The modern literary world is full of subgenres and terms intended to provide readers with orientation. One term that has become particularly established in recent years in the young adult and new adult genres area is Romantasy – a portmanteau of romance and fantasy. What at first glance appears to be a convenient condensation of two popular genres turns out to be meaningless upon closer inspection – a label that obscures more than it explains.

Romantasy suggests an equal connection between a love story and a fantastical setting. But what exactly does this mean in terms of content? Is it a love story with a magical background or an epic fantasy tale in which romantic entanglements play a supporting role? The term leaves this open. It merely describes that both occur – but not how, to what extent, or with what narrative focus.

A high fantasy novel with a pair of lovers? An urban fantasy novella with a cheesy love triangle? Or a romantic story that just happens to be set in a world with dragons? All of these fall under the category of romantasy. The category has become so broad that it’s hardly helpful anymore – neither for readers seeking a specific reading experience nor for authors seeking to position themselves within a genre.

Goodreads alone lists almost 30,000 books with term romantasy.

Literary genres provide orientation. They help formulate expectations and assign books to specific traditions or target audiences. But terms like romantasy are an expression of a growing inflation of hybrid terms that often place more emphasis on marketing and sales than on content precision.

The term frequently appears in connection with TikTok trends, Bookstagram recommendations, or quickly consumable bestseller lists. What actually defines the book is rarely clarified – whether it’s world-building-oriented high fantasy, whether the love story is queer, or whether the magic system plays a central role. Instead, the label romantasy is used as a catch-all term – a container for everything that lies between heartbreak and magic wands.

The problem lies not only in the vagueness of the term, but also in the lack of quality standards. A romantasy novel can be literary or devoid of content, exciting or clichéd. The term says nothing about tone, style, age recommendation, or narrative depth. While other genre terms – such as space opera, dark fantasy, or historical romance – at least convey certain expectations about setting, atmosphere, or structure, romantasy remains surprisingly vague.

Furthermore, the term neglects the diversity within fantasy: Steampunk romance? Gothic fantasy with romance elements? High fantasy with political intrigue and a love story? All these nuanced genres are marketed under the same banner, which can lead to disappointment among readers – especially if they have specific expectations regarding content, depth, or thematic diversity.

It’s understandable that publishers and platforms seek catchy terms to make books visible. But this shouldn’t come at the expense of clarity of content. Anyone who writes or reads romantasy should take a closer look and differentiate: Is it romantic fantasy? Or a fantasy world with a romantic focus? Is the plot romance-driven, or is love just one aspect among many?

Instead of relying on vague genre labels, it would be more productive to describe books more precisely – for example, with tags like slow-burn romance set in a dark magic academy or queer urban fantasy with enemies-to-lovers dynamics. Such terms are more meaningful and help both authors and readers find the right story.

Romantasy is not a meaningful genre, but rather a vague marketing term. Those seeking sophisticated fantasy or genuine emotional depth in romantic narratives will find little use for the label alone. It’s time to rethink the genre designation—and create space for more nuanced terms that truly do justice to the diversity of romantic and fantasy literature.

Please leave this field empty

Newsletter
abonnieren

This field is required.

Ich sende keinen Spam! Erfahre mehr in meiner Datenschutzerklärung.

Thank you 🙂

Views: 1