Terrorist Fiction and Coleridge

"Terrorist Fiction" is a VERY witty critique of the genre. Do you believe that the anonymous author is seriously disturbed by it or not? Why? Also, what do you think of his (or her?) recipe for creating a piece of this kind of fiction? Also discuss here the opening of Coleridge's review of The Monk.

I think the anonymous author simply dislikes this new genre. They don’t care for murders and fantastical things such as these. They are probably of Wordsworth’s mind set and think this sort of writing is dulling down the population with its own popularity. The fact that female readers are specifically mentioned however makes the point clear. They find these novels too dark for ladies. They feel that ladies will get ideas in their heads about murderers and bandits being made up as romantic characters, and then they’ll start traipsing about looking for these dark dismal castles where they’ll find a fantastic but terrifying adventure of their own. I find this ridiculous, not because women won’t do this but because anyone could easily get these ideas into their heads! Its books and stories, they’re supposed to be an escape, but just some ho-hum every day event. I’d much rather read about a lady being chased about a castle full of dead bodies and ghosts than sitting quietly and knitting socks. But I’m hopelessly flawed in that, I’m sure. There will of course be people in the world discontent with their lives and wish they could be a part of a novel, but they could think that about Coleridge’s “Kubla Khan” or the wildlife of Wordsworth’s “Prelude” just as easily. Also, while I think the recipe could be true, there’s obviously more to it, as can be said for a guilty pleasure genre of mine, romance.
Coleridge at least sees the excellence in construction of “The Monk” though he makes it clear that he doesn’t care for this genre either. He hopes that the world will become “wearied with fiends” and does tear down the genre he comes at it from a more academic standpoint I feel. Coleridge suggests that “the merit of a novelist is in proportion to the pleasurable effect which he produces” and I feel that Coleridge takes no pleasure in these novels and feels others cannot do so either. He feels the books are too full of romance to be proper for younger readers as well, which looking back at “The Castle of Otranto” I do feel he could have a point, but this relates back to a point brought up in another course, What should your child be reading? What is the definition of literature for children? I think it might be safe to say that it was generally thought during this time that parents were not keen on the idea of their children reading this genre of novels.