Hardback vs paperback

[happyanddandy]

happyanddandy, I think it may be check this out .

: http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?stores=1

 

 

That's the one!

[Guest fireball]

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!! )

 

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.!!!

 

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]

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

[sib]

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]

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]

Looks like hardbacks may be going the way of the dodo. Article here.

[Kell]

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.

[Guest fireball]

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.!

 

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.

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.!!

[Roger53]

I like them both. Paperbacks don't take up so much room, but then hardbacks are more durable.

 

As to the death of the hardback, wasn't it said that when computers became common books would disappear?

[Nollaig]

I love hardbacks.

 

They can be awkward to read, but eventually I'm going to trade in all my paperbacks for hardback editions. They make books sturdier and fancier, I like how they look. Also, the hardback dustcovers are often nicer than paperback covers.

[whitegold]

I prefer paperbacks. They're easier to hold and carry around than hardbacks.

Hardbacks are a lot nicer looking though.

[lexiepiper]

I prefer paperbacks by a million miles, and will always choose them over hardbacks, however I know different people prefer the hardbacks, so hope they don't get rid of them, I just wish a hardback and paperback edition were both released at the beginning, rather than having to wait a year for it in paperback form, it costs me a fortune to buy the book in hardback and then replace in when it's out in paper

[chesilbeach]

Paperbacks for me every time. I will only buy hardbacks if I'm desperate to read an authors latest book, and even then, I would probably try to get it from the library first, then wait to buy it in paperback. At the moment, the only author who warrants buying hardbacks, is Alexander McCall Smith, but only the Isabel Dalhousie series of books, which I devour as soon as I get my hands on them!

[Rawr]

Cost-wise obviously paperback. Though, if i really like the novel, i'll try and get hardback edition. I love them both though!

[Nollaig]

When I recently bought The Hollow Chocolate Bunnies, I had a choice of a ghastly yellow paperback with black writing, or a stunning black hardback with yellow writing and the four bunnies on it. I chose the hardback and it only cost me

[chesilbeach]

I can see where you're coming from, Roxi, but when you have as many books as we do, with so many bookshelves, hardbacks just take up more space and they would just be sat on the shelf with only the spine visible, and chances are I wouldn't read it again either, so it would be a bit of a waste of space and money. Plus, I hardbacks are too heavy to carry around in an already full to bursting bag!

[Ben]

Either for me.

[Talisman]

I tend to buy only only non ficton in hardbook editions, and would never buy fiction as hardbacks. Mainly because like others said, paperbacks are more portable, but also because it gets expensive when hardbacks cost so much more. Non fiction is different because I tend to use them as reference books and they are used and read so much more.

[Cadenza]

I prefer paperbacks because, although hardbacks look nice on the shelf and come out sooner, paperbacks are cheaper and easier to carry around.

[Lucybird]

Generally I prefer paperbacks, they're easier to carry around, cheaper and don't have annoying dust jackets (which I always take off paper backs) I always feel I need to keep hardbacks neat too (try telling that to my copy of Goblet of Fire!). I do prefer the way hardbacks look though and for a book I want a copy to treasure rather than just to read I would probably go for the hardcover

[Chrissy]

Cost - it has to be paperbacks mostly.

Looks - quite often the hardback is better looking.

Reading - each has it's own merits.

Carrying - got to be the paperback.

[Nollaig]

I never read anywhere but at home, and I only buy the hardbacks of books I love. But hardbacks are still certainly my favourite irrespective of the practicality!

[Kate]

I love hardbacks but can't afford them and they aren't easy to carry round. However, that said, I love a book however it comes!

[Heather]

I prefer paperbacks because, although hardbacks look nice on the shelf and come out sooner, paperbacks are cheaper and easier to carry around.

 

I do have some hardbacks but like you I prefer paperbacks for thje same reason as you

[Ceinwenn]

For me, it's hardcovers all the way. Don't care that they are bulky, don't care that they cost more, don't care that they are more expensive to ship to Canada. They are lovely & that, to me, is all that matters! If I could afford it all my books would be hardcovers, but sadly, I am often forced to resort to paperbacks!