Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

The heroine of Julie Garwood’s Killjoy can’t have children. No wang on earth is going to change that for them. Also Miranda and Bishop from Kay Hooper’s FBI series don’t have kids in their future - both of them are more focused on each other and their careers.

single72 - I hope not!

There’s one historical I thought was fairly unique in that the HEA didn’t include settling down with children in domestic bliss.  It’s called “The Duchess” by Jude Deveraux. It was written in 1991. 

Also, the afore mentioned “Bet Me” is definitely a good choice. 

I can’t think of any romance novels that deal with infertility in the way that Reader C would like.

Oh, I forgot! It’s YA, but Rose and Dimitri of the Vampire Academy series don’t want/can’t have kids. (Definitely recommend these books. Not a single emo vampire in sight!)

One of Shelly Laurenston’s shape-shifting couples, I think in Pack Challenge, were pretty clear that they had no interest in breeding.

Anybody but You by Jennifer Crusie. The heroine is 40 years old and makes it very clear that she is not interested in having children. The fact the hero’s father objects to her being out of her baby-making years is really the only mention.

I was gonna say Lord Perfect by Loretta Chase, but remembered there’s a hint of probable curage of the infertility problem in the epilogue. It’s pretty minor though, and an awfully good book.

I sympathize with the problem, having been infertile myself… the world really does slap you in the face a lot and romance novels probably more than just about anything else.

In Robin D Owens’ Amee series the author indicates that the heroines are very unlikely to have children; “Exotiques” - persons transported there from Earth - practically never do. The only one of them that doesn’t have a problem with this is the heroine in _Protector of the Flight_. She was already sterile due to an accident when she was transported to Amee - and she adopts two children.

I have my first older woman/younger man book coming out next week (okay, I know, but it’s relevant) and it’s nice to get away from this theme. In my story, and in many “cougar” romances, the woman has been through the biological clock period and children are either grown up and gone or there aren’t any.

When I read the Harlequins where pregnancy and babies are a central part of the story, sometimes it makes me wonder if the couple really have a chance. Babies are a real strain on a relationship, so it’s a good idea to have a stable base before bringing a baby into the world. And they aren’t accessories, they really aren’t.

A lot of historical romances depend on the wife being fertile. I did write one where I tried to turn it on its head, but having plugged one book here, I won’t do another! But many marriages were contracted with the express reason of providing heirs. I’d like to see a book where fertility is a problem, or not, and the couple love each other anyway. There are so many areas to explore in this area, and kudos to the books that do.

One of my favorite Susan Elizabeth Philips’ books, “Nobody’s Baby But Mine” has a professor who wants the perfect father for her child, and of course it all goes wrong, and right. There is a problem that turns up fairly early on, and it was good to see it treated so well.

Chiming in with a plug for my first book, Lady X’s Cowboy.  I don’t want to spoil the ending, but suffice it to say that the heroine’s infertility is not resolved by the power of the hero’s magnificent wang, nor does her inability to have children alter their HEA.

I’d recommend Robin Owens’ Celta series (which is fantasy/sf romance, and focused on the lovers getting together, not building families), esp. #4 _HeartChoice_, where the heroine is incurably infertile. Also, there was one part in the Mordecai Young-trilogy by Maggie Shayne where the heroine couldn’t have any more kids because of something the hero did, and they had to work this out.

There are a lot of paranormal or fantasy romances out there that would fit, IMO. Angela Knight’s (immortal) couples in the Mageverse series usually don’t have kids. Alexis Morgan’s Paladins and Lynn Viehls Darkyn maybe, too?

Another good source is this site on AAR:
http://www.likesbooks.com/childless.html

Simply Magic, by Carole Buck; the heroine can’t have children.

Miss Emmaline and the Archangel by Rachel Lee

None of Jayne Castle’s Harmony books have babies in them.

Nora Roberts has made it clear that baby = end of series for Eve and Roarke. The link is http://www.noraroberts.com/aboutnora/faqs.html Altho.ugh not strictly romance novels, the In Death series is very much about this relationship and the family of friends they create.

The second epilogue of Julia Quinn’s When He Was Wicked deals with infertility. It’s a good story.
But

I came to romance through paranormals and urban fantasy.  I didn’t realize the must-make/have-baby-by-ending thing was so prevalent until I read some historicals and contemporaries.  I remember a distinct “Huh, WTF?” feeling about it.  I still don’t get the need for the baby=HEA.  So try some of the paranormal romances - usually having a baby by the end (or in an epilogue…grrr) is just not an issue at all.  Either the HEA doesn’t rely on babies or because of the paranormal-ish of one of the characters breeding isn’t a possibility.

If you like paranormal romance, Jeaniene Frost’s Night Huntress series (Cat & Bones) is 4 books in so far, and no problem with the fact that there will be no offspring (vampires are sterile shortly after turning).  My guess is that it will stay that way, just from things that I’ve picked up from the author’s background info., but one never knows.  It seems that the pnr’s that feature vamps tend to NOT discuss procreation, whereas the shifter/were themes often DO discuss….. well, litters and pups, and such.

As a recovering infertile, I appreciated how infertility was handled in “Best Friends Forever” by Jennifer Weiner—although kids were involved.  More “chick lit” than romance, I suppose.  Same with “Just Breathe” by Susan Wiggs.

Well, they aren’t properly romances at all—indeed, they are mysteries with a little romance on the side—but Charlaine Harris’ Lily Bard books (Shakespeare’s Landlord, etc etc) deal with a heroine who has fertility issues.  They are solid books and especially the fifth book, Shakespeare’s Counselor, makes the infertility issue one of the main topics.  Her happy ending really has nothing to do with having children in her life.  I don’t want to give away a bunch of spoilers. There are 5 books in the series, and they are quick reads.  If you like a little mystery with some romance, I recommend them.

P.C. Cast’s books almost never have a pregnancy.  Her books usually involve some soul/body switching, so the emphasis is on the union of soulmates; if the soulmates end up together, who cares if they have kids afterwards.

I don’t remember if it ends in pregnancy, but you might like Charming the Prince by Teresa Medieros.  The lord has a LOT of kids (not all really his), and wants a wife just so she’ll take care of them all.  The wife rebels, and I remember she and the kids pull pranks guerilla-style through the castle.  Everything’s happy in the end, but the book does somewhat reject the “happy family = kids” trope you dislike.

One of my favorite books this year, Not Quite A Husband by Sherry Thomas, has an infertile heroine.  The epilogue makes it clear that the H/h have a very HEA and no children.

Allison Brennan’s books are contemporary romantic suspense, pretty gritty on the suspense, but her recent “Fatal Secrets” has an infertility issue that can’t be resolved with a mighty wang.

Just remembered another one - Kiss Me While I Sleep by Linda Howard. (Not sure I have that title quite right, but close.  IIRC, the hero has had a vasectomy and I think the heroine had some kind of issue too, but essentially having children isn’t something that ever comes up between them.

Part of me wants to defend the whole baby thing. Karen Marie Moning said on her own forum that the reason her characters have babies is because she herself cannot have children. So it’s a wish fullfillment. However, she also said not to expect Mac to get pregnant.

That being said, there’s this book I read in high school I now can’t remember the name of. The hero was badly scarred in a war, so much he wore a mask. The heroine was a young woman whom loved him from childhood on. She was so determined to marry him that she got hired on as a servant and seduced him, not knowing her uncles had arranged for them to be wed. So once they really are married she has to earn his trust as his wife since he knew her as a servant.

She does get pregnant but takes a tumble down the stairs that causes such a bad miscarriage she can never have children. By the end of the book they adopt instead. Which sticks out in my mind because I have never seen one that includes adoption.

Probably not what you’re looking for and I can’t remember the title anyway. (It was sometime in the mid-90s when lots of romances were doing disfigured mask wearing heros due to the popularity of The Phantom Of The Opera.)

Both the Sookie Stackhouse and the Harper series by Charlaine Harris don’t have kids. It’s not really an issue for Sookie, and Harper is clear that she actively does not want kids.

I just wanted to thank C for asking this question.  As someone who can’t have children without medical intervention myself, I can ALMOST deal with all the fertile families, but I go crazy when I read an epilogue where infertility was magically cured by how much the H&H loved each other. 

Part of me wants to defend the whole baby thing. Karen Marie Moning said on her own forum that the reason her characters have babies is because she herself cannot have children. So it’s a wish fullfillment.

And that’s totally fine for a writer, I think.  I have plans to write a book dealing with my infertility issues myself—and believe me, there are issues.  But as a READER, I am delighted when I get away from the whole children are the only path to a happy future trope.

JamiSings: Was that “Tapestry” by Karen Ranney?

Definitely Charlaine Harris’ Lily Bard and Harper books, although those are mysteries with romantic elements.

Jennifer Cruisie’s contemporaries sometimes don’t have kids as part of the HEA; not just Bet Me, IIRC.

The two historicals I was going to suggest are already mentioned by others, above: Lady X’s Cowboy by Zoe Archer and Not Quite a Husband by Sherry Thomas.  I’m sure I will think of others—watch this space, LOL!

Erin McCarthy has a book - one of the Nascar ones - where the hero is infertile, but the heroine already has kids from her previous marriage.

Not Quite a Husband is the only other title that immediately springs to mind with a childless couple. 

I’ve read plenty of others where couples don’t have children, but I think it’s mostly “we’re not having kids now”, as opposed to “we’re not having kids.”  It’s too bad, too - I’d enjoy reading about more CFBC or infertile couples.

I don’t have any contributions that haven’t already been mentioned, but I’d like to thank the reader who wrote in with the request. I’m infertile and didn’t want kids anyway; I’ve become quite frustrated in picking up romances only to find the Magic Pregnancy at the end, or worse, books where the solution to the Huge Relationship Problem is that the heroine is pregnant and now the relationship will be just fine and dandy. (Yes, see how well that works IRL!)

I now have a lot more books to put on my TBR. Thanks all. :D

I also would like to thank the reader who wrote in with the request. I have a son after 4 long years of trying culminating in an IVF cycle. During that period, I could not bear to read historical romances for this very reason. The H/H inevitably popped out a bunch of babies by the end and I just couldn’t handle the jealousy! I turned mostly to paranormal which rarely mentions babies at all and outside the genre stuff (like mysteries).

As a “recovering” infertile, I think my love of historicals has been forever colored by that period in my life and I"m not sure I’ll ever devour them again as I once did (notwithstanding my recent glom of the Bridgertons—how did I miss those!?!)

I love this topic and I am fertile! I REALLY enjoy reading stories that are not about me! That is why I read them. I like to read stories about couples who have conflicts and barriers to relationships that involve getting past those barriers so they can get together for some hot monkey lovin’. HEA involving babies and/or marraige not included. 

Try some JAK, almost any JAK or her other genre/pen names. Most of those women are just trying to get by or solve a problem or solve a mystery.

I also thing that Beth and Rhage cannot have the kids.

All of the Amanda Quick (historicals)/Jane Ann Krenz (contemporary) rarely mention kids. Her early historicals tend to have “older” heroines who are on the shelf and at the end kids are rarely mentioned. I cant remember which ones do have kids and which ones don’t. I haven’t read them lately. I’m pretty sure all her contemporary couples do not talk about children, or have children from previous marriages.

Oh, wow!

I always interpreted the ‘baby’ epilogues in some category romances as a very simple SYMBOLof the idea of ‘‘new family/future generations’‘, the basic idea of the resolution of a romance involving a new order to replace the old, a rearrangement, but I never took it literally, and it didn’t occur to me that anyone would.  It is just one way of illustrating the phrase ‘they lived happily ever after’.  Isn’t it?

The complex concept of ‘family’ is not confined to direct biological issue, and never was.  Family, new orders, new generations, continuity and connection, can all be fulfilled in many different ways, and blood relationship is only the most obvious of them.  After all, even the most conventional family structure involves the initial bringing together to two unrelated people as a focus.

I sympathise intellectually with those who want children and can’t have them, as I would with anyone who yearns for something hard to attain, but I think that an unduly literal interpretation of either ‘epilogue with pregnancy/baby’ or a lack thereof is rather missing the point.

As another “not having any kids ever” person, I also cringe at the convention that a HEA requires kids. The last Lorelei James’ book wicked ticked me off like that.

Anyways, let’s see what comes to mind.

The Edge of Impropriety by Pam Rosenthal is a historical (won this year’s Rita) with a older couple. He’s 45ish and she’s 35ish. She had no kids, couldn’t have kids and wouldn’t be having kids. He had raised his niece and nephew, but they’re mostly grown.

Lover Eternal by JR Ward has Mary rendered infertile by chemo, and no amount of Rhage’s sperm or Scribe Virgin interference changes that.

That’s all I’ve read for those that mention infertility and don’t wave the magic wang at it.

I can think of some historicals that never mention children beyond the “I wonder if I knocked her up?” train of thought after the furious coupling and lack the baby-filled epilogue. Simply Scandalous by Tamara Lejeune was fun, almost positive the Meredith Duran novels are baby free, same for Carolyn Jewel’s Scandal, and I’m drawing a blank beyond that.

It’s definitely a rare breed of romance, which is sort of annoying, since I don’t feel like less of a person/wife/woman for not having procreated.

@AGTigress:

I am not the person who wrote in, but I don’t want kids, rather strongly so, and I’ll say this much…...

When you have family, friends, and complete strangers badgering you about “when are you going to have kids” and calling you selfish and irresponsible because you don’t want them, saying any number of bingo card phrases (“it’s different when it’s yours”, “who will take care of you when you’re old”, etc)..... after going through that, it is difficult to see the epilogue with baby and all as anything but an insinuation that family = children.

Particularly when in several contemporary books I read, the heroine was strong, career oriented, and outright stated in the book that she didn’t want kids. Epilogue: She is pregnant or has a new baby, has quit her job, and is playing SAHM. What does that say, really? I mean, yes, individual choices and decisions, but when it’s an unexplained sledgehammer out of nowhere, it really does hammer in the “FAMILY. KIDS.” thing that the OP was talking about.

Plus, women who want kids but are infertile get their own set of bingos. When I would avoid saying that I didn’t want kids, but only that I was infertile, I would get no end of “medical advice” from people that did not know what they were talking about. For all they knew, I could have had a hysterectomy due to a tragic illness and been completely unable, with absolutely NO hope.

The way that people tend to treat women who don’t want or can’t have kids is pretty sickening, imo, and yes… it does sensitize us to what we read in fiction. :-\

(capcha: position64….. oh, come on! It’s supposed to be 69, dammit!)

I hope Nora’s Eve and Roarke remain forever childfree.

By the way, Jayne Ann Krentz does actually have ‘baby’ epilogues in quite a few of her earlier category romances, presumably because that symbol was liked at the time by the publishers.  Even in some of the later contemporaries (e.g. Absolutely, Positively), it occurs, though normally in the context of a wider, extended family. 

Family is always one of Jayne’s central themes, and one that she deals with with considerable sophistication.  In particular, many of her plots involve the heroine acting to heal and resolve family breakdown or damage affecting the hero.  And in many, many cases, the functional, successful ‘family’ that forms by the end of the book does not consist chiefly, if at all, of the mini-nuclear ‘Mummy, Daddy and Baby’ set-up, but of more subtle and unexpected combinations of people.

I always interpreted the ‘baby’ epilogues in some category romances as a very simple SYMBOLof the idea of ‘‘new family/future generations’‘, the basic idea of the resolution of a romance involving a new order to replace the old, a rearrangement, but I never took it literally, and it didn’t occur to me that anyone would.  It is just one way of illustrating the phrase ‘they lived happily ever after’.  Isn’t it?

You honestly can’t see how that idea might irk the childless? Are you being intentionally dense? Right there it reinforces the idea that you and your relationship are flawed if you don’t create another generation. For those of us who don’t want kids, but are perfectly capable of making them, it is very much not an HEA since having kids would make us UNhappy.

Nonny:
I am way past the age of childbearing:  I never wanted children, because I was busy doing other things, I don’t like babies, and anyway, I have great stepchildren, so why the hell add to the country’s / world’s hideous overpopulation?  I do wonder whether pressure to breed is particularly strong in the USA, because nobody ever dared mention it to me! 

But the main point is that family is psychologically important to all of us,  but family is a much broader concept that having issue of one’s own flesh.

In Captives of the Night by Loretta Chase the heroine is infertile & despite the love of a good man remains that way. The man in question takes it in stride though I think they might informally adopt a teen aged ward, but there are no bunches of cherubic toddler orphans who conveniently pop into the picture.

Romances dealing with infertility: The heroine, Lucia, in Forever Fifteen (free on podiobooks.com), loses both her unborn child and her ovaries to the plague. The book is a rather dark vampire romance and switches between the main story, set in the present, and the story of Lucy’s childhood/young womanhood in medeival Italy.

*spends a while going through her Microsoft Reader library and comes up with a handful of historicals with childless HEA’s*
Victoria and the Rogue by Meg Cabot, The Dragon’s Bride by Jo Beverly, The Spymaster’s Lady and My Lord and Spymaster, both by Joanna Bourne, Beyond Seduction by Emma Holly, and Slightly Sinful by Mary Balogh, and- I’m not 100% sure on this one, as I don’t have it here in front of me, but I’m fairly sure there’s no mention of any children at the end of When He Was Wicked by Julia Quinn.

@ AGTigress:

I only know about the attitudes in the US, and it’s pretty strong in some circles and areas. I personally have not gotten as much crap about my choices as other people have, but I think that might also be that between my sexuality, paganism, polyamory, and so forth! not having kids is pretty low on the list of things to freak out about. ;)

Family is definitely important, but in a good HEA, I see that even if there’s no kid. Kids don’t represent family to me, really; they represent a headache ;) Really, I’d rather just see the H/h obviously happy with each other, whether it be in an epilogue or a cameo in a later connected book.

So glad the OP wrote in with this.  I struggled with infertility, and though I have kids now I well remember the pain and tears that I lived through.

Good romance is about the union of two people - while certainly HEA for many people includes chlidren, as many have already stated that is not the only way to create a family.  As much as I love my kids and celebrate the family I have, at the core of my family is my relationship with my husband - and it is at that core that I want to see romance focus.  It drives me crazy to see romances where a baby magically changes things because this so rarely works out well IRL. 

So, even though I have kids now, I agree with so many of you that I prefer to read romance that doesn’t solve fertility issues with magic wangs or imply that a pregnancy will bring instant family and instant happiness for all.

Word: get57 Thank goodness I did not beget 57!  The ones I have are work and expense enough, thank you.

Are you being intentionally dense?

No. Because, as I said, I don’t take it literally.  I see it as a SYMBOL.  Not literal, right?  As I have said, I never wanted children myself, and took care never to have any, but the ‘baby epilogues’ never irked me.

I don’t think I am dense.  Maybe I am just insensitive?  I mean, these are fictional stories, full of stereotypes and such.  Why should I think they apply to my own life? 

:-D

This may well be the opposite of what the questioner wants, but the question reminded me of it.

I’m thinking it’s by Karen Van Der Zee, a Harlequin from many years ago, and I just looked at titles—A Secret Sorrow sounds right. The heroine is recovering from a car accident and goes to stay with her brother. She hasn’t come to terms with the fact that she can’t have kids, and she can’t bring herself to talk about it; she promptly meets the man of her dreams. I cried buckets. (I generally adored Van Der Zee’s stuff.)

Like I said, I’m NOT recommending this to the questioner, unless she thinks she wants to try it. It just stuck with me for decades—it was the first Harlequin I remember seeing that dealt with infertility.

For that matter, another favorite from back then, Jane Donnelly, generally didn’t have kids in the picture that I recall.

JamiSings: Was that “Tapestry” by Karen Ranney?

I think that’s it. I remember the cover showed him in a black leather mask, hiding behind a curtain, spying on her.

But as a READER, I am delighted when I get away from the whole children are the only path to a happy future trope.

I could totally hijack this blog but I’ll just end with this - as a reader, it totally doesn’t bug me. I read romances because men ignore me IRL and it’s the only romance I get. So if the writer wants to use it for wish fullfillment, let her or him.

But that might change. I’m being tested and show all the signs for poly cystic ovary syndrome which can include infertility and at the least make getting pregnant darn hard I might find myself in your corner.

That being said - one of Sherilyn Kenyon Dark-Hunter books also doesn’t end with a pregnancy. Because Rayven chooses to remain a Dark-Hunter and DHs are sterile.

@JamiSings:

*big hugs* from another PCOS-er. There are a lot of things that go along with it, and it sucks horribly.  :(

Try Marian Keyes on for size. Miscarriage and not wanting to have children feature quite largely in Angels but there is a baby HEA at the very very end and her first book, Watermelon, starts with the heroine giving birth to a baby and her husband leaving her for another woman while she’s still in the hospital (!!!) but I don’t think any of her other ones have babies in them as part and parcel of the HEA. Definitely not in Lucy Sullivan Is Getting Married, Last Chance Saloon, Rachel’s Holiday, Anybody Out There? or This Charming Man anyway.

The utterly wonderful author has no children herself (though she did want them, it just didn’t happen for her and her husband) so maybe that’s why they don’t feature much in her happy endings.

I’m currently in the planning stages of a historical with a copule who are CFBC. Being CFBC is a lot more difficult though when one is limited to historial birth control methods - I doubt I could get away with them never having penetrative sex.

Er, nothing to offer on the recommendation front off the top of my head. Oddly enough, despite my utter lack of interest in children in real life, I enjoy them in fiction.

I am so glad the OP wrote in about this.

I don’t like kids, I don’t want kids, and I think pregnancy is creepy.  THERE I SAID IT.  I acknowledge that it’s a good thing my mom didn’t feel that way, and I have no problem with the fact that people want to have kids, but it can be more than a little overwhelming to those of us who aren’t interested.

Did I mention I had to attend a baby shower today?  Anyway…

Suzanne Enoch’s An Invitation to Sin is a great historical with NO mention of children, and no stupid baby epilogue.  It’s got lots of sexy sex, as well, if you’re into that sort of thing. 

I think I need to go write down all of the titles above- but just FYI, there is a magical baby at the end of the JQ’s When He Was Wicked... and I won’t get into my feelings on that!

I remember another Harlequin Historical where the heroine was raised as if she was a boy, captures a knight, and he kinda freaks about being attracted to this very pretty boy.

And she doesn’t have to worry about pregnancy because she was hit hard when jousting/learning to joust shortly after getting her first period and never got one again.

Also, Mary Balogh’s “More Than a Mistress”- I don’t recall any mention of the heroine being preggers at the end, or even on her way to being so despite having hot Edwardian sex with the hero.

And I will also give the nod to Amanda Quick’s “Slightly Shady”, “Don’t Look Back” and “Late to the Wedding”. As well as “Affair” and “Lie by Moonlight”.

I also liked Patricia Briggs’ “Alpha and Omega” series, which so far hasn’t had any kind of talk about breeding, pups or litters, even though both characters are Werewolves. And I doubt there will be, because in her universe, female werewolves *must* change with the full moon. The baby can’t change, and is lost if the female is pregnant.

Oh, and “Angel’s Blood” by Lilith Saintcrow. Sort of more fantasy than Romance, but no HEA with Baby. Come to think of it, her other series with Dante and Japhrimel didn’t have them breeding, either.

Many of the “old school” Regencies (Heyer, early Layton, early Balogh, etc.) do not involve pregnancy because they do not involve sex; the books usually end at the altar or just after.  I also remember a western romance (possibly from the 1980s and possibly written by Shirlee Busby) where the heroine had been involved in an accident that crushed her pelvis and knew she could not have children.  Perhaps someone here will HaBO and come up with that title.

I know we don’t look for complete historical accuracy when we read historical romances, but it’s important to remember that before safe, effective birth control was generally available, most women did get pregnant and have babies once they started having sex—so I can certainly see where fertility would play a role in historicals.  In contemporaries, I often feel it’s somewhat lazy of the writer to have the heroine just “get” pregnant.  I mean, how hard would it be to write a scene where the heroine somehow does not have access to her birth control?

Spam filter:  labor32.  I was in labor—but never for 32 hours.  To paraphrase Rita Rudner, I don’t even want to do something that feels good for 32 hours.

It’s a bit of a challenge to try and remember a book for what it didn’t have/wasn’t’/i] about.  Such an interesting topic though - thanks OP & Sarah.

AgTigress, it doesn’t much matter to me how you interpret those epilogues when you read them.  But it does seem to me that both the tone and content of your comments is exceptionally insensitive to the reader who asked the question and all those here who have expressed similar feelings.  How did you think it was going to help to tell people that the problem isn’t the books, it’s them?

Karen Ranney’s Till Next We Meet does is a historical that doesn’t mention children as part of the HEA for the main couple.  Additionally, I don’t recall any of the books in Elizabeth Hoyt’s Four Soldiers series using magic babies as part of the HEA.

... it doesn’t much matter to me how you interpret those epilogues when you read them.  But it does seem to me that both the tone and content of your comments is exceptionally insensitive to the reader who asked the question and all those here who have expressed similar feelings.  How did you think it was going to help to tell people that the problem isn’t the books, it’s them?

Ros, this is not the first time I have been accused of an unacceptably curt or brusque tone here.  Since it has never had any connection with my actual intention, I can only attribute it to the problems that sometimes plague written communication between speakers of different dialects, because the tone/expression/body-language cues are absent.  American English is often less direct and more euphemistic (and certainly more given to pc expressions) than British English, especially the latter as spoken by an elderly speaker.  I say what I mean, and mean what I say.  If I wanted to be ‘insensitive’ towards those who are made unhappy by being infertile, I assure you I would find an unequivocal, blunt way of saying so, and it would not be wrapped up in a comment about the symbolic nature of certain fictional tropes.

I can only assure everyone (yet again) that I had no intention whatever of being hurtful or offensive.  I do sympathise with those who want children and cannot have them, as I do with anyone who is unable, though no fault of their own, to achieve what they see as important goals in their lives.  I just don’t see what that has to do with reading a fictional tale.  Why the hell would I WANT to be ‘insensitive’ towards women who are dealing with real-life problems?  Does it not occur to anyone here to assume innocence until guilt is proved?

I also find it strange, in the circumstances, that those who actually expressed powerful objections to the very thought of having children have NOT been accused of insensitivity. 

As for ” How did you think it was going to help to tell people that the problem isn’t the books, it’s them? “, I don’t see that as a relevant question.  We were debating a particular modern romance-novel trope, not the problem of infertility per se.  I wasn’t trying to help those who are distressed by this condition any more than I was trying to offend them, but only to point out that the ‘HEA baby’ is no more and no less than a short-hand device signifying long-term commitment and the establishment of a new order, which is part of the basic romance template.  And the fact that a baby is used as a symbol of HEA does not necessarily signify that the absence of a baby contradicts the possibility of a HEA.

I am thoroughly tired of false accusations, so I suppose I had better refrain in future from joining in the discussions here, interesting though many of them are.

I know we don’t look for complete historical accuracy when we read historical romances, but it’s important to remember that before safe, effective birth control was generally available, most women did get pregnant and have babies once they started having sex

I look for as complete historical accuracy as can be achieved when I read a historical novel, whether it be mainstream or romance.

Anyway, it is possible, especially after the 1750’s. The condom wasn’t used by ‘respectable’ women (they were reusable, you washed them out after use - major yuck) but other methods were, especially the sponge and the lemon techniques, both used by the female rather than the male.
However, the social urge was to have babies and the reason for marriage, especially in the moneyed classes was to provide heirs. So not to have babies would have been considered a failure by most.

An afterthought - I just want my hero and heroine to make a life for each other and with each other before they go on to make babies. Babies can be a huge disruption to a relationship, or at least change it profoundly.

Full disclosure:  I’m married, have three children, no fertility problems; so obviously I am not looking at the “pregnancy/children = HEA” romance ending in the same way as a woman who wants a child but has been unable to get pregnant would.  That being said, I want to expand a little upon my earlier point—and that is that without effective birth control, most women throughout history did get pregnant once they started having sex.  I have less issues with that ending in historicals than I do with either contemporary or historical romances in which the heroine (or hero) use no birth control what-so-ever and yet an unplanned pregnancy never occurs.

Yes, Lynne, I agree that for some classes some forms of birth control were available as early as the 1750s, but they weren’t always reliable and, many times, weren’t always legal and/or easy to (pardon the pun) come by.  (Groan!)

Also, it’s easy to forget that until about 50 years ago, to have a baby out-of-wedlock was one of the crushing shames of a woman’s life.  My mother had a cousin who got pregnant and even though she married the father of her child, her family was so shamed they actually moved from the town where they lived.  It was the shame of having an illegitimate child along with the lack of reliable birth control that kept most women chaste until their weddings.  Then they started having sex and babies.

Anyway, I realize this is a bit of a digression, but to sum it up: Historicals with “epilogue babies” are less of a bother to me than birth-control-less contemporaries or pregnancy-less historicals.

There’s always a list somewhere… All About Romance has a list for books featuring Childless and Infertile couples http://www.likesbooks.com/childless.html

Look at it this way, Ag.

Say you were disabled, and every book you picked up that featured a disabled protagonist involved a miracle cure in the epilogue or book ending. Would you think it unreasonable still for that reader to be miffed that books find disability and eternal happiness mutually exclusive?

Katie:  the historical trilogy you are thinking of might be Sabrina Jeffries’ “A Notorious Love” “A Dangerous Love” and “After the Abduction”  First one is middle sister who falls for ex-smuggler turned wealthy gent.  Second book is oldest sister and ex-smuggler’s partner who are on the chase after youngest sister who purportedly eloped.  Third book is youngest sister and guy who tricked her into faked failed elopement.  In the third book, there is a secondary plotline of marital stress with the first couple due to inability to conceive.  But with the help and advice of a gypsy healer, it’s well on it’s way to resolution (can’t remember if they did actually conceive by end of book).  Dunno how “magical’ it all was, but at least part of her advice is something you’d hear today: getting the husband to stop with scalding hot baths ‘cause he’s boiling his boys.

Historicals are a different beast than contemporary/fantasy for me since no, there wasn’t “effective” birth control and even then, it was frequently necessary that the couple have a child.

But, well. Hm. I think there’s a difference between a historical where pregnancy happens as a part of the plot, and what happens in many contemporaries… where there is frequently a “magic pregnancy” or epilogue depicting the happy family, regardless of the heroine’s stated wishes. (I remember reading a few contemporaries several years back where the heroine said in the book she didn’t want kids, then in the epilogue she had them and was euphoric. WTF?)

I haven’t seen this in many historicals, because usually there is a reason for the pregnancy that’s involved in the story.

Lynne Connolly:  I know what ‘the sponge’ is, but what is ‘the lemon’ ‘?

Sandra - a lemon. Take a lemon, halve it, and roughly scoop out the flesh, deliberately leaving a bit. Use the juice as a spermicide and use the half lemon as a diaphragm. I’m told it works quite well and it’s a technique that may have been used as far back as the Middle Ages.
Look at all the jokes about lemons and fish. Fish being sperm. Lots of double entendres there!

Most of the books that I could think of are already on the list, but I think the newer Nalini Singh series will stay childless. The Changeling/Psy/Forgotten books have had a few pregnancies but the Angel/Vampire seem unlikely to do so, as there are no baby angels or baby vampires.
Is this the real reason why M/M romance is so popular with women? No inconvenient pregnancies, no twins in the epilogue unless they hired surrogates, hmm.

I do wonder whether pressure to breed is particularly strong in the USA, because nobody ever dared mention it to me!

Oh yeah, it can be, especially if you have sisters-in-laws with children who love to say things like “you’d be a great mom”, or see your DH being nice to other children and telling you “he’d make a great dad.” Not believing we can possibly NOT want children, that’s just too “strange” to them.

Now that we’re both past the half century mark they’ve finally shut up about it. Only thing we were lucky in was that we lived 2000 miles away when we were younger so mostly got subjected to the barrage only during holiday visits. I must say I like being the eccentric aunt. Now if I only had the money to be the really cool eccentric aunt like in those romance novels!

(I know I hit submit over an hour ago, but it’s not there!)

Oh, and I just finished another Suzanne Enoch- Before the Scandal.  Another historical blissfully free of babies or the urge to procreate!

Here’s the thing, if it’s part of the plot, whatever, I get it.  But I have to say that it is tremendously refreshing to read historicals where the whole baby thing just doesn’t even come up.  If you want to assume they later went on to have six million children, then bully for you!  But if you’re like me, you get to read a nice story about two people falling in love and having hot sexx with a ridiculous plot.

True story: the first time I read a romance novel that did not involve babies, I couldn’t stop smiling for the rest of the day.  I felt free, relieved that HEA doesn’t have to mean baby times.  Maybe it’s a bit silly, but I really did feel like maybe I wasn’t just some weirdo who didn’t want to birth babies.

I’m not saying that babies don’t have a place in romance novels- they’re pretty much the logical outcome of all that condom-free Edwardian sex- but I do think that it would be alright if more authors could step outside of the baby box and just… leave them out.  Don’t even talk about it.  It doesn’t have to be a thing.

PS:
Dear Actual Romance Novelists,
Please stop with the baby-in-the-epilogue thing.  If it wasn’t in the plot, it’s probably unnecessary.  You’re killing me, Smalls!
Kisses,
Abby

Well, it may not meet your criteria, but Tempting, by Susan Malory has a who subplot about a wife who can’t have children (and chooses to adopt. Then, her husband’s bastard daughter shows up as an adult, and throws everything into chaos. I thought is was a pretty honest look at the issue, and it’s a good book to. But as I said, it may not help.

AgTigress, I think the reason why your comments came across that way was because of the question being asked in the post.  It wasn’t ‘what are your thoughts about babies in romance novels’, in which case it would have been fine to say what you did.  It was specifically a request for help by someone struggling with infertility who did not want to read about babies in happy endings:

...which romances feature infertility in ways that you appreciated, and which books were not so wedded to the idea that a Happily Ever After cannot occur without babies?

Your comments, taken as an answer to the question in the original post, did seem very dismissive of the reader who asking for such recommendations, and the reasons she gave for wanting them.

Linnea Sinclair’s SF/romance don’t have any kids in the HEA - my favorite is “Games of Command”, but “The Accidental Goddess” is also pretty good.

Promised Land, by Connie Willis, is a good fantasy/sci fi/romance.  If you liked the whole space-cowboyish frontier aspects of Firefly, try it.  There are absolutely no babies in it, too, nor any mention of them.  The hero does have to take care of his younger siblings, but that’s it.

I’ve definitely noticed that certain genres of romance have more/less emphasis on kids as a happy ending.  Sci fi/fantasy?  Not so much.  Regency, yes, although the older regency romances (the little thin ones) don’t.

I’m glad this topic was brought up. I’m a single mom by choice (SMC), and have gotten grief from some quarters for choosing to have a child without a partner. But reactions to my choice are nothing compared to the hassle that married family and friends have received for choosing NOT to have children.

I find it ironic that my married sister and I have both been branded as “selfish” for making exactly the opposite decisions for what consistuted our own personal HEA. There should be space in both the real and fictional world for every women’s choices.

(As an aside, I’m looking with amusement to the forthcoming Hollywood movies that feature an SMC as the plot device for the romance. While I know SMCs who have married after starting a family on their own, I think pregnancy only works as a lure when you’re Heidi Klum ;-)

If you’re looking for historical, I’ve just read two books by Anne Mallory (Masquerading the Marquess & The Viscount’s Wicked Ways) that both end well without focusing on family, and she doesn’t do the cheesy epilogue either with the family snapshot. The dialogue is quite witty and the plot moves quickly. If you’re looking for a spicy contemporary read, I’ve just finished Maya Banks “Sweet” series and each couple is happy to explore their relationship instead of creating the family unit.

In the light, fun mystery genre: try Elizabeth Peters’ Vicky Bliss series and the Jacqueline Kirby series (especially Die for Love, which takes place at a romance writers’ convention).  If I remember correctly, these novels are more caper-type adventures, with light romantic banter between the principals and no babies in conclusion.

Kia said:

In Captives of the Night by Loretta Chase the heroine is infertile & despite the love of a good man remains that way. The man in question takes it in stride though I think they might informally adopt a teen aged ward, but there are no bunches of cherubic toddler orphans who conveniently pop into the picture.

True, but the heroine’s first husband was an alcoholic and a drug addict, both of which affect male fertility, so this easily falls into the “it was actually husband’s fault but back then they always blamed the woman” category.  In fact, Loretta Chase herself said she always imagined they would eventually have biological children but wanted to show that Esmond loved Leila for herself and that children weren’t necessary for the HEA.

I like children—a good thing since I have 3—but know that while they were necessary for my HEA they are not required for everyone else’s.  One of my sisters has two and one is childless by choice.  I think it’s perfectly fine for a romance to end at the wedding or some point where the question of will they or won’t they is left to the reader’s imagination. 

Lavinia Kent’s A Talent for Sin has an infertile heroine.

It’s more a historical versus romance but in Lady of the Glen by Jennifer Roberson, the main female character has a miscarriage / stillbirth after a highly traumatic event which at least after I encountered IF, had a lot more in meaning.  Not integral to the plot nor mentioned to a great length (still a good read) but just caught me.

An example of the Mighty Wang healing infertility: The Aurora Teagarden series (Charlaine Harris). I loved the series, and, as bizarre as it sounds, LOVED that Aurora was infertile, because she had (some of) the same issues as me (deformed uterus, infrequent ovulation). Doctors had told her the same thing as they’d told me - babies weren’t in her future. She married her husband, they were fine if occasionally sad about it, but life was for the most part happy. Like me!  Then (SPOILERS) he dies. She bones her old boyfriend. And oh! Guess what happens in the last book?
*sigh*
Yeah.

As someone who is only planning on ever again boning her husband (who has a fairly mighty wang of his own), and who is never going to be able to have children, that ending was sort of a cop-out. I mean, I could handle the husband dying, and her getting back together with her old boyfriend (I liked him better). But the Magical Pregnancy? Eh.

True Confessions (contemporary) by Rachel Gibson has a heroine that can,t have children, but the hero has a kid from before.

A side note, I remember listening to a Sociology professor who discussed fertility in a historical context. He claimed that before Victorian times, due to malnutrition, most women did not have regular periods. And that changed, with better access to food, and then the link between sex and procreation of course became stronger. And this would be the reason for the more “repressed” view of sex during the Victorian period, compared to, for example, the Elizabethan era. And that view prevailed until the pill…

I think the book jamisings was referring to is Night Magic by Charlotte Vale Allen.

Katie said:

I’ve read a couple of books that would fall into this category, and naturally, I can’t remember the titles! One was a contemporary - she was a librarian, who found a stray cat in the carpark on a winter’s night (and actually the title may have been something along those lines) He was the vet who helped her look after it. He was younger than her by 5-10 years, and dreamed of having a large family, she was infertile (had had a hysterectomy from memory) She does attempt to leave him at least once so that he can have the chance to have children with someone else, but ultimately he would rather be with her than have children with someone else.

This sounds intriguing! Does anyone recognize this book?

I read one book, The Last Bride, which kinda deals with infertility… sorta… In the ever after part they have kids, but they are all adopted children. Which is slightly better than the magical fecundity of other romance books.

This was a great topic! Not something I could say I ever really thought about before, but yeah, the whole idea of babies in epilogues does bother me. Like, ok, our story is done, and instead of just saying “THE END” and let us imagine what their HEA might involve, you have to go out of the way to include a baby in an epilogue? Maybe the writer needed the wordcount, I dunno.
I much prefer that if pregnancy/children are going to be mentioned, it be as part of a plot tactic, to create conflict/resolution of some kind the characters have to deal with and overcome on their way TO the HEA, because if it were to happen IRL, it wouldn’t be as easy as many romances like to make it seem.
However, this idea has now germinated into something I think I am going to incorporate into my new story, I already have one character that is having to deal with a miscarriage, so I think the other is going to be dealing with infertility. Real challenges for real people, YAY!

Coming totally late to this but thank you Nonny for articulating what I’ve felt reading my favorite genre. Having every HEA include babies boils down to telling us that to be happy, as women, we MUST HAVE CHILDREN!

Women are human being first, not breeders. Let’s have some HEA’s that have babies in the future but let’s also have some that, oh, I don’t know, have us winning Nobel prizes and stuff like that, too.

I have to second Sherry Thomas’ Not Quite a Husband as one of the few non-breeding HEA’s out there.

Thought of another series with an infertile character:  the Liam Campbell series by Dana Stabenow.  She seems to have dropped the series rather than have it come to a natural end, but up to this point the woman Liam loves is infertile.  Note that these are mysteries, not romance.

The hero of Barbara Samuel’s A Piece of Heaven is one of the best I’ve ever read (not to mention he is non-white, for those who are looking for a more diverse universe of H/H).  The heroine has a daughter from her first marriage.

My captcha word is doing53—there are so many ways that can be taken, most of them not printable in a family newspaper.

How about Kinsale’s the Shadow and the Star?

Nadia: That sounds like it could be what I was talking about!

I remember another Harlequin Historical where the heroine was raised as if she was a boy, captures a knight, and he kinda freaks about being attracted to this very pretty boy.

And she doesn’t have to worry about pregnancy because she was hit hard when jousting/learning to joust shortly after getting her first period and never got one again.

I own this one! It’s one of my favourites! To Touch the Sun by Barbara Leigh

I also just finished reading Cry for Passion by Robin Schone. It’s a historical set in Victorian England and one of the main plot points is that the heroine does not want to have children, ever. There also some interesting stuff about Victorian prophylactics.

If you’re up for fantasy, The Wood Wife by Terri Windling has a romance in it, a 40 year old protagonist and nary a human baby in sight - except for a secondary character who doesn’t feature much in the events.

Historical western by Rebecca Brandewyne, I think the title is “Outlaw Hearts”.  Heroine is infertile due to pelvis being crushed in accident during Civil War.  May not be what OP has in mind, as I vaguely recall there being children in the story, possibly orphans or relatives/children of hero.  But heroine is definitely unable bear children.

I had to come back to this thread, having been just hit with an example of the single most offensive thing I have ever encountered in a romance: the hero/heroine coming *right out and saying* that their infertility problem was solved by Twu Luvvvv.  Please, just kick infertile people even more in the teeth, why don’t you? 

This particular book is The Courtship Dance by Candace Camp, but I’m sorry to say it is not the first time I’ve encountered it.