Were-animal books are quite popular at the moment. Some of the combos would have strange end results. The were-fox/were-owl combo could lead to some interesting moments, don't you think? Then there's the real origin of cat-dog, the were-collie/were-panther couple. Personally, I think that perhaps a were-elephant/were-chimpanzee combo might be interesting.
I like the idea of overcoming differences in their backgrounds so that true love runs smooth. It's just that I get this glimpse of difficulties that could be awkward to say the least. Take the were-owl... she lays eggs? So how's that gonna work with a little fox?
Or the collie/panther couple... really will lead a dog and cat existence. In romances, the writer always glosses over the nature of the were-animal, but isn't that what makes the story interesting? Who and what they are is the very reason we read the book. To gloss over the very thing that makes them different denies the reason for the tension in the story.
It's kind of funny, but in my experience, writers spend more time discussing the nature of the beast when only one half of the pair is a were-animal. It's as though the animal nature is negated if both halves of the pair are were-animal. They'll supposedly automatically know what drives the other person will be dealing with. I'm not so sure that would be true.
In reality, we as humans barely perceive what makes us tick. How much more difficult must it be if one is a carnivore by nature and the other a real vegan. What drives are there that would lead to real conflict? Wolves, for instance are very different from say, lions. Not just in physical characteristics, but in social order. How would ultimately play out in the long run? Talk about in-law problems...
So, these are just a few things I think about in the middle of the night. And you thought that romance writers thought about sex.
The best of the best: Amarinda, Kelly, OhGetAGrip