Romance novelists, that is.
First we have Sylvie Fox and oopsy babies (please note that the article writer mentions that she drew us in with a misleading title, a sneaky tactic I applaud). Sylvie says she used to avoid reading romances that had babies on the covers because the whole unplanned pregnancy motif did not seem romantic to her ~ as opposed to say getting kidnapped by a rogue who mistakes you for the earl’s daughter (not that the two things are necessarily mutually exclusive, of course) ~ but changed her mind after discovering that half the country exists due to oops. I’m still not sure how that follows. If half of Americans do X, then it’s romantic? Whatever.
In any event, Sylvie decided to write her own oopsy baby romance, calling it In The Nick of Time, which reminds me of The Great Gatsby. (You had to be there.) Anyway, whatever inspires you to write a novel to completion is a Good Thing, so yay for research.
If anyone cares, none of my romances have any oopsy babies. Yet. I never rule out a device for the future. I don’t find the OB theme particularly compelling either, but there are always exceptions. Kathleen Woodiwiss’ The Flame and the Flower was an OB and one of the hottest romances I ever read (also one of the first, so I have a special fondness for it). I see that people reviewing it now are judging it against current standards, which is unfair. Ms. Woodiwiss should be applauded for paving the way for future romance novelists, not criticized for having a “rape scene.” What is wrong with people, argh!
Second is an interesting interview with writer Desiree Holt. I found the whole article very personally inspiring. I may submit something to Ellora’s Cave, even though they require the dreaded story synopsis. I love that Ms. Holt is writing erotica at age 76!