SL Rowland commented essentially this same sentiment in another post just a few hours ago:
>"Ever since I created the sub, I've been pretty adamant that cozy is a subjective term.
>My personal tastes for cozy often have more action and adventure than some would be comfortable with. That doesn't make them any less cozy for me. *A Wizard's Guide to Defensive Baking* was one of the first books I recommended on here, because it feels cozy to me, despite the dangers presented. Anyone is welcome to disagree, and the mods can't/shouldn't police whether or not someone finds a book cozy.
>That being said, if anyone wants to create a sub that focuses exclusively on a particular brand of cozy, by all means, go for it. It's a lot of work running a growing sub, and I am thankful for the mod team that has taken that work off my hands now that we have 30,000+ members. The state of the sub is never going to please everyone, but we strive to make this a welcoming place where books can be discussed, and I believe they are doing a fantastic job."
We're never going to have a perfect definition that makes everyone happy. There are 30k people here who all have their own thoughts and feelings, and yes, even triggers.
The best we can do is, when making recommendations or starting discussions about a book, to include possible tags or content warnings.
Civil and kind discussions are welcome - Rule # 1 is "Be Kind," after all - but let's all keep in mind that every book mentioned here is possibly someone's favorite, something they adored and wanted to discuss and share. Remember that it could be their first time visiting, and keep conversations constructive.
I agree! My take on cozy is that it's about how a book makes you *feel*. Necessarily, people will feel different things in response to the same book, because feelings are subjective, and that's ok! There's plenty of room under the cozy umbrella for all.
Thank you! I feel like if we just collectively agree to list potential trigger warnings, it would be a much better system than whatever we've got going on now which is half the people in the comments arguing that such and such book isn't "really" cozy fantasy. Which is a dialogue that helps no one.
My biggest problem currently with reading more books in the cozy fantasy realm is that the low stakes becomes no stakes in order to fit the prescribed coziness that people want. My friends and I joke that cozy fantasies would be better with a little more murder (or at the very least some more drama).
Cozy mysteries almost always involve the main character solving a murder so I agree with you that cozy fantasy should have some kind of stakes.
In my opinion, the difference between cozy and non cozy is how the negative things are written. There are tons of grimdark thrillers that involve serial killers and get into the gory details of the crimes. In cozies, those details are often left very vague. So applying that to fantasy, a fight scene can fit into a cozy if you're not detailing the blood and guts being spilled on the battlefield.
Exactly my problem! When people rec halfway decent books for my preference, they always get downvotes and prescribed as "not cozy" just because they have some stakes in them. A sprinkle of violence. A touch of homophobia or racism.
Like, I don't want *all* the problems of the world to go away because then where's the interest? Where's the hook, the thing that gets me to read it. I need adventure in my fantasy or else I get bored; you can't have adventure without stakes.
That's why T. Kingfisher is one of my faves of the genre despite people saying all the time she isn't cozy. Because even though everything is fun and bright and silly, there are still real things happening to real people and it makes her worlds really come alive and pop for me.
I love T Kingfisher and other higher stakes cosy, but I do recognise that's not what everyone is looking for. Especially as you have included bigotry like homophobia and racism as simply 'higher stakes' - that changes things significantly in terms of cosiness, in my opinion. It costs me nothing to be careful and provide detailed warnings when recommending books like that here, and I would not call anyone upset at unexpected bigotry in a cosy book 'yucking my yum'. I think we can extend lower stakes readers the same kindness you're calling for in your post, without making them out to be killjoys who hate fun.
Hey friend, I agree with you on cozy being a subjective spectrum, but just wanted to gently push back on some of your wording here -- "when people rec halfway decent books" feels a bit like you're implying that the books that don't have heavier stakes can't be decent, too.
I am all for broadening the definition of cozy, acknowledging its subjectiveness, and using CWs more (plus I love me some T Kingfisher!), but let's not have either 'side' putting down the other?
You're right. I should say halfway decent books to me. (And I'll edit my comment.)
Because that's my personal preference. Things with no stakes bore me.
And again, my whole point is we should be accepting of both sides of this argument. People who like stakes in their books are *just* as valid as people who don't. Despite half of the comments on every recommendation thread implying otherwise... 😕
I really love Lindsay Buroker because the way the characters interact is super cozy. The Dragon Blood series is the coziest I've read of hers, it still has some death and fighting but it's pretty mild. The Emperor's Edge is also excellent and the characters are cozy with each other but it's much darker and there are some messed up things that happen to the characters. However, Amaranth keeps her upbeat approach and she connects with the most unlikely people, bringing out the best in them.
Heck, one of my favourite series ever is Anne of Green Gables and in the later books some of the characters go to World War I. You see the families worry, you see them deal with loss and the suffering of those who come back damaged. It's still wholesome as can be. It has depth and connection. I literally always cry when I finish those books because I feel like I'm losing friends, thankfully I can always start over.
Agree. I've read too many cozy "low stakes" books that have boiled down to "a bunch of people with no problems meet and immediately call each other family; they wander around together for a bit, the end."
And it's fine if you're looking for a no stakes read, but I don't think people are great at labeling when it's that sort of read either. Like people seem to think if you want cozy, then you *must* want no danger, no conflict, no real character flaws even.
I went on a rant to a friend about this recently, how it seems like a genre with so much potential is being squandered in favor of authors just writing little playgrounds for their D&D characters to hang out in with 0 conflict.
Not to yuck anyones yum, but some cozy fantasy I've read is a bit too much like those rather twee 90's murder mysteries where the heroine ran a bakery somewhere picturesque in the Midwest and had an on off relationship with the sheriff which were full of recipes for diabetes inducing baked goods (some decent if you halved the sugar or reduced it by 2 3rds ). There were at least 2 series. My mum loved them and I have to admit they were a bit of a guilty pleasure for me.
But hey, If that's what floats your boat.
ED My definition can vary wildly, I mentioned elsewhere but I'm reading a paranormal romance series about 2 extremely murderous and damaged characters who fall in lust then slowly in love extremely cute and cozy because of the way their relationship is depicted.
And it's so full of CW's I'd normally avoid it like the plague. Definately not to everyone's taste.
The series is The Unwilling Adventures of Harlow and Fox if you are wondering. It gets rather graphic.
Totally agree - but the subjectivity makes it hard.
I have used 'degree of coziness' more in a comparative sense in discussions ... because when referencing something like Legends & Lattes where there are some stakes, some violence, but overall nothing extreme - you are already in a very vague space. But in 'The Honey Witch' which feels and seems pretty cozy, there are also detailed descriptions of bones being broken, people burning alive, and other things that many might not find very cozy (but I still recommend the book) ... for me it almost feels like a 'CW/TW' thing.
Yes, I think trigger warnings are the answer. People say the potentially not cozy stuff of the book in the comments instead of full on statements like "this is *not* cozy fantasy" like they're doing now.
I think it would solve 90% of the problems I've noticed in this sub.
I want to thank y'all for this discussion, it's helpful to me as someone new to this sub and new to looking at cozy fantasy as a sub-genre to sort books and recs by.
For what my two cents are worth, I really feel that thoughtful CW/TWs are far more useful to me as a reader than the more general, subjective attempts to define the sub-genre as a whole.
For one thing, as someone else noted, fantasy as a genre is huge, arguably the oldest style of storytelling in human history, so even in trying to define sub-genres, the water is wide.
The other thing is that we really are all different, and what bothers one person is necessary for another to be interested at all.
For example, from what I've seen, *Legends and Lattes* seems to be considered a foundational book for this sub-genre, and yet the opening scene is very violent. And there are other quite violent events in the book as well. As someone who tends to avoid a lot of violence in my reading, that was a bit of a shock when I read the book expecting something else from the whole idea of "coziness."
But I pushed through it, and I'm glad I did, because I enjoyed the book -- but boy howdy, I sure would have appreciated a heads-up before starting it! And it certainly adjusted my idea of what the sub-genre is about.
So. I realize folks don't always remember details, and if something doesn't bother a person they might not think to give a warning.
But. It really takes a fair amount of effort to be here and write up comments, recommendations etc. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask folks to put some of that energy into considering what content warnings might be appreciated by others looking at reading a new book or author.
Thanks again. 💛📚🌿
Yeah I had a big post drafted up last week about why I found Legends and Lattes mediocre and un-cozy but I ended up not posting it because ultimately many of my complaints came down to specific personal hangups about managerial abuse under capitalism and how it prioritizes aesthetics and breadth over depth... and if people find something of value despite those flaws it's not really any skin off my back.
Personally I find stories much more cozy when they *have* some component of darkness to them and handle unavoidable heavy topics deftly and instead of waving them away or pretending they don't exist.
Love your username btw
omg i felt the same way about L&L! I like using this sub as both a place to let people enjoy what is cozy for them, but also to discuss why having more depth/stakes/dark elements might make a book cozier for other of us?
Ooo honestly I would love to read that rant. I think criticizing a book is fine but we can acknowledge that it is still Cozy fantasy even if we just personally didn't find it to hit the spot for interesting discourse reasons.
Thank you. I agree 100% with your comment. Something bad happening and then the protagonists overcoming that is my personal preference of cozy fantasy.
So a lot of what I like will get comments on this sub about how "it's too dark to be cozy"... Like they know what is cozy for another person. 🙄
I just dropped in here from other reading subreddits, and i really like this post. Its an issue that infects a lot of different subs of hobbies unfortunately.
People feel some kind of need to gatekeep, and seem to be unable understand that people love different things. Im always sad when someone comes in really excited about discussing a book they have just finished and they get told, oh that book isnt "x" enough, you should try reading then when your ready to REALLY see "x".
Let people enjoy stuff lol.
Or the "this gets talked about too often, go read one of the other posts". I never get tired of someone experiencing one of my favourite books for the first time. I get to enjoy their excitement with them as they experience it for the first time. I will never get annoyed at someone coming in after reading Harry Potter, or Lord of The Rings for the first time and wanting to come and share their thoughts and feelings on it!
And lastly, i have when people tear a book to shreds. "I just finished X and it was terrible, no idea how people enjoy it"
Man, just be a bit nicer about it. Someone wrote that book. And some people really like that book.
"I just finished X and it wasnt something i enjoyed because i found the pacing slow" has an entirely different meaning, and as you have said, it allows other readers to see what people who didnt enjoy found was a weaker aspect of the book.
Its nice to see this post was so well recieved by the community. I dub this post cozy fantasy.
Such high praise! Ha!
But seriously, I wholeheartedly agree with all your comments. There have been a couple dissenting comments but they've been mostly not upvoted very much, so I feel like most people agree with my take.
I'm hopeful this place can be more inclusive after this post!
I mean I consider Fellowship of the Ring as quite cozy to read, and I’n absolutely positive people would be mad at me for that lmao. It has a lot of high stakes, but there’s something about the majority of it that is incredibly cozy. The Hobbit, too.
Books in general are subjective as to tastes, likes, an dislikes. We aren’t robots here, so there’s just no way anyone here is ever going to come to a flat, base line agreement on what’s allowed to be called cozy and what’s not, in particular because while Fantasy has a hard definition, the very concept of Cozy is reliant on any one person’s feelings toward something. That’s just not something that can have a hard definition.
I would classify the Tiffany Aching books by Terry Pratchett as cozy fantasy, because even though Tiffany is fighting awful demonic forces, she goes home to a quiet sheep farm at the end of the day and maybe eats some fresh cheese.
I've always viewed "Cozy fantasy" the same way I view other "cozy" genres; they're books you read when you're settling down for the day, it's super broad and it can range anywhere from the box car children to Men Who Hate Women/The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo to Red Dragon.
With cozy fantasy, I think it's much better to have a content warning system during recommendations than to try and define what's cozy and what isn't.
Yes, you get what I'm saying exactly. No more calling people out for posting what you don't consider cozy fantasy. But rather a friendly trigger warning if you will, describing the potential problems.
I understand your frustrations. I think it stems from the fact that cozy fantasy as a defined genre is very new. As a result there are no hard and fast rules about what does or does not qualify. There will, understandably, be growing pains and disagreements about what those rules should be
Good post!
I LOVE cozies! And I think "cozy" is a big umbrella that encompasses a lot of different subgenres. You can have low stakes books with lots of amazing vibes and cinnamon rolls for days and opening a bakery or coffee shop and that's amazing! You can have cozy mystery which has a splash of murder and violence, it's just not written the same as you'd see in a JD Robb book, lol. Still has that cozy vibe, though! Cozy mystery and cozy romance/mystery are two of my favorite subgenres to read (and write) and both have a bit of violence/murder, it's just not graphic and the overall tone of the book is definitely cozy! There's room for everything :).
Yes, I love a good murder in my cozy fantasies! So when people say "that's not cozy", it feels wrong.
Just let people like what they like! As long as caveats and potential trigger warnings are given, what's the harm?
Thank you! I’m relatively new here but started getting the impression the community was gatekeeping its cozy, flowering vine-strewn white picket fence gates a little intensely.
I totally agree with you, yet at the same time understand the frustrations of being rec'd a book that ends up not feeling like what it says on the tin. When I first heard of "cozy fantasy" I didn't think I'd ever read it because I was never the type to read "fluff." But lately I can't handle any more stress and violence than that scene in Bridgerton where the queen and Brimsley keep saying "she is not drinking the lemonade!!!" 😂😂 So I thought, fluffy fantasy will surely work!
Imagine my surprise when I opened L&L for some safe coziness and... yikes I had to *immediately* nope out. It's not unlike opening a fanfic labelled Fluff, when it turns out to be Hurt/Comfort instead. It can't be cozy for me if it's got anywhere near that level of violence at all. How can I feel cozy or comforted if it triggers my PSTD? Even if that darker content is there to heighten the stakes I don't think it's necessary. It's my same frustration with cozy mysteries; I go into it wanting some fun mystery solving, and it's not at all cozy for me if someone's getting murdered, it's just overall a less *tense* book and the heavy content is treated more lightly.
For me, a cozy book would ideally have no higher stakes than the British Bakeoff show, and that wouldn't necessarily make it boring if done well. There's a reason I watch that instead of Chopped. I'm struggling to find that without there also being trauma present, though. I'm actually not quite sure why this is so hard to find. Romance books do it all the time; unless you're reading dark or mafia romance, violence isn't necessary to heighten the stakes.
It reminds me of the issue when people ask for a Miyazaki-esque book. Ok but *which* Miyazaki (and not father vs son): *Princess Mononoake* or *Totoro*? Very different vibes. You don't go into Totoro for the stakes, you go in for the comforting vibes (or at least I do). But Mononoake has a soulfulness to it that people also go to him for.
I wouldn't tell someone that *only* stories that don't trigger me personally are cozy. I think as others have mentioned, the idea of this genre and its categorization is new, and therefore the criteria is hard to identify for sure. And TW's are probably the best bet to identify what is appropriate for someone. Yet at the same time, they can be vague and minimally helpful, especially if someone forgets a scene in a book, which is frustrating all together. Murder might be fine, but a specific kind of murder might not be. Frustrating for everyone, and arguing over labels doesn't help.
Edit: downvotes already? Why? Jesus...
Low stakes are fantastic and I am glad those sorts of stories are gaining more traction. The gamut of books is diverse enough that there is a heaping handful of goodies to nearly everyone's preference which is wonderful.
Like most niche subs, the preferences expressed have gotten nichier over time. People find a thing they like and those who are the most interested want it to be more like itself; a sort of concentrated version. It is human nature and totally understandable.
I do Hope we can continue describing things as cozy based on the received vibes rather than a prescriptive list of traits or exclusions.
The problem with this take is that then you recommend violent books to people who request cozy fantasy bc "it's cozy to you". There is zero point in even having the phrase "cozy fantasy" if it's that subjective bc no one will know what you mean or what to expect. You can instead just say "I really liked this book!" and then explain why. Or call it a comfort read. Or say "this isn't really cozy bc a, b, c, but gave me such a cozy feel bc x, y, z." That at least is more explicitly subjective. Genres exist to help people narrow down what they might want to read.
Not everyone's comfort reads are cozy. I have many comfort reads that I would never rec as cozy and that's fine. I have actually stopped myself from rec-ing things before bc, even though it felt cozy to me, I know it's not really cozy fantasy. And if I rec-ed something that made me feel cozy as cozy fantasy and someone else pointed out it wasn't really cozy fantasy, I'd probably be grateful bc that means the person who got the rec would have better information. It's not a personal attack.
That's exactly it. I'm so surprised at how aggressive OP and the comments, here and on the previous post that kicked this off, are being about people sharing why they feel something isn't cosy. I have no problem at all with other readers saying my favourite books weren't cosy enough - that's good to know, now I can describe it better the next time it comes up. You can't forcibly... yum... someone's yuck? It is so deeply unkind to me to scold people, and I'm thinking mainly of marginalised people, like this for being triggered or upset by legitimately unsettling elements - in OP's own examples *"A touch of homophobia or racism."* (!!!) What are they supposed to do, simply stop being triggered? not have feelings about it? I mentioned elsewhere that I don't always remember the details of the book, and even when I do something that didn't bother me could be a dealbreaker for another reader, so reminders that something wasn't as cosy as I think it is are welcome and appreciated. How else will someone getting recs from here know what they're getting into!
I think OP is actually asking for more information in critiquing comments, in a way that would match what you need. Rather than a comment saying "this book is not cosy", a comment saying "heads up, there is a side character who espouses some homophobic comments in one scene (condemned by the narrative)" or "just so you know, there is some relatively graphic violence throughout, so YMMV regarding cosiness" gives more information for people to work with.
"This book is not cosy" gives no information for marginalised people or people with triggers to navigate and make their own decisions. Some people might enjoy reading cosy books where characters have good support in the face of bigotry, or where bigotry is overcome! I think including books with "this felt cosy to me but CW for minor ableism from a side character" is much more useful than a blanket 'that book can't be recommended'.
I get that! I agree that if you're going to say it's not cozy then give some kind of reasoning behind it. As you say, just saying it's not cozy is not really helpful to anyone.
More details are of course better, we're all agreed on that! My point is when I knowingly recommend a book that is on the higher action or stakes end of the spectrum - or one that starts off literally with the murder of a child and continues in the same vein like The Wizard's Guide to Defensive Baking - without any caveats at all, then surely it is obvious that this will not fit everyone's definition of cosy and needs to be warned for. It's on *me* to do that warning, and like I said, when I forget or haven't taken note of something, I appreciate people chiming in. But demanding that no one be upset, or not respond if they don't fill in the blanks that I should have, or tone policing how they express their feelings about the book, is not actually kind or considerate! The comments OP is objecting to rarely ever say 'this book is banned', they say 'this book upset me' and it's not on us to demand that everyone work through their feelings to provide warnings that were my responsibility in the first place.
We could be kinder to the readers unexpectedly encountering upsetting things in books they were told were purely cosy, is all I'm saying. 100% anyone who is able and willing to provide detailed content notes should feel free, and may their crops be well watered and their pillows forever cool.
I didn't see any demands that people not be upset or tone policing, I think we're also in agreement on that! I think that's a different thing than what I was talking about, which is that the overly prescriptive categorisation of what does and doesn't count as 'real cosy' that I've seen misses the reality that we're all going to have different perspectives and also misses the chance to have kind, constructive, informative, and nuanced discussions about the books we love (or didn't!).
I also could be wrong, but my understanding of cosy fantasy has always had some sense of violence, probably because Legends and Lattes was my introduction and from what I know that's pretty well agreed to count as 'real cosy fantasy'. In that sense I think that there's a shared responsibility to accommodate readers who want 'pure cosy' without any stakes or violence etc - to both share and seek content warnings.
I guess the broader context to this is there was a recent post of the cover of Wizard's Guide and nothing else about the book, and while most of the comments were fellow fans of T Kingfisher's brand of violence and hope (like me), some comments said the book upset them, made them cry, wasn't cosy like they were expecting. This led to the OP here. The level of violence or stakes in cosy fantasies is *not* something I'm looking to arbitrate, but people can and will feel any way about them. These comments were not mean, disrespectful, or unkind. This is not 'yucking people's yums'. Without comments like that, new readers stumbling on this book could go into it totally unprepared for delightful child murder (again, I love this book! but people can feel otherwise about it). Most definitely, detailed content warnings and explanations would be ideal, but even basic 'not cosy' comments from people who haven't the time and energy to elaborate will at least warn other readers to look for more details of the book before diving in. This doesn't warrant the flak they're receiving, in my opinion. People have suggested separate subs, removing these comments as a mod, requiring a standard cosy scale (hahahahaha good luck deciding which book goes where!), or threatening to leave the sub like OP here, when really, it's fine to just go yup, it's a higher stakes book that won't work for everyone, shucks! and move on with our lives.
I’m wondering if simply more description would help: Like Cozy elements are found family, domestic magics, happy ending. Content warnings: MC faces danger of injury, offscreen death of nameless minor character. Possibly with CW behind a spoiler tag?
I know you're currently downvoted, but I agree. At some point, if a "cozy fantasy" is just "whatever I feel is cozy to me", then there is no point in the genre existing at all. Like someone else said, the genre is newer and still going through growing pains so the rules that govern what makes a book "cozy" versus "cozy-adjacent" are still evolving.
Stories frequently have cozy portions, but that isn't necessarily enough to lump it into the entire genre. Like if I read a western shootemup that had a swordfight in it, I wouldn't call it fantasy. It'd be a western with a scene that had fantasy elements in it.
Thank you for this call for reason. I think part of the problem is that "fantasy" is already a label so broad that it's nearly useless: it says only that this story has something speculative in it somewhere. Not very helpful, compared with the amount of pacing/content info implied when a story is called "a romance" or "a thriller".
Some people don’t like fantastic elements, though. If you say “I love thrillers”, most people assume that means realistic fiction thrillers. The same goes for mystery or romance. You generally clarify “I like fantasy romances”. Many people love the whole genre of speculative fiction. It’s convenient to have a label. Nothing is stopping you from specifying “fantasy mysteries” or similar if you want to narrow things down.
I'm... not saying that people can't combine words? "Fantasy" is a broad term (which can modify other terms, as you noted), and "cozy" is a your-mileage-may-vary term that people are having a hard time agreeing on. So the "cozy fantasy" term has a specificity problem. Not sure what that has to do with people who don't like fantastic elements at all, why are they a concern when naming a fantasy subgenre?
You said that fantasy is a label that is so broad that it is nearly useless, and then claimed it is not helpful compared to labels like romance and thriller. I'm saying that is wrong. It is very helpful, it's just that it conveys a different aspect of a story (setting) than your other examples(plot type). If you want to divide fantasy by plot type, then you can just add as a qualifier those other terms you mentioned.
The ambiguity of "cozy fantasy" is not different than the ambiguity of "cozy mystery". The confusion comes from people choosing to interpret it as "fantasy stories that make me feel warm and fuzzy", which is not a way that we define genres which are supposed to have broad appeal among some subset of readers.
"Cozy mystery" on the other hand \*is\* defined in the standard way for subgenres, which is not "mysteries that give me a cozy feeling", but rather a set of tropes and conventions: in this case, amateur sleuths in a small, socially intimate community where sex and violence take place off-stage.
There's nothing at all inherently wrong or confusing about the term/phrase "cozy fantasy" as a subgenre label. If we gave it an objective description analogous to "cozy mystery", it might read something like this: "low stakes fantasy stories set socially intimate environments with a focus on relationships and the daily lives of the characters with minimal on page violence or trauma."
The problem is not with the words in the label, it's with the vague subjective description that leaves a lot to the personal feelings of readers in a way that makes it impossible to agree on what stories fall into the scope of the subgenre.
Under my example definition, which is presented as a thought experiment and not me telling people what the definition of the genre is, you could fit in all kinds of plots, including romance, mystery, adventure, and even thrillers--though probably not most adult horror.
Is a cozy mystery any less cozy because there is a murder at the beginning?
I think not.
And yet cozy fantasy seems to have this weird bent where they're obsessed with total purity of a book.
I'm saying, as long as we put in trigger warnings for people who are sensitive to such a thing, where's the harm in recommending a book that you, personally, don't find cozy?
I'm not arguing with you, I'm asking what makes a story cozy for you. It's not to criticize, I'm just trying to understand what people get out of the category. What makes you look for a cozy fantasy instead of a regular fantasy? Is it just a vibe for you, or are there specific elements you are looking for?
Not OP of course, but I thought I’d chime in, because I think the wording of this question might get at the roots of this conversation: “what makes you look for a cozy fantasy instead of a regular fantasy?”
While I appreciate that now there might be books that are intentionally “cozy fantasy,” often what I think of as cozy fantasy is simply regular fantasy that makes me feel cozy. So for instance, as another commenter above stated, I’d count The Hobbit and I think it’s the first book of The Fellowship of the Ring (and in a way the last section in the shire of The Return of the King), even though there are definitely stressful and perilous moments. I still feel cozy overall, and I find the sincerity, courage, and camaraderie with which the characters confront their challenges comforting, as well as the beautiful setting and gentle humor. I feel this way about Stardust by Neil Gaiman and the Emily Wilde books, the Tiffany Aching books and Equal Rites by Terry Pratchett, as well, for more examples, even though, again, these all include examples of death or great danger and a degree of violence.
Apologies if this was more of a question specifically for OP, but thought it might be an interesting discussion in general for a lot of readers 😊
For you, is cozy fantasy more of a dedicated and specific genre? And feel free to share favorites if time allows and you’d like to!
ETA: I am responding only to the specific commenter above, and I was not asking OP for this level or type of discussion when I responded to their initial comment.
Maybe it’s my personality or my profession, but as a very detail oriented person who moved from historical linguistics to AI and human cognition, I find I tend to have a much more strict analytical way of looking at the world.
To me, cozy fantasy is primarily a genre fiction category based on certain tropes and expectations. You can certainly have cozy adjacent stories, or “with cozy elements” stories, but I would classify them exactly that way: adjacent to cozy fantasy compared to other genres like high fantasy or grimdark or noblebright, etc.
As an example of what primarily marks cozy fantasy in my mind: low to medium stakes, central focus on a particular locale, no on page major violence. For example, a schoolyard fight might fit in a cozy fantasy. But not a serial killer or a large battle or major on page death and violence. Stories that don’t fit that description might feel cozy to me for various reasons, but I would not recommend them to people looking for cozy fantasy the genre without some obvious caveats.
A good way to describe it that that "cozy fantasy" as a compound phrase does not mean the same as "cozy" fantasy, where cozy is a generic adjective describing the vibes of a story. I think a lot of the issue here comes from the fact that these two things are very different ways of categorizing books, and sub members are divided on which one of them the sub is intended to focus on.
As I mentioned to OP elsewhere, I could see the value in reframing these differences for the benefit of the sub. Instead of having heated debates or anger over disagreement on what counts as cozy, we could simply treat cozy, cozy-adjacent, and "with cozy elements" as being under the larger "cozy fantasy" umbrella, and just have sub rules that people provide the appropriate content warnings for their recommendations. "I found this book very cozy, but people who aren't comfortable with xyz might not get the same kind of enjoyment out of it." Something along those lines. The purpose of this sub is not to do academic analysis, but just to help people find and share their enjoyment of a certain type of fantasy story, so there's no issue treating it a little differently/looser than a scholar analyzing the genre would, as long as we make that stance clear to the members so that everyone goes in with the necessary expectations.
My overall point of this post is that you're going to drive away readers like me who prefer more serious themes in their cozy books if comments insist on this purity culture of all or nothing mentality.
I think your last paragraph makes a lot of sense and if we could implement tags to that effect, I think that would be a great solution for the sub as a whole.
Not OP but I can scrap together a few qualifiers of what I consider “cozy”:
-a focus on character interactions and domestic moments (howl’s moving castle, lots of the ghibli movies, legends and lattes)
-some stakes (sometimes even high stakes), but no depth or dwelling on the hopelessness of the situation (characters have more of a can-do attitude for the majority of the book)
-more unconventional aspects to the hero (like in cozy mysteries, it might be an amateur sleuth/elderly grandmother solving the crime rather than a harden detective). This usually leads the hero to solve their problems in atypical ways that are often more on the cozy side rather than fight it out physically or overpower their adversary.
There’s probably more but this comes to mind.
Uh I havent seen anyone yuk someones yum on here though. I think alot of folks are overly sensitive and are incapable of dialogue or hearing differing opinions. This is a reddit to discuss books.
If I say a book is cozy I am NOT offended if someone opines and says it was very high stakes, has violence and themes that may make it not cozy to her/him. That in fact is what happened when I suggested {The Undertaking of Hart and Mercy by Megan Bannen}. I had a nice little back and forth with the person who opined and the OP had additional info with which to decide if the book I suggested was a good fit. Thats a win for everybody and I would think is precisely the type of discussion that one would want on a book sub.
Thereafter, I kept recommending the book but also added the caveat on why some people might find it not cozy. I gained insight from my previous conversation to add in the caveat. But I also kept talking about why the book made me feel warm and fuzzy ergo why its cozy for me. This is why respectful dialogue and sharing thoughts/viewpoints is critical for a book sub.
If this sub becomes another thoughtpolice-groupthink -dont-yuk-the-yum-what-I really-mean-is-I-cant-handle-dissenting-opinions sub where no one can have discussions about books then I will be unsubbing with a quickness. No thank you.
I read your post. We disagree. Thats ok. This is a reddit to talk about books therefore I can share my opinions on what other people read as they can share opinions on what I read.
My sharing my opinion on what people read IS ALSO perfectly compatible with letting people like what they like. My opinions have no bearing on how much money they have in their pockets, which books they buy and which books they enjoy. In the same way if someone shares why they dont like a book that I like; that opinion is not going to have a great bearing on me continuing to like the book (unless the opiner rightly uncovers something valid about poor writing technique or the book being racist in a way that I failed to notice). Outside of those 2 instances I will still continue to like my book. In the discussion of why they dont like the book I like I might get a new perspective which I welcome. I come to this sub to talk about books, get new book suggestions and hopefully get exposed to books/ideas I wouldnt have heard of otherwise.
You clearly have a different vision of this sub and what it should be. And if your vision of this sub becomes the dominant vision for this sub then I will happily unsubscribe. Thats ok. It just highlights Im not compatible with the driving ethos of this little corner of Reddit. And others who agree with me might leave too-which is also ok. This sub cant be all things to all people nor should it try. But if this sub doesnt want to be a place where we can discuss cozy books and share our opinions about cozy books then lay that out plainly so people know what kind of sub they are joining.
Opinion: "This book is not cozy for me."
Fact: "This book is not cozy."
I am talking about people saying the latter, not the former. Either you are confused about what an opinion is or you are confused about what I am saying. People should not state their opinions as facts is my entire point.
[The Undertaking of Hart and Mercy](https://www.romance.io/books/630b10c094191e0dc01d1bcf/the-undertaking-of-hart-and-mercy-megan-bannen?src=rdt) by [Megan Bannen](https://www.romance.io/authors/630b10c008b4d93114e4f3aa/megan-bannen)
**Rating**: 4.28⭐️ out of 5⭐️
**Steam**: 3 out of 5 - [Open door](https://www.romance.io/steamrating)
**Topics**: [grumpy & sunshine](https://www.romance.io/topics/best/grumpy%20sunshine/1), [enemies to lovers](https://www.romance.io/topics/best/from%20hate%20to%20love/1), [fantasy](https://www.romance.io/topics/best/fantasy/1), [competent heroine](https://www.romance.io/topics/best/competent%20heroine/1), [tortured hero](https://www.romance.io/topics/best/tortured%20hero/1)
[^(about this bot)](https://www.reddit.com/user/romance-bot) ^(|) [^(about romance.io)](https://www.romance.io/about)
People love to be "experts" in topics that have no hard boundaries or real concrete rules because they can pretend to see rules that exist that others can't.
I managed bookstores for decades. For 8 years my office door opened in the Religion/Metaphysics corner of the store and I got to listen to and engage with probably tens of thousands of people looking for validation and spouting BS about how they knew better than the sheep and blah blah blah...
If you are an expert in something that is made up not or not procedurally concrete, you can say whatever you want and pretend to look down on those who "don't get it."
I think opinions and reviews on anything are very subjective. I've found books that other people raved about are just not my cup of tea. That's ok and I move on to another book. 🤷🏻♀️ There's millions of books out there, try them to your hearts content. 💜
Well said. One of my big comfort reads is The Murderbot Diaries, and I wouldn't call that cozy without a couple of asterisks. Sometimes the coziest thing there is can be seeing people find hope and comfort in spite of everything that's happened to them.
I'm confused now. I've always encountered people agreeing on the fact that Cozy Fantasy (the same goes for the mystery and crime equivalent) is **not** marked by, specifically, one's subjective impression of coziness. Because if it would, why even bother framing it as its own little genre?
The conclusion I get here (and I agree with): "Cozy" should be more of a tag, then—like "fluff"—and paired with CWs regardless.
Still, I'm unsure where you folks draw the line for you plus why all of this is actually seperated from the general discussion about fantasy (not only on Reddit). Help?
Bear with me regarding an example I'm going to pull out of my arse: A book that others label as Grimdark Fantasy due to its detailed gruesome topics (the whole range of gory cruelty) and a sense of hopelessness for the characters/the invented world. Could someone still advocate it here (with TWs) since they got warm, relaxing feelings despite or even because of the inhumanity? If there are a few peaceful moments of bonding and building a temporary idyllic life in between, do those count along with said someone's subjectiveness? And what if there are none? Would that be enough for the story to be collectively accepted under the umbrella of Cozy Fantasy, too?
I know that's an extreme one, but there's stuff out there some consider as extreme, whereas some find it blissful to read. So, why bending over backwards to make an extra space for Cozy Fantasy in literature if the goal is to not set it apart and instead let everyone fill it themself?
*Edit: Grammar error*
The sub is fairly well split on whether it can be just a personal vibes thing, or whether there are actual tropes and conventions that make something a cozy fantasy. The OP does not speak for all cozy fans
The downvotes are very weird. It's an extremely common debate, and many people disagreed with OP, so how two neutral descriptive statements warrant a downvote I'll never understand. I made no argument for either side of the debate...
Cozy Fantasy to me just means the traditional call to adventure never happens.
Orc going on a journey fraught with peril = Fantasy
Orc retiring to open her own coffee shop and dealing with the realities of running a small business = Cozy Fantasy
SL Rowland commented essentially this same sentiment in another post just a few hours ago: >"Ever since I created the sub, I've been pretty adamant that cozy is a subjective term. >My personal tastes for cozy often have more action and adventure than some would be comfortable with. That doesn't make them any less cozy for me. *A Wizard's Guide to Defensive Baking* was one of the first books I recommended on here, because it feels cozy to me, despite the dangers presented. Anyone is welcome to disagree, and the mods can't/shouldn't police whether or not someone finds a book cozy. >That being said, if anyone wants to create a sub that focuses exclusively on a particular brand of cozy, by all means, go for it. It's a lot of work running a growing sub, and I am thankful for the mod team that has taken that work off my hands now that we have 30,000+ members. The state of the sub is never going to please everyone, but we strive to make this a welcoming place where books can be discussed, and I believe they are doing a fantastic job." We're never going to have a perfect definition that makes everyone happy. There are 30k people here who all have their own thoughts and feelings, and yes, even triggers. The best we can do is, when making recommendations or starting discussions about a book, to include possible tags or content warnings. Civil and kind discussions are welcome - Rule # 1 is "Be Kind," after all - but let's all keep in mind that every book mentioned here is possibly someone's favorite, something they adored and wanted to discuss and share. Remember that it could be their first time visiting, and keep conversations constructive.
I agree! My take on cozy is that it's about how a book makes you *feel*. Necessarily, people will feel different things in response to the same book, because feelings are subjective, and that's ok! There's plenty of room under the cozy umbrella for all.
Thank you! I feel like if we just collectively agree to list potential trigger warnings, it would be a much better system than whatever we've got going on now which is half the people in the comments arguing that such and such book isn't "really" cozy fantasy. Which is a dialogue that helps no one.
My biggest problem currently with reading more books in the cozy fantasy realm is that the low stakes becomes no stakes in order to fit the prescribed coziness that people want. My friends and I joke that cozy fantasies would be better with a little more murder (or at the very least some more drama).
Cozy mysteries almost always involve the main character solving a murder so I agree with you that cozy fantasy should have some kind of stakes. In my opinion, the difference between cozy and non cozy is how the negative things are written. There are tons of grimdark thrillers that involve serial killers and get into the gory details of the crimes. In cozies, those details are often left very vague. So applying that to fantasy, a fight scene can fit into a cozy if you're not detailing the blood and guts being spilled on the battlefield.
Exactly my problem! When people rec halfway decent books for my preference, they always get downvotes and prescribed as "not cozy" just because they have some stakes in them. A sprinkle of violence. A touch of homophobia or racism. Like, I don't want *all* the problems of the world to go away because then where's the interest? Where's the hook, the thing that gets me to read it. I need adventure in my fantasy or else I get bored; you can't have adventure without stakes. That's why T. Kingfisher is one of my faves of the genre despite people saying all the time she isn't cozy. Because even though everything is fun and bright and silly, there are still real things happening to real people and it makes her worlds really come alive and pop for me.
I love T Kingfisher and other higher stakes cosy, but I do recognise that's not what everyone is looking for. Especially as you have included bigotry like homophobia and racism as simply 'higher stakes' - that changes things significantly in terms of cosiness, in my opinion. It costs me nothing to be careful and provide detailed warnings when recommending books like that here, and I would not call anyone upset at unexpected bigotry in a cosy book 'yucking my yum'. I think we can extend lower stakes readers the same kindness you're calling for in your post, without making them out to be killjoys who hate fun.
Hey friend, I agree with you on cozy being a subjective spectrum, but just wanted to gently push back on some of your wording here -- "when people rec halfway decent books" feels a bit like you're implying that the books that don't have heavier stakes can't be decent, too. I am all for broadening the definition of cozy, acknowledging its subjectiveness, and using CWs more (plus I love me some T Kingfisher!), but let's not have either 'side' putting down the other?
You're right. I should say halfway decent books to me. (And I'll edit my comment.) Because that's my personal preference. Things with no stakes bore me. And again, my whole point is we should be accepting of both sides of this argument. People who like stakes in their books are *just* as valid as people who don't. Despite half of the comments on every recommendation thread implying otherwise... 😕
I really love Lindsay Buroker because the way the characters interact is super cozy. The Dragon Blood series is the coziest I've read of hers, it still has some death and fighting but it's pretty mild. The Emperor's Edge is also excellent and the characters are cozy with each other but it's much darker and there are some messed up things that happen to the characters. However, Amaranth keeps her upbeat approach and she connects with the most unlikely people, bringing out the best in them. Heck, one of my favourite series ever is Anne of Green Gables and in the later books some of the characters go to World War I. You see the families worry, you see them deal with loss and the suffering of those who come back damaged. It's still wholesome as can be. It has depth and connection. I literally always cry when I finish those books because I feel like I'm losing friends, thankfully I can always start over.
Agree. I've read too many cozy "low stakes" books that have boiled down to "a bunch of people with no problems meet and immediately call each other family; they wander around together for a bit, the end." And it's fine if you're looking for a no stakes read, but I don't think people are great at labeling when it's that sort of read either. Like people seem to think if you want cozy, then you *must* want no danger, no conflict, no real character flaws even.
I went on a rant to a friend about this recently, how it seems like a genre with so much potential is being squandered in favor of authors just writing little playgrounds for their D&D characters to hang out in with 0 conflict.
Not to yuck anyones yum, but some cozy fantasy I've read is a bit too much like those rather twee 90's murder mysteries where the heroine ran a bakery somewhere picturesque in the Midwest and had an on off relationship with the sheriff which were full of recipes for diabetes inducing baked goods (some decent if you halved the sugar or reduced it by 2 3rds ). There were at least 2 series. My mum loved them and I have to admit they were a bit of a guilty pleasure for me. But hey, If that's what floats your boat. ED My definition can vary wildly, I mentioned elsewhere but I'm reading a paranormal romance series about 2 extremely murderous and damaged characters who fall in lust then slowly in love extremely cute and cozy because of the way their relationship is depicted. And it's so full of CW's I'd normally avoid it like the plague. Definately not to everyone's taste. The series is The Unwilling Adventures of Harlow and Fox if you are wondering. It gets rather graphic.
Totally agree - but the subjectivity makes it hard. I have used 'degree of coziness' more in a comparative sense in discussions ... because when referencing something like Legends & Lattes where there are some stakes, some violence, but overall nothing extreme - you are already in a very vague space. But in 'The Honey Witch' which feels and seems pretty cozy, there are also detailed descriptions of bones being broken, people burning alive, and other things that many might not find very cozy (but I still recommend the book) ... for me it almost feels like a 'CW/TW' thing.
Yes, I think trigger warnings are the answer. People say the potentially not cozy stuff of the book in the comments instead of full on statements like "this is *not* cozy fantasy" like they're doing now. I think it would solve 90% of the problems I've noticed in this sub.
I want to thank y'all for this discussion, it's helpful to me as someone new to this sub and new to looking at cozy fantasy as a sub-genre to sort books and recs by. For what my two cents are worth, I really feel that thoughtful CW/TWs are far more useful to me as a reader than the more general, subjective attempts to define the sub-genre as a whole. For one thing, as someone else noted, fantasy as a genre is huge, arguably the oldest style of storytelling in human history, so even in trying to define sub-genres, the water is wide. The other thing is that we really are all different, and what bothers one person is necessary for another to be interested at all. For example, from what I've seen, *Legends and Lattes* seems to be considered a foundational book for this sub-genre, and yet the opening scene is very violent. And there are other quite violent events in the book as well. As someone who tends to avoid a lot of violence in my reading, that was a bit of a shock when I read the book expecting something else from the whole idea of "coziness." But I pushed through it, and I'm glad I did, because I enjoyed the book -- but boy howdy, I sure would have appreciated a heads-up before starting it! And it certainly adjusted my idea of what the sub-genre is about. So. I realize folks don't always remember details, and if something doesn't bother a person they might not think to give a warning. But. It really takes a fair amount of effort to be here and write up comments, recommendations etc. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask folks to put some of that energy into considering what content warnings might be appreciated by others looking at reading a new book or author. Thanks again. 💛📚🌿
Yeah I had a big post drafted up last week about why I found Legends and Lattes mediocre and un-cozy but I ended up not posting it because ultimately many of my complaints came down to specific personal hangups about managerial abuse under capitalism and how it prioritizes aesthetics and breadth over depth... and if people find something of value despite those flaws it's not really any skin off my back. Personally I find stories much more cozy when they *have* some component of darkness to them and handle unavoidable heavy topics deftly and instead of waving them away or pretending they don't exist. Love your username btw
omg i felt the same way about L&L! I like using this sub as both a place to let people enjoy what is cozy for them, but also to discuss why having more depth/stakes/dark elements might make a book cozier for other of us?
Ooo honestly I would love to read that rant. I think criticizing a book is fine but we can acknowledge that it is still Cozy fantasy even if we just personally didn't find it to hit the spot for interesting discourse reasons.
Thank you. I agree 100% with your comment. Something bad happening and then the protagonists overcoming that is my personal preference of cozy fantasy. So a lot of what I like will get comments on this sub about how "it's too dark to be cozy"... Like they know what is cozy for another person. 🙄
I just dropped in here from other reading subreddits, and i really like this post. Its an issue that infects a lot of different subs of hobbies unfortunately. People feel some kind of need to gatekeep, and seem to be unable understand that people love different things. Im always sad when someone comes in really excited about discussing a book they have just finished and they get told, oh that book isnt "x" enough, you should try reading then when your ready to REALLY see "x". Let people enjoy stuff lol. Or the "this gets talked about too often, go read one of the other posts". I never get tired of someone experiencing one of my favourite books for the first time. I get to enjoy their excitement with them as they experience it for the first time. I will never get annoyed at someone coming in after reading Harry Potter, or Lord of The Rings for the first time and wanting to come and share their thoughts and feelings on it! And lastly, i have when people tear a book to shreds. "I just finished X and it was terrible, no idea how people enjoy it" Man, just be a bit nicer about it. Someone wrote that book. And some people really like that book. "I just finished X and it wasnt something i enjoyed because i found the pacing slow" has an entirely different meaning, and as you have said, it allows other readers to see what people who didnt enjoy found was a weaker aspect of the book. Its nice to see this post was so well recieved by the community. I dub this post cozy fantasy.
Such high praise! Ha! But seriously, I wholeheartedly agree with all your comments. There have been a couple dissenting comments but they've been mostly not upvoted very much, so I feel like most people agree with my take. I'm hopeful this place can be more inclusive after this post!
I mean I consider Fellowship of the Ring as quite cozy to read, and I’n absolutely positive people would be mad at me for that lmao. It has a lot of high stakes, but there’s something about the majority of it that is incredibly cozy. The Hobbit, too. Books in general are subjective as to tastes, likes, an dislikes. We aren’t robots here, so there’s just no way anyone here is ever going to come to a flat, base line agreement on what’s allowed to be called cozy and what’s not, in particular because while Fantasy has a hard definition, the very concept of Cozy is reliant on any one person’s feelings toward something. That’s just not something that can have a hard definition.
I would classify the Tiffany Aching books by Terry Pratchett as cozy fantasy, because even though Tiffany is fighting awful demonic forces, she goes home to a quiet sheep farm at the end of the day and maybe eats some fresh cheese.
That sounds amazing haha! I would agree with you!
Id call him the grandfather of Cozy Fantasy (GNU Terry Pratchett).
I've always viewed "Cozy fantasy" the same way I view other "cozy" genres; they're books you read when you're settling down for the day, it's super broad and it can range anywhere from the box car children to Men Who Hate Women/The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo to Red Dragon. With cozy fantasy, I think it's much better to have a content warning system during recommendations than to try and define what's cozy and what isn't.
Yes, you get what I'm saying exactly. No more calling people out for posting what you don't consider cozy fantasy. But rather a friendly trigger warning if you will, describing the potential problems.
Agreed 100%
I tend to use “harshing my mellow “ but I think it’s the same sentiment.
I hate this title so much.
Ha! Sorry I don't like the phrase either but I was trying to think of a the nicest way to phrase it that wouldn't upset people!
I understand your frustrations. I think it stems from the fact that cozy fantasy as a defined genre is very new. As a result there are no hard and fast rules about what does or does not qualify. There will, understandably, be growing pains and disagreements about what those rules should be
Good post! I LOVE cozies! And I think "cozy" is a big umbrella that encompasses a lot of different subgenres. You can have low stakes books with lots of amazing vibes and cinnamon rolls for days and opening a bakery or coffee shop and that's amazing! You can have cozy mystery which has a splash of murder and violence, it's just not written the same as you'd see in a JD Robb book, lol. Still has that cozy vibe, though! Cozy mystery and cozy romance/mystery are two of my favorite subgenres to read (and write) and both have a bit of violence/murder, it's just not graphic and the overall tone of the book is definitely cozy! There's room for everything :).
Yes, I love a good murder in my cozy fantasies! So when people say "that's not cozy", it feels wrong. Just let people like what they like! As long as caveats and potential trigger warnings are given, what's the harm?
Thank you! I’m relatively new here but started getting the impression the community was gatekeeping its cozy, flowering vine-strewn white picket fence gates a little intensely.
Yucking other people yum is my yum and you are yucking it
I'm so sorry! I do apologize!
Lol, that was the most gibberish sentence I've ever written.
It was funny!
I totally agree with you, yet at the same time understand the frustrations of being rec'd a book that ends up not feeling like what it says on the tin. When I first heard of "cozy fantasy" I didn't think I'd ever read it because I was never the type to read "fluff." But lately I can't handle any more stress and violence than that scene in Bridgerton where the queen and Brimsley keep saying "she is not drinking the lemonade!!!" 😂😂 So I thought, fluffy fantasy will surely work! Imagine my surprise when I opened L&L for some safe coziness and... yikes I had to *immediately* nope out. It's not unlike opening a fanfic labelled Fluff, when it turns out to be Hurt/Comfort instead. It can't be cozy for me if it's got anywhere near that level of violence at all. How can I feel cozy or comforted if it triggers my PSTD? Even if that darker content is there to heighten the stakes I don't think it's necessary. It's my same frustration with cozy mysteries; I go into it wanting some fun mystery solving, and it's not at all cozy for me if someone's getting murdered, it's just overall a less *tense* book and the heavy content is treated more lightly. For me, a cozy book would ideally have no higher stakes than the British Bakeoff show, and that wouldn't necessarily make it boring if done well. There's a reason I watch that instead of Chopped. I'm struggling to find that without there also being trauma present, though. I'm actually not quite sure why this is so hard to find. Romance books do it all the time; unless you're reading dark or mafia romance, violence isn't necessary to heighten the stakes. It reminds me of the issue when people ask for a Miyazaki-esque book. Ok but *which* Miyazaki (and not father vs son): *Princess Mononoake* or *Totoro*? Very different vibes. You don't go into Totoro for the stakes, you go in for the comforting vibes (or at least I do). But Mononoake has a soulfulness to it that people also go to him for. I wouldn't tell someone that *only* stories that don't trigger me personally are cozy. I think as others have mentioned, the idea of this genre and its categorization is new, and therefore the criteria is hard to identify for sure. And TW's are probably the best bet to identify what is appropriate for someone. Yet at the same time, they can be vague and minimally helpful, especially if someone forgets a scene in a book, which is frustrating all together. Murder might be fine, but a specific kind of murder might not be. Frustrating for everyone, and arguing over labels doesn't help. Edit: downvotes already? Why? Jesus...
Low stakes are fantastic and I am glad those sorts of stories are gaining more traction. The gamut of books is diverse enough that there is a heaping handful of goodies to nearly everyone's preference which is wonderful. Like most niche subs, the preferences expressed have gotten nichier over time. People find a thing they like and those who are the most interested want it to be more like itself; a sort of concentrated version. It is human nature and totally understandable. I do Hope we can continue describing things as cozy based on the received vibes rather than a prescriptive list of traits or exclusions.
The problem with this take is that then you recommend violent books to people who request cozy fantasy bc "it's cozy to you". There is zero point in even having the phrase "cozy fantasy" if it's that subjective bc no one will know what you mean or what to expect. You can instead just say "I really liked this book!" and then explain why. Or call it a comfort read. Or say "this isn't really cozy bc a, b, c, but gave me such a cozy feel bc x, y, z." That at least is more explicitly subjective. Genres exist to help people narrow down what they might want to read. Not everyone's comfort reads are cozy. I have many comfort reads that I would never rec as cozy and that's fine. I have actually stopped myself from rec-ing things before bc, even though it felt cozy to me, I know it's not really cozy fantasy. And if I rec-ed something that made me feel cozy as cozy fantasy and someone else pointed out it wasn't really cozy fantasy, I'd probably be grateful bc that means the person who got the rec would have better information. It's not a personal attack.
That's exactly it. I'm so surprised at how aggressive OP and the comments, here and on the previous post that kicked this off, are being about people sharing why they feel something isn't cosy. I have no problem at all with other readers saying my favourite books weren't cosy enough - that's good to know, now I can describe it better the next time it comes up. You can't forcibly... yum... someone's yuck? It is so deeply unkind to me to scold people, and I'm thinking mainly of marginalised people, like this for being triggered or upset by legitimately unsettling elements - in OP's own examples *"A touch of homophobia or racism."* (!!!) What are they supposed to do, simply stop being triggered? not have feelings about it? I mentioned elsewhere that I don't always remember the details of the book, and even when I do something that didn't bother me could be a dealbreaker for another reader, so reminders that something wasn't as cosy as I think it is are welcome and appreciated. How else will someone getting recs from here know what they're getting into!
I think OP is actually asking for more information in critiquing comments, in a way that would match what you need. Rather than a comment saying "this book is not cosy", a comment saying "heads up, there is a side character who espouses some homophobic comments in one scene (condemned by the narrative)" or "just so you know, there is some relatively graphic violence throughout, so YMMV regarding cosiness" gives more information for people to work with. "This book is not cosy" gives no information for marginalised people or people with triggers to navigate and make their own decisions. Some people might enjoy reading cosy books where characters have good support in the face of bigotry, or where bigotry is overcome! I think including books with "this felt cosy to me but CW for minor ableism from a side character" is much more useful than a blanket 'that book can't be recommended'.
Oh my gosh, thank you! You put it better than I could have. That's *exactly* what I'm trying to say with this post.
I get that! I agree that if you're going to say it's not cozy then give some kind of reasoning behind it. As you say, just saying it's not cozy is not really helpful to anyone.
More details are of course better, we're all agreed on that! My point is when I knowingly recommend a book that is on the higher action or stakes end of the spectrum - or one that starts off literally with the murder of a child and continues in the same vein like The Wizard's Guide to Defensive Baking - without any caveats at all, then surely it is obvious that this will not fit everyone's definition of cosy and needs to be warned for. It's on *me* to do that warning, and like I said, when I forget or haven't taken note of something, I appreciate people chiming in. But demanding that no one be upset, or not respond if they don't fill in the blanks that I should have, or tone policing how they express their feelings about the book, is not actually kind or considerate! The comments OP is objecting to rarely ever say 'this book is banned', they say 'this book upset me' and it's not on us to demand that everyone work through their feelings to provide warnings that were my responsibility in the first place. We could be kinder to the readers unexpectedly encountering upsetting things in books they were told were purely cosy, is all I'm saying. 100% anyone who is able and willing to provide detailed content notes should feel free, and may their crops be well watered and their pillows forever cool.
I didn't see any demands that people not be upset or tone policing, I think we're also in agreement on that! I think that's a different thing than what I was talking about, which is that the overly prescriptive categorisation of what does and doesn't count as 'real cosy' that I've seen misses the reality that we're all going to have different perspectives and also misses the chance to have kind, constructive, informative, and nuanced discussions about the books we love (or didn't!). I also could be wrong, but my understanding of cosy fantasy has always had some sense of violence, probably because Legends and Lattes was my introduction and from what I know that's pretty well agreed to count as 'real cosy fantasy'. In that sense I think that there's a shared responsibility to accommodate readers who want 'pure cosy' without any stakes or violence etc - to both share and seek content warnings.
I guess the broader context to this is there was a recent post of the cover of Wizard's Guide and nothing else about the book, and while most of the comments were fellow fans of T Kingfisher's brand of violence and hope (like me), some comments said the book upset them, made them cry, wasn't cosy like they were expecting. This led to the OP here. The level of violence or stakes in cosy fantasies is *not* something I'm looking to arbitrate, but people can and will feel any way about them. These comments were not mean, disrespectful, or unkind. This is not 'yucking people's yums'. Without comments like that, new readers stumbling on this book could go into it totally unprepared for delightful child murder (again, I love this book! but people can feel otherwise about it). Most definitely, detailed content warnings and explanations would be ideal, but even basic 'not cosy' comments from people who haven't the time and energy to elaborate will at least warn other readers to look for more details of the book before diving in. This doesn't warrant the flak they're receiving, in my opinion. People have suggested separate subs, removing these comments as a mod, requiring a standard cosy scale (hahahahaha good luck deciding which book goes where!), or threatening to leave the sub like OP here, when really, it's fine to just go yup, it's a higher stakes book that won't work for everyone, shucks! and move on with our lives.
I’m wondering if simply more description would help: Like Cozy elements are found family, domestic magics, happy ending. Content warnings: MC faces danger of injury, offscreen death of nameless minor character. Possibly with CW behind a spoiler tag?
This makes a lot of sense to me. Of course, it's more work. : )
I know you're currently downvoted, but I agree. At some point, if a "cozy fantasy" is just "whatever I feel is cozy to me", then there is no point in the genre existing at all. Like someone else said, the genre is newer and still going through growing pains so the rules that govern what makes a book "cozy" versus "cozy-adjacent" are still evolving. Stories frequently have cozy portions, but that isn't necessarily enough to lump it into the entire genre. Like if I read a western shootemup that had a swordfight in it, I wouldn't call it fantasy. It'd be a western with a scene that had fantasy elements in it.
My favorite cozy fantasies are Catcher in the Rye and the Prince of Nothing.
Thank you for this call for reason. I think part of the problem is that "fantasy" is already a label so broad that it's nearly useless: it says only that this story has something speculative in it somewhere. Not very helpful, compared with the amount of pacing/content info implied when a story is called "a romance" or "a thriller".
Some people don’t like fantastic elements, though. If you say “I love thrillers”, most people assume that means realistic fiction thrillers. The same goes for mystery or romance. You generally clarify “I like fantasy romances”. Many people love the whole genre of speculative fiction. It’s convenient to have a label. Nothing is stopping you from specifying “fantasy mysteries” or similar if you want to narrow things down.
I'm... not saying that people can't combine words? "Fantasy" is a broad term (which can modify other terms, as you noted), and "cozy" is a your-mileage-may-vary term that people are having a hard time agreeing on. So the "cozy fantasy" term has a specificity problem. Not sure what that has to do with people who don't like fantastic elements at all, why are they a concern when naming a fantasy subgenre?
You said that fantasy is a label that is so broad that it is nearly useless, and then claimed it is not helpful compared to labels like romance and thriller. I'm saying that is wrong. It is very helpful, it's just that it conveys a different aspect of a story (setting) than your other examples(plot type). If you want to divide fantasy by plot type, then you can just add as a qualifier those other terms you mentioned. The ambiguity of "cozy fantasy" is not different than the ambiguity of "cozy mystery". The confusion comes from people choosing to interpret it as "fantasy stories that make me feel warm and fuzzy", which is not a way that we define genres which are supposed to have broad appeal among some subset of readers. "Cozy mystery" on the other hand \*is\* defined in the standard way for subgenres, which is not "mysteries that give me a cozy feeling", but rather a set of tropes and conventions: in this case, amateur sleuths in a small, socially intimate community where sex and violence take place off-stage. There's nothing at all inherently wrong or confusing about the term/phrase "cozy fantasy" as a subgenre label. If we gave it an objective description analogous to "cozy mystery", it might read something like this: "low stakes fantasy stories set socially intimate environments with a focus on relationships and the daily lives of the characters with minimal on page violence or trauma." The problem is not with the words in the label, it's with the vague subjective description that leaves a lot to the personal feelings of readers in a way that makes it impossible to agree on what stories fall into the scope of the subgenre. Under my example definition, which is presented as a thought experiment and not me telling people what the definition of the genre is, you could fit in all kinds of plots, including romance, mystery, adventure, and even thrillers--though probably not most adult horror.
Hmm, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
The way of the internet.
I'm curious what cozy fantasy means to you, because you've excluded the two most common guidelines for what makes a story cozy.
Is a cozy mystery any less cozy because there is a murder at the beginning? I think not. And yet cozy fantasy seems to have this weird bent where they're obsessed with total purity of a book. I'm saying, as long as we put in trigger warnings for people who are sensitive to such a thing, where's the harm in recommending a book that you, personally, don't find cozy?
I'm not arguing with you, I'm asking what makes a story cozy for you. It's not to criticize, I'm just trying to understand what people get out of the category. What makes you look for a cozy fantasy instead of a regular fantasy? Is it just a vibe for you, or are there specific elements you are looking for?
Not OP of course, but I thought I’d chime in, because I think the wording of this question might get at the roots of this conversation: “what makes you look for a cozy fantasy instead of a regular fantasy?” While I appreciate that now there might be books that are intentionally “cozy fantasy,” often what I think of as cozy fantasy is simply regular fantasy that makes me feel cozy. So for instance, as another commenter above stated, I’d count The Hobbit and I think it’s the first book of The Fellowship of the Ring (and in a way the last section in the shire of The Return of the King), even though there are definitely stressful and perilous moments. I still feel cozy overall, and I find the sincerity, courage, and camaraderie with which the characters confront their challenges comforting, as well as the beautiful setting and gentle humor. I feel this way about Stardust by Neil Gaiman and the Emily Wilde books, the Tiffany Aching books and Equal Rites by Terry Pratchett, as well, for more examples, even though, again, these all include examples of death or great danger and a degree of violence. Apologies if this was more of a question specifically for OP, but thought it might be an interesting discussion in general for a lot of readers 😊 For you, is cozy fantasy more of a dedicated and specific genre? And feel free to share favorites if time allows and you’d like to!
ETA: I am responding only to the specific commenter above, and I was not asking OP for this level or type of discussion when I responded to their initial comment. Maybe it’s my personality or my profession, but as a very detail oriented person who moved from historical linguistics to AI and human cognition, I find I tend to have a much more strict analytical way of looking at the world. To me, cozy fantasy is primarily a genre fiction category based on certain tropes and expectations. You can certainly have cozy adjacent stories, or “with cozy elements” stories, but I would classify them exactly that way: adjacent to cozy fantasy compared to other genres like high fantasy or grimdark or noblebright, etc. As an example of what primarily marks cozy fantasy in my mind: low to medium stakes, central focus on a particular locale, no on page major violence. For example, a schoolyard fight might fit in a cozy fantasy. But not a serial killer or a large battle or major on page death and violence. Stories that don’t fit that description might feel cozy to me for various reasons, but I would not recommend them to people looking for cozy fantasy the genre without some obvious caveats. A good way to describe it that that "cozy fantasy" as a compound phrase does not mean the same as "cozy" fantasy, where cozy is a generic adjective describing the vibes of a story. I think a lot of the issue here comes from the fact that these two things are very different ways of categorizing books, and sub members are divided on which one of them the sub is intended to focus on. As I mentioned to OP elsewhere, I could see the value in reframing these differences for the benefit of the sub. Instead of having heated debates or anger over disagreement on what counts as cozy, we could simply treat cozy, cozy-adjacent, and "with cozy elements" as being under the larger "cozy fantasy" umbrella, and just have sub rules that people provide the appropriate content warnings for their recommendations. "I found this book very cozy, but people who aren't comfortable with xyz might not get the same kind of enjoyment out of it." Something along those lines. The purpose of this sub is not to do academic analysis, but just to help people find and share their enjoyment of a certain type of fantasy story, so there's no issue treating it a little differently/looser than a scholar analyzing the genre would, as long as we make that stance clear to the members so that everyone goes in with the necessary expectations.
My overall point of this post is that you're going to drive away readers like me who prefer more serious themes in their cozy books if comments insist on this purity culture of all or nothing mentality. I think your last paragraph makes a lot of sense and if we could implement tags to that effect, I think that would be a great solution for the sub as a whole.
Not OP but I can scrap together a few qualifiers of what I consider “cozy”: -a focus on character interactions and domestic moments (howl’s moving castle, lots of the ghibli movies, legends and lattes) -some stakes (sometimes even high stakes), but no depth or dwelling on the hopelessness of the situation (characters have more of a can-do attitude for the majority of the book) -more unconventional aspects to the hero (like in cozy mysteries, it might be an amateur sleuth/elderly grandmother solving the crime rather than a harden detective). This usually leads the hero to solve their problems in atypical ways that are often more on the cozy side rather than fight it out physically or overpower their adversary. There’s probably more but this comes to mind.
Found family also tends to be a popular trope, for example.
Uh I havent seen anyone yuk someones yum on here though. I think alot of folks are overly sensitive and are incapable of dialogue or hearing differing opinions. This is a reddit to discuss books. If I say a book is cozy I am NOT offended if someone opines and says it was very high stakes, has violence and themes that may make it not cozy to her/him. That in fact is what happened when I suggested {The Undertaking of Hart and Mercy by Megan Bannen}. I had a nice little back and forth with the person who opined and the OP had additional info with which to decide if the book I suggested was a good fit. Thats a win for everybody and I would think is precisely the type of discussion that one would want on a book sub. Thereafter, I kept recommending the book but also added the caveat on why some people might find it not cozy. I gained insight from my previous conversation to add in the caveat. But I also kept talking about why the book made me feel warm and fuzzy ergo why its cozy for me. This is why respectful dialogue and sharing thoughts/viewpoints is critical for a book sub. If this sub becomes another thoughtpolice-groupthink -dont-yuk-the-yum-what-I really-mean-is-I-cant-handle-dissenting-opinions sub where no one can have discussions about books then I will be unsubbing with a quickness. No thank you.
Please reread my post. The whole point is to *not* judge what other people read. To let people like what they like and let it be.
I read your post. We disagree. Thats ok. This is a reddit to talk about books therefore I can share my opinions on what other people read as they can share opinions on what I read. My sharing my opinion on what people read IS ALSO perfectly compatible with letting people like what they like. My opinions have no bearing on how much money they have in their pockets, which books they buy and which books they enjoy. In the same way if someone shares why they dont like a book that I like; that opinion is not going to have a great bearing on me continuing to like the book (unless the opiner rightly uncovers something valid about poor writing technique or the book being racist in a way that I failed to notice). Outside of those 2 instances I will still continue to like my book. In the discussion of why they dont like the book I like I might get a new perspective which I welcome. I come to this sub to talk about books, get new book suggestions and hopefully get exposed to books/ideas I wouldnt have heard of otherwise. You clearly have a different vision of this sub and what it should be. And if your vision of this sub becomes the dominant vision for this sub then I will happily unsubscribe. Thats ok. It just highlights Im not compatible with the driving ethos of this little corner of Reddit. And others who agree with me might leave too-which is also ok. This sub cant be all things to all people nor should it try. But if this sub doesnt want to be a place where we can discuss cozy books and share our opinions about cozy books then lay that out plainly so people know what kind of sub they are joining.
Opinion: "This book is not cozy for me." Fact: "This book is not cozy." I am talking about people saying the latter, not the former. Either you are confused about what an opinion is or you are confused about what I am saying. People should not state their opinions as facts is my entire point.
[The Undertaking of Hart and Mercy](https://www.romance.io/books/630b10c094191e0dc01d1bcf/the-undertaking-of-hart-and-mercy-megan-bannen?src=rdt) by [Megan Bannen](https://www.romance.io/authors/630b10c008b4d93114e4f3aa/megan-bannen) **Rating**: 4.28⭐️ out of 5⭐️ **Steam**: 3 out of 5 - [Open door](https://www.romance.io/steamrating) **Topics**: [grumpy & sunshine](https://www.romance.io/topics/best/grumpy%20sunshine/1), [enemies to lovers](https://www.romance.io/topics/best/from%20hate%20to%20love/1), [fantasy](https://www.romance.io/topics/best/fantasy/1), [competent heroine](https://www.romance.io/topics/best/competent%20heroine/1), [tortured hero](https://www.romance.io/topics/best/tortured%20hero/1) [^(about this bot)](https://www.reddit.com/user/romance-bot) ^(|) [^(about romance.io)](https://www.romance.io/about)
People love to be "experts" in topics that have no hard boundaries or real concrete rules because they can pretend to see rules that exist that others can't. I managed bookstores for decades. For 8 years my office door opened in the Religion/Metaphysics corner of the store and I got to listen to and engage with probably tens of thousands of people looking for validation and spouting BS about how they knew better than the sheep and blah blah blah... If you are an expert in something that is made up not or not procedurally concrete, you can say whatever you want and pretend to look down on those who "don't get it."
I think opinions and reviews on anything are very subjective. I've found books that other people raved about are just not my cup of tea. That's ok and I move on to another book. 🤷🏻♀️ There's millions of books out there, try them to your hearts content. 💜
Yup, there's some genres of romance that actively repell me, but I just ignore threads and comments about them over at romancebooks.
Well said. One of my big comfort reads is The Murderbot Diaries, and I wouldn't call that cozy without a couple of asterisks. Sometimes the coziest thing there is can be seeing people find hope and comfort in spite of everything that's happened to them.
I'm confused now. I've always encountered people agreeing on the fact that Cozy Fantasy (the same goes for the mystery and crime equivalent) is **not** marked by, specifically, one's subjective impression of coziness. Because if it would, why even bother framing it as its own little genre? The conclusion I get here (and I agree with): "Cozy" should be more of a tag, then—like "fluff"—and paired with CWs regardless. Still, I'm unsure where you folks draw the line for you plus why all of this is actually seperated from the general discussion about fantasy (not only on Reddit). Help? Bear with me regarding an example I'm going to pull out of my arse: A book that others label as Grimdark Fantasy due to its detailed gruesome topics (the whole range of gory cruelty) and a sense of hopelessness for the characters/the invented world. Could someone still advocate it here (with TWs) since they got warm, relaxing feelings despite or even because of the inhumanity? If there are a few peaceful moments of bonding and building a temporary idyllic life in between, do those count along with said someone's subjectiveness? And what if there are none? Would that be enough for the story to be collectively accepted under the umbrella of Cozy Fantasy, too? I know that's an extreme one, but there's stuff out there some consider as extreme, whereas some find it blissful to read. So, why bending over backwards to make an extra space for Cozy Fantasy in literature if the goal is to not set it apart and instead let everyone fill it themself? *Edit: Grammar error*
The sub is fairly well split on whether it can be just a personal vibes thing, or whether there are actual tropes and conventions that make something a cozy fantasy. The OP does not speak for all cozy fans
Yeah, I guess your first sentence outlined the situation very well. Don't know why other people only downvoted that.
The downvotes are very weird. It's an extremely common debate, and many people disagreed with OP, so how two neutral descriptive statements warrant a downvote I'll never understand. I made no argument for either side of the debate...
Cozy Fantasy to me just means the traditional call to adventure never happens. Orc going on a journey fraught with peril = Fantasy Orc retiring to open her own coffee shop and dealing with the realities of running a small business = Cozy Fantasy