Romantasy: New Worlds, Old Power Structures

This blog may be full of semi-paradoxes and speculative ideology, but in no way am I trying to degrade or reduce the value of the romantasy genre. In fact, I deeply enjoy it. It’s one of my favorite genres, and I wish nothing but its continuous relevance and permanent success within the publishing industry and beyond the realms of TikTok and social media. 

However, it’s from my deep respect for it that I am going to be analyzing and discussing it through a more critical lens. These are just my opinions, and this is not an exhaustive list of ideas or beliefs that I feel like are what make the genre significant or what needs to be improved upon. Instead, I am simply reflecting on some of its conventions through my own perspective as a woman.

With that being said, what even is romantasy? Well, if you couldn’t tell by its name, it’s the blending of romance and fantasy, and combining them into one genre. “But wouldn’t that just be fantasy with a subplot of romance?” The answer is no, and the difference is that the plot of the story is dependent on both the romance and fantasy elements. The two are so intricately woven together that to disregard one would result in the collapse of the whole story. 

The genre has always been around, but the term has only recently gained popularity within the past couple of years, with some claiming that the publishing company Bloomsbury coined the term in order to categorize Sarah J. Maas’s novels. But the main difference I want to point out is that it’s a space within the fantasy genre that is primarily dominated by women; the majority of stories within the genre are written and read by women, and it’s marketed as centering their perspectives, desires, and emotional experiences, commonly referred to as catering to the female gaze. 

I think there is a clear distinction between the way female main characters are written in romantasy novels and the way they have always been written throughout time and history. They have adopted bold, stubborn, and independent personalities. They are confident, witty, and more physically adept. They are depicted as fearless queens, cocky assassins, and skillful warriors, instead of the traditional damsel in distress or servile maiden archetype. They seemingly embody all of the characteristics that our own society has perpetually denied women, including being able to express unfiltered emotions, showcasing impulsive and reckless behavior that would be deemed socially inappropriate, and experiencing unabashed sexuality and pleasure. 

Now, if you haven’t been living under a rock, you know that romantasy is currently and often dismissed as “smut,” “spice,” or “fairy porn,” simply because women authors are writing explicit sex scenes in their novels, but let’s unpack that. Is this genre being disregarded as such because it’s women who’re writing it, and God forbid we’re allowed to participate in or even acknowledge such vulgar activities because we’re meant to be seen as chaste and innocent? Alternatively, is it because the activities in question are depicted as catering to the female gaze? 

Why is it that authors like George R.R. Martin can write women in sex work, often being forced to submit to torture and rape scenes that are horrific for women to read, and yet no one dismisses it as pornographic material? Instead, they are revered as stories that are raw and emotional, yet truthful and well-crafted. But when women write about men who are devoted, submissive in bed, and desiring only the female main character, suddenly these stories are slapped with a negative label. Now they’re lacking in substance and aren’t considered real literature, just a guilty pleasure for women to indulge in. Everything from the world-building to the characterization becomes devalued because it’s labeled as a romantasy. 

Is this because of misogyny and double standards? Maybe society cannot handle this new progressive woman stepping outside of her archaic puritanical box. Or maybe female pleasure and sexual autonomy are seen as a threat to the patriarchal control systems. I think it’s because the once male-dominated genre is now being overthrown by seven-foot-tall fairies and shadow daddies, but who knows. 

And yet, I cannot deny that there’s something awfully contradictory about these familiar frameworks that are intended to be empowering and uplifting for women. The genre is laden with tropes such as the tall, dark, and dangerous immortal who is way older (sometimes 500 years older) and more experienced than the attractive and petite mortal protagonist. There’s always some kind of mated bond or destined soul tie that conveniently eliminates any real agency for the characters. Even the fantastical worldbuilding and political structures seemingly mimic the real world; the male love interest is always the one who is already in a position of power or is in a much higher social standing, while the female main character is subjected and at his mercy. She is always the poor peasant or the one who’s catapulted into a new world and has to struggle and climb her way up the hierarchy. 

It is only when the mating bond snaps into place, or the male character falls in love with her, that she is finally given an equal footing in the world’s political sphere. She becomes queen only when she marries her male love interest, or she becomes a powerful fae only when her mate turns her into one (out of love). Why is it always the brooding and morally grey male that must guide and often push the protagonist in order for her to realize her own latent power? If she is written to be so formidable, bold, and can seemingly overthrow an entire kingdom in one night, why does she suddenly revert to a more passive and compliant role in the presence of her love interest? Why is she expected to tolerate his morally damaged characteristic traits while simultaneously trying to nurture and heal his emotional baggage?

Of course, one cannot judge a whole genre by a couple of best-selling novels, but when the same tropes and narratives are constantly being regurgitated and grossly overused, naturally, we’re led to take a step back and question why that is so. Why is it that a space that was made to empower women is also seemingly reinforcing power and relational dynamics that appeal to the male gaze? 

If this is truly a space where women can dream up any possibility and imagine a different set of rules and systems for themselves, why is the female main character still being depicted as inferior to men? Why can we not allow ourselves to be showcased as both physically and sexually powerful without identifying as a villain or seductress? Why can’t we be dominant in our relational and political spheres without losing our femininity and empathy? Is there a way to showcase women without turning them into caricatures or slapping wigs on masculine personalities and then labeling them as defiant and rebellious?

And this is not me saying that the genre needs to get rid of shadow daddies and seven-foot-tall fairies, or that women can’t ever be submissive and sexually overpowered by men. You can still have and enjoy all of the tropes that come with the genre, but I also think it’s important to recognize how these conventions can reinforce and aestheticize certain ideologies, including patriarchal gender roles and power dynamics. 

Romantasy should not be exempt from criticism just because of TikTok’s argument that these are just silly little books written for women and that we should be able to turn our brains off while reading them. How about no. ❤️ We should be taking women’s literature more seriously, and as pieces of art, they should be analyzed and allowed room for critique. We can love the genre while still demanding better for it; it’s only then that we can push it to be a more diverse, inclusive, and empowering representation of women’s stories.

Until next time, au revoir!

Want to see more Miracle Monocle? Be sure to like us on Facebook and follow us on Instagram, X, and Bluesky!