Hardcover or paperback?

[soxfan[$]]

Given your druthers, which would you rather have -- books in hardcover or paperback?

Though hardcover books last longer, I usually hold out for paperback. They cost less, weigh less, and take up less room on your shelves. The downside is that I go through them more often, which makes me buy more, which promptly takes care of whatever money/space I'd saved by getting paperbacks. It's a vicious cycle.

[theworm[$]]

paperbacks - for all the same reasons.

[murasaki]

Hardback. Yes, they're more expensive but I'm pretty hard on books and I'd rather have the endurance of hardcovers instead of paperbacks--especially for authors I particularly like. If I don't care that much about someone's work, I will go for the paperback instead.

--naomi

[Redlass]

Er, uh, uh....

It depends on the book. How's that for a wishywashy answer?

Most fiction and reference books I prefer in paperback. Most non-fiction books I prefer in hardcover. Especially if it is a photography or art book.

[lynnzop[$]]

Paperback so I can cart it around with me. I do like the larger format of more recent paperbacks as opposed to the old 7x4 (roughly) size however. More comfortable to hold.

[lambchops]

Hardcover for many authors, but if somebody is new I like to buy paperback and later replace with trade or hardcover. I really, really, really like buying any kind of book though.

[CurtisEdmonds]

Hardcover. I have really nice bookshelves now, and paperbacks just look tacky in them. Besides, I read and reread books over and over; hardcover just lasts longer.

[frazzledspice]

I almost never buy a fiction book--I'd rather get it from the library.

I get a fair number of non-fiction books, usually in paperback unless they only come in hardcover.

I don't own very many "coffee-table" books unless I've gotten them as gifts.

[AliventiAsylum]

It depends on the book. If it's something I have a real burning to read, I spring for the hardcover. Otherwise, I wait for the paperback as it's much easier to carry around in the pocketbook.

[drmomentum[$]]

I prefer scrolls to these newfangled codicies.

Or, an ebook.

:p

-JP

[arianej]

Paperback. Cheaper, easier to store on the shelves since they're lighter and take up less room, and easier to carry around with me. I'm gentle with books, so they don't wear out quickly even with many rereadings.

Ariane

[brian_igo]

Can't believe I'm the first one to say trade paperback a la the Quality Paperback Club. I don't like the small size of mass-market paperbacks and I'm not crazy about paying $30 for a hardcover when a trade paperback can be done in the same format for half the price.

Here's another one. Do you keep the dustcovers on your hardbacks? I have this thing about dustcovers. I can't stand to have one on a book while I'm reading and I hate to see a line of glossy, often garish slip covers on my bookshelf. I like to see spines and foil embossed letters. If the spine and lettering shows a little effect of aging and use, all the better.




Brian

[murasaki]

I keep the dustcovers. They don't really bother me when I'm reading (or if they do, I remove them until I finish the book) and I like the artwork.

--naomi

[soxfan[$]]

Unless the dustcover's absolutely hideous, I'll hang on to it, and do repairs as needed. Scotch tape is a wonderful thing.

[rmthunter]

Re: Dustcovers:

If it's an important book -- a first edition by a major novelist, usw -- the value drops dramatically the minute the dustjacket is gone. It can literally be the difference between a good resale value and unsaleable. (And who knows what's going to be important in 25 years?) That's a painful admission, because I usually hate dustcovers -- except they make convenient bookmarks.

Art books -- hardcover or good-quality paperback (I've worked on some, and the softbound publications put out by art publishers are usually very high quality -- they're done in sewn signatures and are not only beautiful, but durable).

Mostly, I go for paperbacks -- portability uber alles. And I don't feel so bad if one gets a coffee stain or some such. For the heavy re-reads, like LOTR, I just buy a used copy when the old one finally wears out -- I'm fairly gentle with books, so that usually takes a few years. (I think I'm on set number 5 on that one.)

There's also a major kinesthetic thing with me -- I am a one-handed reader, and I tend to wind up reading with at least one cat on my lap, and with a hardbound, it just gets too awkward. Nobody's comfortable, and after all, that's what it's about.

Bob

[soxfan[$]]

Good point about reading with one hand, Bob. I do a lot of reading on the subway, and paperbacks are much easier to deal with, especially when you don't get a seat.

[rmthunter]

It also leaves a hand free to have a cigarette, sip your coffee, scratch the cat's ears . . .

Bob
______________
Left-Handed Reader

[murasaki]

And that's why I like hardcovers as well--I can prop it on my knees and the book stays open on its own for two-fisted demi-goddess worship or tea drinking.

--naomi