Reshelf Romantasy
Happy New Year, everyone!
Romantasy is currently being treated as the Next Big Thing for the Fantasy genre. Badly written Fantasy novels with a lot of time sunk into Romance subplots are being thrown onto shelves alongside the works of JRR Tolkien and Fonda Lee because, supposedly, this is what the current incarnation of the core Fantasy audience demands. Supposedly, this is what the Fantasy genre needs to breathe new life into it.
I strongly doubt this. More specifically, I don’t believe that this is a natural transition. Much like with New Adult, I believe that this is the publishing industry trying to make the best of a bad situation. However, whereas the New Adult boom is most likely driven by a towering slush pile of manuscripts that are too immature to be taken seriously as adult fiction and too graphic for YA, I believe that the Romantasy boom originates from inside the industry.
This editorial is going to reflect my personal perspective, drawing upon anecdotal evidence from my efforts to get traditionally published as well as the marketing of titles we have previously reviewed. It will also reference the recent discourse about the surge in Romantasy stories in the Fantasy genre. We will cap this off with a solution that I believe will correct the issues created by this trend while still preserving Romantasy for those who enjoy it.
DEFINING ROMANTASY
To start with, we need some clear terminology. As mentioned back in the New Adult editorial, the only objective standards for genre are “fiction” and “non-fiction”. Everything else is just marketing. That said, the two elements of Romantasy, Romance and Fantasy, are well-established genres with recurring traits that can be used to identify whether a work of fiction belongs within them.
What is the Fantasy Genre?
Britannica defines the Fantasy genre as:
imaginative fiction dependent for effect on strangeness of setting (such as other worlds or times) and of characters (such as supernatural or unnatural beings). Examples include William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, and T.H. White’s The Once and Future King. Science fiction can be seen as a form of fantasy, but the terms are not interchangeable, as science fiction usually is set in the future and is based on some aspect of science or technology, while fantasy is set in an imaginary world and features the magic of mythical beings.
On October 2nd, 2021, MasterClass had this to say in their overview of the Fantasy genre and its subgenres.
Fantasy is a genre of literature that features magical and supernatural elements that do not exist in the real world. Although some writers juxtapose a real-world setting with fantastical elements, many create entirely imaginary universes with their own physical laws and logic and populations of imaginary races and creatures. Speculative in nature, fantasy is not tied to reality or scientific fact.
These are incredibly broad definitions, with the overlap being that Fantasy is defined by the presence of the fantastical or supernatural elements. While this overlap does capture a lot of things that would not typically be considered Fantasy - by this logic, Miracle on 34th Street (or at least the remake) is Fantasy, since the end heavily implies that Richard Attenborough’s character was indeed the real Santa Claus - this does seem to be the definition embraced by the publishing industry. Many agents these days who claim to represent Fantasy explicitly want Fantasy elements to be so light that the story is basically our world with some minor quirks (the “Magical Realism” subgenre).
What is the Romance Genre?
Romance Writers of America has this to say on its page defining the Romance genre.
Two basic elements comprise every romance novel: a central love story and an emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending.
A Central Love Story: The main plot centers around individuals falling in love and struggling to make the relationship work. A writer can include as many subplots as they want as long as the love story is the main focus of the novel.
An Emotionally Satisfying and Optimistic Ending: In a romance, the lovers who risk and struggle for each other and their relationship are rewarded with emotional justice and unconditional love.
Romance novels may have any tone or style, be set in any place or time, and have varying levels of sensuality—ranging from sweet to extremely hot. These settings and distinctions of plot create specific subgenres within romance fiction.
On September 3rd, 2022, MasterClass posted a Writing 101 article covering the basics of Romance novels, referencing the above Romance Writers of America definition before establishing the following common characteristics for Romance novels.
There must be a conflict challenging the relationship that needs to be overcome.
The stories are aspirational, and so issues outside of the central courtship are limited.
Romance novels are generally told through the perspective of a woman and feature strong-willed and clever female characters.
All romance novels follow the moral principle that good behavior is rewarded with unconditional love.
Most important of all, the stories have a happy ending.
On March 6th, 2023, No Film School had this to say.
The romance genre is a storytelling genre that focuses on love and romantic relationships between two or more characters. It typically includes themes of passion, intimacy, and emotional connection between characters, and often explores the complexities of human relationships.
In literature, film, and television, the romance genre may take many forms, including historical romance, contemporary romance, paranormal romance, and romantic comedy. While the romance genre is often associated with happy endings and the triumph of love, it can also include elements of heartbreak and tragedy.
The romance genre seeks to explore the intricacies and emotional depths of love and relationships, and it continues to captivate audiences of all ages and backgrounds.
The common thread is this: in Romance, the romance is the core of the narrative. If the romance is only a subplot, then the story does not count as a Romance.
What is the Romantasy Sub-Genre?
On February 27th, 2024, author M. K. Lobb wrote an article for Writer’s Digest about what defines a Romantasy. In this article, Lobb posted some of the responses she got on social media when she asked “other readers and writers” how they would define the genre.
Romantasy is when the romantic and fantasy aspects of the story are equally important
Romantasy is just a romance book with a fantasy world as a backdrop
Romantasy is when the plot would fall apart without the romance
Romantasy is a fantasy plot with a central romance that follows romance book “beats” (see: Romancing the Beat, by Gwen Hayes)
Romantasy is just fantasy with “spicy” scenes
I agree with Lobb’s assessment that the last variable doesn’t really work. If we were to count it, then any Fantasy with a sex scene is a Romantasy, watering down the definition beyond any value. However, I think that the first four answers all convey a common idea:
Romantasy is a sub-genre where a romantic love story serves as the core of the narrative within a setting featuring fantastical or supernatural elements.
The Empyrean
I find it interesting to note that, within Lobb’s article, Fourth Wing is raised as an example of Romantasy. Lobb attempts to mold her definition of Romantasy around this book.
I’ll draw upon a timely, wildly popular example: Fourth Wing. From what I can tell, the book is universally acknowledged as being true romantasy. But if you remove Violet and Xaden’s romantic relationship from the equation, is it not still a tense story about surviving a deadly dragon-rider’s academy? Sure, it becomes considerably less compelling, but the plot is still there. The protagonist’s goals are still the same.
What does fall apart, I’ll suggest, is a prominent element of the protagonist’s characterization. In a romantasy novel, so much about your main character is revealed through the way they interact with—and react to—their love interest. A lot of page time is given to their internal monologue where the love interest is a key consideration. It adds a source of constant internal conflict that often runs alongside the external “fantasy world” conflict, for lack of a better term.
Perhaps, then, it is not the plot that falls apart when the romance is removed, but a specific and captivating set of internal stakes. And yes, I’ve noticed it often does follow the traditional romance “beats,” even if you’re not promised that happy ending!
I feel that using Fourth Wing as a benchmark is a mistake. By the logic Lobb puts forth here, every book with a romantic subplot is Romantasy. The Inheritance Cycle, Jade City, the last three Harry Potter books, Hostage of the Empire, and A Song of Ice and Fire all dedicate substantial time (within the span of specific POVs, if not the book as a whole) to exploring the impact of romance on characterization. If we were to accept Lobb’s definition, then it would water down the definition even further than if we used sex scenes as the deciding criteria.
I also think it’s worth pointing out that, in the case of The Empyrean specifically, very little about Violet’s character is actually revealed through her interactions with, and thoughts about, Xaden. Far more time is invested and far more information is revealed through interactions with other characters, such as her siblings, Dain (after he was dropped as a love interest), her squad, and her dragons. The only things we learn through Xaden is that Violent is a deranged, emotionally abusive, sex-addicted harpy. Since the narrative does not acknowledge any of these flaws, it is characterization that is ultimately of no value to the narrative. That only leaves the sexual tension and pornography, which Lobb agrees should not be used as a deciding metric.
The long and short of it is, either Romantasy is such a nebulous concept that it can’t be used to reflect any sort of genre trends, or else this one book series being promoted as a Romantasy is not really a Romantasy. Bear in mind that, by Yarros’s own admission, she did not come up with the concept for The Empyrean ex nihilo. Red Tower Books was looking for Romantasy, and she wrote a project to fill the demand, backed by her reputation as an established Romance author. She didn’t need to convince anyone to market her book as Romantasy - they were eager to do so. Couple this starting point with the atrocious writing in The Empyrean, the most logical answer is that Yarros made a promise and failed to deliver. The publisher is calling it Romantasy because the alternative would be to squander their investment.
Playing Catch-up
With that established, let’s scroll back through the books we have reviewed thus far and determine which ones do or don’t fit the definition of Romantasy.
Servants of War: No. There is a hint of a romantic subplot, but that’s it.
Foundryside: No. The subplot is more defined this time, but it’s still only a subplot.
Shadow of the Conqueror: Absolutely not.
The Shadow of the Gods: No. Again, just hints of a subplot.
The Licanius Trilogy: No.
Hostage of the Empire: No. The love square between Yala, Kai, Takshin, and Daoyan is a romance subplot that gets substantial focus and does drive pivotal decisions by the characters, especially in the last book. However, the narrative is focused on the succession drama. If anything, the romance is an avenue by which the fallout of the succession crisis is explored. The story drives the romance, rather than the romance driving the story.
The Thrawn Trilogy: No, though it’s worth noting that this is were the relationship between Luke and Mara takes its first steps.
Notorious Sorcerer: No. As covered while reviewing the Onyx Storm marketing materials, while it may at first seem like the sexual relationship between Siyon and Izmirlian drives the narrative, the story would run exactly the same if it was a platonic relationship. Izmirlian commissioned Siyon to do a job, and Siyon was doing that job regardless of any sexual entanglements.
The Stardust Thief: No. Loulie’s romantic history does have an impact of the narrative, but it is neither the focus nor what drives the story.
Son of the Storm: No.
The Fall of Reach: No.
Jade City: No, but it’s interesting to note how close it comes to being one. The characterizations of the three Kaul siblings are so strongly informed by past or present romantic relationships that said relationships do influence the trajectory of the plot at multiple points. It’s just that other factors have a stronger influence.
The City of Brass: No, but again, the romance between Nahri and Dara does have an meaningful impact of the trajectory of the plot in the third act. Given how Nahri is trying to bring Dara back from the dead at the end of the first book, I would not be surprised if the sequels evolved into Romantasy by virtue of her ongoing efforts to be reunited with him. (I still haven’t read the sequels, nor do I have plans to at this time. I’m merely observing the potential.)
A Master of Djinn: No. The relationship between Fatma and Siti is a subplot that barely provides any substance to the narrative, and it certainly doesn’t drive the story.
Xenos and Malleus. No.
Caraval: Yes. While Scarlett’s motivation is to be reunited with Tella, her story is really about how her desire for Julian changes her as a person. The romance, simplistic as it is, serves as the driving force behind the narrative, and the story could not have unfolded the way that it did without that romance.
Inheritance Cycle: No. Eragon’s attraction to Arya is a subplot that gets substantial focus and informs his decisions, yet much like with Hostage of the Empire, it is driven by the plot (more specifically, by the process of Eragon maturing as the plot progresses) rather than being what drives the plot.
Murtagh: No. Murtagh and Nasuada are attracted to one another, but that is treated as a background detail.
The Goblet of Fire: No. Romance doesn’t really become relevant until later in the series. We get to see Harry’s attraction towards Cho and the budding attraction between Ron and Hermione in this book, but that’s it. We’re actually going to get into this a bit more on January 10th, since that’s when Goblet of Fire analysis series will reach the Yule Ball.
The Eye of Minds: No. Setting aside the fact that this is Science Fiction and not Fantasy, there’s no romance, outside of a hint of some obligatory connection between Michael and his female friend (who doesn’t have enough character for me to bother looking up her name).
It’s worth noting that I am not a person who seeks out Romantasy. I only stumble into the genre (or titles wrongly sorted into that genre) if they are marketed as something else. That said, I think it’s worth noting that Notorious Sorcerer and The City of Brass could be interpreted as Romantasy if one leaned into Lobb’s definition. It wouldn’t be hard to gerrymander an arbitrary line as to the amount of character drama that needs to be about romance, thereby sorting these two books into Romantasy while leaving the others with less focused subplots out. I suspect that this is the sort logic that publishers use to try to sell Romantasy as the Next Big Thing. Non-Romance books that simply emphasize Romance subplots to the detriment of the rest of the story are having a line drawn around them so that their poor quality can be spun as something sophisticated.
Why Defining Romantasy Matters
Some of you may be wondering why it is so important that a hard definition be set for Romantasy and why I am driving so hard at The Empyrean not being Romantasy. After all, literature is art, and genre all comes down to marketing fluff in the end. What does it matter if the books been pushed as Romantasy actually qualify as Romances?
Honesty and quality. That’s why.
Names legitimize things. In the name of Romantasy, Fantasy writers are being denied access to traditional publishing because they made the mistake of writing for the mainstream Fantasy audience instead of for Romance audiences. In the name of Romantasy, schlock like The Empyrean is being uplifted into high art.
The thing is, I don’t think Romantasy would be a problem if the books that bore this designation were high-quality and actually lived up to their name. If Romantasy consisted of well-written Romance stories set in a Fantasy environment, I think it would integrate smoothly into the Fantasy landscape. People who might not otherwise read Romances might be willing to give a Romantasy a chance.
As it is, Romantasy has become an excuse, much like New Adult. It is a name used to pretend that sludge is anything other than sludge. It is, in short, a lie told to legitimize inferior writing.
If this trend is going to be shoved down the Fantasy audience’s throats and decide the future of countless Fantasy writers, at least it could do so with a measure of integrity.
ARTIFICIAL TREND, REAL BACKLASH
Anyone who is currently trying to publish a Fantasy manuscript can tell you that very few agents who claim to represent Fantasy these days want the more established subgenres. I’ve seen the same thing repeated across dozens of literary agencies while looking for someone to whom to submit my own manuscripts. Most of the agents who claim to want Fantasy aren’t interested in Epic Fantasy, Urban Fantasy, Fantasy Horror, or Historical Fantasy, even if they claim to have a preference for these things or use them as their comp titles. Rather, they want Romantasy.
At the same time, there is growing discontent among the established Fantasy readership and among writers of its more established Fantasy subgenres. In YouTube comments sections and on Twitter, I see writers (both men and women) complaining about being rejected because their protagonist wasn’t female or because they wouldn’t crowbar in a Romance subplot (or, in at least one instance I saw from a female writer, wouldn’t rewrite her whole project from the ground up to make it a Paranormal Romance). BookTube is full of reviewers complaining about incredibly bad Romantasies aimed at BookTokers who judge the quality of a book based upon whether it has enough pornography in it. Romantasy isn’t even being marketed honestly on the shelves. As we covered back in the review of Onyx Storm’s marketing materials, publishers seem to be trying to bury the true nature of so-called Romantasy books, passing them off as other forms of Fantasy that will appeal to the established audience. It really comes across as if neither the supply nor the demand of Fantasy has changed all that much, so where is this resounding call for Romantasy coming from?
And, lest we forget, there is all the discourse originating from disenfranchised men who are now struggling to find book they can enjoy in a genre that used to provide them with plenty of options. This last often gets boiled down to, “Women are ruining Fantasy.” It’s an argument that I find to be pathetically flimsy if used unironically and in disgustingly bad faith if used as a strawman, yet I’m convinced that it is a symptom of heartfelt frustration at a very real issue.
As you no doubt grasped from the opening of this post, I think the push for Romantasy is artificial. It has little to do with the books that are being written and even less with audience demand, unless the only audience demand one considers is BookTok. I am sincerely convinced that the demand for Romantasy is coming from inside the publishing industry, from the people who gatekeep access traditional publishing: agents and acquisition editors.
Let me explain by going through the above three points in reverse order.
“Women Are Ruining Fantasy”
Do I really need to explain why accepting this statement at face value would be absurd?
Women have, to some extent, always been part of the Fantasy genre. Countless female authors have written marvelous works of Fantasy fiction. The highest-rated book thus far reviewed on this site, Jade City, was written by a woman. The most financially successful Fantasy series of all time, Harry Potter, was written by a woman! And then there is the audience. Female readers have been here for as long as (if not longer than) female authors. They are included among the most passionate fans.
… but what if we don’t take this statement at face value?
What if we step back and consider what might prompt such a ridiculous statement? What if we take a look at the wider entertainment landscape for points of reference? What deeper issue could be lurking beneath the surface that critics are struggling to articulate?
While it’s undeniable that woman have always been part of the Fantasy genre, it has historically been male-dominated. That does not mean that women weren’t an integral part of the audience; that does not mean that women couldn’t enjoy Fantasy stories; that does not, in fact, mean that women were excluded in any way. Women were always welcome, both as writers and as readers. What this means is that the stories being told were ones that appealed to masculine fantasies: of the struggle against personal flaws to grow as a person and triumph over evil, of violence being wielded as a tool for a just cause and opposed when used for tyranny, of self-sacrifice in the name of protecting others. In his recent video essay discussing chivalric heroes and chivalric romance, Pilgrims Pass posed that these stories are a way to find purpose in the sacrifices that men were traditionally expected to make for their families and for society. These were stories that reframed daily struggles as something more epic and meaningful.
(Please note that all of this is also true for Science Fiction. You can apply all the arguments I have made thus far and will continue making throughout this post to both genres equally. I am singling out Fantasy due to the connection to the Romantasy trend.)
A good example of this would be Jade City. Whatever her beliefs may be about “testosterone-dominated culture”, Fonda Lee understood how to tell a story of struggle and sacrifice that men can get invested in. At the heart of this wuxia gangster saga is a story of people grappling with personal flaws and necessary sacrifices as they try to protect the lives and legacy of their family. For all of the violence within that story, said violence is ultimately an expression of that struggle. Lee accomplishes this whilst simultaneously telling a feminist narrative of a woman rising through the ranks of a patriarchal system.
In recent years - most noticeably in the last decade, though I’m sure it started before then - there have been people insisting that the genre needs to change to be more “inclusive” for women. This obviously baffled the established fanbase. After all, women weren’t excluded in the first place. However, the wave of fiction pushed by this call for “inclusivity” exposes what is specifically being sought: stories that appeal near-exclusively to women, to the point of excluding men.
In and of itself, this is not a bad thing. Books are just as much a subject of the free market as anything else. If a demand exists, there’s nothing inherently wrong with supplying that demand. Why shouldn’t there be Fantasy fiction that appeals more strongly to the female readership?
The issue is that a lot (seemingly most) of the “inclusive” fiction being pushed out checks one or more of the following four boxes:
The story focuses on romance or low-stakes conflict to the detriment of other aspects of the narrative, even if these elements are not what drives the narrative. This produces fiction that might get a load of superficial praise on BookTok but that can’t hold up to any meaningful scrutiny.
The story is an incoherent, unhinged power fantasy about a female character vomiting up all of her worse impulses and basest urges without meaningful consequence.
The story is full of sexist stereotypes, both against men (often by demonizing them as incompetent, predatory, sexist, or otherwise inherently flaws) and against traditional femininity (either implied as a consequence of the Not Like Other Girls trope or else by using traditionally feminine characters as antagonists against the liberated modern woman).
For established franchises, stories are being broken at the plot, character, worldbuilding, and/or thematic level to accommodate the above three points, often coupled with breaking male heroes down so that female heroes can take their places.
The issue with the first one is one of hypocrisy and excess, coupled with the accompanying drop in literary quality. The only way one could spin the pre-existing Fantasy genre as excluding women is if one argued that appealing to men was inherently exclusionary to women; by that logic, stories that do the same thing in the opposite direction are just as vile. This might fly under the radar of these stories trickled in slowly, serving a niche market, but they are now flooding the market, to the point of alienating the male readership and lowering the average quality of what’s available on the shelves.
The second issue is one that applies equally to fiction that appeals to men. Such stories are usually mocked into obscurity or else treated as guilty pleasures that aren’t taken seriously. However, the power fantasies meant to appeal to women are being aggressively pushed into the spotlight. We are being told we have to take them seriously, and as they fill more and more shelf space, it becomes more difficult to avoid them.
The issue with the third point is, again, hypocrisy. I’m certain that sexism again women (real sexism, not the accusation casually hurled by people without any other argument) has been an issue with the genre in the past, but we’ve overshot the point of rectifying that problem. Flipping the roles just antagonizes the people whom might otherwise open up to a more egalitarian mindset.
As for the fourth point, we have seen it in countless franchises (Star Wars, The Rings of Power, Star Trek, He-Man, Ghostbusters, Marvel comics and the MCU, James Bond, and Doctor Who, just to pull a few off the top of my head) fall prey to this effort to force “inclusive” stories. (This happens in more ways than just “inclusivity” for women, but I want to stay focused on Romantasy here.) Every time, the IP holder makes a big deal about how these changes improve the stories and expand the audience. However, this is far too often just a shield to protect a badly-made product from criticism by accusing the critics of sexism, and the women who previously loved the franchise end up abandoning it at a faster rate than new women join the ranks of the fanbase. Even when this fallout doesn’t manifest, these “inclusivity” changes have now been made in so many stories that they are no longer revolutionary. They are lazy, dull, and predictable.
To bring this back to the “Women are ruining Fantasy” argument, it’s clear that what’s actually being referred to with this line the effort to displace those aspects of Fantasy that once allowed men to find escapism, inspiration, and solace within the genre. Things are being changed at an unnatural, aggressive rate, flooding the market with bad or outright offensive fiction in the process. As a result, all those statistics about women reading more than men become a vicious cycle, and the call for more fiction aimed at women becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Men are abandoning the genre that has alienated them (or, at least, retreating to indie publishing and classical works) because it is getting harder for them to find stories that they can enjoy.
And speaking of statistics …
Reader Data
More women than men read fiction. That’s a statistical reality. What’s more, with the rise in video games and other hobbies, there are incentives to lure men away from literature. This will, of course, affect even spaces dominated by men. It makes sense that the Fantasy genre will see an increase in the portion of female readers.
However, the solution to this is not to exclude men from the genre. That just exacerbates the issue. If someone is being lured away by a carrot, you don’t drive them further away with a stick. You put out carrots of your own.
What I’m getting at here is that, even if male readership is declining, that does not mean that Fantasy should be inundated with stories that appeal exclusively to women. It takes a trend and snowballs it into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Men are leaving the genre, so the industry throws all its effort into appealing to women who otherwise wouldn’t read the genre, which makes the genre less appealing to men, so men leave the genre.
This is the primary reason why this analysis is based on anecdote and observation. I simply don’t trust the publicly available data enough to accept it as a justification for an onslaught of exclusionary fantasy. At this point, I’ve seen enough from both the publishing industry and the audience to convince me that this self-fulfilling prophecy is already mangling the data.
If the growth of Romantasy were a slow build, I would buy into it. However, as we will now cover, the industry is not just aggressively pushing this content but actively marketing it as something the male readership would still want. This doesn’t seem to be the behavior one would expect if the data is actually behind it.
Access and Marketing
Every month or so, Twitter (and now also BlueSky) hosts various pitch events. Authors can market the books they are querying or currently working upon, drumming up interest on the social network and hoping for that elusive like by a literary agent, which is an invitation to solicit work to that agent. Works of all genres and sub-genres, including a great deal of Romantasy, make an appearance. And while these pitches take many forms - log lines, trope lists, comp titles, AITA posts written from the POV of the protagonist or antagonist, and even stranger things - one fact remains consistent:
When a book is meant as Romantasy, you can tell it is a Romantasy.
All these authors on social media don’t bury the lead. Romance is the core of their stories, and they are honest about that. They get engagement from that.
So why does The Empyrean, the book being hailed as the premier Romantasy driving the trend, hide its true nature? For that matter, why do Notorious Sorcerer and The City of Brass, books that could easily be sorted into the Romantasy genre if one were flexible with the genre’s definition, not make any mention of their romance elements?
Even if one accepts that Romanasy is the hot new thing and that the Fantasy genre is being redefined to meet the demands of its growing female fanbase, one still needs to market the Romance elements because books without these elements are still sitting on the shelves. If the first Fantasy book one ever reads is a Romantasy, and that Romantasy is marketed the same as, say, the Licanius Trilogy, what’s to stop the Romantasy reader from cracking open The Shadow of What was Lost and being disappointed by the lack of romance (and lack of pornography) within? Does the publisher of Romantasy not risk the disillusionment and potential loss of this new customer by disguising the desired books as something this new customer won’t want to read?
The only way I can make heads or tails of this, as covered in the discussion of Onyx Storm, is that the market is not actually demanding Romantasy, and least not to the extent that the publishing industry claims. It’s a niche market, at best. The only way that lying about the true nature of Romantasy is advantageous is if the non-Romantasy audience is such an overwhelming majority of the market the publisher can’t afford to drive away their business.
The Gatekeepers
If you want to be traditionally published in the United States and other English-speaking Western markets, you need a literary agent, who will then represent you to acquisition editors at the publishing houses. Even if your manuscript catches the eye of an acquisition editor directly, you will typically be expected to then find an agent to represent you going forward. These two individuals control access to traditional publishing. Both must sign off on your work long before the book is published.
Neither agents nor acquisition editors are one-size-fits-all. They specialize in certain genres, building up a reputation and contacts in that genre. This makes professional sense. Specialization is standard across many industries, with people of many specializations coming together to cover all needs.
Agents and acquisition editors will also work to promote projects they are “passionate” about. I have received multiple rejection letters where the reason given for the rejection was not that it didn’t fit the agent’s wish list or that the writing was weak; instead, the reason given was that the agent simply didn’t feel passionate about the project. Again, this makes sense. Literature is about more than technical construction. It is art that has to resonate with people emotionally, and that’s something that has to be judged by the individual person. It’s also easier for people to be motivated to do their best if they are fully engaged with their work.
So long as the specializations and passions of the agents and acquisition editors align with the market, everything will be fine. Even if each agent and each acquisition editor focuses on her personal niche, everything will remain fine so long as the number of people covering every niche reflects the market.
What, then, is the system of checks and balances to ensure that this happens?
…
There isn’t one.
Over the years, the publishing industry has become female-dominated. Many of the newer agencies are nearly entirely (if not entirely) staffed by female agents, with only the older agencies still maintaining anything that looks like an egalitarian mix. This takeover includes the Fantasy genre. That wouldn’t be an issue if this wave of new agents felt passion for stories the established Fantasy fanbase wants - except most don't feel that passion. They want stories that appeal near-exclusively to women. They want simplistic worldbuilding and emphasis on low stakes, even if this undermines the story being told. They want … Romantasy.
Bottlenecks and False Trends
Publishing houses that deal in the Fantasy rely upon agents and editors to supply manuscripts to meet the demand of the readership. Now, both layers of gatekeeping are predominantly managed by people who want very different things from the established fanbase. They want Romantasy, and they provide the publishing houses with disproportionate quantities of Romantasy, so that is what the publishing houses need to sell.
This wouldn't be a problem is the Romantasy books being published were good. If the plots were well-written, if the characters were sympathetic and interesting, and if the worldbuilding respected the intelligence of the audience, many of the people who now feel alienated by the changing face of Fantasy would be able to roll with it. Part of the reason that my current project is a Romantasy is that I intend to prove this very point. It is not impossible to tell a romance-driven narrative that men can engage with and that Fantasy fans overall can feel respected by.
That’s the thing, though. The Romantasies being published aren’t good. As The Empyrean demonstrates, many technically aren’t even Romantasies, just bad Fantasies with a label slapped on them to make them sound palatable. Agents and acquisition editors are leaning so far into their passion that they are prioritizing Romantasies with elements they superficially enjoy over the ones with quality writing. It’s creating an environment where the Fantasy genre has a few works of genuine quality buried in a sea of trash. (Yes, that is historically be true for art in general, but we now live in an era with publicly accessible professional profiles, Manuscript Wish Lists, and social media pages. When someone trumpets the biases that will be held above quality and then facilitates of publication of trash that satisfies those biases, then by that person’s own admission, the biases are the source of the trash.)
In theory, market pressure should keep this sort of thing in check, but that assumes fiduciary responsibility. I’m not sure that either agents nor acquisition editors are actually accountable for the financial health of the industry. Acquisition editors work for the publishers, so one would think they are on the hook, but they control what manuscripts the publisher sees. They can simply argue that nothing else of quality is being written. Agents only have an obligation to their stable of handpicked authors. Given how many books these days never make a profit and simply pay the agents and authors with an advance, it seems like the industry has normalized failure to the point that long-term damage from forcing a trend wouldn’t even cross anyone’s minds as an issue.
The long and short of it is that publishing houses are being given sludge when they need to sell gold. Is it any wonder, then, that they would try to stoke hype for Romantasy? Is it any wonder that they would use dishonest marketing to convince non-Romantasy readers to buy these books? The publishers are doing what they have to do to survive.
A Note to the Gatekeepers
If any of the agents or acquisition editors involved in the Romantasy craze are reading this … well, I won’t sugarcoat it. I am laying blame for this mess solely at your feet. You are letting your own passion take precedent over actual audience demand, and that hurts both the readers and the writers (including women).
I know it’s not out of malice. In fact, I empathize with your efforts to propagate Romantasy. I’m sure you became agents and acquisition editors specifically to champion the types of projects you are interested in. I deeply respect that.
However, while this sort of thing is admirable at the individual level, when everyone is pushing the same direction at the same time, it stifles creativity. You are denying not only the readers but also countless writers (again, including women) who don’t want to be pigeonholed into Romance.
I’m not asking you to give up on your passion. I’m just asking that you start listening to the readers who are disenfranchised by your flooding of the market. I’m asking you take note of the effort the publishing houses take to clean up this situation.
We can all be winners here. You can still promote projects with the things you love while also satisfying the existing audience. It’s just a matter of keeping quality and the things that the established audience wants on your list of priorities.
The established audience can get behind the increase of romantic content so long as the stories are still good and so long as we don’t get excluded from the genre that used to be our refuge.
A DIFFERENT SHELF
Identifying a problem and assigning blame are all well and good, but these things mean nothing without a solution. As the title of this post indicates, I feel like the solution is pretty straightforward:
Stop treating Romantasy as a hybrid subgenre under the umbrella of Fantasy. It should exclusively be viewed as a subgenre of Romance.
Is an existing book that is designated as Romantasy sitting on a Fantasy shelf? Move it to the Romance shelves.
Does an online bookstore have links to funnel readers of other Fantasy subgenres to Romantasy titles? Remove those links.
Are you an agent who wants to represent Romantasy? If you represent other types of Fantasy, list Romantasy as a Romance subgenre that you also represent. If Romantasy is the only Fantasy you represent, stop branding yourself as a Fantasy agent.
Are you an acquisition editor who wants to acquire Romantasy? Okay, but you’d better be working for Romance publisher. Be prepared to switch departments or companies.
Are you an acquisition editor who wants to remain focused on Fantasy but likes Romance elements? That’s fine, but if you are staying put, make sure you are looking for quality and catering to the established Fantasy audience, not just the tourists from Romance.
I realize this is a solution that would take a lot of work to implement, but I think the payoff would be incredibly rewarding - and revealing - no matter how one slices it.
The Romantasy audience does not need to worry about stumbling into Fantasy titles that won't satisfy them.
The Fantasy audience can rebuild trust in the marketing of Fantasy publishers.
Romantasy titles can be marketed more honestly. Setting aside for a moment the issue of The Empyrean not truly being Romantasy, I think its current marketing would be fine if it were exclusively marketed alongside other Romance titles. Any potential readers would inherently understand that Romance is meant to be the focus and that the Epic Fantasy elements are just set dressing.
Fantasy writers would no longer be pressured to fundamentally reshape their work to cater to a completely different genre.
When I proposed this solution on the Bastion Discord, I was asked, “If you move the Romantasy, what books will be left in Fantasy?” I feel the answer to that should be obvious: the other Fantasy subgenres will remain in Fantasy. Writers are lining up to provide Fantasy manuscripts in non-Romantasy genres; a clear divide will remove this artificial demand for them to warp their work. It’s also not like this would purge all works with Romance subplots. Only books that make Romance a priority would be reclassified. As for Romantasy authors, their books could then succeed or fail purely on the quality of the Romance story, rather than on whether the rest of the Fantasy narrative is any good.
Now, there’s a possibility that some of you reading this might be writing Romantasy and object to being shunted into the Romance genre. Maybe you don’t want the association with pure Romance, or maybe you feel your Romantasy project doesn’t put enough focus on Romance to warrant being relocated. I do emphasize. The other reason that my current project is Romantasy is that I’m trying to get my foot in the door in the Fantasy market; I don’t plan to cultivate an exclusively Romance fanbase. However, it’s precisely because I can emphasize that I feel that reclassifying Romantasy is necessary. Those of us who want to write Fantasy shouldn’t need to satisfy the audience of an entirely different genre.
FINAL THOUGHTS
The Romantasy trend and its artificial nature are not the only problems the modern Fantasy genre is grappling with. While I lay blame with the agents and acquisition editors for it, I do not believe that anyone involved in this situation is acting out of malice. My proposed solution is intended not to sweep Romantasy under a rug but to ensure that everyone can find what they truly want.
The hope for this editorial was to express the frustration that readers and writers alike feel with this trend. The audience that has sustained Fantasy for decades shouldn’t be alienated in favor of a trend catering to another genre’s audience, nor should writers be expected to gut their work to chase trend that didn’t arise naturally. Products should be marketed honestly, and the people who gatekeep the industry should at least make an effort to cultivate literature that caters to the market rather than just their personal passions.
At the end of the day, literature is art, but publishing is an industry. Readers are willing to invest their money in books, while writers are willing to sacrifice and sink long hours into products the readers will enjoy. Is it too much to ask that the industry facilitate the chain of supply and demand? After all, the long-term viability of those in the middle depends upon those at the ends.
MARVELOUS THINGS
On January 17th, we will return to Reflect & Redraft for the first time in over a year to tackle something a little less literary: the rewrite proposal for the MCU’s Captain Marvel.
Kevin Fiege and the other creatives of the MCU wore their intentions (or, at least, their virtue signals) on their sleeves for this film. Captain Marvel was meant to demonstrate that the MCU was in lockstep with Hollywood’s messaging, pushing a feminist hero as fast as possible. Unfortunately, in their haste, they made a film that was as lazy, predictable, and bland as could be. Their icon ended up embodying the worst of the Strong Female Character and the Mary Sue. In the place of a hero with a meaningful and engaging journey, we were given a bland, toxic character with overwhelming and unearned power. That power invalidated all obstacles and made the story boring.
That being said, I don’t think it would take much to fix this. The plot that already exists in the film provides an adequate framework to tell a meaningful narrative that still explores feminist themes. It just needed a redraft to iron things out. Ultimately, I think this movie could have been saved by the same set of overwhelming superpowers that made it so boring in the first place.
I hope you’ll join me as we go on this new journey. Have a great week, everyone.
