There's so much in here, all of it frustrating.
1. The conflation of asexuality & no romance.
2. The misunderstanding of lit fic, genre, & category.
3. The attached image. Just...all of it.
4. This feels like a huge misunderstanding of asexuality & its nuances.
5. The snobbery. https://twitter.com/ElectricLit/status/1308435889261916160

Why would you spend so much time on a book and interview only to put so little effort into syntax? I want to give the benefit of the doubt, but the use of "romance" throughout is just so baffling. Is it bad writing or is it bad concepts?

The whole package points to the latter.

And the disdain for children's literature is unnecessary. You can explore the issues and lack of representation without punching down on who should be your fellows.

Why - and I cannot stress how baffling this is - would you bring up SFF, conflate it with children's lit, & then not even consider why aces may feel drawn toward those genres and categories and what that means? And also analyze those metaphors?

If you open with a line about preferring analyzing books to sex, you should at least analyze your topic and demonstrate a basic understanding of publishing and the literature you're discussing.

And the idea that it is impossible to connect and empathize with SFF characters and that SFF & children's literature is only inhuman characters making it impossible to connect to is so laughable that I can't take it seriously.

It shows either a complete lack of knowledge on the topic or a level of snobbery so complete that conversation is useless.

How dare you discuss lit fic and then pretend you don't know how literature functions in society? How dare you suddenly forget how metaphors work when they don't serve your argument?

Why would punch down on your peers?

Look.

I get it. It's hard to fit complicated and nuanced conversations into single interviews, but some level of planning went into this. I would be more forgiving of that pasted image if the rest of the interview demonstrated some level of awareness and care, but it doesn't.

If anything, it demonstrates a desire to understand overshadowed by a wealth of information and stronger desire to justify past and present stances on literature and correlate that with personal realizations.

Which is deeply relatable but ultimately unhelpful for many.

There's just so much here to consider made harder by that romance comment that I keep coming back to.

I cannot believe I forgot to mention "made-up worlds for children" because that is such a cartoonishly snobby line that I want to dismiss it entirely as parody. But alas.

Here we are.