Paperback or Hardback

[Razeus]

I personally don't see what the big deal is. The Classics that I have are mostly paperback, in their latest editions. What's so special about having the hardback copy? I personally like the new editions of the B&N classics as well as Modern Library Classics, but I also have, say Grapes of Wrath (of what I like to call the uneven pages editions - what's with that by the way, my Anna Karenina is like that too), it's not hardback but it's as close as I'm gonna get. What I do hate about generic paper backs (stephen king anyone) is the darn creases. I'm very careful with my spines.

Do you prefer paper back or must you have the hardback versions of your beloved books

[Avalive]

Paper back. 100%.

[mono]

I have no preference. If I search for a book, it makes no real difference to me whether I purchase it hardback or paperback.

[Zooey]

I grew up in the house of a book collector, and "hardback, hardback, hardback!" was drilled into my head from a very young age.

That said, I now vastly prefer paperback. Though I think that has to do with, 1) they're much easier to carry around and, 2) they work much nicer with my student budget. :)

[ajoe]

Hardbacks are said to be more long-lasting, but that's probably because people are too lazy to carry them around and therefore they remain unread. :P

I personally like paperbacks. They're cheap, light, and easy to carry around. I like it best when they fit my jeans pocket. Yeah, I guess I'm just not the type who cares more about looks and the collectibles (as much as I'm tempted to buy them cause they do look awesome--just not to be read) but more about the content.

[subterranean]

Hardcover looks classier, but of course it's more expensive. If it's the book that I really want and I can afford the hard cover one, I'll go for it. Most of my classics are in paperback..

[amuse]

i like to check paperbacks out of the library :confused: but i only like them at home in truly 'pecial, 'pecial books, like The Tower of London, or Encyclopedia of Faeries, Gnomes and the like. oh, yeah, Dickinson and Shakespeare of course. but paperbacks, thank goodness for paperbacks. they are much, much simpler to lug around and fit on bookshelves. :nod:

[Molko]

I prefer hardback, but I dont mind paperbacks. A lot of my books are paperbacks :)

[Erna]

I only have paperback versions of books, maybe two or so hardback. The reason is mentioned before: it's cheaper and easier to carry around. And when reading hardback, I always have some kind of fight with the cover, which is moving all the time :(

[Scheherazade]

Unless it is a big, reference book, I prefer paperbacks. I hardly ever buy books (like amuse only very special ones and reference books at home) but even when I borrow books from the library, I opt for paperback copies. They are easier to read and carry about.

But we all know not to judge a book by its cover! ;)

[EAP]

Paperbacks

[blp]

I would have gone for paperbacks until I started reading in my psychoanalyst's waiting room where there are a lot of hardback books. I bought one of the books I'd got into there in paperback later and found I instinctively didn't take it as seriously. But maybe the real thing is I'd prefer if books didn't have pictures on the cover and of course most of the covers of hardback books get lost.

[Snukes]

Paperbacks, unless you can find hardcovers on the Cheap Books Table. (I love that table!)

I must confess, I've yet to learn the "don't judge a book by its cover" lesson. I'm a sucker for pretty books...

[Koa]

THE CHEAPEST ---> paperback

[baddad]

Paperbacks, unless you can find hardcovers on the Cheap Books Table. (I love that table!)...


mmmmmm.....Cheap Books Table........mmmmmmmm

I love the look and feel of a hardcover. Reading them demands a more reverent handling, no spine cracking, no jamming it carelessly into your pack, or tossing the book on a a table (or worse) , simply because the hardcover seems more substantial in its literary value........of course, this is probably some subconscious psychological pathology stemming from the actual physical weight of the book and not its literary merit.....I mean, how can its merit be transformed by a mere change of balance? However, I expend lots of energy and time finding the cheapest, used paperback copy of every book I purchase..............unless its on the 'buck-a-book' table as a hardcover....

[papayahed]

mmmmmm.....Cheap Books Table........mmmmmmmm

I love the look and feel of a hardcover. Reading them demands a more reverent handling, no spine cracking, no jamming it carelessly into your pack, or tossing the book on a a table (or worse) , simply because the hardcover seems more substantial in its literary value........of course, this is probably some subconscious psychological pathology stemming from the actual physical weight of the book and not its literary merit.....I mean, how can its merit be transformed by a mere change of balance? However, I expend lots of energy and time finding the cheapest, used paperback copy of every book I purchase..............unless its on the 'buck-a-book' table as a hardcover....

hmmm..... sounds like we're judging a book by it's cover.... :lol:

[Nightshade]

I prefer paperbacks because I can keep a paperpack in "good as new" condition but my hard backs always look read. And dont even get me started on dust covers. Also I can usally fit one or two paperbacks in my bag and I cant do that with a hard cover!! :nod: :lol: ;) :brow:

[crisaor]

If it's available and affordable, then hardback all the way.

[Razeus]

Well I just got back from purchasing the hardback version of Don Quixote, translated by Edith Grossman. My Penguin paperback is so worn out from the heaviness of the book itself. The black cover looks horrible now.

[subterranean]

I love the look and feel of a hardcover. Reading them demands a more reverent handling, no spine cracking, no jamming it carelessly into your pack, or tossing the book on a a table (or worse) , simply because the hardcover seems more substantial in its literary value

Yea yea..got your point...but it's still cost...;)

[odin2]

I think it depends on the length of the book over six or seven hundred and it has to be in hardback or else it just wont last through it's third reading :)
But if it is a shorter book then paperback is the way to go..

[faith]

I prefear paperbacks, cos they are cheaper. I only buy hardbacks if they are on sale and cheaper than paperbacks. All the classics I own are also paperbacks. I've bought a couple of the Wordsworth editions, since they cost only about 2 € each. And then I've got lost of mum's old Penguin editions of classics... And anyway: My favoritebooks I own in paperback, (well apart from Harry Potter).

[ucdawg12]

I like hardbacks because they make me feel good about myself... and they look better on my shelf. Most of my favorite books are in hardback, Moby-Dick, V., Ulysses etc. I try to get hardbacks as often as I can but unfortunately they are not always still in print.

[bounty]

hmm, maybe the topic will be resurrected! paperbacks mostly for me--less expensive and theyre easier to store/handle...

[Chester]

I like the feel of a hardback book. That said, I always toss the dust jacket. I mean, what's with those things? They're annoying. They slip around. The inside flaps pop out. Do they really keep the dust off the book? I don't have sofa covers either, nor plastic wrap on my lamp shades. And I get by just fine, thank you. My father always said, keep the dust jacket. It'll make the book more valuable. More valuable? Good God, if I have to someday sell my books to get by, then I deserve to starve.

[amanda_isabel]

I mostly shop for books in second hand stores, so in whatever kind of binding it comes in, I take it :D

I prefer curling up in a corner with a hardback in general (I can open the book completely without worrying about the binding, something I never really thought of until my friend pointed it out), but I prefer stuffing a paperback in my bag. :)

[JBI]

if it's free, hardback, if not, paperback. I like to write in books, and hardback is much easier, also hardback spreads over a bed more nicely, and lets me write on a bed.

[amanda_isabel]

I like the feel of a hardback book. That said, I always toss the dust jacket. I mean, what's with those things? They're annoying. They slip around. The inside flaps pop out. Do they really keep the dust off the book? I don't have sofa covers either, nor plastic wrap on my lamp shades. And I get by just fine, thank you. My father always said, keep the dust jacket. It'll make the book more valuable. More valuable? Good God, if I have to someday sell my books to get by, then I deserve to starve.

Cheers, Chester!

Dust jackets are annoying, so while I'm reading it I remove it, and when I finish the book it's back in its jacket :D

[Chester]

Well, there is something to be said for the art. I'm old enough to remember record albums and artistic album covers. (Remember? Hell, I have a collection of them from my youth.) Sgt. Pepper was a masterpiece. The Stones' "Sticky Fingers" had an actual zipper as part of the cover. I suppose dust jackets are like album covers in a way.

Still, I'm going to keep tossing the dust jackets. (But I'm keeping my album collection.)

[slobone]

I prefer hardbacks when I can get them, especially old ones. I just like the feel of the book in my hands, the hardness of the cover, the softness of the old pages. They're easier to hold and they usually have wider margins and bigger type. Just easier on my old hands and eyes.

But I hate it when you get a library book and it has underlining, or food stains, or turned-down page corners. I'd rather read a paperback than that.

[_Shannon_]

I am ALL about the paper back...I've been pregnant and/or nursing for the past 12 years--so with babes in tow and while I'm nursing- hardback books are so terribly cumbersome. I also just beat my books up- I write in them and dog ear the pages and spill coffee...I tlike to think of it as living in my book, and that when I am done part of my soul is left there :p (That is, afterall, much easier to accept than just the simple fact that I'm probably a slob)

I also have a strong preference for the rapidly disappearing mass market size paperback over and above the trade size and especialy that new long trade size. We do have some great used dime store novel editions of Faulkner and a few others that I just absolutely love, because they're small enough to slip into my little purse or into a pocket. Plus they make me look so retro cool.:cool:

[_Shannon_]

I like the feel of a hardback book. That said, I always toss the dust jacket. I mean, what's with those things? They're annoying. They slip around. The inside flaps pop out. Do they really keep the dust off the book? I don't have sofa covers either, nor plastic wrap on my lamp shades. And I get by just fine, thank you. My father always said, keep the dust jacket. It'll make the book more valuable. More valuable? Good God, if I have to someday sell my books to get by, then I deserve to starve.ROFL!! I toss my dust jackets, too! :lol: You can often tell when I've been reading a book because there'll be a big coffee cup ring on the back cover-it drives my husband to madness.

I have two books for which I kept the dust jackets- and they are signed, numbered, first editions of James Ellroy and Annie Proulx...but I haven't read them either. LOL.

[stlukesguild]

If the book in question is something I am going to read more than once I want the best possible edition I can afford. Most of the most central books to my library (Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe, Montaigne, the Bible, Rousseau, Proust, Blake, Byron, Keats, Shelley, Milton, Homer, Virgil, Emerson, Whitman, Borges, etc...) are hardback. Of course... there often is no such possible choice (without ordering from the publishers) and as such less than a quarter of my books actually are hardback.

[Hank Stamper]

Other than reference books and my dictionary I only have two hardback books - the original scroll of On The Road and the Curse of Lono... everything else is paperback for one reason - price!

I think I probably prefer paperbacks though... lucky that.

[Aiculík]

Hardback.
Well, in Slovakia, most books are hardacks anyway, now I think of it - only imported books (mostly in English, German, French and Spanish) are paperbacks. But even if it wasn't so I'd still prefer hardbacks.
I don't like paperbacks, because they're so easily damaged, book looks terrible even before you finish reading it, and usually don't survive third reading. Very often, the quality is rather poor, the font is too pale or too bold, so it's difficult to read. I bought Hamlet, for example, and at home I found out some pages are unreadable. :(
As for carrying about - most of the hardbacks I have are from thinner, lighter paper - I can't say paperbacks are much lighter, in fact there's hardly any difference in weight.
Also, I noticed that those few hardbacks imported from USA or Britain are very BIG, with big font, wide margins and what looks like 1.5 spacing between lines, but here hardbacks are of similar format as paperbacks... big font and space is only used in books for small children just learning to read... so there's no problem to put it in my handbag. :)

[Erichtho]

I prefer hardback. All the second hand books I buy are hardback, but when I buy a new book I have to stick to paperbacks. 20€ for the average hardback are too much for me.
Paperbacks that have more than 400, 500 pages are unreadable, and who has read a lightfaced book before won't want to miss it anymore. In Germany there pass usually around two years from the time the hardback is published to when the paperback comes out...

[kasie]

Somewhere inside me dwells an Eternal Student who seeks the cheapest copy available of any book - the cheaper the book, the more books you get for your money and you can underline passages without feeling you are desecrating a Proper Book with Hard Covers. I keep hardback editions for books to which I am constantly referring, dictionaries, Lit Crits, the Bible, Shakespeare. There's a new hardback Complete Works of Shakespeare on its way to me from Amazon, can't wait, the old one (also a hardback) is falling to bits! But when I was studying a play, I liked an individual copy with wide margins for notes, critical essays or intros and a good glossary.

[CognitiveArtist]

I only desire hardbacks when the text is long or epic/classic-ish. I've come across a few cheap hardbacks, specifically the Franklin Library (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Library) hardbacks, which I couldn't pass by. The one issue I have is translations in hardbacks can be outdated and inferior to the critical, careful, contemporary translations (which I rarely see sold in hardback). My Magic Mountain translation for instance I'm displeased with and in the distant future I may buy a contemporary translation in paperback.
For me there is also the choice between new cheesy paperbacks with some impulse-buy cover and the more dated paperbacks, like a lot of Penguins which have some pleasing picture or artwork on the cover. The cheesy paperbacks I've seem have some irritatingly eye-grabbing cover with a few capsule reviews ' "Brilliant...fantastic...great" - New York Times' etc. So with my picky judgement even a lot of paperbacks won't do.

[Lioness_Heart]

I get hardbacks if the book is one that's just come out and I really want it straightaway... byt I normally go for paperback because they're cheaper, easier to transport, and easier to read in bed. Also, although the spines of paperbacks get creased, they tend to last slightly longer than hardbacks because the covers tend to fall off hardbacks after ten-or-so reads.

[bej6s]

I definitely am in the group of people that tosses the dust jacket, at least while I'm reading the book. It only serves the purpose of a bookmark and only that when the book isn't too large.
I prefer paperbacks because of my budget, but I'd rather have a hardback if I'm reading while reclining on a couch.

[Pyrrho]

I prefer paperbacks because they are much handier than hardbacks. As I spend a lot of time of the day on the train, it would be difficult to have a heavy hardback in my bag. Besides, I love to write in my books and I just cannot do so in a very nice and expensive edition.

[Tersely]

I prefer the trade paperbacks anytime I can get literature in that format. Hardbacks are too heavy and take up a lot of space (although my husband will completely disagree with me, its about "preserving") and I hate hate hate those smaller supermarket paperbacks where the ink bleeds and the font is illegible. To me the trade paperbacks are perfect. A little more expensive, about the size of a hardback, clear text, and most of all lightweight.

[Joreads]

I love paperbacks for the price and the ease of reading. The only time that I buy the hardback edition is when I really can not wait for the paperback to come out, which here in Australia seems to take quite a while with some books

[cipherdecoy]

Paperbacks. They're cheaper and lighter, and I prefer flimsy books. However, hardcovers look nicer on the bookselves :D

[jaywalker]

I've about 4000 books. If they weren't mostly paperback I wouldn't have enough room for 'em. {Well I Don't have room enough,but -you know.}

[Nossa]

Paperback :D I hate hardcover books, makes me feel like I'm reading a dictionary! lol

[slobone]

Well, I'm definitely in the minority I guess.

But I must say that you youngsters are lucky not to remember the days when paperbacks were cheaply produced. Margins were infinitesimally small, and you often had to jam your thumb down between the pages to force the book open so you could read all the words.

If the book was more than 200 pages long, half the time the spine would break open before you were through. This was especially a problem with Penguins, and then you had the dilemma of what to do with the pages that fell out.

And after just a few years the pages started turning brown. Of course that happened with hardbacks too...

[cipherdecoy]

I've about 4000 books. If they weren't mostly paperback I wouldn't have enough room for 'em. {Well I Don't have room enough,but -you know.}

4000 books?! :eek:

[stlukesguild]

4000 books?! :eek:

I'm somewhere in that realm myself. I vastly prefer a good quality hardcover... but in many cases none is available. Actually I probably have far more hardcover art books than hardcovers in any other genre. I would say that my art books are nearly 75% hardbound, while the rest of my library is maybe around 15% or so hardbound.

[stlukesguild]

But I must say that you youngsters are lucky not to remember the days when paperbacks were cheaply produced. Margins were infinitesimally small, and you often had to jam your thumb down between the pages to force the book open so you could read all the words.

If the book was more than 200 pages long, half the time the spine would break open before you were through. This was especially a problem with Penguins, and then you had the dilemma of what to do with the pages that fell out.

And after just a few years the pages started turning brown. Of course that happened with hardbacks too...

This was largely due to cheap wood-pulp paper which is highly acidic and prose to rapid deterioration. Most books prior to the late 1800s were printed on better quality rag pulp paper... as were the better volumes throughout the period favoring wood pulp. I'd read somewhere that wood pulp was first utilized by the Japanese... but who knows who to blame. Midway into the 20th century the major libraries of the world, including the Library of Congress, expressed concern that much of the literary work published in the last century was deteriorating far faster than books that were infinitely older. Of course the older books had more problems with pests (the notorious bookworm... or the number of insects that have earned that title)... it seems that modern pastes and chemically processed pulp papers are not all that attractive to pests. But the high acidic wood pulp paper rapidly yellows and becomes brittle and the acid eats away at the glues used in the bindings. There have been a number of treatments developed for neutralizing this process, but these are usually reserved for the most archival work... including art work on paper. Most current publishers now avoid the acidic wood-pul papers in favor of more archival papers... with the exception of the cheapest "pulp" paperbacks. I must say that as I scan my book shelves I find that there are very few older paperback volumes... and of the few that are there, a good majority are rapidly disintegrating and awaiting the publication of a better quality volume for replacement.

[wessexgirl]

I now favour paperbacks, because of the cost, and the enticing covers. I used to buy more hardbacks, but would now probably only buy reference, or "special" books in hdbk. I was collecting Folio editions at one time, which are very beautiful, but expensive classics. However, they really are just from a bibliophiles perspective. They are in a bookcase, and are not actually read, as they are there too lovely to be mucked up. I would tend to read the pbk. Since I discovered on-line shopping, I am awash with pbks, as I can't resist just browsing book sites and collecting. I do like to collect things in the same editions if I can though. I love Penguin Classics, Oxford World Classics, Vintage and Virago etc and just love the art covers.