Reporter: Mr Singh, we’re doing a story about the chick-lit genre, based on all these new books – The Zoya Factor, Almost Single and Meenakshi’s book – and we wanted a quote from you.
R: Basically you can tell us all about how superficial and superfluous chick-lit is.
J: Hold on, are you giving me instructions on what to say?
R: No no, we just want your views on the subject...
J: Well, okay then, we can fix a time.
R: ...so that you can rip the genre apart.
J: Um, you are telling me what to say. What if I want to say instead that a book should be judged as an individual work instead of being lazily lumped with a whole lot of other books that might be of vastly varying quality? That there can be good chick-lit, bad chick-lit and a whole lot of other intermediate types? That the "how" is more important than the "what"? And that the notion of “ripping a genre apart” doesn’t make much sense to me?
R (speaks after long pause, sounds bitterly disappointed): er, oh okay, in that case, bye-bye. (Hangs up)
No room for nuance, people. None at all. This is why we prophets of complexity rarely appear on TV and never get invited anywhere.