Yeah, I think I agree. Cozy fantasy does seem to be less concerned with nuances of worldbuilding and focused on vibes, which makes sense. Romantasy tends toward less complex, because the bulk of the precise target audience cares less about the worldbuilding than the romance. I also feel like every time I see a reel of someone complaining or joking about being lost for the first several chapters of a fantasy book or struggling with worldbuilding or just wanting to get to the plot beyond the worldbuilding, it's someone who reads primarily romantasy. Whereas every time I see a reel or something complaining about a lack of complexity and wanting more worldbuilding depth and uniqueness, it's someone talking about romantasy *but* their favorite books are never romantasy; they're always epic fantasy. So like...stop looking for something in the wrong places? 😅 Of course, even within romantasy, there's definitely a range. I've ready sweet, cozy romantasy that was fun and enjoyable but I couldn't tell you the technology levels of the world, how the government worked beyond "there's at least a monarchy," any traditions or cultural values, or even what sort of clothes they wore beyond what was on the cover, and that isn't my favorite, but it can still be lovely for an escape. And I've read romantasy that didn't center the worldbuilding but still had grounding details and clearly thought out worldbuilding with interesting and logical consequences for the magical elements. I've actually been wondering lately if "level of complexity of worldbuilding" is gonna be the next "spice levels" selling point, but even harder to quantify 😅
"I've actually been wondering lately if "level of complexity of worldbuilding" is gonna be the next "spice levels" selling point, but even harder to quantify."
I think this might be a thing, especially with how people are already dividing over it. Great thoughts! Thanks for sharing.
Yeah, I think I agree. Cozy fantasy does seem to be less concerned with nuances of worldbuilding and focused on vibes, which makes sense. Romantasy tends toward less complex, because the bulk of the precise target audience cares less about the worldbuilding than the romance. I also feel like every time I see a reel of someone complaining or joking about being lost for the first several chapters of a fantasy book or struggling with worldbuilding or just wanting to get to the plot beyond the worldbuilding, it's someone who reads primarily romantasy. Whereas every time I see a reel or something complaining about a lack of complexity and wanting more worldbuilding depth and uniqueness, it's someone talking about romantasy *but* their favorite books are never romantasy; they're always epic fantasy. So like...stop looking for something in the wrong places? 😅 Of course, even within romantasy, there's definitely a range. I've ready sweet, cozy romantasy that was fun and enjoyable but I couldn't tell you the technology levels of the world, how the government worked beyond "there's at least a monarchy," any traditions or cultural values, or even what sort of clothes they wore beyond what was on the cover, and that isn't my favorite, but it can still be lovely for an escape. And I've read romantasy that didn't center the worldbuilding but still had grounding details and clearly thought out worldbuilding with interesting and logical consequences for the magical elements. I've actually been wondering lately if "level of complexity of worldbuilding" is gonna be the next "spice levels" selling point, but even harder to quantify 😅
"I've actually been wondering lately if "level of complexity of worldbuilding" is gonna be the next "spice levels" selling point, but even harder to quantify."
I think this might be a thing, especially with how people are already dividing over it. Great thoughts! Thanks for sharing.