Hardcover vs paperback...

[fajrdrako]

February 21, 2008:
All other things (like price and storage space) being equal, given a choice in a perfect world, would you rather have paperbacks in your library? Or hardcovers? And why?

Once again, I am reminded of the tag line of a bisexual friend of mine: "I'm a both/and person in an either/or world." Why choose? I want both hardcover and paperback books in my library because each has its virtues.

Hardcovers are durable, beautiful, and nice to read.

Paperbacks fit better in my purse or pocket for reading when I'm not at home.

Besides, If I have a hardcover copy and a paperback copy of each of my favourite books, I can lend out the paperbacks and still have the book on hand.

Comments

[haydenthorne.livejournal.com]

Lordy. I didn't even know that it was an issue.

[xinef.livejournal.com]

Not an issue to me either! I agree with the above post - both have their place, lots of factors go into choosing one or the other.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

my dream of being rich would be to have a real library, with nothing but books and books and perhaps a desk - and they'd be hardbacks, leather bound and with gilt writing. Sigh. But yes, both is good. I love hardbacks to read at home, but a paperback is better for the way I mistreat books, like reading them in the bath.

[hedda62.livejournal.com]

Another point of data for those for whom it is ever an issue: really difficult to nurse a baby while holding and turning the pages of a typical hardcover book. Paperbacks there. But I love the idea of having one of each, ooh the luxury.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

[Oops sorry - was improperly logged in before.]

I love the idea of having one of each, ooh the luxury.

Wouldn't that be lovely?

Of course, there are all sorts of reasons for just picking one or the
other - nothing to do with the superiority of one over the other.
Sometimes hardcovers are available when paperbacks aren't, and vice
versa. Sometimes it's a matter of durability (what remains in the
second-hand shops), or what you can find remaindered.

Basically the important part is the words.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Beautiful books are among the loveliest objects in the world - and I cover them. Beautiful old books, too.

I used to read in the bath. Now I just shower. My books get dogeared in my handbag and my backpack, though.

It's the contents that matter.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I like paperbacks for reading (esp something at the library, which I don't know if I'd like or not - it's ease of 'holding), hardcover for all the collectibles (i.e. Dunnett!).

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

My Dunnett collection is a case where I do have all the books (except the JJ books) in both hardcover and paperback. I don't think The Scottish Highlands was ever issued in paperback, though.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

Yes, I have them in both formats too. I don't think Highland was in paperback either. I just have hardback.

I still wish Alastair's autobiography had been published...

[wanderinunicorn.livejournal.com]

My dream would be to have all the books I have (or would like to have) both in German and in English. For example to read Shakespeare in German and/or in English. The same regarding my historical books and novels. I know that the translation is always a very delicate thing, and sometimes you need the original to compare. Sometimes I would like to quote from the books - and I can't because I have only a German version, or only English version. Unfortunatly I can't afford to buy each book double or there is no translation.
Once I bougth a book in both languages and I read it at the same time and compared the translation - and believe me it was very bad. Whole sentences were not translatet - I quess the translator had problems with the English language and simply didn't translated, what he didn't understand. And of course I would like to have hardcores and paperbacks - so to sum up I need four copies of each book.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

He published The Canoe Boys (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canoe-Boys-Cuillins-Rediscovering-Scotland/dp/1897784422/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203683721&sr=8-5) and Among Friends (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Among-Friends-Autobiography-Alastair-Dunnett/dp/0712609326/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203683721&sr=8-8) but they're hard to find. And/or expensive.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

I have the Canoe Boys. I think maybe it's Among Friends I was thinking of.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Four copies of each book... Yeah, that would be good! I've often read things in translation in tandem with the original, either because I'm trying to read the other language and it's a good way to keep the flow when there are bits I don't understand (like, say, Les Miserables), or becuase it's a language I want to practise and I'm familiar with the original (like Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis).

And yes, most translations are poor. A good translation is beyond riches.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I don't have Canoe Boys. Is it good? Should I make the effort to get it?

Alastair wrote some novels too, didn't he? Have you read them?

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Well - anything can be an issue. Just about anything can be made into an either/or issue if you sculpt it down to size. This was the birth of binary code and computer language. You're either with us or against us! It's black or white! Right or wrong! Salad or fries!

For proof, just look at the average flamewar online.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

A factor I didn't mention is remaindered books. 90% of them are probably crap but the remaining 10% are gold. It's amazing, the favourite books and authors I've found in remainder bins. Cleap hardcovers.

Sadly, given that I've never had enough money for all the books I want (and that would be impossible anyway), I mostly go pragmatically for the cheapest choice.

After all, it's the words that count.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

I haven't read his novels. I thought he wrote mysteries or non-fiction mostly? Neither of which appeals to me.

I have skimmed through Canoe Boys. It's a perspective of Scotland (Highlands) post WWII and I liked what I skimmed, for what that's worth!

[elebridith]

I have a few authors that I really treasure and like to have as hardcovers, simply because -well, beautiful. Margaret Atwood would be an example, Robert Goddard (the thriller author) was one, until they stopped publishing him in hardcover in Germany. I don't like big fat paperbacks because the backs tend to bend and sometimes fall apart after one reading, but in general - yes, both/and. Sometimes you have no choice because they come out right on the spot as paperbacks, but I don't mind. I love to buy hardcover given space on the bookshelf and money *sigh*, I tend to check "Do I really want this NOW? Can I probably wait for the paperback? Do I have room for it?" If it's yes, no, yes - get out the credit card. If it's yes... yes, maybe, no, I'll wait. Plus, I can buy probably three paperbacks for the price of one hardcover. Books!!!

[ceruleancat.livejournal.com]

Well, of course there are pros and cons for both, and uses that are more suitable for one or the other. I like the idea of having both, with the paperbacks used to lend out or for more mundane reading (in the park or while eating...). But I do like hardcovers in a way I don't for the soft. Something about how they feel in my hand or how they feel more steady to hold when I read. Can't really put my finger on it. Not to mention paperbacks tend to break when read a lot, and sometimes begin to crack from the first moment you open them. I find that seriously annoying.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

But I do like hardcovers in a way I don't for the soft

I think I do too. I like their 'presence', their solidity. They also tend to have nicer paper and print.

Not to mention paperbacks tend to break when read a lot, and sometimes begin to crack from the first moment you open them.

One of the major sins of Penguin Classics, in my opinion. (Along with their bad translations.) Leave it untouched and unread on your bookshelf for a decade and it falls to dust. Like a bad curse. And pages fall out. Appalling.

Someone recently told me that British paperbacks are now all badly made, of cheap paper. She bought a pile of paperbacks when she visited Canada because she said they's last much longer. I found this to be a frightening thought. I have always thought British paperbacks were good because they have more attractive and artistic covers.

In its way, this is a variation on the Calednar/Giles argument about books vs. computers. I think that one of the reasons paperbacks are so badly made is that the competition for reading-access with computers has forced improper cost-cutting measures on the book-publishers. So maybe Giles is right to distrust computers!