Monthly Archives: March 2014

Current Cover Design Trend Grievance

I pay attention to the covers of the romance novels I read (or look at) in part because, as a self-publisher, I should be aware of trends, but in all honesty mostly because I am the sort of reader who is sensitive to covers and always has been.

For example, I have always found it difficult to even examine, much less purchase, the romances that had shirtless men all over the covers. To me that cover treatment just screamed “illogical sex-fest aimed at lowest common denominator reader” AKA not the droid book I’m looking for. Even now, with ebooks that I don’t have to carry to the register, I still tend to not look at books with that cover style unless the title or author was specifically recommended to me.

The thing that is bothering me lately is women in modern formal dresses against some generic background that may or may not actually be historical on the covers of historical romances. The covers themselves aren’t explicitly an issue; it’s covers like that combined with a description that does not make clear whether the book is set in a different era or modern times. See, you can get away with a cover that doesn’t talk about what year it is or what war is looming/just finished, etc., if you have, you know, ACTUAL historical dress on the cover model. But if you are going to use a prom dress as your “mistorical fiction” denominator, then your back copy had damn well better be clear about when and where your story is set.

I’ve lost track of the number of books I’ve seen lately that have this dynamic. It’s annoying. I don’t want to sound like I am the sort of person who will ONLY read in my little niche, but at the same time–I want to know what I’m buying. I want to be sure it’s the kind of book I’m actually in the mood for. Part of branding and marketing your book correctly (by which I mean, giving it every chance to catch the eye of the right kind of reader, should they stumble across it) is to make unambiguously clear what your book actually is.

What’s even more disheartening to me is that the actual trend seems to be reserving accurate historical dress for the Amish and Christian romances – though at least most of them do a good job of self-identifying by talking about God or faith in the back copy, so I can avoid them. No offense to religion intended; I don’t mind having faith play a part in the story if it is a part of a character’s life, but I am not looking for the stories that specifically include it as a plot point, nor am I looking for all the other trappings that go along with religiously-oriented romance. I just also find it annoying that 90% of the time I click on a description because I like the cover and its actual historicalness, the book turns out to be in a subgenre I don’t want to read. And the more historical dress on the cover comes to be equated with stodgy ole religious romances, the more entrenched the stupid modern Cinderella prom dress as analog to “any period from the Enlightenment to the Edwardian” will become.

I am officially filing a pet peeve on this one.



Filed under Ramblings, Rants and Storms, Reflections on Romance

Heroes Vs. Mentors

Just a random thought while catching up on The Voice about the established creators whom younger artists choose as mentors. Some of the time the young singers will pick their hero – I notice most of the time this happens it’s a young girl who idolizes either Shakira or Christina – but generally the people who walk in acknowledging being a huge fan of one of the coaches end up picking someone else to be their coach…often to their own surprise.

I have thought about this for a couple seasons now, and I have a theory: when you’re actually faced with your hero, do you really want them to see you in all your flaws?

This is actually something that has crossed my mind before. There is a SFF book conference that takes place in the town I went to college, which one of my all-time favorite writers – perhaps my very all-time favorite – attends almost every year and regularly participates in the writing mentor section for as one of the judges/mentors for the sessions. I attended the conference once right after I graduated and moved away, specifically to meet her (it was awesome) and considered going back the next for the writing portion. I even emailed the coordinator to ask if I could request placement in a particular mentor’s group, thinking of course I would want to be in hers. And then I thought about it some more. Did I really want my hero to be the one to tell me my work was awful? Did I want to be placed under the microscope by one of the writers I was, at the time, essentially trying to emulate, who might just think me a milquetoast impersonator? Did I really want to blur the lines between being a fan and being a colleague like that?

For me the answer was no – no, I didn’t want any of those things with my hero. I wanted her to remain my hero, and I would find a mentor elsewhere, if I needed one. (And in the end I decided not to go back and do the writing portion, because my absolute fear of writing groups was not going to be overcome by anything less compelling than a desire to form a mentoring relationship with a writer I have looked up to since I was 13.)

I think a lot of the singers who audition end up in that place. It’s gratifying to have your hero say “I want you on my team,” but in the end you can probably learn more from someone whom you can regard as a more experienced artist but immediately as a colleague/peer, because you have never put them on a pedestal, than someone you idolize.


Filed under Uncategorized

“What’s the Medical Indication?”

Or, Lily’s Continuing Misadventures in Gestating

I now have about two full weeks of watching my blood sugar numbers behind me. My fasting level stays consistently higher than the target, while my post-meal numbers stay consistently within target as long as I don’t have a lot of grain-based carbohydrates. Rather than following the diabetes center guidelines of whole grain carbs at every meal and snack (totaling more than I would normally eat in a day), I am basically on what high school Lily referred to as the “cave man” diet – not to be confused with the formal paleo diet, which cuts out all fruits, along with dairy milk, because paleo is a no-carbs-at-all diet. No, my caveman diet is more “Is it refined or grain-based? If so put it down.” The caveman food pyramid puts veggies and fruits on the bottom, then protein, then dairy and fats, then grain at the top. With a general avoidance of added sugars along the way, within reason, because total abstention is just not realistic every single day. So far I am keeping my numbers in line and hoping I don’t end up needing to go full paleo before this pregnancy is over.

That said, my doctor threw an unexpected loop at me when I finally had a visit with her post-test/diagnosis of GD. She looked over my numbers, said she wasn’t at all worried about them, and went on with the appointment. At the very end she added, “oh, and you know how I said I’d let you go to 42 weeks without pushing to induce? Yeah, with GD I can’t let you go past your due date because of the increased risk of stillbirth if you go over.”


I had by the time of my appointment read probably two dozen articles about GD, how to keep it in check, what the theories behind it are, what risks it presents to mother and baby both, and none of them mentioned any risk of stillbirth or had a discussion about induction at due date if spontaneous labor didn’t occur on its own (either as a true medical indication or even just SOP for doctors/hospitals). So her comment came as a surprise, even when I thought I was up on my information about the condition. I didn’t argue the point then, both because the appointment was essentially finished when she said that and because I wanted the chance to do my own research and have an assessment of my own before discussing it with her in more depth.

I used different search terms and found a lot of forums where women said their OB’s gave them that line and they agreed to induce (many of them at like 38 weeks instead of the full 40, many of them happily, because, of course, a healthy baby is not just an important thing, not just the most important thing, but the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS in obstetrical care right now, and us ignorant breeding cows should be GRATEFUL that the medical overlords can safely deliver us a child regardless of the harm to ourselves). What I didn’t find? Was an abundance of articles discussing the true risks of going overdue with mild/diet-controlled GD and the actual medical indication for induction either at or before the 40 week mark.

In fact, I didn’t find any articles that showed a true medical indication for why a mild GD patient must give birth at 40 weeks.

I found discussions on why insulin-controlled GD heightens the risk of placental failure (insulin apparently speeds up the natural degradation of the organ), and I found the increased risk rates for developing a secondary condition like pre-eclampsia after developing GD. Those were sobering findings, enough to make me take the whole diagnosis a little more seriously than I did at first. Keeping my blood sugar under control is a preventative measure for conditions that would utterly derail my pregnancy philosophy because they would inject *just enough* true risk for me to not ignore them.

I also found the two studies that most of the GD-outcome-assessments seem to be based on. One is a smaller study from 2002 that did seem to indicate an increased risk of stillbirth with GD. Something like 5% of the stillbirths in the study were correlated to GD rather than unrelated pregnancy complications…which ended up being something like 1 out of 500 births had a GD-related stillbirth, if I recall the math right. It was minuscule, statistically speaking, whatever the actual number. Moreover, that study did not differentiate (1) whether the GD was controlled or treated in any way and (2) did not differentiate which, if any, of the stillbirths happened in women who developed a secondary complication like pre-eclampsia. So the risk factor was both narrow and ill-defined in the published results. The second, much larger study (the HAPO study from 2012) found no correlation between diet-controlled GD and increased rates of stillbirth. Infant death was, in fact, so uncommon that it got bundled with several other adverse outcomes that were all on their own too statistically insignificant to mention.

Neither of these findings incline me toward accepting an induction at 40 weeks and 1 day if I’m not in that delivery room on my own.

Why am I so reluctant to induce? First, by current evidence-based definitions, a baby isn’t actually overdue until 42 weeks and 1 day (since full-term is the range from 37-42 weeks). Second, the average gestation for my statistical subgroup (Caucasian first pregnancy) is 41 + 1, not the 40 that is the average of ALL pregnancies. Third, both my mother’s first and my mother-in-law’s first were past the 40-week due date by a week and a half or more, so my little fella has the tendency from both sides of the family. Fourth, induced labors are longer, more painful, and more difficult than spontaneous labors. Fifth, induced labors have something like a 50% higher likelihood of ending in a C-section than a spontaneous labor. Or is it that 50% of inductions “fail” and end in a section? Either way the intervention of medical induction creates a much higher risk of fetal distress that results in a C-section than a spontaneous labor.

Why am I so paranoid about C-sections? First, it is a major surgery, and no matter how common a surgery it is, no such surgery is without risk. I believe the risk of adverse maternal complications in a C-section is significantly higher than that 1 in 500 risk (if that’s even the real risk) of strictly-GD-based-complications in delivery. Second, I do not want to spend my first few weeks with a newborn recovering from a major surgery, especially since I could easily end up functioning as a single mom with no real support network if my husband ends up offshore, since neither of us have family closer than 6 hours away and all of my friends also work full-time. I need to be able to take care of myself and my baby, period. Third, GD tends to happen in every subsequent pregnancy after it happens once, and often gets worse each time. Having a VBAC (vaginal birth after c-section) is already hard enough – another of those times the medical establishment wants to herd women into their preferred path by playing up the risks that come with VBAC rather than discussing them in comparative terms to normal complications – and with GD in the picture it would be even harder…especially if I were to go “past due” with my second pregnancy. See reason #2 why I do not want a section, compounded now by the fact that it would be caring for both a newborn and my other child(ren).

Beyond all my rational reasons I also have visceral fears of both induction (due to a friend with a pretty horrific worst-case-scenario outcome when hers failed) and section (due to my absolute terror at having no control over the outcome of a situation).

So with all of that said, I am obviously not going to let my OB railroad me into “SOP for that condition” without her being able to prove to me why it is medically indicated. Those are the magic words. SOP is not good enough – I am not a statistic, I am a human being, and the circular argument of “we need to treat you this way because that is just how we treat that condition you have” essentially tries to wipe out my own agency and individual circumstances/beliefs. The associative argument of “But don’t you want a healthy baby?” is not compelling enough for me to surrender every piece of my own agency and ability to draw my own risk assessments, rather than letting a doctor decide that the 1/500 chance of an adverse fetal outcome trumps the 1/50 chance that the surgery will injure me.

No, at my next appointment we are going to talk about why, exactly, she feels compelled to get that baby out right at 40 weeks, and if she can point me to the study or medical journal listing the actual statistical risks then I will be more than happy to take them into consideration, along with her medical opinion. But from everything I’ve been able to find for myself on the public web, I don’t expect her to be able to conjure an actual medical indication for treating my pregnancy any differently than we initially planned on.

And I am pissed off all over again that I am having to go to such lengths to protect myself and my baby from what I view as unnecessary and unjustified medical interventions. What the fuck is wrong with prenatal care in this country?!


Filed under Ramblings, Rants and Storms