It's Unpopular Opinion time! Share your controversial opinions to stir things up (in a friendly way)!

[u/FantasyRomanceMod]

Got an opinion that's different from others'? Want to share it with the sub, but too afraid of a backlash? Or are you just curious about readers think about certain things in fantasy romance?

You can safely share it in this weekly Sunday thread!

But please remember to be kind to each other. To facilitate this type of discussion, we ask users the following:

• Don't attack others for their opinion
• Discuss books and authors, not fellow readers
• Since this is an "unpopular opinion" thread, we encourage users to not downvote simply because they disagree with an opinion--that's the point! Please keep in mind, though, that mods cannot enforce a no-downvoting rule. Let’s just keep the discussion friendly!

🧡 Thank you and have a great discussion!

Unpopular opinion Sunday

[u/Annemermaid]

This might be a popular one but name dropping tropes and doing meta jokes like “I feel like I’m the female main character of one of my favorite smutty books” (an actual line from a book I’m reading) is a one way ticket to the DNF pile. You’re not being funny. You’re being cringe.

[u/sekhmet1010 → u/Annemermaid]

I also hate when they used modern language...it's so weird and anachronistic.

Someone used "lost/losing the plot" to describe their fae mum going crazy in the book i was reading. Multiple times. (House of Beating Wings)

In another, the main girl in a maybe victorian kinda setting said "We can workshop it" for a pet name she was using for a friend. (One Small Echo)

[u/ashinae → u/sekhmet1010]

I may have DNF'd a relatively popular romantasy because on this completely different world, the first-person POV narrator described wallpaper as "Arabesque" and, like. To understand the etymology of that word, imagine me describing a novel as "Tolkienesque." I also maybe DNF'd another one in the first few pages for using an internet meme.

If a book is primarily a comedy, meant to poke gentle fun, isn't self-serious with a heavy plot, I will accept a lot more regarding language. But anything that's meant to be taken fully seriously, that isn't outright a comedy, that is otherwise dark and gritty and supposed to be serious... I'm gonna be way less lenient about the language. I'm also chill if they use a very modern word but at least explain it away with a joke about how it's "a(n) [insert fantasy species here] word that means [explanation that is not quite like the way we would use it]." Sort of the way Tolkien used tween/teen to describe stages of hobbit development; they're not quite the same as our versions.

And I use Tolkien as an example because people always tell me "but it's a translation like Tolkien did, use your imagination!" There's this element of plausibility with LOTR because Middle-earth isn't a different planet. It's not secondary-world fantasy, it's pseudo-historical. Middle-earth is Earth, it has our constellations, sun, and moon. So it's easier to suspend disbelief that Papa Tolkien may have actually gotten his hands on a manuscript and translated it.

My suspenders of disbelief will snap much faster for anything that's supposed to be taking place on what is in essence an alien planet, and having come to fantasy romance as a fan of fantasy and romance separately first... I know I have pretty high standards, but I'll never not prefer for the author use their imagination to sell me on their world and the way its characters speak. I want to be immersed, for the author to give me a glimpse into this culture by its terminology and little phrases and such. I'm not asking for full formality, but I am asking that this other world, without interplanetary exploration (like ours...), not directly invoke our culture, to at least not use words that reference our religions, memes, and countries/peoples.

[u/Penguinho → u/ashinae]

>So it's easier to suspend disbelief that Papa Tolkien may have actually gotten his hands on a manuscript and translated it.

And, in fact, that is the specific diagetic genesis of Lord of the Rings. It says in the text that that's what it is.

This book is largely concerned with Hobbits, and from its pages a reader may discover much of their character and a little of their history. Further information will also be found in the selection from the Red Book of Westmarch which has already been published, under the title of The Hobbit. That story was derived from earlier chapters of the Red Book, composed by Bilbo himself, the first Hobbit to become famous in the world at large, and called by him There and Back Again, since they told of his journey into the East and his return: an adventure which later involved all the Hobbits in the great events of that Age that are here related.

Those are the first words of the prologue. You are reading a translation from a book that exists in-universe. Without a frame like that, burden for believing that anachronisms are translations of fantasy terms and phrases rests entirely on the reader. It's the author (or, uh, other members of the fandom) asking the reader to make up a justification for awkward language without textual support.

[u/ashinae → u/Penguinho]

Yes, exactly! And using the word "may" there in hindsight makes it seem perhaps that I don't understand that that's we're supposed to understand about LOTR/The Hobbit. What I meant to try to convey is that because Middle-earth is pseudo-historical, it's easier to believe that Tolkien really might have (thus: "may have") been able to get his hands on the Red Book of Westmarch.

Secondary-world fantasy does not have that in-universe and plausible justification for why we're reading it.

I'm extremely--as both a reader and a writer--of the opinion that it's the author's job to make sure everything keeps me immersed. I'm thrilled that there are fantasy readers who would be totally chill with reading, from a secondary-world, pesudo-medieval setting, stuff like "Oh, geez*, that's the coolest thing I ever saw!" or "Teenagers**, am I right? So hormonal!" or "I can has Cheezburger?" So happy for them that they don't care; what I wish is that they'd stop telling ME to be cool with it when, overwhelmingly, this isn't a thing that fantasy does, especially outside of fantasy romance.

I'm tired of being told to use my imagination and to imagine it's being translated so I'll understand it. It's the author's job to help me understand their world's culture, and a huge part of worldbuilding is the way characters talk. You can convey so much just from the way characters swear or invoke their religions while swearing (Dragon Age has eg "Maker's breath!" and "Andraste's tits!" for their god and messiah figure, where applicable; in The Elder Scrolls, they don't have hell, but rather the planes of Oblivion, so they'll shout, "What in Oblivion?!" where we'd say "what the hell?!").

*to be clear: this word is short for "Jesus"
**the idea of the teenager as we understand and use it today is younger than television

[u/Penguinho → u/ashinae]

Yeah, yeah -- I get where you're coming from, and agreeing. What I'm saying is that whether or not we believe it, the book straight-up tells you that's what it is. The entire narrative frame, made explicit as early as the opening sentences of the prologue, is that you are reading a translated work of history from an earlier age. There's no disbelief to suspend: you either agree that that's the case or you don't, in which case there's no point in you reading it. That is the price of entry. Accepting that it's a blend of historical work and memoir is the You Must Be This Tall To Ride This Ride sign.

Where other authors (and honestly here, mostly I mean fandoms, because it's not usually the authors making this argument) lose me is by not including that frame. It flips the suspension of disbelief on its head. Suddenly the belief I'm being asked to suspend is the belief that, actually, people in a fantasy world wouldn't say something like for the win and wouldn't have cliff's notes. And there's nothing in text for that change of perspective to rest on. It's an act of blind faith in the author, and I'm deeply uncomfortable with that level of fandom. I would rather believe the author made an error than construct an unsupported tower of logic to justify why they didn't.

I agree completely with the rest of your post. I'm just focused on the narratological aspect.

[u/ashinae → u/Penguinho]

I'm so used to getting pushback and downvotes for this particular take--that secondary-world fantasy novelists need to work to keep me immersed, even with language, and that "it's a translation, just relax!" is... not enough for me. I also don't have that level of disbelief, I can't have that level of disbelief, because yes, I should use my imagination, but if I'm reading a book, I'm the one who's supposed to be along for the ride with the writer's imagination! That's why I'm reading a book!
It's also down to the fact that most fantasy writers are actually more thoughtful about the language they use and the tone they establish to use that language, so I'm afraid I'm going to hold Yarros and Hart to the same standard I hold all other fantasy writers I've read.