Comments on: The Daily Square – Safe In California Again Edition https://booksquare.com/daily-square-39/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&%23038;utm_campaign=daily-square-39 Dissecting the publishing industry with love and skepticism Tue, 23 May 2006 18:53:01 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Booksquare https://booksquare.com/daily-square-39/#comment-123890 Tue, 23 May 2006 18:53:01 +0000 http://1662372212#comment-123890 This particular theme has been bubbling along the surface of urban fiction for quite some time. I think I wrote about it a while back (okay, I know I wrote about it, but couldn’t find it if my life depended on it). While I agree that some of the covers make romance novel covers seem positively Puritan, I completely scoff at the “should” read notion.

]]> By: SusanGable https://booksquare.com/daily-square-39/#comment-123887 Tue, 23 May 2006 16:56:18 +0000 http://1662372212#comment-123887 Re: Smut and reading – the thing that struck me most in that article was the comment that the panel was discussing what the folks SHOULD be reading instead of that “crap” (my word, their intimation) that they are reading.

I just love when certain groups want to decide what folks SHOULD be reading. (Heavy sarcasm, in case you missed it. (g))

]]>