Today’s selection is a guest post from my good friend, artist and writer Ash Alexander. You can find them on Instagram as @a_humble_humanoid, or Bluesky as @a-humble-humanoid.
Romantasy is a genre I have a massive bone to pick with. I don’t fault anyone for enjoying a guilty pleasure; and everyone is well within their rights to read whatever they want.
But the category is deeply rooted in misogyny, even if many falsely attribute its shortcomings to “angry feminists.” It’s the farthest genre from feminism you could probably get.
But my friend puts it a lot better than I do. So without further ado, read on!
(It’s a long one, but 100% worth it.)
Ah, romantasy. It’s more than a literary trend–it’s a phenomenon, taking over BookTok, commanding tables at Barnes & Noble, and garnering its own category in the Goodreads Readers’ Choice Awards. Even people who don’t read romantasy are becoming aware of its existence–like suddenly smelling your neighbor’s burnt barbecue drifting over the fence while you’re trying to read outside.
I used to love romantasy novels. I read it in the early days, before the term ‘romantasy’ really took off. I was a naive teenager, swept away by the romance of a dangerous brooding man and his potential capacity for violence. I was even a Reylo fangirl.
Then, something happened.
I grew up, and I realized just how toxic romantasy is (and how utterly fucked up Reylo is). And I wondered–why had I loved this genre so much when I was younger? Why do so many women and girls love this genre? Why do they devour books about toxic male leads and vitriolic hate-to-love relationships? Why is romantasy the way that it is?
This paper can’t possibly claim to answer every single one of these questions. At the very least, an individual person’s enjoyment of something can’t really be distilled to one universal truth, and everyone’s reasons for liking romantasy are different and personal. However, I can analyze societal forces and readers’ common experiences to create some theories about why this genre has taken over YA like mold on an old piece of bread.
I just want to disclaim before I begin: I’m not trying to yuck anyone’s yum, or convince you NOT to read romantasy. It’s an extremely popular genre and it brings people a lot of escapism and joy. My goal here is just to encourage people to think more deeply about the books they read. No genre, and no person, is exempt from subconscious bias. When I was a teenager, I too loved bad boys, I thought ‘witty banter’ involved threats and insults, and I thought I was ‘not like other girls’. I had to do a lot of work on myself to unpack some pretty deep internalized misogyny and homophobia. If you’re an ex-Reylo fan, like me, or if you’re also going to scream if you read one more summary about a beautiful petite woman lusting after a shadow daddy, then read on. If you love romantasy and it’ll piss you off to hear someone say not-super-nice things about it, then I’d suggest not reading this. Life isn’t worth the aggravation. I’m just one voice in a sea of hot fae and enemies-to-lovers.
Disclaimer number 2 before we begin: I wrote this paper a few years ago and then updated and revised it recently. I did not include explicit discussion of the sub-sub-genre “dark romantasy,” which is all of the traits described below but on steroids, except without strong women, because a genre that’s inherently “subjugated woman is raped by an asshole and we just call it ‘dark romance’” really can’t have strong women. I mention dark romantasy here because it’s still related to what I discuss—it’s the sinister sexist underpinnings of romantasy distilled to their purest forms. There’s often a gross emphasis on women’s purity and virginity, huge age gaps, noncon, trauma and torture porn, and ridiculous amounts of abuse inflicted on women in the name of a “dark” and “gritty” story. The books discussed below aren’t necessarily “dark romantasy,” but they’re definitely related, and all of these books feed into the same toxic, bigoted, misogynistic cycle.
* * *
Romantasy, from what I’m observed, is an encapsulation of the most problematic elements of white feminism, mixed with conservatism and toxic masculinity. It doesn’t push any real boundaries; it lacks true diversity; and it keeps women boxed into conservative standards, allowing power and agency only within strict parameters. It’s not feminism; it’s misogyny and patriarchy packaged up with a flimsy “girlboss” bow and some sword-swinging to convince naïve readers that it’s actually feminist. It doesn’t understand feminism, and often mocks genuinely strong women or sets up girl-on-girl hate. Unfortunately, too many people still mock and deride genuine feminists and are deeply uncomfortable with genuinely strong women, so they’re all-too-eager to shit on romantasy for being “cringey feminism” instead of recognizing their own internalized misogyny and the deep misogyny of the genre.
If romantasy were a person, she would be a plucky teenager who thinks of herself as progressive, but is still very sheltered and self-centered. She thinks that wielding a sword and cursing makes her strong and edgy, but rolls her eyes when her tomboy classmate just won’t stop talking about women’s lib. She thinks Captain Marvel is a stoic bitch, but swoons over Reylo. She says she totally isn’t racist, but gets annoyed when a POC classmate calls out one of her favorite books for having crappy diversity. “There’s diversity!” she insists, ignoring the fact that said diversity is a POC side character who appears for about twenty pages, and serves no real purpose in the story.
Romantasy isn’t bad because girls and women like it; and romance-centric stories aren’t inherently less meaningful than other stories. But that truth can exist with other truths, like: romantasy represents a very toxic and problematic flavor of romance; publishers push toxic romantasy slop on women and girls because they don’t think they deserve any better; and traditional publishers tend to slant very conservative.
We have to hold all of these at once. Let’s not criticize romantasy because girls like it; let’s criticize it because girls deserve more variety than the same old white cishet #girlboss (but don’t be loud and rude and crass about it, jeez, you angry blue-haired feminist!).
* * *
First, let’s define the common characteristics of romantasy:
1. The female main character (FMC) is an unassuming girl who feels she is invisible or weird somehow. She often feels as if she is “not like other girls”; there is something about her that sets her apart, whether that comes from her actual behaviors or her perception of herself. For example, she is interested in traditionally “male” pursuits, or she has uncommon hobbies. Sometimes she has magical powers or special abilities. Often she simply has trouble relating to or respecting her female peers.
2. The male main character (MMC) is a boy or man who is brooding, aloof, or hostile in some way. He can be the same age as the FMC, but he can also be older, commonly in the form of an immortal or supernatural being.
3. The presence of a love triangle.
4. Enemies-to-lovers and forbidden/dangerous romance.
Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight kicked off the genre as its first explosive success. Her sordid love story wrapped every trope into a brooding gothic package that skyrocketed to success—by 2008, Meyer’s four-book series had sold over 25 million copies worldwide.4 In Twilight, Bella falls in love with Edward, a vampire. Bella is the new kid at school, and so she feels like an awkward outsider. Edward is an intriguing and aloof student who catches the attention of many, but he fixates on Bella. Because he is a vampire and she is a human, their romance is forbidden and complicated.2 Later in the series, a love triangle is introduced through the character of Jacob.3
Following Twilight and its success, a swarm of paranormal romances flooded the YA market: Blue Bloods by Melissa de la Cruz4; The Mortal Instruments by Cassandra Clare5; The House of Night by PC and Kristen Cast6; Wicked Lovely by Melissa Marr7; Vampire Academy by Richelle Mead8; Evernight by Claudia Gray9; The Immortals by Alyson Noel10; The Wolves of Mercy Falls by Maggie Stiefvater11; Hush, Hush by Becca Fitzpatrick12; The Caster Chronicles by Kami Garcia13; Fallen by Lauren Kate14; The Iron Fey by Julie Kagawa15; Hex Hall by Rachel Hawkins16; the Trylle trilogy by Amanda Hocking17; Paranormalcy by Kiersten White18; Unearthly by Cynthia Hand19; Daughter of Smoke and Bone by Laini Taylor20; Lux by Jennifer L. Armentrout21; and many others.
Over the years, this subgenre of romance has spread to fantasy and science-fiction, with such titles as Kiera Cass’s The Selection22, Tahereh Mafi’s Shatter Me23, Romina Russell’s Zodiac24, Sarah J. Maas’s Throne of Glass25 and A Court of Thorns and Roses26, Leigh Bardugo’s Shadow and Bone27, and Ally Condie’s Matched28. The success of The Hunger Games set off a new wave of science-fiction and dystopia-based titles, but did not strip romantasy of its formulaic core; rather, it simply gave authors a new dressing for their tropes.
Some more specific examples: in Kiera Cass’s The Selection, America Singer is beautiful, poor, and does not have many friends. She is chosen to participate in the Selection, a competition to find a bride for Prince Maxon. She becomes involved in a love triangle with Maxon and with her boyfriend from back home, Aspen. Having a boyfriend in a lower caste is forbidden, and her budding romance with Maxon presents high stakes as part of the competition.22 Ally Condie’s Matched features a Giver-like dystopian Society, where all choices are made for the citizens and true love does not seem to exist. The main character, Cassia, becomes involved in a love triangle with Xander, her chosen match, and Ky, an outcast.28 Romance mingles with insurrection, though the story, like its copycat companions, fails to reach (or even attempt) the level of earnest social critique of The Hunger Games.
More recent titles include sordid tales of enemies-to-lovers, like Julie Soto’s Rose in Chains, where the FMC Briony is enslaved by the MMC29; Holly Black’s The Cruel Prince, where cruel and powerful Cardan spars with Jude before they give in to their attraction30; or Thea Guanzon’s The Hurricane Wars, based on Reylo, where the prince of a brutal empire falls for the princess of a land he’s colonizing.31
* * *
So, romantasy FMCs are sword-wielding, not-like-other-girls girls who swoon for the bad boys and prize romance above all else. MMCs range from creepy but protective to downright abusive, though no matter how bad they get, their behavior is always framed as romantic.
Now let’s take a look at the societal forces at play that have shaped romantasy.
Teenaged girls experience the frustrating dichotomy of being totally dismissed by society, but also having intense pressure placed on them from a young age to never make mistakes or step outside the confines of everyone’s expectations for them. A Today article from 2009, drawing on Stephen Hinshaw’s book The Triple Bind, describes these pressures concisely: “Be good at all of the traditional girl stuff. Be good at most of the traditional guy stuff. Conform to a narrow, unrealistic set of standards that allows for no alternative.”32 He goes on to describe how teen girls sacrifice their passions and identities in order to please everyone around them, and as a result develop “feelings of self-hatred”.32 A Psychology Today article reiterates these points: “If a girl is tuned in at all to popular culture, this is what she is learning about what it takes to be a success: that her worth is based on her appearance, her ability to gain attention and approval, and her ability to produce a long list of accomplishments.”33
Nothing quite sums this up as well as America Ferrera’s climactic speech in the Barbie movie:
“You have to be thin, but not too thin. And you can never say you want to be thin. You have to say you want to be healthy, but also you have to be thin. You have to have money, but you can’t ask for money because that’s crass. You have to be a boss, but you can’t be mean. You have to lead, but you can’t squash other people’s ideas. You’re supposed to love being a mother, but don’t talk about your kids all the damn time. You have to be a career woman, but also always be looking out for other people. You have to answer for men’s bad behavior, which is insane, but if you point that out, you’re accused of complaining. You’re supposed to stay pretty for men, but not so pretty that you tempt them too much or that you threaten other women because you’re supposed to be a part of the sisterhood. But always stand out and always be grateful. But never forget that the system is rigged. So find a way to acknowledge that but also always be grateful. You have to never get old, never be rude, never show off, never be selfish, never fall down, never fail, never show fear, never get out of line. It’s too hard! It’s too contradictory and nobody gives you a medal or says thank you! And it turns out in fact that not only are you doing everything wrong, but also everything is your fault.”34
Women and girls are expected to be perfect, to have accomplishments, to be pretty and polite and cater to everyone’s needs, to shine but not outshine anyone, to be ‘strong’ but not threaten men. They can’t be rude or crass or have any negative traits.
Which brings us back to the FMCs–or, as many call them, Mary Sues.
(Notably, there really isn’t an equivalent for male characters–someone made up ‘Gary Stu’ later down the line, but let’s be real, no one knows what that is or uses that term.)
Mary Sues are women who are too powerful, too strong, too perfect. And so many people hate them. Does this sound like America Ferrera’s speech above, where even if women are strong and capable they’re not good enough? Absolutely. Because that’s part of what’s happening here.
I break this down into two components: 1) Romantasy FMCs represent the narrow and unattainable standards of perfection pushed on teen girls. They can be strong and capable; but they’re not trying to be. They’re trying to redefine what girls can be, but ultimately keep them in the same box. The glass ceiling is being lifted, so to speak, not shattered. They are not strong enough; they are not empowering enough. Her power is turned into a complementary force for a powerful man, a way to get attention from men, or she tears down other women; it’s never turned toward true empowerment. 2) Many people are uncomfortable seeing a woman take up space, so they slap ‘Mary Sue’ on every woman who isn’t meek and quiet.
First of all, Mary Sue is a derogatory sexist term and I’m sick of hearing it. Male characters were allowed to be powerful and overpowered for decades without a single whiff of scorn from anyone. As soon as women stepped into the picture with an equal amount of power, or even a fraction of it, they were smacked with the “Mary Sue” label, and endless, pointless debates about how strong a woman is allowed to be have raged ever since.
I will not use that term, because I hate it. I refuse to shove powerful women into a separate sub-category solely for the purpose of ridiculing their power.
FMCs in romantasy novels are not progressive feminist women. The very essence of romantasy forbids them from being truly feminist. They can #girlboss as long as it doesn’t threaten men, or step outside of traditional standards of femininity. Romantasy only allows women to exist on a spectrum from “pretty, feminine, passive and helpless” to “pretty, feminine, sort of strong but not TOO strong”. Strong feminine women are completely fine, but when that’s the only kind of strong woman being represented, that’s a problem. Romantasy does not necessarily celebrate a combination of femininity and strength, either. It requires femininity, and it allows some strength. It repackages a ‘strong woman’ into something that’s still palatable to the conservative status quo. She can get some dirt under her fingernails, but those fingernails still have to be polished and painted for the ball. She can get snarky, but that’s really only to further the ‘tension’ of the dark smexy romance.
There’s an argument to be made about romantasy FMCs being unlikeable in their arrogance and sometimes unkindness. I don’t actually care about this. Female characters are allowed to be unlikeable. A sort of fatigue occurs when they appear often—and for repeat romantasy readers, they can quickly become overwhelmed by arrogant not-like-other-girls slut-shamers. But this hate should not be mistakenly directed into an attack on all women, or an attack on “angry feminists”, or used to dictate how women should exist and behave. You’re annoyed with a particular type of character—the misogynistic pick-me girl I’ve been describing in this paper. You’re not annoyed with feminists or strong women. The strength, sass, and boldness that romantasy FMCs may possess is not the issue with their characters; it’s the undertones of misogyny, racism, and queerphobia.
Take Captain Marvel as an example of a true strong woman, someone who challenges the system and stands up for herself. At the end of the film, Jude Law’s character Yon-Rogg is egging her on, challenging her to ‘prove herself’ by not using her superpowers to fight him. So she blasts him fifty feet back with her superpowers and tells him she doesn’t have anything to prove to him.35 Another example I also like is Elita-1 from Transformers One. She’s snarky and matter-of-fact, she’s not afraid to put anyone in their place, and she takes no shit.36 Romantasy fans would probably call her rude–but none of the other characters have any problem with her. They’re not threatened by a female character who truly stands her ground. These women wouldn’t hesitate to kick the ass of boys like Rhysand, Cardan, and Xaden Riorson, and they would certainly not be charmed by being belittled and humiliated.
* * *
So, where did all this crap come from, and why did it rear its ugly head in the early 2000s? Because the evangelical Christian population launched a massive pushback against civil rights advancements of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, and as a result, the romance genre started to see a huge regressive swing toward white conservative ideals.
From the 1960s through the 1980s, social movements gained ground in achieving civil rights victories for women, from the passage of the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act, to victories against workplace and housing discrimination, and some ground gained in recognizing and fighting sexual assault and violence against women.37 Opportunities and roles for women were rapidly expanding. They were able to step outside the rigid confines of previous decades and start to define themselves based on their own terms. They were able to make freer sexual and relationship choices, to build careers, and to pursue justice and aid a little more easily for violence committed against them (at least compared to what they had faced before).
As a result of this, and the parallel advancement of civil rights in regards to race and sexuality, the evangelical Christian community pushed back with a regressive surge. Movements like the Moral Majority condemned sexual freedoms, advances in women’s rights, and the HIV/AIDS crisis, and anything else they perceived as immoral, ungodly behavior.38 Their structured roles and traditional values permeated pop culture and seeped into YA literature, culminating in the Mormon-fueled vampire fantasy, Twilight.
Hinshaw makes an interesting point about the narrowing of ‘acceptable’ roles for women during the 1990s and early 2000s: “Girls used to be able to escape the narrow demands of femininity through such alternate roles as beatnik, tomboy, intellectual, hippie, punk, or goth. They’d embrace the ideals of feminism to proclaim that women didn’t always have to be pretty, nice, and thin; that they didn’t always have to have boyfriends; and that not all women wanted to become mothers…Now virtually all of these possibilities have been co-opted, consumerized, and forced into an increasingly narrow, unrealistic set of roles. Standards have become narrower and less realistic for both looks (“girl stuff”) and achievement (“boy stuff”), even as the cultural alternatives that might have helped girls resist these standards have been erased.”32 Children’s toys also experienced an unprecedented spike in gender-based division, as Elizabeth Sweet discusses in her TEDx Talk, “Beyond the Blue and Pink Toy Divide”: “Toys are far more gendered today than they were at any point over the 20th century. Toys are more gendered than they have ever been before.”39 Girls’ toys in particular “center heavily on the ideas of beauty, nurturing, and domesticity, while toys for boys are much more about action, aggression and excitement.”39
The sexual freedoms of women were met with a counter-push towards virginity and modesty. Stars including Jessica Simpson, Selena Gomez, Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovato, and the Jonas Brothers wore purity rings and became national headlines for their commitment to chastity38 (not that I’m holding it against them that they promoted this–many of them, the women especially, were facing these intense pressures themselves and going through hell because of it). American Idol contestant Jordin Sparks even made the blunt remark that “not everybody—guy or girl—wants to be a slut”.38
All of this together created the fabric of modern romantasy: the pretty, sweet, faux-feminist Mary Sue; a toxic romance that allows and excuses aggressive behavior from male leads; and a lack of real progressive or feminist commentary, going hand-in-hand with a lack of real diversity. It’s a shiny modern-looking package with a rotting bigoted core.
* * *
Let’s break down more specifically how the tropes and characteristics of romantasy novels reflect conservative ideals.
Trope #1: the FMC. She is an outcast, often without friends. She feels that she is “not like other girls”. She may enjoy typically “masculine” activities or unusual hobbies, though she always has some element of femininity, usually that she enjoys getting glammed up and wearing pretty dresses. She is chaste and pure, and looks down upon more sexually-active girls as “sluts”. There might be something strange or special about her, something that sets her apart from her peers even further. She is a pick-me girl. She puts down other girls, and she does whatever she can to stand out for the attention of men.
Romance is the core pillar around which her life rotates. Even if she is facing other conflicts, the romance plays a huge role in the story. She is not encouraged to pursue her own development, have her own career, or break outside the conservative life milestones.
She is encouraged to accept the MMC’s toxic behavior, and in fact be turned on by it. Men are the strong ones, the leaders, the unchallengeable ones. Even if the FMC is snarky and holds a knife to his throat, it doesn’t matter–she’ll submit to him sexually at some point. He doesn’t need to change or become better to win her over.
I’ve seen plenty of grown women moaning and complaining that “these books aren’t real, girls aren’t that stupid”–and yes, a grown woman with a humiliation kink might know that she’s just reading weird erotica to get off, but a fifteen-year-old girl with zero understanding of a healthy relationship could easily absorb an entirely different message: that it’s romantic if a boy makes you uncomfortable. In a society where “no means no” is still a foreign concept to many boys, and women comprise the vast majority of victims of sexual violence (with men as the majority perpetrator, whether the victim is male or female)40, there’s an extremely prevalent and dangerous societal precedent in which this message is being sent. In other words–a society steeped in rape culture and misogyny is promoting these books. So we should all be far more critical of an entire sub-genre whose main message is ‘toxicity is hot’.
Continuing the rape culture theme, another common characteristic of romantasy novels is that the female MC is expected not to chase after boys or be slutty. In other words, she can’t be the type of loose whore who was ‘asking for it’. America Singer wins Prince Maxon’s heart, but she is different from the other desperate girls who try to appeal to him through their looks and flirtations.22 Lily Young of Colleen Houck’s Reawakened has never pursued romance before and is very passive in her relationship with Amon, letting him make all the decisions.41 Zoe Redbird from House of Night actively slut-shames other girls and even mocks their desperate, misguided attempts to lose weight to impress boys—despite Zoe herself being portrayed as thin and conventionally attractive.6 Helen Hamilton from Josephine Angelini’s Starcrossed has never dated before falling in insta-love with Lucas Delos.42 Nora Gray from Hush, Hush has “never been particularly attracted to the boys at her school” before she meets Patch.12 Kylie Galen from C.C. Hunter’s Born at Midnight condemns girls who wear slutty clothes and do not save their virginity.43
Girls are expected to have boyfriends, but be chaste; to be desirable, but not too sexy; to be lusted after by all the boys, but not to go ga-ga over them, except for one special boy who she is destined to be with forever. It’s repackaged purity culture: to sleep around is slutty and wrong, but to save yourself for the first man who comes along and commit to him forever is pure and holy. Even the sexier enemies-to-lovers tales still tote slut-shaming, minimize female friendships, and espouse purity culture’s best friend, rape culture, with their blatant “no means yes” messaging.
Even if girls have some degree of magic, agency, or power, this is used to set her apart from her peers, to gain male attention, and/or to set unrealistic standards of perfection. Reylo is a fantastic example of gaining male attention; so much of Reylo lore is based on Rey’s power attracting Kylo Ren’s attention, and their bond as powerful Force users.44 Sarah J. Maas’s Caelena Sardothien is a beautiful, talented assassin who kills just as effortlessly as she twirls in a ball gown. She is good-looking and good at everything.25 Zoe Redbird is marked by a goddess and possesses all five potential power sets available in her world.6 Helen Hamilton possesses a wide set of powers that keep expanding as the book progresses.42
Let me just reiterate—the problem here is NOT that these women are strong and powerful. The problem is that they are not allowed to meaningfully challenge the system; they’re still required to be feminine; and their strength is far too often tempered or countered by romance, and a toxic man. I love strong feminine women. But we need to see a variety of women. Telling girls “you can be strong as long as you’re still conventionally pretty!” is no good; “you can be strong and you can define your own standards of beauty!” is far better. Some romantasy authors are trying to write an empowering story arc, but they fall flat because they’re hemmed in by the nature of the genre. They don’t understand that true feminism means not slut-shaming or victim-blaming. True feminism means a woman is allowed to be disliked, to be brash and fierce and unafraid to put others in their place.
Sometimes, these FMCs also represent unattainable perfection. Readers dislike this and blame “angry feminists” insisting that every woman is perfect and can never screw up. I’m suggesting something different: that the often-irritating perfection of romantasy FMCs comes from a desire to make women palatable and likable to misogynistic standards. Think about it this way: Bella Swan was supposed to be the ‘outcast’, but she was still liked by everyone, everyone thought she was beautiful, et cetera. Repeat that over and over and over again, and girls who feel like outcasts suddenly realize they’re not being represented—instead of accurately representing the experiences of a true outcast, these books just turn around and go “Actually, these FMCs are totally perfect!!! Unlike you! Haha!” And that cycle is repeated with perfect assassins and flawless princesses, and on and on and on. These aren’t angry feminists writing perfect flawless women. These are women who might be pick-me girls, they might feel different but not know why, and instead of writing heartfelt genuine stories about the experiences of outcasts, they shoehorn their FMCs into the perfection they could never reach; they’re daydreaming about fitting into society’s impossible standards.
True feminism understands that women deserve to be loved even if they’re not perfect. True feminism tells the stories of women who make mistakes, who are strong, who are feminine, who are masculine, who love men, who love women, who can wield a sword, who can’t wield a sword…I think you get my point.
* * *
Trope #2: the love interest (MMC). He is brooding and aloof. He is dark and mysterious. He is aggressive and masculine. His behavior never triggers red flags for the heroine; instead, it makes him more appealing. I’m also folding in enemies-to-lovers/dangerous romance here, because most of these points overlap.
Edward stalks Bella and watches her sleep.2 Amon repeatedly drains Lily’s life force, and he drags her across the world without ever asking for her consent.41 Luce from Fallen desperately pines over Daniel, despite Daniel behaving towards her in a hostile fashion and going out of his way to avoid her.14 Patch from Hush, Hush actively tries to harm Nora many times, but that does not deter her attraction.12 Damen Auguste from Alyson Noel’s Evermore repeatedly stalks, manipulates, and toys with Ever’s affections, but that does not stop her from falling head over heels for him.10 Cardan is rude, vitriolic and arrogant30; Rhysand from Sarah J. Maas’s A Court of Thorns and Roses objectifiesFeyre and Tamlin forces himself on her.26
I have to include one of my favorite quotes of all time, which I pulled from Goodreads, because I’m not subjecting myself to reading The Cruel Prince:
“Do you know what mortal means? It means born to die. It means deserving of death. That’s what you are, what defines you – dying. And yet here you stand, determined to oppose me even as you rot away from the inside out, you corrupt, corrosive mortal creature. Tell me how that is. Do you really think you can win against me? Against a prince of Faerie?”30
(Does this not sound like something Megatron would say to a human??? Just swap ‘prince of Faerie’ with ‘Cybertronian’ lolllll)
Cardan also spends much of the book being openly hostile to Jude. She hates him right back, but he’s the one with the most power in the situation, as it usually goes. Many readers will call this romantic tension. Others, like myself, will call this out for just being cruel and shitty behavior. I don’t know about you, but I’m not usually attracted to people who treat me like shit.
There’s a way to write real banter that isn’t cruel and hateful–like Han and Leia in Star Wars45, or Anya and Dimitri in Anastasia46. They bicker, they banter, they fight, but they’ve always got each other’s backs–there’s no real hatred between them. You can tell they’re attracted to each other, they’re just annoyed about it; they have to get past their own hangups and accept their true feelings.
MMCs also often violate the FMCs sexually, even when told explicitly to stop. Some feeble thoughts of ‘I kind of like it!’ do not count as consent; and physically enjoying sexual stimulation definitely doesn’t count as consent, either.
The messages being sent are clear: no means yes. If you enjoy it, it’s not sexual assault. Boys will be boys. It’s hot to be scared and angry. This is obviously screaming of rape culture.
Considering that the societal pushback of the early 2000s was fueled by evangelical Christians—a group with staggering numbers of predators and a documented history of encouraging domestic violence47-52—it makes sense that the YA arm of this movement would feature so many toxic, predatory romances.
Another problematic facet of the ‘bad boy’ is the implication that the ‘good girl’ must change him. Often, the FMC “softens” the abrasive MMC with her tender love. This, again, encourages girls to stay in abusive relationships and put up with toxic behavior; and it also teaches them that a boy who abuses them is doing so because she is not being gentle or kind enough with him. It places the responsibility of the boy’s behavior onto the girl–which absolutely screams of toxic evangelical culture, with its emphasis of divorce as a last resort, and relentless victim-blaming of abused women.
An article from The Guardian summarizes the “top ten” of YA bad boys, and snippets from this article illustrate this point quite well:
“Damon really comes into his own when his feelings for Elena Gilbert begin to chip away at his selfish, morally-unhinged behaviour.”53
“Dante’s cavalier attitude to morality meshes seamlessly with both arrogance and charm, but when he meets his new good-girl target, he gets more than he bargained for. For the first time, being bad doesn’t feel so good, and unassuming, selfless Charlie Cooper is the only person who can show him that.”53
“Irial has his share of heartless moments, making strategic but cruel decisions in order to keep his court strong. Being otherworldly makes Irial’s swag a little larger than life ― he is smug in the knowledge that mere mortals find him stunningly attractive and highly addictive. In other words, he’s a gift, and he knows it. Then he meets unassuming human Leslie, and everything changes.”53
“A little damaged, but not completely broken, there is beauty in Noah and it’s his relationship with Mara that reveals this to us.”53
“Regarded by everybody as an obsessive liar with a streak of cruelty, it falls to Juliette to look beyond the careful mask of impassivity to find the vulnerable boy who has been burned by people in his dark and terrifying past.”53
There’s an interesting point to be made about MMCs that supports my theory that romantasy is inherently anti-feminist. Early MMCs weren’t quite so awful–they might have been elusive, cold, and possessive sometimes, but ultimately they weren’t so bad. I talk about Twilight here, of course, but all things considered, Edward Cullen isn’t actually that bad. If Cardan from The Cruel Prince came up to Bella and told her she was a pathetic mortal who would rot away and die one day, Edward would absolutely punch him in the face.
But at some point, MMCs shifted from having little red and orange flags to waving giant red banners. They became cruel and abusive. At the same time, FMCs were shifting away from being more passive and meek to being stronger. They became assassins and warriors, sharp-tongued women who could kick some ass.
Is it a coincidence? It could be. However, in light of romantasy’s decidedly anti-feminist nature, and its disdainful attitude towards genuinely strong women, I think it’s safe to say that something purposeful was going on here. As FMCs became stronger, MMCs became more toxic–an equal and opposite force pushing back on this increase in empowerment. Of course, other factors are probably at play too–kinks, escapism, queer women desperately seeking ‘excitement’ in boring hetero relationships. I just think it’s interesting to note that these two changes happened at the same time.
* * *
Trope #3: the love triangle. Because which man will she choose?!?! is obviously the most important choice in the FMC’s life. Later romantasy books also include real plot in addition to this, but everyone keeps hanging onto the love triangle too. Sigh. There’s probably also something to be said for an author’s uncertainty on how to write a compelling romance, so they fall back on love triangles, but that’s not really relevant to the topic of this paper, so. I’ll avoid that tangent.
* * *
Forbidden love and enemies-to-lovers also send another, somewhat intriguing message: that romance is more exciting when there is some kind of edgy twist. Sometimes, the presence of danger itself is what makes the romance appealing. One of the primary factors driving the edgy-romance phenomenon could be the messages that evangelical Christians spread about marriage: happiness is not meant to be part of marriage. Christian blog website Crosswalk.com bluntly states: “If happiness is your primary expectation of marriage, you will most likely find yourself disillusioned and disappointed.”54 Focus on the Family, a prominent evangelical Christian organization, claims that “Divorce does not typically solve personal or relational dysfunctions”55, and advises couples to seek Christian counseling rather than divorce, with only a lukewarm disclaimer about seeking help if someone’s life is in danger. It is widely accepted among Christian circles that marriage is often boring and unhappy, and divorce is actively discouraged. This has two effects: discouraging women from leaving toxic men (see points above), and creating dull and unhappy marriages, even if they aren’t abusive. Romantasy, with its soul-healing and all-consuming power, offers a balm to this dull reality.
There’s also another explanation for why some women might find these relationships intriguing–because they’re actually queer, and men don’t interest them at all.
In the early 2000s, amid tightening gender roles and pushback against women’s rights, queer girls were growing up under intense pressure to be straight. The messages of YA romance surrounded them: crave male attention. Be beautiful and feminine. Seek out relationships with boys. Any feelings you have for boys, whether those feelings are good or bad, excitement or fear, indicates attraction to them. This latter point is particularly harmful to queer girls, who feel indifferent, anxious, or repulsed around boys, especially within romantic or sexual contexts. Romantasy tells girls that these feelings indicate attraction, and it leads queer girls to suppress their discomfort and put off any kind of reflection about their genuine identity, in favor of forcing ‘romantic attraction’ or interest in toxic romances. LGBTQ Nation, a prominent LGBTQ+ online news publication, explains that compulsory heterosexuality is the pressure on girls and women to conform to heterosexual standards, Comphet, as it is commonly called, often has a subconscious presence in a girl’s mind. “It’s the voice that says the nerves she feels when she talks to a guy are romantic attraction”56. Within this context, girls interpret any of their feelings towards men as attraction.
The queer perspective offers another explanation for teen girls’ eager reception of edgy YA romance. Ordinary romance is boring and unfulfilling for them, but they do not yet know why. They simply assume that they need more exciting romance, something with a dark or unusual twist—a vampire, a deadly curse, a bad boy that challenges her boundaries and makes her heart race. The real answer is that hetero romance is simply not interesting to her, as she is not attracted to men; but societal pressures force her to frame all of her romantic experiences as cishet, regardless of what she is actually feeling. She feels like she’s ‘not like other girls’ because she doesn’t relate to crushing boys, and sometimes she doesn’t relate to traditionally feminine activities, dress, or self-expression. It’s easy for her to be ‘chaste’ and not pursue boys because she has no real interest in them. It’s fascinating to note that some of the examples I gave earlier sound even more compelling with this in mind–like Nora from Hush, Hush not being attracted to boys at all before Patch, or Helen Hamilton never dating before meeting Lucas. I’m not suggesting these authors are queer, I don’t know them, I’m just saying it’s fascinating how spot-on some of these ‘not-like-other-girls’ quirks are with common experiences of queer girls.
* * *
Another problematic aspect of romantasy, and another great example of why these books are not nearly as progressive as many might assume, is the way that romantasy handles race. The mere fact that so many are obsessed with blonde heroines and blue-eyed men is just extremely weird (oceans in his eyes, the night sky, buckets of water…if you’ve read a YA novel, you’ve read a water-metaphor for a man’s blue eyes). Many that attempt to set their novels in non-white cultures, or fictional settings inspired by non-white cultures, are clunky and awkward fetishizations by white authors; or they lack research and care and come off totally off-base and tone-deaf. Take Colleen Houck’s Tiger’s Curse and Reawakened as examples, with their inexplicably blue- and green-eyed Indian and Egyptian leads, respectively, and their butchering of Indian and Egyptian culture and mythology. Houck just wanted to tell a fetishized, titillating romantasy tale in an ‘exotic’ setting. In each series, a white American protagonist is the key to solving the problem that is faced by each respective non-white culture–white savior syndrome at its finest.41,57
Houck is far from the only YA author whose work contains problematic content in regards to race. Stephenie Meyer has come under fire for her portrayal and exploitation of Quileute culture in Twilight58. Marie Rutkoski, author of The Winner’s Curse, got flak from reviewers for the way she portrayed colonialism in her books59. Many of these books simply don’t have POC at all, or they’re relegated to side characters–like Nehemia in Throne of Glass25.
The Continent is extremely racist in its portrayal of ‘savage’ non-white cultures and its emphasis on white savior syndrome.60,61 It’s morbidly fascinating to see five-star reviewers gushing about how powerful and impactful this book is–not questioning the portrayal of non-white cultures as brutal and warmongering, not questioning why only the white cultures are ‘civilized’, and praising the main character for finally realizing that war is bad. Romantasy so often has this default viewpoint that most of its readers are sheltered white girls who think it’s the most profound thing in the world to learn that *gasp* prejudice is bad! Non-white people have feelings and depth and culture too! None of these realizations ever build into meaningful discussions about prejudice either–they shift right into white saviorism, and the heroine never has to do any real work on herself regarding her previous bigoted views.
The romance genre has a long and extremely problematic history of racism, fueled once again by evangelical Christianity and the Moral Majority, so it’s no surprise that teen romantasy reflects this.62 It’s white-centric: from beauty standards focused on white men and women, the exclusion of people of color, the portrayal of people of color and non-white cultures as less civilized, white saviorism, and the glorification of colonizers and colonialism. There’s also the constant backlash and silencing of marginalized voices who call out these problematic trends. Publishers are more concerned about making money, and they know they’ll get it from the white readers who benefit from the bigoted status quo.
* * *
Romantasy and its existence as a genre, all of its tropes and characteristics, are all very specific to the time and place and society in which this genre has flourished. It is a context that holds both misogyny towards its audience and towards the genre itself; it holds conservative values and fuels faux-feminist debates about ‘strong’ women; it represents a problematic trend in feeding teen girls mostly romance novels, but it should also not be condemned as less than simply for being romantic in nature. It reflects deep and pervasive racism and queerphobia, favoring white and cishet standards.
I can’t tell you what books to read, and I’m not trying to do that. I’m calling out larger problematic trends that are reflected in this genre. Look at where we are now: audiences are still review-bombing feminist movies, tearing apart POC characters, complaining that women and other marginalized groups are too loud and too angry. They’re still victim-blaming targets of sexual violence. Rapists run businesses and hold powerful offices in this country. It’s all connected. The white, cishet, toxic, conservative tropes of romantasy only fuel rape culture and prejudice. They uphold the horrible status quo.
Every time a female lead is shut down for being too strong, a POC lead is torn apart for having a significant role, every time a queer character is maligned for being part of an ‘agenda’, that’s a red flag that society still has so much work to do. Most of the time, these characters aren’t badly written. They’re not annoying. They’re simply existing as themselves in a space previously held by white, cishet male characters. Until the day we’re finally comfortable admitting that anyone can be a main character, we still have work to do.
Perhaps there’s some hope in the fact that romantasy has become relegated to its own sub-genre under YA. A quick glance through new YA releases on Goodreads or Barnes and Noble does show some promise–far more queer books, more POC leading characters, new settings, diverse mythologies, innovative ideas, and the lived experiences of real people finally telling their previously-silenced stories. Maybe the invention of romantasy as a category was also the first toll of its demise–sequestering it away to bloom and then wither, as audiences move away from the same tired old toxic tropes and start opening their hearts and minds to something new.
I can hope. In the meantime, I’ll be here bitching.
References:
1. Parsons, Claudia. “‘Twilight’ publisher sees film boosting book sales.” Reuters, 20 Nov. 2008, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-twilight-books-idUSTRE4AK03620081121. Accessed 28 June 2023.
2. Meyer, Stephenie. Twilight. Little, Brown Books for Young Readers, 2005.
3. Meyer, Stephenie. Eclipse. Little, Brown Books for Young Readers, 2007.
4. de la Cruz, Melissa. Blue Bloods. Hyperion, 2006.
5. Clare, Cassandra. City of Bones. Margaret K. McElderry Books, 2007.
6. Cast, Kristen and P.C. Cast. Marked. St. Martin’s Press, 2007.
7. Marr, Marissa. Wicked Lovely. HarperTeen, 2007.
8. Mead, Richelle. Vampire Academy. Razorbill, 2007.
9. Gray, Claudia. Evernight. HarperTeen, 2008.
10. Noel, Alyson. Evermore. St. Martin’s Griffin, 2009.
11. Stiefvater, Maggie. Shiver. Scholastic Press, 2009.
12. Fitzpatrick, Becca. Hush, Hush. Simon & Schuster, 2009.
13. Garcia, Kami and Margaret Stohl. Beautiful Creatures. Little, Brown and Company, 2009.
14. Kate, Lauren. Fallen. Delacorte Press, 2009.
15. Kagawa, Julie. The Iron King. Harlequin Teen, 2010.
16. Hawkins, Rachel. Hex Hall. Hyperion Book CH, 2010.
17. Hocking, Amanda. Switched. St. Martin’s Griffin, 2012.
18. White, Kiersten. Paranormalcy. HarperTeen, 2010.
19. Hand, Cynthia. Unearthly. HarperTeen, 2011.
20. Taylor, Laini. Daughter of Smoke and Bone. Little, Brown Books for Young Readers, 2011.
21. Armentrout, Jennifer L. Obsidian. Entangled Teen, 2011.
22. Cass, Kiera. The Selection. HarperTeen, 2012.
23. Mafi, Tahereh. Shatter Me. Harper, 2011.
24. Russel, Romina. Zodiac. Razorbill, 2014.
25. Maas, Sarah J. Throne of Glass. Bloomsbury USA, 2012.
26. Maas, Sarah J. A Court of Thorns and Roses. Bloomsbury USA, 2015.
27. Bardugo, Leigh. Shadow and Bone. Henry Holt and Company, 2012.
28. Condie, Ally. Matched. Dutton Books for Young Readers, 2010.
29. Soto, Julie. Rose in Chains. Forever, 2025.
30. Black, Holly. The Cruel Prince. Little, Brown Books for Young Readers, 2018.
31. Guanzon, Thea. The Hurricane Wars. Harper Voyager, 2023.
32. Hinshaw, Stephen. “Under pressure: Are teen girls facing too much?” http://www.today.com/health/under-pressure-are-teen-girls-facing-too-much-2D80555548. Accessed 28 June 2023. [Excerpted from “The Triple Bind” by Stephen Hinshaw. Copyright (c) 2009, reprinted with permission from Random House.]
33. Choate, Laura. “Relentless Cultural Pressures for Today’s Girls.” Psychology Today, 17 July 2015, http://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/girls-women-and-wellness/201507/relentless-cultural-pressures-todays-girls. Accessed 28 June 2023.
34. Villarreal, Yvonne. “Read the stirring monologue about womanhood America Ferrera delivers in ‘Barbie’.” LA Times, 23 July 2023. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2023-07-23/barbie-america-ferrera-monologue. Accessed 28 October 2024.
35. Captain Marvel. Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck, performances by Brie Larson, Samuel L. Jackson, Ben Mendelsohn, Jude Law. Marvel Studios, 2019.
36. Transformers One. Directed by Josh Cooley, performances by Chris Hemsworth, Brian Tyree-Henry, Scarlett Johanssen, Keegan Michael-Key. Paramount Animation and Hasbro Entertainment, 2024.
37. “Detailed Timeline—Timeline of Legal History of Women in the United States.” National Women’s History Alliance, https://nationalwomenshistoryalliance.org/resources/womens-rights-movement/detailed-timeline/. Accessed 28 June 2023.
38. Cills, Hazel. “The Rise and Fall of the Pop Star Purity Ring.” Jezebel, 25 Jan. 2018, https://jezebel.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-pop-star-purity-ring-1822170318. Accessed 28 June 2023.
39. Sweet, Elizabeth. “Beyond the Blue and Pink Toy Divide.” YouTube, uploaded by TEDx Talks, 16 Nov. 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdHJGH97vyo.
40. Basile, K.C., Smith, S.G., Kresnow, M., Khatiwada S., & Leemis, R.W. (2022). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017 Report on Sexual Violence. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
41. Houck, Colleen. Reawakened. Delacorte Press, 2015.
42. Angelini, Josephine. Starcrossed. HarperTeen, 2011.
43. Hunter, C.C. Born at Midnight. St. Martin’s Griffin, 2011.
44. The Last Jedi. Directed by Rian Johnson, performances by Daisy Ridley, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Adam Driver, John Boyega, Kelly Marie Tran. Lucasfilm/Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, 2015.
45. The Empire Strikes Back. Directed by Irvin Kershner, performances by Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford. Twenty Century Fox Studios, 1981.
46. Anastasia. Directed by Don Bluth and Gary Goldman, performances by Meg Ryan, John Cusack, Kelsey Grammar, Christopher Lloyd, Hank Azaria, Bernadette Peters, Kirsten Dunst, Angela Lansbury. Twenty Century Fox Studios, 1997.
47. Helmore, Edward. “US Southern Baptist churches facing ‘apocalypse’ over sexual abuse scandal.” The Guardian, 12 June 2022, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/12/southern-baptist-church-sexual-abuse-scandal. Accessed 29 June 2023.
48. Pease, Joshua. “The sin of silence: The epidemic of denial about sexual abuse in the evangelical church.” The Washington Post, 31 May 2018, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/31/feature/the-epidemic-of-denial-about-sexual-abuse-in-the-evangelical-church/. Accessed 29 June 2023.
49. Crary, David. “3 of U.S.’s biggest religious denominations in turmoil over sex abuse, LGBT policy.” PBS, 3 Mar 2019, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/3-big-us-churches-in-turmoil-over-sex-abuse-lgbt-policy. Accessed 29 June 2023.
50. Klein, Linda Kay. “Southern Baptist Convention report on sex abuse shines a light on evangelical culture.” NBC Think, 12 Feb 2019, http://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/southern-baptist-convention-report-sex-abuse-shines-light-evangelical-culture-ncna970756. Accessed 29 June 2023.
51. Lowik, Vicky and Annabel Taylor. “Evangelical churches believe men should control women. That’s why they breed domestic violence.” The Conversation, 8 Dec 2019, https://theconversation.com/evangelical-churches-believe-men-should-control-women-thats-why-they-breed-domestic-violence-127437. Accessed 29 June 2023.
52. Joyce, Kathryn. “Biblical Battered Wife Syndrome: Christian Women and Domestic Violence.” Religion Dispatches, 18 June 2009, https://religiondispatches.org/biblical-battered-wife-syndrome-christian-women-and-domestic-violence/. Accessed 29 June 2023.
53. Doyle, Catherine. “The top 10 bad boys in teen and YA Fiction.” The Guardian, 26 Feb 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/2015/feb/26/top-10-bad-boys-in-teen-and-ya-fiction-catherine-doyle. Accessed 29 June 2023.
54. Murray, Lisa. “Does God Want Me to Stay in an Unhappy Marriage?” Crosswalk, 28 Mar 2023, http://www.crosswalk.com/family/marriage/does-god-want-me-to-stay-in-an-unhappy-marriage.html. Accessed 29 June 2023.
55. Temple, Mitch. “How to Know When Your Marriage is in Trouble.” Focus on the Family, 9 July 2021, http://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/how-to-know-when-your-marriage-is-in-trouble/. Accessed 29 June 2023.
56. “Compulsory Heterosexuality: What is comphet & why should we care?” LGBTQNation, 16 Feb 2022, http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/02/compulsory-heterosexuality-comphet-care/. Accessed 29 June 2023.
57. Houck, Colleen. Tiger’s Curse. Sterling, 2011.
58. Gunning, Cathal. “Twilight’s Quileute Controversy Explained.” ScreenRant, 21 November 2020, https://screenrant.com/twilight-quileute-controversy-native-mythology-scandal-explained/. Accessed 26 July 2025.
59. “The Winner’s Curse.” Goodreads, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16069030-the-winner-s-curse?ref=nav_sb_ss_1_12 Accessed 26 July 2025.
60. Drake, Keira. The Continent. Harlequin Teen, 2018.
61. “The Continent.” Goodreads, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30075733-the-continent?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=2gLBovGHGd&rank=5. Accessed 26 July 2025.
62. Grady, Constance. “Bad romance: Romance was one of the sexiest and most lucrative genres in publishing, and it had an ugly secret. Then its writers started speaking up.” Vox.com, 24 June 2020, https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2020/6/17/21178881/racism-books-romance-writers-of-america-scandal-novels-publishing. Accessed 19 July 2025.
Leave a comment