Hardback vs paperback [Archive]

Kell

6th January 2007, 19:02

I love the look and feel of hardback books, but when it comes to taking a book along with me, a paperback is far easier. If it's a book I plan on keeping, or getting signed, then I try to get a hardback whenever possible, but I do have some autographed paperbacks too.

At the moment, I'm reading one of each, as my hardback really IS a hefty one...

Maureen

6th January 2007, 19:02

I am currently reading a hardback, and hate the lack of flexibility it gives me. It is hard to carry around, makes my left hand (which I had hurt years back) ache, and is a bit difficult for reading in the bath. However hardbacks look lovely in a bookcase.

nuttymum303

6th January 2007, 19:18

Prefer paperbacks to hardbacks. Most of my pile is paperbacks

sib

6th January 2007, 20:09

I think I prefer paperbacks, because they´re easier to hold with one hand and I´m less worried about damaging them, (I like to take my book to work in a carrier bag with my sandwiches :D).

Liz

6th January 2007, 20:25

Hardbacks look nice on the shelf, but I tend to go for paperbacks. I find them easier to read and they're not as heavy or as awkward to carry around. Although, it is nice to have a read of a hardback every now and then, like I am at the moment.

There was one book, though, where I bought both types. It was the Monty Python autobiography. I bought the hardback of it because it had photographs on every page which was great to go through and look at. I then bought the paperback of it so that I could read it and take it around with me - the paperback only had a few photographs in it. The hardback would have been too much of a hassle to read from.

samgrosser

6th January 2007, 21:02

I prefer the feel of a hardback - the paper is better quality and the textures are just nicer to the touch, but like everyone else, I prefer the portability of a paperback. And of course, the price.

Liz

6th January 2007, 22:49

And of course, the price.

:I-Agree:

Yep, that is a main point as well.

kitty

6th January 2007, 23:01

I prefer paperback, but at the moment I have been buying alot of hardback because I just carnt wait for them to come out in paperback. I agree with Maureen, hardbacks are so not good for reading in the bath.

Sofia

6th January 2007, 23:49

I prefer hardback really, but paperback is so much more convenient and cheaper as well!

dogmatix

6th January 2007, 23:56

I am a hardback addict. I've even been known to replace perfectly fine paperbacks with hardbacks just because they look better on the shelf. To save money I try to buy my books used.

Purple Poppy

7th January 2007, 00:03

Liz said

Hardbacks look nice on the shelf, but I tend to go for paperbacks. I find them easier to read and they're not as heavy or as awkward to carry around

I agree! Favourite books are nice to have in hardback, as they are intrinsically better quality, but to be honest, I can't afford them very often. So it has to be a paperback.
(I think there's a terrible spelling mistake there but I can't reach the dictionary...?)

PP

Dupin

7th January 2007, 02:42

I've just been to dig out Anthony Burgess' Ninety-Nine Novels: The Best in English since 1939 because this thread reminded me of something he says in his introduction when attempting to define what a novel is. With regard to it's actual, physical appearance, he describes the novel as:

“...black marks on a white page, many of these bound into a thickish book with a stiff cloth cover and illustrative dust-jacket. It's paperback version is a poor but necessary thing, a concession to the pocket, the sickly child of the original.”

Harsh words but I can understand where he's coming from. To an author especially, the original, hardback copy would appear far grander than the more compact, paperback version of ones work, and that must surely have some psychological impact after you've slogged away, composing the thing.

Having read all of the previous posts, it seems the majority of us prefer the look and feel of a hardback book and welcome the advantage it has over the paperback in terms of endurance and appearance. However, like Burgess says, the paperback is a necessary evil in terms of portability, and the split spine and general dog-eared outcome of perhaps a single reading is worth the sacrifice given that the words are the same, regardless of format.

In my own, quite vast, collection I doubt I have more than two dozen hardback novels. But there again, I'm a bath-reader and wouldn't entertain the idea of balancing, precariously over the water, a cumbersome hardback. Especially not given my tendency also to be a bath-sleeper!

Louiseog

7th January 2007, 12:48

My hands are too small to read hardbacks comfortably!

kernow_reader

7th January 2007, 14:20

My hands are too small to read hardbacks comfortably!

Awwhhhh, *cute*!

I *love* hardbacks! To me they are a real book. Love the feel of them resting in my hands or tucked under one arm. The weight of them being lugged around in my bag. (Bliss!!) Makes me feel so special and important when I hold one. Sadly I am not, my head is full of dreams and grandiose notions and my bookshelves of paperbacks!! I own but few hardbacks. :roll:

ps: I know an elderly lady, an avid reader whose hands are twisted with arthritis. For Christmas a friend bought her a reading rest. It's a little striped canvas deck chair which holds her book in place whilst she reads.

Louiseog

7th January 2007, 15:21

Awwhhhh, *cute*!

I *love* hardbacks! To me they are a real book. Love the feel of them resting in my hands or tucked under one arm. The weight of them being lugged around in my bag. (Bliss!!) Makes me feel so special and important when I hold one. Sadly I am not, my head is full of dreams and grandiose notions and my bookshelves of paperbacks!! I own but few hardbacks. :roll:

Gosh what a lovely description!

Purple Poppy

7th January 2007, 15:40

Trish said
I *love* hardbacks! To me they are a real book. Love the feel of them resting in my hands or tucked under one arm. The weight of them being lugged around in my bag. (Bliss!!) Makes me feel so special and important when I hold one. Sadly I am not, my head is full of dreams and grandiose notions and my bookshelves of paperbacks!! I own but few hardbacks. :roll:

Hey... you are allowed to have grandiose notions and dreams, just like everyone else. You should write...like Louise says , it was a lovely description!
PP:)

kernow_reader

7th January 2007, 16:39

Ohhh, well, :blush: , why Thank You Kindly Louise and PP.

Polka Dot Rock

8th January 2007, 16:59

I am rather fond of hardbacks as Precious Things, but I only have about 6 I think. I only really get them as gifts or as a very rare indulgent treat. The vast majority are all paperbacks (and believe me, it's vast, lol).

Hardbacks can be a bit cumbersome 'tho: Alan Bennet said that one of his readers told him that reading the hardback version of Untold Stories in bed was like being trapped under a cupboard! :lol:

Purple Poppy

8th January 2007, 17:24

Amy said;

Hardbacks can be a bit cumbersome 'tho: Alan Bennet said that one of his readers told him that reading the hardback version of Untold Stories in bed was like being trapped under a cupboard! :lol:

Good Anecdote Amy!:lol:

Icecream

8th January 2007, 17:28

I love the feel, and look of hardbacks too, although of course paperbacks are more portable if I'm reading when travelling (or for my rucksack when i was a student) een though they do get wrecked that way (then so do hardbacks).

Having said that I think most of my fiction collection is paperback and most of my textbooks are hardback becasue that is just the way it worked out. Lot's of textbooks are only available in hardback, and I have a few folio textbooks too.

The exceptions to my paperback fiction collecton (she says carefully, thinking that her books are still in boxes and therefore she cannot see the shelves) are a few folios and my recent Harry Potters. I definitely plan to replace my HP paperback with adult hardbacks to match the recent ones.

kernow_reader

8th January 2007, 19:05

Alan Bennet said that one of his readers told him that reading the hardback version of Untold Stories in bed was like being trapped under a cupboard! :lol:[/quote]

Bwah-ha! What a great cupboard to be trapped under though.:D

Kell

8th January 2007, 19:37

I definitely plan to replace my HP paperback with adult hardbacks to match the recent ones.I plan on doing the exact same thing. I managed to get the adult hardback of Half Blood Prince & want to get them all like that so they match - LOL!

Liz

8th January 2007, 22:48

Alan Bennet said that one of his readers told him that reading the hardback version of Untold Stories in bed was like being trapped under a cupboard!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

The paperback is not much better, either.

Janet

9th January 2007, 14:03

Paperback for me. I just can't get comfy with a hardback!

Maureen

9th January 2007, 17:28

....sometimes I fall asleep whilst reading in bed. Have you even fallen asleep with a hardback under your chin?

Kell

9th January 2007, 18:16

....sometimes I fall asleep whilst reading in bed. Have you even fallen asleep with a hardback under your chin?Yes, and I woke up with a big, pink dent in my face that was rather uncomfortable - LOL!

MHL1971

9th January 2007, 20:33

I prefer paperback. I like to read in my bath so paperback it's more lighter! I also never leave the house without a book in my bag I already have so much stuff in my bag i doubt i could put a hard back in. And because i am working away from home it's much lighter to take paper back in my suitcase than hard back. But i do buy hardback because there is book i want to read straight away and not wait for the paperback

Marie

Angel

9th January 2007, 21:14

I do like hardbacks - they look lovely on the shelf, but large ones can be unyieldy to hold for a length of time/ Paperbacks are more practical especially if they are to be carried round in bags. Also they're better for those books not intended as part of a major collection or for several rereads

everydayxangels

10th January 2007, 01:58

I prefer hardcovers obviously. But I like Trade Paper-backs prices :tong: The only type of book I will NOT read is Mass Market paperbacks. those are just uncomfortable.

Janet

10th January 2007, 07:38

I prefer hardcovers obviously. But I like Trade Paper-backs prices :tong: The only type of book I will NOT read is Mass Market paperbacks. those are just uncomfortable.
Uncomfortable in what way? :10_confused:

JudyB

10th January 2007, 18:21

I love paperbacks - I think it's their compactness (is that a word?) that I like plus they're easier to carry around. In the library I always plump for the paperback copy of a book. Which ever you prefer though you can't beat buying a new book. :D

everydayxangels

11th January 2007, 00:44

Uncomfortable in what way? :10_confused:

They're just difficult to hold, and the print is too small, the paper to rough. I'm just fussy :tong:

Wraith*

11th January 2007, 10:51

It's always got to be paperback for me. I like to be able to stick a book in my bag and for it not to take up too much space and also I tend to loose the dust covers of hardbacks so most of my (many) bookshelves looks quite plain.

However if I like a book I'll hunt it down at a secondhand shop in hardback just to have as a back up.

And of course I tend to turn into a dizzy child when a new book by one of my favourite authors comes out so I'll grab it in hardback.

However my main reason is you cannot, comfortably, crack the spine of a hardback and curl up in bed with it.

W

Purple Poppy

11th January 2007, 10:56

Wraith said...
However my main reason is you cannot, comfortably, crack the spine of a hardback and curl up in bed with it.
W
Oh dear, you'd better start your ducking practice Wraith. There's a thread somewhere on here about the treatment of books! Be warned!!!:lol: ;) PP

Wraith*

11th January 2007, 11:01

Oh dear, you'd better start your ducking practice Wraith. There's a thread somewhere on here about the treatment of books! Be warned!!!:lol: ;) PP

I think I'm good with the ducking.

At the end of the day though, my books and nobody else ever gets to touch them :p

http://www.itsworsethanyouthink.co.uk/039/quack.jpg

Purple Poppy

11th January 2007, 11:07

:lol:

Liz

12th January 2007, 18:48

:lol:

pontalba

12th January 2007, 18:56

Crack a spine?? Horrors! I'll not even do that to a paperback. /shivers/

I like hardbacks, or trade size paperbacks for the most part. If I have to have a particular book and the only way I can get it is in the smaller size, well I won't bite my nose off to spite my face, but if I really like the book, I'll find a sale or second hand hardback.....eventually!

Renniemist

14th January 2007, 12:05

Nowadays the only hardback books that I read come from the library.

Paperbacks are much easier to carry and lighter to hold. If you fall asleep reading a paper back there is less likelihood of you breaking your nose. I just feel comfortable with paperbacks. :)

princessponti

14th January 2007, 13:57

I much prefer to have paperbacks, the trade ones are the best though as they do have more 'prescence' than the ickle ones. I don't really get on with hardbacks, I don't find them a joy to read as I'm too fidgety trying to get comfortable. The only hardbacks I buy are the ones that really are too pretty to pass up, such as Susanna Clarkes latest novel, far to beautiful!

Also, I feel a special bond with my paperbacks, when I look at them on the shelf with the lines on the spines and the rumpled pages, I can remember our time together and know that they have lived and are loved. Hardbacks just don't have the same personality!

samgrosser

16th January 2007, 11:07

Also, I feel a special bond with my paperbacks, when I look at them on the shelf with the lines on the spines and the rumpled pages, I can remember our time together and know that they have lived and are loved. Hardbacks just don't have the same personality!

Having said earlier in the thread that I like the feel of hardbacks best, you've made me think again. You're right - my paperbacks have been me with through thick and thin, carried around and enjoyed in places that hardbacks just don't ever go because they are too heavy and cumbersome and I'm always worried they are going to get ruined.

Why is that? Why is okay to trash a much-loved paperback by stuffing it in your bag, while a hardback demands (and generally gets, it seems) so much more gentle handling and respect?

Yes, looking along my shelf, each battered spine has its own story too.

Wraith*

16th January 2007, 11:31

Why is that? Why is okay to trash a much-loved paperback by stuffing it in your bag, while a hardback demands (and generally gets, it seems) so much more gentle handling and respect?

Yes, looking along my shelf, each battered spine has its own story too.

Because they cost six times as much?

samgrosser

16th January 2007, 14:32

Because they cost six times as much?

Mmm, maybe...

Icecream

16th January 2007, 17:21

Of course, saying all this about looking after hardbacks and only stuffing paperbacks into bags, I do have an exception and it happens to be my most beloved book. I have about five/six bibles, but there is one that has gone absolutely everywhere with me for the last four-five years, has lot's of annotations and is looking very battered. I had to remove the paper cover from the front (and the hard one doesn't have the picture on it), and buy a nice cotton bible cover to keep it in. It certainly looks old before its time.

Polka Dot Rock

17th January 2007, 16:31

The only hardbacks I buy are the ones that really are too pretty to pass up, such as Susanna Clarkes latest novel, far to beautiful!

Ah yes, that is really beautiful. I love exquisite hardbacks... *sigh*

Purple Poppy

17th January 2007, 16:40

Just popped onto Amazon the look at the cover, and yes, it's beautiful. Read the synopsis of both books and added them to my wish list.

:roll:

kernow_reader

17th January 2007, 17:29

Just popped onto Amazon the look at the cover, and yes, it's beautiful. Read the synopsis of both books and added them to my wish list.

:roll:

Ha! It gets us all, doesn't it! :lol:

Shucks! I'm just glad to be amongst people who empathise, fully comprehend and share my compulsion and addiction. :friends0:

Janet

17th January 2007, 21:49

The only hardbacks I buy are the ones that really are too pretty to pass up, such as Susanna Clarkes latest novel, far to beautiful!

Is that Jonathan Strange and Mrs Norrell? If so, I must be looking at the wrong thing, as they are just very plain.

Purple Poppy

17th January 2007, 23:09

Bagpuss said

Is that Jonathan Strange and Mrs Norrell? If so, I must be looking at the wrong thing, as they are just very plain.

No, I think it's this one...

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q77/Catkintails/SusannaClarke.jpgThe Ladies of Grace Adieu and other stories.
I assume it's this one.

PP

Janet

18th January 2007, 11:10

Bagpuss said

No, I think it's...

The Ladies of Grace Adieu and other stories.
I assume it's this one.

PP
Thanks for the pic. :) I know one shouldn't judge a book by it's cover, but I'm afraid I'm guilty of that! This one really isn't my cup of tea and I'd probably pass it by. :blush:

Polka Dot Rock

18th January 2007, 14:22

Bagpuss said

No, I think it's this one...

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q77/Catkintails/SusannaClarke.jpgThe Ladies of Grace Adieu and other stories.
I assume it's this one.

PP

That's the one :) I love how it's all fabric-y and embossed and just lovely to hold...

Dear god. Do I have a crush on a book?! :10_confused:

Janet

18th January 2007, 14:50

Dear god. Do I have a crush on a book?! :10_confused:
LOL - it certainly sounds that way! :lol:

Polka Dot Rock

18th January 2007, 15:01

Mind you, not as much as I had a crush on this here book:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/WirelessAngel/lighthousekeeping.jpg

You can't tell from the picture, but it's all pearly and shiny. Beautiful.

Wraith*

18th January 2007, 16:51

Lol one of the best books I ever saw had a "liquid" cover that felt like blood.

Polka Dot Rock

18th January 2007, 16:54

I had a 'How Babies Are Made Book' which had a squidgy cover that was meant to be a baby suspended in amniotic fluid :lol: I kid you not! And it was hardback, to keep in topic *ahem* :out:

Wraith*

18th January 2007, 16:58

I'm not going to dare type "'How Babies Are Made" into Google. (I know better now ;) )

But do you think those kind of books are more marketing ploys rather than meant to actually be read?

princessponti

18th January 2007, 22:40

That's the one :) I love how it's all fabric-y and embossed and just lovely to hold...

Ahh!! It is it is!! I first saw it in 'Smiths, picked it up and was unable to put it down! I had to carry it like a new born child around the store until I'd convinced myself that I couldn't leave without it!!! *sigh*

Purple Poppy

18th January 2007, 22:53

Authors (publishers) take note!

princessponti

18th January 2007, 23:05

LOL!! I am an advertisers dream!! My boyf always laughs at me! ...I recently returned home from Debenhams with three of the worlds sharpest knives, four small knives, and two juicers.. I had been watching a promotions guy who convinced me I needed all this stuff! My boyf did the same knife 'tests' when I got home to show me that it was exactly the same as the knives we already had! :blush: I really was certain that I'd never seen a tomato cut so effortlessly! ...I should be supervised at all times...

Sorry... way off topic!

Purple Poppy

18th January 2007, 23:39

:lol:
I think we've all fallen for that one!

Gyre

18th January 2007, 23:46

We all do it at one point, the deal sounds great, then you get home and its like, 'oh no....'

I do like the look of hardbacks, but I prefer paperbacks, they are easier to carry, cheaper and fit in my bag, I am trying to keep my bag as small as possible this year...

:mrgreen:

Purple Poppy

18th January 2007, 23:49

Gyre said
I do like the look of hardbacks, but I prefer paperbacks, they are easier to carry, cheaper and fit in my bag, I am trying to keep my bag as small as possible this year...

I've been trying for the last thirty years! I haven't succeeded yet. My ex used to say my bags were like binbags, black and full of rubbish!:blush:

samgrosser

19th January 2007, 10:28

I do sometimes wonder why publishers persist with releasing books in hardback first - in the interests of profit (and we all know about publishers and profit) you'd think they'd want to maximise sales from the start. Paperbacks must be way cheaper to produce, and how many more people buy them?

I'm just hanging for the day my publisher tells me they're going to put Another Time and Place into paperback. Then I might actually see a decent number of sales - I can't count the number of people who've told me they're waiting for it to come out in paperback.

Purple Poppy

19th January 2007, 10:33

Sam....do you not have any control over what the publisher does. Can you not move to another publisher, or is contracted for a specific time?

Polka Dot Rock

19th January 2007, 13:32

I know that there are a couple of publishers/imprints that tend to publish new or less-established writers in paperback first. But I can't remember who they are! :doh:

samgrosser

19th January 2007, 14:52

Sam....do you not have any control over what the publisher does. Can you not move to another publisher, or is contracted for a specific time?

The short answer is no to the first two questions, and yes to the third.

Macmillan New Writing was set up as a new imprint of Macmillan last year specifically to publish previously unpublished authors. To keep costs down, (and therefore to be able to publish more writers) the terms aren't negotiable.

Basically I'm happy with the arrangement - my book has been published by a branch of a major international publisher, and will, hopefully, eventually be available in paperback. I think the process is pretty much the same with most publishers and something I'm learning is that absolutely nothing in publishing happens quickly. It's just that it's hard to be patient.

Polka Dot Rock

19th January 2007, 14:57

Macmillan New Writing was set up as a new imprint of Macmillan last year specifically to publish previously unpublished authors. To keep costs down, (and therefore to be able to publish more writers) the terms aren't negotiable.

It's strange that they don't publish the new writers in paperback first. You'd think it'd make more financial and commercial sense: people are more likely to buy paperbacks by writers they haven't read before, than in more pricey hardback. It doesn't seem to make business sense! Or have I missed something?

samgrosser

19th January 2007, 19:37

It's strange that they don't publish the new writers in paperback first. You'd think it'd make more financial and commercial sense: people are more likely to buy paperbacks by writers they haven't read before, than in more pricey hardback. It doesn't seem to make business sense! Or have I missed something?

Yes, I know. I thought the same thing - but that's just the way it is, and quite frankly, I'm just happy to be published.

Janet

21st January 2007, 15:13

I'm just hanging for the day my publisher tells me they're going to put Another Time and Place into paperback. Then I might actually see a decent number of sales - I can't count the number of people who've told me they're waiting for it to come out in paperback.
I'm afraid I was one of the people who said that!

I used to read Judy Astley. She used to bring out a new book every April, always straight into paperback, but 2006's book came out in hardback. Maybe she became more popular?

thebottle

27th January 2007, 21:10

Paperback only because they are cheaper and I have little to no money.

Maureen

28th January 2007, 12:18

Paperback only because they are cheaper and I have little to no money.

So if money was not the issue, you'd prefer reading the hardback?

thebottle

28th January 2007, 16:46

So if money was not the issue, you'd prefer reading the hardback?

Honestly, I don't prefer either one over the other for reading. I buy paperbacks because they are cheaper, but I like hardcovers because they are more durable and last longer. They both read the same to me though, lol.

Maureen

28th January 2007, 18:41

Ok, I phrased that wrongly....what i meant is while reading, it does not make a difference to you holding a paperback, or holding a hardback? (or carrying around a paperback or a hardback...)

thebottle

28th January 2007, 18:53

Ok, I phrased that wrongly....what i meant is while reading, it does not make a difference to you holding a paperback, or holding a hardback? (or carrying around a paperback or a hardback...)

No, I knew what you meant. I don't notice a difference while carrying them, and I just throw them in a backpack if I have a bunch.

The only thing I have noticed is I like to read paperbacks laying down and hardcovers sitting down, but I don't prefer either. They read the same as in I've never thought, "I wish this was a paperback." or vice versa.

Acesare*

28th January 2007, 23:14

I prefer paperback because I do most of my reading while travelling and they're much more portable, plus they take up less room on my bookshelves!

Purple Poppy

29th January 2007, 00:28

I have just received my copy of Sams book, 'Another Time, Another Place', and as its not published I got a hardback. And its lovely. I was surprised at the difference, cos I rearely read hardbacks. I keep picking it up and stroking it. I can't wait to read it.:)

samgrosser

29th January 2007, 12:37

Polka Dot Rock

29th January 2007, 13:07

Thank you, Purple Poppy - that's just made my day. :D

She's very good at that, is our PP :smile2:

Icecream

29th January 2007, 14:10

I told OH off on Saturday when he was sorting his books out because it looked as though he had just chucked them all on the settee. "You can't do that with hardbacks", I said, "You'll ruin the covers and bend all the spines!!"

Purple Poppy

30th January 2007, 19:33

Sam said

Thank you, Purple Poppy - that's just made my day. :D

You are very welcome :) :friends0:

PDR said
She's very good at that, is our PP :smile2:

Oh PDR! What a lovely thing to say. Thank you (You've just made my day):blush: :friends0:

Pp

Ronny

30th January 2007, 19:55

I prefer the trade paper backs, I like the size, look & feel of them and try to buy only trade size but will pick up a regular paperback or a hardcover if the price is right.

Purple Poppy

30th January 2007, 21:11

Ronnie said
f/k/a Nicky, sorry for the confusion but I asked to have my screen name changed from Nicky (a random pick that I could not get used to) to Ronny (my actual name and what I'm used to being called)

I haven't been around for a few days and thought that you had made alot of posts very quickly for a newbie...then you explained. Hi again Ronny.:lol:

Laramie

30th January 2007, 21:21

i like hardbacks because...well i dunno, really, they're just good...
but i like paperbacks too cuz they're cheaper and you can buy more!! :)

Wraith*

31st January 2007, 10:01

Sorry to be thick but what's the difference between a trade hardback and a normal one>?

Polka Dot Rock

31st January 2007, 10:24

Sorry to be thick but what's the difference between a trade hardback and a normal one>?

Ditto! Is it something to do with their size? Are trade ones paperbacks that are the same size as hardbacks?

Ronny

31st January 2007, 11:14

Yes, trade size are larger and usually resemble the hardcover edition, they are released sooner than the mass paperbacks as well, I think.

Polka Dot Rock

31st January 2007, 11:17

You can also get them at certain markets, which is great for the impatient and cash-strapped amongst us :)

Btw: Hello Ronny! You're like Prince now - Ronny: The member formerly known as Nicky :mrgreen:

Ronny

31st January 2007, 11:20

Btw: Hello Ronny! You're like Prince now - Ronny: The member formerly known as Nicky :mrgreen:

Yes, I like the sound of that, it gives me some mystery, like there's a story there :D

mcolettel

1st February 2007, 23:24

Paperbacks for me, I think they're easier to hold above your head when reading in bed! Thats about the only place I get peace to read.

princessponti

1st February 2007, 23:42

mcolettel

1st February 2007, 23:45

Hi Princess! I worry about dozing off as well - if a paperback hits your nose it won't hurt anywhere near as much!!!!

princessponti

1st February 2007, 23:48

Lol!! There are lots of medical type people on this forum.. I wonder if they have come across these types of injuries in their experiences!! Imagine the damage that Gone with the Wind could cause!!!

mcolettel

1st February 2007, 23:50

I read that!!!!!! Even the paperback was heavy!

Bunny

2nd February 2007, 08:57

If it's a book I really want to keep I'll buy it in paperback, otherwise it's paperback

Icecream

2nd February 2007, 18:04

Hello mcolettel, welcome to the forum! :)

It's true! They are easier to hold above your head, I'd forgotten that uncomfortable feeling as your arms begin to tire and wobble but you're just too settled to move!! They should make ceiling harnesses for books so that you can lay in bed and not have to suspend your arms.

Hi Princess! I worry about dozing off as well - if a paperback hits your nose it won't hurt anywhere near as much!!!!

Lol!! There are lots of medical type people on this forum.. I wonder if they have come across these types of injuries in their experiences!! Imagine the damage that Gone with the Wind could cause!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

If it's a book I really want to keep I'll buy it in paperback, otherwise it's paperback

??

Dogberry

3rd February 2007, 04:19

Well, I like the hardback books best, because they are more aesthetically pleasing to look at.

thebookgarden

3rd February 2007, 11:41

It's been a while since I read a hardback. The last was the John Peel auto/biography which I came across ridiculously cheap, I was waiting for it to be published in paperback, but couldn't resist it at the price I got. It was very heavy and big, not particularly comfortable reading, but looked great on the bookshelf. Otherwise I'd say about 95% of the books I read are paperback, purely down to being a skin-flint!

I confess that I haven't read the entire thread, being a newb to the forum and wanting to share my opinion. But I have seen a few mentions of Large Paperbacks, and wonder if there is really a demand for the huge "C" format paperbacks, which are usually the size and weight of a hardback, are they produced instead of a hardback? Otherwise I really see no point to them

Kell

3rd February 2007, 11:50

I confess that I haven't read the entire thread, being a newb to the forum and wanting to share my opinion. But I have seen a few mentions of Large Paperbacks, and wonder if there is really a demand for the huge "C" format paperbacks, which are usually the size and weight of a hardback, are they produced instead of a hardback? Otherwise I really see no point to themHi Bookgarden (& welcome to the forum, by the way!). I have quite a few of those large-format paperbacks that i managed to get very cheaply. Initially I got them because the books looked interesting (as always), but they look great on the shelves, because they are the same height as the hardbacks, so there's no "dip" on the shelves when I slot them in place like there is with the smaller ones. That said, they're more trouble to lug around for my "portable" reading, as they're a bit big for asmaller handbag, but if I'm using a bigger bag, it's not a problem.

Well, I like the hardback books best, because they are more aesthetically pleasing to look at.Hi Dogberry (& welcome to you to). I know what you mean - often the hardbacks have far nicer covers - I suspect it's partly to justfy the higher price & encourage us to choose them over the paperbacks.

I only really get hardbacks as gifts or if I've been given book vouchers a when I'm buying books, I tend to try & get as many as I can. There are very few authors I'll actually buy the hardback straight off. That said, I've decided that I'd like to replace some of my paperbacks with the hardback versions, such as my old Pratchetts & the first 5 Harry Potter books (I have the 6th one in the adult cover hardback & it's somuch prettier than the kids' cover paperbacks!).

thebookgarden

3rd February 2007, 16:27

There are very few authors I'll actually buy the hardback straight off. That said, I've decided that I'd like to replace some of my paperbacks with the hardback versions, such as my old Pratchetts & the first 5 Harry Potter books

Hi Kell, thanks for the welcome!
A very good choice there of some hardbacks to put by by for the future. If you can get hold of first editions of them even better (makes note to see if there's a thread about identifying first editions). These may well be a nice little investment. Also, if you are into the aesthetics of bookshelves they can look very nice lined up, though you may need a large bookshelf for Pratchett! Car boot's and Charity shops are very good places to find these for under a fiver, but be wary of the charity shops placing a HP in a glass case and pricing it at £30 and saying it's a first edition, it's more likely the 16th impression of the first edition!

DaddysGem

3rd February 2007, 19:14

I think i would have to say paperbacks although it is quite close between the two :)
Hardbacks are nice to look at on the shelves, and i would buy hardbacks for signing, but paperbacks are so much easier to carry around and hold.

rosegarden

19th October 2007, 17:35

I'm currently reading (and loving) a paperback copy of The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet and have noticed that the sequel is now out in hardback.......World Without End.
I would love to read World Without End but I absolutely hate hardback books! :mad: So, I guess I will just have to wait until the paperback version comes out. Which got me wondering........does anyone know how long is it usually before the paperback comes out and also does anyone prefer hardback books? If so, why?

Carole
:jump:

Louiseog

19th October 2007, 17:51

Normalyy 6 months ish. I hate hardbacks!

Liz

19th October 2007, 18:00

I really enjoy reading hardbacks. For me, there's nothing better than curling up on the sofa and reading a hardback. The majority of my books are paperbacks, though, simply because they are far cheaper and easier to cart around in my bag to college or wherever.

Kell

19th October 2007, 18:04

If it's a book I'm keeping, I love hardbacks. I'm in the process of slowly replacing all my "permanent collection" paperbacks with hardbacks.

That said, I love paperbacks to stick in my bag and read "on the go", as it were. Hardbacks are often too heavy and unwieldy to carry about with me.

Most of the books I sell or swap on are paperbacks, although a few hardbacks get sold or swapped too.

Janet

19th October 2007, 18:17

I can't get on with hardbacks so seldom read them. I think it varies from author to author how long between hardback and paperback. I know that when I was really into 'chick lit' it was aaaages before Sophie Kinsella/Marian Keyes books came out in paperback.

Karen

19th October 2007, 19:20

I perfer paperback because they're cheaper and a lot easier to read and carry about in my bag to work etc.

I don't mind reading Hardbacks though.

lovesreading06

19th October 2007, 22:12

paperbacks because it easy to hold but i do read some handbacks books.

Adam

19th October 2007, 23:56

I read hardback books, but not that often. I have about six in my entire collection. I don't prefer them, but will read them.

However,

I buy books so much that it is just cheaper to buy paperbacks. Also they are smaller and I enjoy them better.

I'll take a paperback over a hardback any day of the week :)

Echo

20th October 2007, 01:32

I actually prefer hardbacks, because I tend to keep all of my books and re-read them constantly...I want them to be able to last a long time. I'm also fussy about how they look, so a paperback with a bent spine and torn cover just bothers me. Besides, don't hardbacks just look so much better on your bookshelves?:smile2:

Kylie

20th October 2007, 07:40

I prefer paperback because they're easier to hold and carry around, although if I'm really into a series of books, I'll buy them in hardback as soon as they come out. I've done this with the Harry Potter series and the Tomorrow series by John Marsden. I came to both series late so got the first few books in paperback and the rest in hardback - there's no way I was going to wait for paperback versions of the rest of the books! I don't love having the inconsistency between paperback/hardback but it doesn't bother me too much.

I have a friend at work who waits until the paperback versions of Harry Potter come out before reading them. I'm pretty sure she said she has to wait 18 months for it! (although that's probably only Australia, knowing our delays in getting everything!)

proserpina

20th October 2007, 12:29

If I am buying a book, then I will usually buy it in paperback because it is cheaper (and I don't usually buy books immediately when they come out so I can wait longer till the paperback is issued).

I don't mind buying secondhand hardbacks or getting them out of the library but I do prefer paperbacks because they are easier to carry about (and I always have a book in my bag!)

Echo

20th October 2007, 16:45

I agree with everyone that paperbacks are easier to carry around, and I always carry a book with me. So, sometimes, I'll buy a second copy of one of my favorite books in a paperback edition, just to have one to carry around. Of course, I buy it second-hand for about $1. Does anyone else do this?

wrathofkublakhan

20th October 2007, 16:51

I'm probably wrong, but it seems to me that they publish in six month cycles. So, if you are waiting for the paperback version - that can seem a long ways away. But, the next in the series might be an entire year later! Augh! I should stick to the dead authors.

I prefer paperbacks because I'm a snacky, munchy, sippy kinda guy. I like to read and have a bowl of chips or a (small) plate of cookies and a drink. I read everywhere I go but when I settle in, I like to think I'm indulging myself just a wee bit.
I do buy hardbacks on occasion but they are heavy and require my knees to be up - this makes the reading a little more intimate (does this make sense?) but on the whole ... paperbacks for ease-of-use.

Mia

20th October 2007, 19:44

I don't like hardbacks, they are too heavy and they're too expensive. Plus, they take up more space on my bookshelf! I did buy the Harry Potter series in hardback, because I couldn't wait for the paperback, but that's really the only culprit and I won't have to worry about that one any more.

I was tempted by a half price Pratchett "Making Money" the other day, but I resisted. It seems to me (at least in Pratchett and King's cases) that the hardback goes into paperback after about a year, whereupon the new hardback is released. It's quite a long time to wait. :(

angerball

20th October 2007, 22:56

So, sometimes, I'll buy a second copy of one of my favorite books in a paperback edition, just to have one to carry around. Of course, I buy it second-hand for about $1. Does anyone else do this?

No, I don't do this, but that's usually because I only tend to read somewhere where I'm comfortable (ie. at home or at work). I do prefer paperbacks though, as they are easier to read and hold, and take up less space (not to mention, cheaper). However, if it's a book I've been waiting for, for a long time (like World Without End), then I'll get the hardback as soon as it comes out.

Oblomov

21st October 2007, 10:22

For me, Harback v Paperback depends on the book and any special reasons for either. As a general rule, I prefer hardback for quality non-fiction books simply because they are often sources of reference and handled regularly. I go for paperbacks for fiction for reasons of economy, space and convenience; also, a paperback with an interesting cover gives the psychological impression of a relaxed read while a hardback can appear too "businesslike"...if you know what I mean.

Having said that, I do have some fiction hardbacks for special reasons. An example is Bernard Glemser's Girl on a Wing, no more than a lightweight comedy about life airline stewardesses in the early 60s, but I got the hardback because I like that title better than the one that was changed for all paperback editions...The Fly Girls. Then there is a very special hardback edition (the only one available) of one of my all-time favourite books - The Consort by Anthony Hextall-Smith. The hardback edition has two separate dust jackets.

Karen

21st October 2007, 10:59

Another reason why I prefer to buy paperbacks is that they are easier to store and take up less room.

Adam

21st October 2007, 12:03

also, a paperback with an interesting cover gives the psychological impression of a relaxed read while a hardback can appear too "businesslike"...if you know what I mean.

LOL, I agree. If you see someone in an airport with a paperback you think typical reader, but a hardback gives a way different impression. I agree with this.

writeoff

22nd October 2007, 14:05

I prefer hardback if it's something I'm going to read often (and with the price of hardbacks it's going to have to be).I'm currently stocking up on paperbacks to take on holiday when I read 'lighter' material.

burghead lass

22nd October 2007, 14:21

I prefer paperback although I have about 6 hardbacks which were given in presents.

Fay

22nd October 2007, 15:26

I think hardbacks always look more impressive on the book shelf, but they are just not as comfortable to hold as a paperback.

happyanddandy

29th October 2007, 21:49

I prefer paperbacks as I prefer thinner paper and I am not keen on hardback paper or print - in Florida recently I noticed the feel of the paperback covers was much more aesthetically pleasing - my son agreed - we went round feeling the book covers :mrgreen: it was lovely - definitely different to here. By the way it was a terrific bookshop called 'Books a Million' - is it a chain?

Adam

29th October 2007, 22:29

fireball

30th October 2007, 01:49

happyanddandy, I think it may be check this out .
: http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?stores=1

happyanddandy

30th October 2007, 19:26

happyanddandy, I think it may be check this out .
: http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?stores=1

That's the one!

fireball

2nd November 2007, 00:11

Definitely hardbacks.! Though I, to be honest with you, for some reason or another missed out on "their" first outing, I've come across some great paperback, such as Michael Jecks marvellous Medieval mysteries, and CJ Sansom's 'Mathew Shardlake' mysteries are brill, oh.. and then there's AJ Hartley books, sort of across archaeology and history books combined with a mystery and thriller books brill stuff.!

For some of us it's the convenience thing which is important, and being able to carry it around with one, (that helps!) for some it's both weight and size (in some places, apparently, size does matter. :) ! Ooh errrr!! :smile2:)

For me too, and I mentioned this before on this site (somewhere!) the smell of a brand new hardback slightly different from the paperback, which a very nice whif too!, but a hardback is a oooooohhhhhhhhh to me.!!! :lol:

Someone made mention on this thread, about 'cracking the spine' and some here had the vapours.!!! I think it's a figure of speech myself.! ;)

Though I think fellow BCForumites will agree, some gluing on paperbacks leaves A LOT to be desired, I mean after one reading
you've got a bloody great line or lines on the spine which is not a good thing really, after a bit more reading which shows HOW much you've enjoyed it, but not after one session though ...eh.?

Adam

2nd November 2007, 09:46

I like spines cracked on my books. It lets me keep track of the ones I've read :lol:

sib

2nd November 2007, 19:56

I prefer paperbacks. I know hardbacks last longer, but paperbacks are lighter when you´re reading them and you can open them out to read better.

papillon

5th November 2007, 21:31

I used to be strictly hardbacks. I just love the feel and look of them especially those dark leather or embossed ones and the older the better. Now I think I'm mellowing, I just want to read and have bought more paperbacks than ever.

Kylie

21st November 2007, 00:09

Looks like hardbacks may be going the way of the dodo. Article here (http://www.smh.com.au/news/books/hardbacks-ditched/2007/11/18/1195321607635.html).

Kell

21st November 2007, 06:56

Now, that's upset me quite a bit. What if other publishers follow suit? I LOVE having hardbacks - they last longer and they look nicer on my shelf.

fireball

21st November 2007, 07:08

:( Now that IS sad reading indeed. Nothing like a hardback truly,
I know there's their drawbacks, but still all in all there is nothing like them in my opinion. And like anything else if treated right, they see you out.! :icon_eek: :lol::lol:

But I don't honestly do see the end of hardbacks though,there's something about them that will not die. They could try and not make some of 'em far to big and ridiculously heavy for starters, as too could 'conventional' hardbacks be a bit on heavy side as well on necessarily so I think, not so much the binding, but the actual thing they use to MAKE it a hardback.! Because it's that bit that makes all the difference. They really should look into that bit again, I mean as one wag told me once years ago, it was reinforced cardboard was all it was, I half believed him.!

Like I said there's nothing like a hardback, long may it be it so. In to-day's technology there's no rhyme or reason for hardbacks to be what they are, both in price and in the ridiculous size of some of them.:irked:
Know doubt some will cite moving and costs etc, doesn't seem to bother very much paperbacks does it.? Know doubt there'll be some smart mouth coming along and giving somesuch bull shine as to why hardbacks are sooo expensive, like everything else take it in a very small, VERY, small thimbleful, 'cause he'll, it usually is a he, because he'll be talking unmitigated bullsh:censored:.!!