I googled for "romantasy sucks" and this was one of the top hits, lol. It looks like the Google algo is somehow doing its work today! Thanks for posting. A few thoughts below:
I think what you've written regarding romantasy can be applied to a lot of genres (and you do touch on this); consider the popularity of LitRPG, which is really just power fantasy wrapped in gamer's lexicon. The underlying desire that's tapped is, "If I learn the system enough, I can win. I can dominate." It's the genre for disenfranchised young people, particularly men, who can't see themselves going far in the broken systems of today.
Romantasy is similar: at its core, it is a power fantasy about an untouchable forever-love that does not conflict with personal and often sociocultural power as the F!MC rises. Look at the modern statistics around love and marriage and how bleak this is for women (working women still do more house work than their male partners; men are more likely to cheat on women who earn less or more than them by a much more significant margin than their female counterparts, and even with equal earners, more likely to cheat), and you see where it comes from.
I do agree with the conclusion, though not necessarily because of the literary aspect (I do not have much respect for the litcrit circle, to be perfectly honest, but that's a personal bugbear): like all things, fantasies should be indulged in moderation, and mistaking quadrants III and IV for quadrant I is, indeed, the danger zone. Again, this happens everywhere: I've heard people say Lindsey Stirling is the "greatest violinist alive." She isn't. She's a brilliant entertainer, but Hilary Hahn can Paganini circles around Stirling all day. Usually these individuals are not classical-music aficionados and Lindsey Stirling is their entry into instrumental music with what we view as classical instruments. It's the "confidence from ignorance" phenomenon in action.
I do also think there's a risk here in being derogatory towards people who are mistaken regarding their quadrant, however: it's likely these individuals are still young and speaking confidently from ignorance and an underdeveloped palate from lack of broad experience. Eventually, I suspect most of them will mature as they broaden their scope of reading material.
In the meanwhile, the strong defense is often (though not always) really not a defense of the genre per se, but an ego defense: they have picked up on the derision lobbed at their person, even if disguised as genre criticism. Not to say this is what you are doing, but scroll through Goodreads or any forum post on this topic, and it becomes quite obvious the contempt often spills over to the readers themselves. This is particularly sharp when it comes to anything romance-adjacent, which holds primarily a female readership.
Thanks for the interesting read, and please pardon the long digression.
(Note: I am not a romantasy reader myself. I do read fantasy, and even romance fantasy, but not really romantasy. Also, I think "The Name of the Wind" was and still is way overrated.)
Haha! I love that, Google bringing similar minds together (also hilarious that you googled "romantasy sucks").
I agree with what you said in regard to romantasy (and many genres) tapping into underlying desire, and I also agree that there's nothing shameful or bad about that. It can be a pretty dry life taking everything seriously. A good feet-kicking emotional rush is sometimes all I crave from a TV series or a book. And also, a lot of the fantasy genre is dominated by a particular brand of male power fantasy, so it is a nice change of pace to put the female fantasy in the forefront for once.
Where I think you hit the nail on the head is that "fantasies should be indulged in moderation" -- or at least recognized as fantasies and entertainment. I believe a good book imparts a bit of something else with the reader other than just entertainment. What that is can vary, from learnings to values to something entirely different, but it can't be carried on entertainment alone (by the way, I actually agree with you on The Name of the Wind. I gave it 3 stars on Goodreads because of a litany of criticisms I had, but at the end of the day I could overlook it all for the prose).
I think that's why romantasy particularly irks me, because it's marketed towards adult readers, who "should" know better than to inhale candy and pretend it's vitamin gummies. But like you rightfully called out, there's some derision there, no matter how empathetically delivered. I try my best not to ick someone's yum, but I'd be lying if I said I don't point friends to what I consider better books when they ask for recs (and deliver a carefully curated version of this rant).
Thank you for reading, and thanks for sharing your thoughts! A lot of great things to think about in your comment.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Just as a clarification, I didn't mean that *you* were being derogatory (I thought your post was quite measured), only that there is a trend toward derogatory commentary toward romantasy readers (particularly regarding their intelligence, which you have already covered). I suspect this is why there is such strong defense of romantasy reading habits in some circles--at least some of it is an attempt at ego-defense (aside from defense of favorite books).
So: I don't think there was anything wrong with your delivery, and I hope you continue posting thoughtful and nuanced opinions.
(And I do also share the same pet peeve, which is why I googled the question in the first place, lol.)
I googled for "romantasy sucks" and this was one of the top hits, lol. It looks like the Google algo is somehow doing its work today! Thanks for posting. A few thoughts below:
I think what you've written regarding romantasy can be applied to a lot of genres (and you do touch on this); consider the popularity of LitRPG, which is really just power fantasy wrapped in gamer's lexicon. The underlying desire that's tapped is, "If I learn the system enough, I can win. I can dominate." It's the genre for disenfranchised young people, particularly men, who can't see themselves going far in the broken systems of today.
Romantasy is similar: at its core, it is a power fantasy about an untouchable forever-love that does not conflict with personal and often sociocultural power as the F!MC rises. Look at the modern statistics around love and marriage and how bleak this is for women (working women still do more house work than their male partners; men are more likely to cheat on women who earn less or more than them by a much more significant margin than their female counterparts, and even with equal earners, more likely to cheat), and you see where it comes from.
I do agree with the conclusion, though not necessarily because of the literary aspect (I do not have much respect for the litcrit circle, to be perfectly honest, but that's a personal bugbear): like all things, fantasies should be indulged in moderation, and mistaking quadrants III and IV for quadrant I is, indeed, the danger zone. Again, this happens everywhere: I've heard people say Lindsey Stirling is the "greatest violinist alive." She isn't. She's a brilliant entertainer, but Hilary Hahn can Paganini circles around Stirling all day. Usually these individuals are not classical-music aficionados and Lindsey Stirling is their entry into instrumental music with what we view as classical instruments. It's the "confidence from ignorance" phenomenon in action.
I do also think there's a risk here in being derogatory towards people who are mistaken regarding their quadrant, however: it's likely these individuals are still young and speaking confidently from ignorance and an underdeveloped palate from lack of broad experience. Eventually, I suspect most of them will mature as they broaden their scope of reading material.
In the meanwhile, the strong defense is often (though not always) really not a defense of the genre per se, but an ego defense: they have picked up on the derision lobbed at their person, even if disguised as genre criticism. Not to say this is what you are doing, but scroll through Goodreads or any forum post on this topic, and it becomes quite obvious the contempt often spills over to the readers themselves. This is particularly sharp when it comes to anything romance-adjacent, which holds primarily a female readership.
Thanks for the interesting read, and please pardon the long digression.
(Note: I am not a romantasy reader myself. I do read fantasy, and even romance fantasy, but not really romantasy. Also, I think "The Name of the Wind" was and still is way overrated.)
Haha! I love that, Google bringing similar minds together (also hilarious that you googled "romantasy sucks").
I agree with what you said in regard to romantasy (and many genres) tapping into underlying desire, and I also agree that there's nothing shameful or bad about that. It can be a pretty dry life taking everything seriously. A good feet-kicking emotional rush is sometimes all I crave from a TV series or a book. And also, a lot of the fantasy genre is dominated by a particular brand of male power fantasy, so it is a nice change of pace to put the female fantasy in the forefront for once.
Where I think you hit the nail on the head is that "fantasies should be indulged in moderation" -- or at least recognized as fantasies and entertainment. I believe a good book imparts a bit of something else with the reader other than just entertainment. What that is can vary, from learnings to values to something entirely different, but it can't be carried on entertainment alone (by the way, I actually agree with you on The Name of the Wind. I gave it 3 stars on Goodreads because of a litany of criticisms I had, but at the end of the day I could overlook it all for the prose).
I think that's why romantasy particularly irks me, because it's marketed towards adult readers, who "should" know better than to inhale candy and pretend it's vitamin gummies. But like you rightfully called out, there's some derision there, no matter how empathetically delivered. I try my best not to ick someone's yum, but I'd be lying if I said I don't point friends to what I consider better books when they ask for recs (and deliver a carefully curated version of this rant).
Thank you for reading, and thanks for sharing your thoughts! A lot of great things to think about in your comment.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Just as a clarification, I didn't mean that *you* were being derogatory (I thought your post was quite measured), only that there is a trend toward derogatory commentary toward romantasy readers (particularly regarding their intelligence, which you have already covered). I suspect this is why there is such strong defense of romantasy reading habits in some circles--at least some of it is an attempt at ego-defense (aside from defense of favorite books).
So: I don't think there was anything wrong with your delivery, and I hope you continue posting thoughtful and nuanced opinions.
(And I do also share the same pet peeve, which is why I googled the question in the first place, lol.)
Thoroughly enjoyed this