot tell you how many girls got their periods in the last one I read. I'm not even a guy, and I thought that got old really fast.) If Uglies is a girl book, it is so much better than the "wealthy-girl-etc.-etc."
There wasn't any product placement in Uglies, either. The book takes place in a future without Prada and Coach. Hey, maybe it's a Utopian novel after all.
Speaking of girlie things, I was directed to Meg's Diary by someone at child_lit. The first time I went to Meg Cabot's diary a few months back I found it bizarrely girlie, considering it was the work of a grown woman. Relentlessly pink.
However, Meg has a very good post called True Story that relates to the Viswanathan blow-up. Even with all the talk of princesses, it is good, dealing with the fact that you can't draw a good princess--or, presumably, write a good book--by taking short cuts.