I appreciated that closing section, "How Romantasy Differs from Traditional Fantasy." It certainly makes a compelling argument that my series cannot possibly be mistaken for "romantasy." Then again, some might argue that it's not a "romance," either -- at least per contemporary design.
So, here's a question. Is it not perfectly possibly to have a "love story" that is not a "romance" (in the contemporary sense)? If Shakespeare wrote prose and offered us ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA and ROMEO AND JULIETTE, these would surely support the affirmative response!
I appreciated that closing section, "How Romantasy Differs from Traditional Fantasy." It certainly makes a compelling argument that my series cannot possibly be mistaken for "romantasy." Then again, some might argue that it's not a "romance," either -- at least per contemporary design.
So, here's a question. Is it not perfectly possibly to have a "love story" that is not a "romance" (in the contemporary sense)? If Shakespeare wrote prose and offered us ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA and ROMEO AND JULIETTE, these would surely support the affirmative response!
Some things defy categorization, and that’s what makes them great.