Today, I'd like to discuss the baby epilogue. As long time readers of romance know, the babylogue was at one time ubiquitous. You couldn't read a romance without a two-three page ending, detailing the happy couple's joy at the birth of their baby. Both parents, beaming proudly at their offspring, while assuring each other of their undying love, fade to black.
I haven't seen as many babylogues lately. They seem have become passe in many respects. And truthfully, alot of them had a tacked-on, cliched feeling to them. Leaving aside the fact that any parent knows a baby is the death of romance (at least for a little while!) the babylogue was often formulaic, more there because readers expected it, not necessarily because it was the right thing for the characters.
So babylogues seem to be going the way of the dodo bird. And I don't like it.
I know all the problems with the babylogue, but I miss it all the same. There was a satisfaction in knowing the characters would continue to grow " beyond the story" and even though parents know romance can be difficult with small children, children can cement a relationship, and help in time, make the marriage stronger. And quite frankly, to have a historical romance wherein the possibility of children is not mentioned at all, is just plain ahistorical.
I am wondering if there is a deeper meaning behind the death of the babylogue. Is it because readers have grown tired of the formula? Is it because the majority of people are annoyed by the idea that there must inevitably BE a child? Or is this the triumph of romance above all: "We're so happy we don't need no stnkin' baby. We are the end all and be all of each other!"
So why has the babylogue ceased to be ubiquitous?
I haven't seen as many babylogues lately. They seem have become passe in many respects. And truthfully, alot of them had a tacked-on, cliched feeling to them. Leaving aside the fact that any parent knows a baby is the death of romance (at least for a little while!) the babylogue was often formulaic, more there because readers expected it, not necessarily because it was the right thing for the characters.
So babylogues seem to be going the way of the dodo bird. And I don't like it.
I know all the problems with the babylogue, but I miss it all the same. There was a satisfaction in knowing the characters would continue to grow " beyond the story" and even though parents know romance can be difficult with small children, children can cement a relationship, and help in time, make the marriage stronger. And quite frankly, to have a historical romance wherein the possibility of children is not mentioned at all, is just plain ahistorical.
I am wondering if there is a deeper meaning behind the death of the babylogue. Is it because readers have grown tired of the formula? Is it because the majority of people are annoyed by the idea that there must inevitably BE a child? Or is this the triumph of romance above all: "We're so happy we don't need no stnkin' baby. We are the end all and be all of each other!"
So why has the babylogue ceased to be ubiquitous?
No comments:
Post a Comment