To the Speculative schmuck.
I notice you don't seem to particularly dig paranormal romance. What's the dealio, Niallio? Do you need to get laid or something?
Eh, not so much. Scotsmen are known the world over for their healthy sex drives.
We are, aren't we?
But to your other question, Team_Jacob97xxx: what an acute observation! As a rule, no, I'm not a fan of paranormal romance, nor do I have much sympathy with those readers who live for new Stephanie Meyer, say, or the next novel in Charlaine Harris' interminable Sookie Stackhouse series. Perhaps it's because I do get laid, as you say, that I simply can't grasp the appeal of such counter-counter-culture wish fulfilment, wherein a typical narrative tends to involve an innocent outcast girl falling for a sexy bad guy who's really a good guy - or perhaps even three of them - and a bunch of will they/won't they rubbish before inevitably, they do.
It certainly doesn't help matters that so many of the authors making a living writing such tosh really can't write very well. Let's face it: when you've got Stephen King making fun of your grammar, I'm of the mind that there's a rather serious problem.
Of course if there's good paranormal romance out there that I'm missing, I'd love to hear about it. I'm open to anything. So long as there's a good story to be told - and I don't mean as above but substituting in Bigfoot in place of a vampire - and the someone doing the telling can tell a story well enough, technically if not necessarily artistically speaking, then sure, I'll give it a shot and report back. It's not the genre of paranormal romance that I take issue with, so much as the badly-written boilerplate nonsense that makes up the larger part of it, so far as I can see.