Post

This article sparked some delightful conversation today and I think it poses an interesting question that is pretty similar to what I said in my earlier post (but more elegantly!): We still haven't decided if Romantasy = romantic fantasy, fantasy romance, or both. And that is chaos. LOL

Reactor Magazine@reactorsff.bsky.social

"Whatever you think of the advent of romantasy onto the SFF scene, be assured that it isn’t a problem to be solved. It’s an opportunity." @readingtheend.bsky.social discusses where romance & romantasy sit within genre–and how to get the right book to the right person: reactormag.com/how-do-you-s...

As someone Heavy into SFF and with a wife who has a masters in library science, to me romantasy are generally fantasy romance. the majority of the ones I have experienced the Fantastical worlds are more an excuse for romance than romance happening in a well thought out world.

As someone who grew up reading epic fantasy, I kinda hate the implication romance isn't worldbuilt just as well. I think it's all perspective. Like honestly I think most epic fantasy classics have gaps in worldbuilding, it just depends on which parts of it you are focused on!

0 reposts4 likes

Oh I agree there are a lot of epic fantasy that falls down on the world building. And I know that a lot of romance is built quite well just my reading history is primarily SFF so I was not going to comment on it from that direction.

Romance can have world building, it just is not as usual, in my experience. But then I pretty much gave up on most romance books decades ago. I have a few UF series I read that might fit the PNR or Romantasy label, but I don't read them for the romance (often skipping those parts).