19 ms·

Why do publishers still issue hardbacks? (2018)

66 points by samclemens 7y ago

Nerada 7y ago
I only ever buy print in hardcover. The last paragraph sums it up well; I'm almost solely digital now, but if there's something I particularly enjoy, I'll hunt for the hardcover.
tempguy9999 7y ago
"The hardback is a mark of quality" I disagree. A major mark of quality (other than the writing) is the paper it's printed on, and the publishers often pick the poor, yellowing, easy-tearing newsprint paper, almost newsprint quality. Then they stick a hardback cover on it and sell it for £££. Come on publishers, if I pay decent dosh for a book, hardback or soft, don't skimp on this.
- lb1lf 7y ago
  -Assuming you're in the UK, I'd like to draw your attention to the Folio Society - granted, their selection is very limited, but their titles are a joy to behold - proper, heavy paper, sewn spines, commissioned illustrations...
  - Nerada 7y ago
    They do international shipping too (or used to). I was a member for a number of years and resided outside of the UK.
    - briansteffens 7y ago
      They still ship to the US at least, I've ordered from them recently.
    - lb1lf 7y ago
      -Oh, they most definitely do, it was poorly worded on my part - my thought was that their selection of titles is rather UK-centric, though I do believe it has broadened in later years. (I live in Norway, but have been a Folio Society regular for a decade and change, now - books published in Norwegian are rather expensive, so the premium (in the international market) price of Folio Society books is still quite comparable to that of a Norwegian hardcover release - but the comparison ends there.)
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    Consider my attention drawn - thanks! (also @Nerada too)
  - shantly 7y ago
    Other good stuff: - Many university presses, especially if you've heard of the university. - Library of America for works by American authors in English. They're dense (bible-type paper, usually 2+ novels per volume) but more readable than a lot of editions that go for density (think all those unreadable, useless single-volume Shakespeares out there for comparison). Very well made. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade is the French equivalent of this, in purpose and in form, if you read French. - Limited Editions Club and Heritage Press, which reprinted LEC books in somewhat lower quality (and usually somewhat smaller, too). HP can be hit-or-miss—watch out for any with (faux) leather on the binding. All the cloth-bound stuff is great. Often have great illustrations and such included. Big, heavy, Serious Business editions for your Serious Business books. Their epics feel epic. - Modern Library and Everyman are pretty OK. I especially like Everyman's little poets series, for nice single smallish volumes dedicated to individual poets that are a little easier to actually pick up and read through than some of the huge, more comprehensive collections out there. You've gotta watch translations from both ML and Everyman, though, as often they use older (public domain) translations for non-English works that are probably not what you'd choose, given your choice of any translation. Other times they're good, more recent ones. Just have to watch out. - Norton Critical Editions are paperback but usually have excellent annotations and commentary. If you want something like the experience of reading a book in a course at a university and don't want extra books of commentary, lean toward these. - Penguin Classics are paperback, but are often the only way to get a half-decent copy of all kinds of religious and mythological works—Eastern and Western—outside a handful of the most famous ones, without resorting to very expensive, very limited run academic press editions. - Dover's like Penguin Classics but for older math and science books. I've bought a shitload of books over the years and my advice to anyone starting out is to buy whatever you'll read. Something you don't mind abusing or writing in. Trade paperbacks are the sweet spot on this, for me, usually. Save the nice copies for books you love and for which you really want the ambiance of a nice edition. Worry more about annotations, introductions, appendices, and which translation you're dealing with than how the book looks, in most cases. For your easier genre fic or light business-related reading you're unlikely to re-read, just use an e-reader, or buy disposably-cheap used mass market paperbacks. If you love something you read there enough you want it on your shelf for re-reads and reference, you can always grab a paper copy later. That goes for other books, too—buy the LEC or LOA or some weird niche press ultra-nice goatskin-bound edition only after you already know you love a book. If you're gonna buy paper genre fic before reading it, try to reserve most of that shelf space for short story collections (great to be able to grab off the shelf and just start reading, much nicer than in ebook format). [EDIT] Loeb, if you read Latin or Greek or sometimes they're just the best edition of more obscure ancient works even if you don't read the original (they're all facing-page translations). Green Lion Press for very nicely-bound math books. [EDI2] Don't, don't "collect" hardbacks of very popular books unless you re-read them all the time. You can go grab a bunch of Terry Goodkind or Stephen King hardbacks at thrift shops any day you want, for next to nothing. Don't waste space with them unless you read them all. The. Time. That's true to a lesser degree for most books—few are rare enough you can't just go find it some time later, at a reasonable price, if you pass on it today. Most aren't quite as ubiquitous and cheap as Stephen King novels, though :-)
  - _pmf_ 7y ago
    This link will cost me dearly ...
- IAmEveryone 7y ago
  I just checked a few examples, and the hardcover and paperback editions have consistently different weights and thickness that cannot be explained by just the cover. To use a friend's book as an example: Normal People (https://www.amazon.com/Normal-People-Novel-Sally-Rooney/dp/1984822187/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= https://www.amazon.com/Normal-People-Novel-Sally-Rooney/dp/1...) Paperback: 304 pages, 0.6 inches, 8.3 ounces Hardcover: 288 pages, 1.0 inches, 14.7 ounces The hardcover has fewer pages but is 70% thicker and 80% heavier. The other dimensions differ only slighty (5.7 x 8.6 vs 5.2 x 8) I checked two other recent releases and this seemed somewhat consistent. And even if the weight difference is mostly the cover, I would tend to think the cost of material to correlate linearly with weight (as your accusation also implies). So you are getting about twice the weight for about twice the price[0]? Printing costs are obviously only a fraction of the price. I wouldn't even be surprised if books were one of those goods where gross margins actually increase even when the price difference is lower than the increase in weight (the canonical examples are perfume and software). Personally, I don't care too much about paper thickness. The far more relevant quality issue used to be acid, with paper degrading within a decade. Today's paper is good for a few hundred years, so it wins any competition with those hand-sewn, thick, artisanal "quality products" of previous eras. [0] Incidentally, the hardcover I looked up above sells for $9.95 while the paperback is $17.00 (both new). Go figure!
  - acqq 7y ago
    I have different experience: it seems a trend that the books I'm interested in (note: not fiction) are first made for hardback, then just scaled down for paperback, resulting in pages that are too annoying to read. After a few paperbacks that I've hated, now if I see that the paperback has smaller dimensions but the same number of pages I am going to order hardback.
  - lordgrenville 7y ago
    You're friends with Sally Rooney? Pretty cool. (Unless you just meant that this is a book your friend owns.)
- Turing_Machine 7y ago
  > Then they stick a hardback cover on it and sell it for £££. Traditional hardbacks (and collector-quality ones, even now) are made from pages sewn together in signatures, and will last for many, many readings. When the binding does get worn out, a new one can easily be put on. However, the typical "hardback" you see in a bookstore today is basically just a paperback with thicker cardboard for the covers. The pages are held together (and the "binding" is held on) with a thin layer of glue, just like a paperback, rather than being properly sewn. You're lucky if you get one reading out of one of those pieces of crap before it starts to fall apart in your hands. They are simply not worth the money. Go with ebooks, or, if you absolutely must have paper, paperbacks. Otherwise you're getting ripped off.
  - allovernow 7y ago
    It's painful to see so many examples of hallmarks of quality or even just signals of niche culture hollowed out and used as a facade on inferior products. Sometimes it really does feel like late stage capitalism (especially MBAs) is gradually ruining much of the fruit it made plentiful. This pursuit of pennies sucks the soul out of anything it touches. There's value in lasting quality, and as I've gotten older I've learned to appreciate goods that reflect a respect for the art of the trades that produced them, like solid tools, or over-engineered appliances from decades past, where a little extra material is the difference between just out of warranty failure and indefinite use. But I suppose the real problem that the average person doesn't notice and/or care.
- yongjik 7y ago
  Well, you might want to be careful what you wish for. "High-quality paper" is heavy. In Korea, somehow every publisher decided books should use maximum quality paper, which is brightly white, looks supreme, and also so heavy that you could use them for upper body exercise. E.g., this is how ASOIAF boxed set looks like in Korea: http://www.yes24.com/Product/Goods/11816241 http://www.yes24.com/Product/Goods/11816241 (It doesn't help that they print each page with an inch margin, 150% line spacing, and fonts large enough for 70-year-olds without glasses. Sometimes I wonder if they're selling books by weight.)
  - kick 7y ago
    That looks fine? Similar to a lot of paperbacks I see in the States.
    - wishinghand 7y ago
      I take exception to needing 11 books to contain a 5 book series, unless the Korean language is not very dense.
      - larnmar 7y ago
        My English edition is five paperbacks, but these paperbacks run at about a thousand pages each. A 1000-page paperback is a major hassle to read (how do you comfortably hold it?) or carry around, and they seem to get damaged pretty quickly (the spine is a mess by the time you’ve finished reading). I’d prefer a larger number of thinner volumes.
        yongjik 7y ago
        That's the problem: somehow nobody sells a larger number of thinner volumes. You just get a larger number of books, each somehow being heavier than the original English volume.
      - kick 7y ago
        Hangul was intentionally created to be the simplest script in the world to learn.
- jeffwass 7y ago
  This. I would gladly play a bit more for acid-free paperbacks that don’t turn yellow and brittle. I am concerned what my current book collection will look like in 10-20 years, and for this reason have been considering hardbacks over paperbacks (which isn’t always better quality but there is some positive correlation there).
- Eric_WVGG 7y ago
  I collect a fair number of both American and UK edition of various books. The paper and glue quality of virtually all UK books, even limited/special editions, is just appalling. Even the worst American airport paperbacks are superior to nearly anything I've acquired from the UK. I have been told this is "just the way things are done over there."
  - Symbiote 7y ago
    I hardly ever buy hardback books, but I think the paperback books are cheaper in the UK. I had a long trip changing planes in Los Angeles followed by Heathrow, and I bought the second part of a trilogy in LAX, and the third part in LHR. The American edition is better quality, but was 50% more expensive than the UK/European edition. A quick look on amazon.com vs amazon.co.uk gives the same impression, at least comparing the actual price (not the RRP).
- patrickserrano 7y ago
  Having worked at a publisher specializing in hardbacks, acid free paper (so it doesn’t yellow), and sewn bindings. I can tell you that maintaining quality is hard in an ever shrinking industry. In the US there’s been a huge consolidation of printers and binderies that have driven not only the costs up, but the run sizes needed to even do business with them unless you’re a major publisher. It’s sad, because there are a lot of people out there interested in providing high quality books, but what little money was there has been nearly erased in the last 20 years. The place I worked was a family run shop for over 30 years and was only 5 people total. We watched our costs and expenses, but doing business with Amazon or their shrinking and consolidating competitors was painful at best. Combined with the consolidation on the on the production side, we had to slow our output dramatically. The company still around, putting out great books, but not at the same scale they could be doing it and that’s everyone’s loss.
- Iv 7y ago
  In France the standard became de "livre de poche" edition, the "pocket-book". Fits well on shelves, kind of uniform format, softcover, so it is easier to read/transport, good paper quality. I have grown with this being the standard and to me when I see US hardcover books at $50+ I don't understand it: it is bulky, hard to read in a cramped place like a subway (or toilets!) No two books are the same size or color and it is printed with so much spacing that it looks like kids books or the kind of dissertation formatting I used to do when the teacher asked for 20 pages and I only had 5 pages of material.
  - pojntfx 7y ago
    +1 for small book formats. As some who reads in the metro each morning, not having to carry around a hardback is nice.
    - vinay427 7y ago
      I've never seen a non-textbook that was only available in hardcover. Has the lack of a lighter alternative ever been a problem for you?
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    I think it's that books, particularly hard backs, are in a pseudo-artwork/collectible category. There are times I've liked a paperback so much I bought the hard back and never opened it, just to have the "pretty" version on the shelf.
    - Iv 7y ago
      Yes, that's a weird thing. Some books seem to be vanity items. But even in that respect, I find the US format weird: all books are dissimilar and are harder to fit in typical furniture. I do prefer the look of this: http://a52.idata.over-blog.com/2/25/73/36/Photos/Bibliotheque/100_1143.JPG http://a52.idata.over-blog.com/2/25/73/36/Photos/Bibliothequ... to the look of this: https://www.archimag.com/sites/archimag.com/files/styles/article/public/web_articles/image/Biblioth%C3%A8queLivres.png https://www.archimag.com/sites/archimag.com/files/styles/art...
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
If I need to put a hardcover book down for a moment, I can leave it open on a table or desk. Paperbacks won't stay open like that. This is particularly annoying if I need to copy or reference something from a book on a separate device of piece of paper.
pithymaxim 7y ago
I always thought this was just price discrimination, extracting more surplus from readers by bifurcating them into two groups. Hardbacks are released first. Everyone who really wants it now needs to shell out more, even if they don't really care about the physical properties. Then the paperback is released to attract the more reluctant readers.
- mmahemoff 7y ago
  Same here. Very similar to a typical patronage model you see for digital media where there are some perks like early access, but rarely a major exclusive work.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  That's exactly what it is.
- IAmEveryone 7y ago
  Yes, and the article (sort-of) mentions that, but also a few additional reasons I wouldn't necessarily thought of.
- r_c_a_d 7y ago
  Yes, this seems obvious to me. If it were not, then publishers would release the hardback and paperback at the same time and let readers choose the format they preferred, wouldn't they?
__d 7y ago
If I'm buying fiction from an author I know and like, that I think I'd like to last for decades (and maybe leave to my children one day) I'll buy hardcover. That's maybe half of my fiction purchases. For authors or books I'm unsure of, or just trashy stuff, I'll buy Kindle. For technical books, I'll usually try to buy non-DRM PDF or eBook from the author, or failing that, a paperback. I periodically (like, once a year or so) try to strip the DRM from my Kindle collection and back it up, but I basically assume that they could disappear at any time, so I don't trust them for anything I consider important. I used to use an iPad2 for reading my Kindle books, but it's too slow to open the collection now (since I have a few hundred Kindle books). I'll likely get a Kindle reader of some sort one day, but for now I just read them on my phone most of the time.
- odysseus 7y ago
  Curious, do you find iBooks (Apple Books) on the iPad2 any faster at opening books or scrolling lists of books? Or is it about the same as the Kindle app?
  - __d 7y ago
    I don't have anywhere near the same number of items in my iBooks app (only a few PDFs actually). Once a book is open, it's ok, but it just took 40s to open the app. That actually seems a little quicker than it has been, so maybe Amazon has done some work on the app.
moultano 7y ago
I stopped buying physical books for most of what I read after my last move, but I missed having books around as decoration, conversation starters, and things to loan or for guests to read. And I didn't want to have a bookshelf that reflected only what I read decades ago. So now I've decided that for anything I read that I think is among the best I've read, that I'd unconditionally recommend to anyone, I go buy as nice a physical copy as I can find. This keeps me from having to lug around books that I'm not especially proud of, and leaves me with a wonderfully compact bookshelf full of things I genuinely love.
qwerty456127 7y ago
What is harder for me to understand is why do they still use softback. Whatever I buy - I want it to be as heavy-duty as possible. Whenever I can choose between paperback an hardback I'm always buying a hardback unless the price difference is too serious. I don't even see how do softbacks make any sense to exist today when you can get an electronic book whenever weight and production cost are among your major concerns.
- lolc 7y ago
  I've had a few books disintegrate in my hands. I was the last one reading them because the pages would come off as I turned them. Those damned paperbacks. If I want a truly disposable book I can read the electronic version.
- Finnucane 7y ago
  The simple answer is that is what most people buy. For some types of books—uncomplicated genre texts—ebooks have a significant market share, but for much nonfiction they don’t.
- majos 7y ago
  Funny, I find softback more durable. Hardback books seem “brittle”. Their rigidity makes me more likely to separate the binding from the cardboard shell and “break” the book, which never happens with my softcover copies.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- beatgammit 7y ago
  I would love to buy ebooks, but they're riddled with DRM, which makes me feel like I'm renting instead of buying, so I just don't. Finding DRM-free ebooks is pretty rare, so I stick to paperbacks, especially since they're often similarly priced. If I could reliably get DRM-free ebooks, I'd buy a ton of them.
  - boring_twenties 7y ago
wdb 7y ago
As book author the royalty on hardcover books were higher compared to the softcover books. But still the ebooks were the better deal as they gave the highest royalty. Personally, I enjoy buying nice hardcover books. The Folio Society books are gorgeous
nottorp 7y ago
I'm mostly digital but i recently snatched a paperback... which reminded me I'm growing old because the font was too small for me :) So I guess in the future I'll get more hardbacks instead of less. They tend to use larger fonts, and sometimes (if the paper isn't crap) even have better contrast.
- jeffwass 7y ago
  This depends on the book (or perhaps the publisher). For example, I just bought the Illuminatus Trilogy in one cheap paperback, and it’s got a terrible typeface, it looks like a smeared typewriter. But all other books I’ve bought the past couple months (mix of paperbacks and hardcovers) have had clear typefaces. In fact I never noticed typefaces consciously until seeing this book which takes a noticeable amount of effort to read the fonts.
Animats 7y ago
"Hardbacks are also more profitable for publishers: they will often sell at twice the price of their paperback equivalent but do not cost twice as much to produce." That was a mistake of the print-on-demand machine enthusiasts. They generated disposable paperbacks. E-readers ate that business. Now, a machine that prints and binds good hardbacks on demand - that might be useful.
bowlich 7y ago
I know a of relatives who only buy hardbacks -- even if all they're reading is one-read genre stuff. Myself, I tend to buy paperback, read and then donate. If the book was good and I want to keep it for my personal collection. I track down a hardcover copy.
ZoomZoomZoom 7y ago
The question is, why would anyone want a paperback? It's clearly a format for disposable or travel books, which are easily replaced with a digital media. Paperback are not suitable for repeated readings and a really high-quality paperback, if there was one, would be prisewise on par with a hardcover anyway. I don't get paperbacks.
- ljm 7y ago
  I might be strange with this opinion but I like paperbacks and the style of paper they're printed on in the UK. There's something about a well-worn book that I find quite appealing, with the folded corners or creased spine and the yellow-ish pages that are quite soft to the touch. A nice, dusty hardback comes close. They've been broken in already so you don't have as much trouble setting the book down without it closing back up on itself. What I immensely dislike are the possible fake prints you get from Amazon. They're printed on bleach-white paper, same as you'd get for a textbook, sometimes even slightly glossy.
  - Izkata 7y ago
    I completely agree, with the paper quality and all, except hardcovers are actually difficult for me to hold. I need the cover to flex a bit to get a grip on it and hold the pages in place - on a hardcover the pages will flex while the cover can't, slip out of my fingers, and I'll be interrupted reopening it where I was.
- kradeelav 7y ago
  - much lighter - can fit more on bookshelves with less room / meant for apartments - some people don't like dust jackets or the cardboard feel - better for smaller hands - i personally love seeing the creases in the spine and other little hints of a well-read paperback; read a few of mine at least 50+ times and they're still hanging in there.
- skytreader 7y ago
  I have limited shelf space so I'd rather buy paperbacks 'cause they will take up less space. Yes, my books are there for aesthetic reasons but above all, they're in my shelves because I want to have access to them whenever I want to read them. The more I can cram my shelves, the better, presentation be damned. Paperbacks are also easier to just read. I don't manhandle my books but I often read in unconventional positions: while in a crowded bus, or while laying down on my back before I sleep. It's just difficult to handle hardbacks in these situations. The "give" of a paperback's cover makes it ergonomic. Being cheaper is a plus for my CS books too. Hardbound original versions are indeed prettier, maybe even easier to the eyes due to the paper. But for a book I would use in a semester and consult sparingly thereafter, the price of an original is unjustifiable. I'd make an exception for Biology books where color is often important to the diagram. But I don't really have strong feelings on this as I did not major in Biology. > Paperback are not suitable for repeated readings Paperbacks wear and tear faster than hardbounds but to say they are not suitable for repeated readings is just exaggeration. Heck, my local library stocks up on paperbacks. If any book experiences repeated readings, it's got to be those in the library. Also, from personal experience, wrapping your paperbacks in good enough plastic cover makes it last longer. I've "repaired" old paperbacks whose covers are all but ruined by reinforcing the weathered covers with index cards and thick plastic cover. > really high-quality paperback, if there was one, would be prisewise on par with a hardcover anyway Again, I disagree. For, say, a Harper Collins fiction the price difference between a paperback and a hardcover could range from anywhere to 40%-70% mark down. I specifically cite Harper Collins (and subsidiaries) because I'm really hard pressed to find a significant difference between their hardbounds and paperbacks. Obviously, the size and the binding differs (duh!) but other than that everything compares: the quality of the paper, the legibility of the print, the illustrations, etc.
dehrmann 7y ago
Same reason vinyl outsells CDs? If you just want to consume the content, there are cheaper choices, but for something you want to save and make a statement with, hardbacks are superior.
baroffoos 7y ago
Hardback books seem like a magnet for collectors (hoarders) they know they could more conveniently get the book as an ebook or from the library but they are buying them primarily as an item to store on a shelf. I have seen people buy books they don't even intend to read simply because the hardback is well decorated and the edge of the pages is gold. Perhaps they think the sight of a large bookshelf full of books they never read makes them look smarter. They are probably right as well.
- lsaferite 7y ago
  Why disparage collectors by conflating them with hoarders? I purchase books both to read and to collect if they are well-made pieces of art. It seems you have something against collecting such things based on how you frame your comments though. I personally do not understand the desire to disparage another person because you do not see value in collecting books.
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    You are correct. I am critical of the practice of collecting items that have no continued use to the owner and would be better off sold or gifted to a new owner who could get more use out of it. I will admit though that they can serve as art and part of the room decoration which is a valid usecase.
ropiwqefjnpoa 7y ago
Simple answers are, because people still buy them and they can charge more.
mmmBacon 7y ago
A good solid book printed on good paper is a joy, a gem.
heraclius 7y ago
As Hyphen Press explain, hardbacks used invariably to be bound properly, but now they are often simply paperbacks between boards.¹ Signalling alone as above is the correct explanation. Cloth books can have practical advantages, such as the possibility of rebinding, but modern hardbacks mostly lack them. 1. https://hyphenpress.co.uk/journal/article/bookbinding_survey https://hyphenpress.co.uk/journal/article/bookbinding_survey
thekevan 7y ago
My reason for buying them wasn't mentioned as far as I saw--I like them better.
xiaodai 7y ago
Price differentiation. Well known theory in economics. It's like asking why do ppl still release movies in cinemas.
nils-m-holm 7y ago
Hardcover books are a pleasure to read, especially if they are smyth-sewn. You can identify a smyth-sewn book by placing it on a table and opening it in the middle. If the pages stay flat on top of each other, it is. The pages of a case-bound hardcover will separate from each other and stick out, and a softcover book will just close and fall over. And that is exactly why hardcover books are a pleasure to read: it takes little effort to hold them open. A smyth-sewn hardcover you can pretty much put on a table and leave it alone while reading it. When reading softcovers, my fingers often get tired before my eyes do.
- foobarbecue 7y ago
  I bought a hardcover Le Guin anthology recently after balking a bit at the price. But then I was amazed to find it stayed open when I put it on a table and very happy to have paid the premium! Now, thanks to you, I know there is a name for this technology.
cafard 7y ago
My impression is that paperbacks from US publisher tend to be superior to their hardbacks. But for constant use such as library books get, hardbacks might hold up better.

66 points by samclemens 7y ago

I only ever buy print in hardcover. The last paragraph sums it up well; I'm almost solely digital now, but if there's something I particularly enjoy, I'll hunt for the hardcover.

tempguy9999 7y ago

"The hardback is a mark of quality" I disagree. A major mark of quality (other than the writing) is the paper it's printed on, and the publishers often pick the poor, yellowing, easy-tearing newsprint paper, almost newsprint quality. Then they stick a hardback cover on it and sell it for £££. Come on publishers, if I pay decent dosh for a book, hardback or soft, don't skimp on this.

lb1lf 7y ago
-Assuming you're in the UK, I'd like to draw your attention to the Folio Society - granted, their selection is very limited, but their titles are a joy to behold - proper, heavy paper, sewn spines, commissioned illustrations...
- Nerada 7y ago
  They do international shipping too (or used to). I was a member for a number of years and resided outside of the UK.
  - briansteffens 7y ago
    They still ship to the US at least, I've ordered from them recently.
  - lb1lf 7y ago
    -Oh, they most definitely do, it was poorly worded on my part - my thought was that their selection of titles is rather UK-centric, though I do believe it has broadened in later years. (I live in Norway, but have been a Folio Society regular for a decade and change, now - books published in Norwegian are rather expensive, so the premium (in the international market) price of Folio Society books is still quite comparable to that of a Norwegian hardcover release - but the comparison ends there.)
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  Consider my attention drawn - thanks! (also @Nerada too)
- shantly 7y ago
  Other good stuff: - Many university presses, especially if you've heard of the university. - Library of America for works by American authors in English. They're dense (bible-type paper, usually 2+ novels per volume) but more readable than a lot of editions that go for density (think all those unreadable, useless single-volume Shakespeares out there for comparison). Very well made. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade is the French equivalent of this, in purpose and in form, if you read French. - Limited Editions Club and Heritage Press, which reprinted LEC books in somewhat lower quality (and usually somewhat smaller, too). HP can be hit-or-miss—watch out for any with (faux) leather on the binding. All the cloth-bound stuff is great. Often have great illustrations and such included. Big, heavy, Serious Business editions for your Serious Business books. Their epics feel epic. - Modern Library and Everyman are pretty OK. I especially like Everyman's little poets series, for nice single smallish volumes dedicated to individual poets that are a little easier to actually pick up and read through than some of the huge, more comprehensive collections out there. You've gotta watch translations from both ML and Everyman, though, as often they use older (public domain) translations for non-English works that are probably not what you'd choose, given your choice of any translation. Other times they're good, more recent ones. Just have to watch out. - Norton Critical Editions are paperback but usually have excellent annotations and commentary. If you want something like the experience of reading a book in a course at a university and don't want extra books of commentary, lean toward these. - Penguin Classics are paperback, but are often the only way to get a half-decent copy of all kinds of religious and mythological works—Eastern and Western—outside a handful of the most famous ones, without resorting to very expensive, very limited run academic press editions. - Dover's like Penguin Classics but for older math and science books. I've bought a shitload of books over the years and my advice to anyone starting out is to buy whatever you'll read. Something you don't mind abusing or writing in. Trade paperbacks are the sweet spot on this, for me, usually. Save the nice copies for books you love and for which you really want the ambiance of a nice edition. Worry more about annotations, introductions, appendices, and which translation you're dealing with than how the book looks, in most cases. For your easier genre fic or light business-related reading you're unlikely to re-read, just use an e-reader, or buy disposably-cheap used mass market paperbacks. If you love something you read there enough you want it on your shelf for re-reads and reference, you can always grab a paper copy later. That goes for other books, too—buy the LEC or LOA or some weird niche press ultra-nice goatskin-bound edition only after you already know you love a book. If you're gonna buy paper genre fic before reading it, try to reserve most of that shelf space for short story collections (great to be able to grab off the shelf and just start reading, much nicer than in ebook format). [EDIT] Loeb, if you read Latin or Greek or sometimes they're just the best edition of more obscure ancient works even if you don't read the original (they're all facing-page translations). Green Lion Press for very nicely-bound math books. [EDI2] Don't, don't "collect" hardbacks of very popular books unless you re-read them all the time. You can go grab a bunch of Terry Goodkind or Stephen King hardbacks at thrift shops any day you want, for next to nothing. Don't waste space with them unless you read them all. The. Time. That's true to a lesser degree for most books—few are rare enough you can't just go find it some time later, at a reasonable price, if you pass on it today. Most aren't quite as ubiquitous and cheap as Stephen King novels, though :-)
- _pmf_ 7y ago
  This link will cost me dearly ...
IAmEveryone 7y ago
I just checked a few examples, and the hardcover and paperback editions have consistently different weights and thickness that cannot be explained by just the cover. To use a friend's book as an example: Normal People (https://www.amazon.com/Normal-People-Novel-Sally-Rooney/dp/1984822187/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= https://www.amazon.com/Normal-People-Novel-Sally-Rooney/dp/1...) Paperback: 304 pages, 0.6 inches, 8.3 ounces Hardcover: 288 pages, 1.0 inches, 14.7 ounces The hardcover has fewer pages but is 70% thicker and 80% heavier. The other dimensions differ only slighty (5.7 x 8.6 vs 5.2 x 8) I checked two other recent releases and this seemed somewhat consistent. And even if the weight difference is mostly the cover, I would tend to think the cost of material to correlate linearly with weight (as your accusation also implies). So you are getting about twice the weight for about twice the price[0]? Printing costs are obviously only a fraction of the price. I wouldn't even be surprised if books were one of those goods where gross margins actually increase even when the price difference is lower than the increase in weight (the canonical examples are perfume and software). Personally, I don't care too much about paper thickness. The far more relevant quality issue used to be acid, with paper degrading within a decade. Today's paper is good for a few hundred years, so it wins any competition with those hand-sewn, thick, artisanal "quality products" of previous eras. [0] Incidentally, the hardcover I looked up above sells for $9.95 while the paperback is $17.00 (both new). Go figure!
- acqq 7y ago
  I have different experience: it seems a trend that the books I'm interested in (note: not fiction) are first made for hardback, then just scaled down for paperback, resulting in pages that are too annoying to read. After a few paperbacks that I've hated, now if I see that the paperback has smaller dimensions but the same number of pages I am going to order hardback.
- lordgrenville 7y ago
  You're friends with Sally Rooney? Pretty cool. (Unless you just meant that this is a book your friend owns.)
Turing_Machine 7y ago
> Then they stick a hardback cover on it and sell it for £££. Traditional hardbacks (and collector-quality ones, even now) are made from pages sewn together in signatures, and will last for many, many readings. When the binding does get worn out, a new one can easily be put on. However, the typical "hardback" you see in a bookstore today is basically just a paperback with thicker cardboard for the covers. The pages are held together (and the "binding" is held on) with a thin layer of glue, just like a paperback, rather than being properly sewn. You're lucky if you get one reading out of one of those pieces of crap before it starts to fall apart in your hands. They are simply not worth the money. Go with ebooks, or, if you absolutely must have paper, paperbacks. Otherwise you're getting ripped off.
- allovernow 7y ago
  It's painful to see so many examples of hallmarks of quality or even just signals of niche culture hollowed out and used as a facade on inferior products. Sometimes it really does feel like late stage capitalism (especially MBAs) is gradually ruining much of the fruit it made plentiful. This pursuit of pennies sucks the soul out of anything it touches. There's value in lasting quality, and as I've gotten older I've learned to appreciate goods that reflect a respect for the art of the trades that produced them, like solid tools, or over-engineered appliances from decades past, where a little extra material is the difference between just out of warranty failure and indefinite use. But I suppose the real problem that the average person doesn't notice and/or care.
yongjik 7y ago
Well, you might want to be careful what you wish for. "High-quality paper" is heavy. In Korea, somehow every publisher decided books should use maximum quality paper, which is brightly white, looks supreme, and also so heavy that you could use them for upper body exercise. E.g., this is how ASOIAF boxed set looks like in Korea: http://www.yes24.com/Product/Goods/11816241 http://www.yes24.com/Product/Goods/11816241 (It doesn't help that they print each page with an inch margin, 150% line spacing, and fonts large enough for 70-year-olds without glasses. Sometimes I wonder if they're selling books by weight.)
- kick 7y ago
  That looks fine? Similar to a lot of paperbacks I see in the States.
  - wishinghand 7y ago
    I take exception to needing 11 books to contain a 5 book series, unless the Korean language is not very dense.
    - larnmar 7y ago
      My English edition is five paperbacks, but these paperbacks run at about a thousand pages each. A 1000-page paperback is a major hassle to read (how do you comfortably hold it?) or carry around, and they seem to get damaged pretty quickly (the spine is a mess by the time you’ve finished reading). I’d prefer a larger number of thinner volumes.
      - yongjik 7y ago
        That's the problem: somehow nobody sells a larger number of thinner volumes. You just get a larger number of books, each somehow being heavier than the original English volume.
    - kick 7y ago
      Hangul was intentionally created to be the simplest script in the world to learn.
jeffwass 7y ago
This. I would gladly play a bit more for acid-free paperbacks that don’t turn yellow and brittle. I am concerned what my current book collection will look like in 10-20 years, and for this reason have been considering hardbacks over paperbacks (which isn’t always better quality but there is some positive correlation there).
Eric_WVGG 7y ago
I collect a fair number of both American and UK edition of various books. The paper and glue quality of virtually all UK books, even limited/special editions, is just appalling. Even the worst American airport paperbacks are superior to nearly anything I've acquired from the UK. I have been told this is "just the way things are done over there."
- Symbiote 7y ago
  I hardly ever buy hardback books, but I think the paperback books are cheaper in the UK. I had a long trip changing planes in Los Angeles followed by Heathrow, and I bought the second part of a trilogy in LAX, and the third part in LHR. The American edition is better quality, but was 50% more expensive than the UK/European edition. A quick look on amazon.com vs amazon.co.uk gives the same impression, at least comparing the actual price (not the RRP).
patrickserrano 7y ago
Having worked at a publisher specializing in hardbacks, acid free paper (so it doesn’t yellow), and sewn bindings. I can tell you that maintaining quality is hard in an ever shrinking industry. In the US there’s been a huge consolidation of printers and binderies that have driven not only the costs up, but the run sizes needed to even do business with them unless you’re a major publisher. It’s sad, because there are a lot of people out there interested in providing high quality books, but what little money was there has been nearly erased in the last 20 years. The place I worked was a family run shop for over 30 years and was only 5 people total. We watched our costs and expenses, but doing business with Amazon or their shrinking and consolidating competitors was painful at best. Combined with the consolidation on the on the production side, we had to slow our output dramatically. The company still around, putting out great books, but not at the same scale they could be doing it and that’s everyone’s loss.
Iv 7y ago
In France the standard became de "livre de poche" edition, the "pocket-book". Fits well on shelves, kind of uniform format, softcover, so it is easier to read/transport, good paper quality. I have grown with this being the standard and to me when I see US hardcover books at $50+ I don't understand it: it is bulky, hard to read in a cramped place like a subway (or toilets!) No two books are the same size or color and it is printed with so much spacing that it looks like kids books or the kind of dissertation formatting I used to do when the teacher asked for 20 pages and I only had 5 pages of material.
- pojntfx 7y ago
  +1 for small book formats. As some who reads in the metro each morning, not having to carry around a hardback is nice.
  - vinay427 7y ago
    I've never seen a non-textbook that was only available in hardcover. Has the lack of a lighter alternative ever been a problem for you?
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  I think it's that books, particularly hard backs, are in a pseudo-artwork/collectible category. There are times I've liked a paperback so much I bought the hard back and never opened it, just to have the "pretty" version on the shelf.
  - Iv 7y ago
    Yes, that's a weird thing. Some books seem to be vanity items. But even in that respect, I find the US format weird: all books are dissimilar and are harder to fit in typical furniture. I do prefer the look of this: http://a52.idata.over-blog.com/2/25/73/36/Photos/Bibliotheque/100_1143.JPG http://a52.idata.over-blog.com/2/25/73/36/Photos/Bibliothequ... to the look of this: https://www.archimag.com/sites/archimag.com/files/styles/article/public/web_articles/image/Biblioth%C3%A8queLivres.png https://www.archimag.com/sites/archimag.com/files/styles/art...

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

If I need to put a hardcover book down for a moment, I can leave it open on a table or desk. Paperbacks won't stay open like that. This is particularly annoying if I need to copy or reference something from a book on a separate device of piece of paper.

pithymaxim 7y ago

I always thought this was just price discrimination, extracting more surplus from readers by bifurcating them into two groups. Hardbacks are released first. Everyone who really wants it now needs to shell out more, even if they don't really care about the physical properties. Then the paperback is released to attract the more reluctant readers.

mmahemoff 7y ago
Same here. Very similar to a typical patronage model you see for digital media where there are some perks like early access, but rarely a major exclusive work.
TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
That's exactly what it is.
IAmEveryone 7y ago
Yes, and the article (sort-of) mentions that, but also a few additional reasons I wouldn't necessarily thought of.
r_c_a_d 7y ago
Yes, this seems obvious to me. If it were not, then publishers would release the hardback and paperback at the same time and let readers choose the format they preferred, wouldn't they?

__d 7y ago

If I'm buying fiction from an author I know and like, that I think I'd like to last for decades (and maybe leave to my children one day) I'll buy hardcover. That's maybe half of my fiction purchases. For authors or books I'm unsure of, or just trashy stuff, I'll buy Kindle. For technical books, I'll usually try to buy non-DRM PDF or eBook from the author, or failing that, a paperback. I periodically (like, once a year or so) try to strip the DRM from my Kindle collection and back it up, but I basically assume that they could disappear at any time, so I don't trust them for anything I consider important. I used to use an iPad2 for reading my Kindle books, but it's too slow to open the collection now (since I have a few hundred Kindle books). I'll likely get a Kindle reader of some sort one day, but for now I just read them on my phone most of the time.

odysseus 7y ago
Curious, do you find iBooks (Apple Books) on the iPad2 any faster at opening books or scrolling lists of books? Or is it about the same as the Kindle app?
- __d 7y ago
  I don't have anywhere near the same number of items in my iBooks app (only a few PDFs actually). Once a book is open, it's ok, but it just took 40s to open the app. That actually seems a little quicker than it has been, so maybe Amazon has done some work on the app.

moultano 7y ago

I stopped buying physical books for most of what I read after my last move, but I missed having books around as decoration, conversation starters, and things to loan or for guests to read. And I didn't want to have a bookshelf that reflected only what I read decades ago. So now I've decided that for anything I read that I think is among the best I've read, that I'd unconditionally recommend to anyone, I go buy as nice a physical copy as I can find. This keeps me from having to lug around books that I'm not especially proud of, and leaves me with a wonderfully compact bookshelf full of things I genuinely love.

qwerty456127 7y ago

What is harder for me to understand is why do they still use softback. Whatever I buy - I want it to be as heavy-duty as possible. Whenever I can choose between paperback an hardback I'm always buying a hardback unless the price difference is too serious. I don't even see how do softbacks make any sense to exist today when you can get an electronic book whenever weight and production cost are among your major concerns.

lolc 7y ago
I've had a few books disintegrate in my hands. I was the last one reading them because the pages would come off as I turned them. Those damned paperbacks. If I want a truly disposable book I can read the electronic version.
Finnucane 7y ago
The simple answer is that is what most people buy. For some types of books—uncomplicated genre texts—ebooks have a significant market share, but for much nonfiction they don’t.
majos 7y ago
Funny, I find softback more durable. Hardback books seem “brittle”. Their rigidity makes me more likely to separate the binding from the cardboard shell and “break” the book, which never happens with my softcover copies.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
beatgammit 7y ago
I would love to buy ebooks, but they're riddled with DRM, which makes me feel like I'm renting instead of buying, so I just don't. Finding DRM-free ebooks is pretty rare, so I stick to paperbacks, especially since they're often similarly priced. If I could reliably get DRM-free ebooks, I'd buy a ton of them.
- boring_twenties 7y ago

wdb 7y ago

As book author the royalty on hardcover books were higher compared to the softcover books. But still the ebooks were the better deal as they gave the highest royalty. Personally, I enjoy buying nice hardcover books. The Folio Society books are gorgeous

nottorp 7y ago

I'm mostly digital but i recently snatched a paperback... which reminded me I'm growing old because the font was too small for me :) So I guess in the future I'll get more hardbacks instead of less. They tend to use larger fonts, and sometimes (if the paper isn't crap) even have better contrast.

jeffwass 7y ago
This depends on the book (or perhaps the publisher). For example, I just bought the Illuminatus Trilogy in one cheap paperback, and it’s got a terrible typeface, it looks like a smeared typewriter. But all other books I’ve bought the past couple months (mix of paperbacks and hardcovers) have had clear typefaces. In fact I never noticed typefaces consciously until seeing this book which takes a noticeable amount of effort to read the fonts.

Animats 7y ago

"Hardbacks are also more profitable for publishers: they will often sell at twice the price of their paperback equivalent but do not cost twice as much to produce." That was a mistake of the print-on-demand machine enthusiasts. They generated disposable paperbacks. E-readers ate that business. Now, a machine that prints and binds good hardbacks on demand - that might be useful.

bowlich 7y ago

I know a of relatives who only buy hardbacks -- even if all they're reading is one-read genre stuff. Myself, I tend to buy paperback, read and then donate. If the book was good and I want to keep it for my personal collection. I track down a hardcover copy.

ZoomZoomZoom 7y ago

The question is, why would anyone want a paperback? It's clearly a format for disposable or travel books, which are easily replaced with a digital media. Paperback are not suitable for repeated readings and a really high-quality paperback, if there was one, would be prisewise on par with a hardcover anyway. I don't get paperbacks.

ljm 7y ago
I might be strange with this opinion but I like paperbacks and the style of paper they're printed on in the UK. There's something about a well-worn book that I find quite appealing, with the folded corners or creased spine and the yellow-ish pages that are quite soft to the touch. A nice, dusty hardback comes close. They've been broken in already so you don't have as much trouble setting the book down without it closing back up on itself. What I immensely dislike are the possible fake prints you get from Amazon. They're printed on bleach-white paper, same as you'd get for a textbook, sometimes even slightly glossy.
- Izkata 7y ago
  I completely agree, with the paper quality and all, except hardcovers are actually difficult for me to hold. I need the cover to flex a bit to get a grip on it and hold the pages in place - on a hardcover the pages will flex while the cover can't, slip out of my fingers, and I'll be interrupted reopening it where I was.
kradeelav 7y ago
- much lighter - can fit more on bookshelves with less room / meant for apartments - some people don't like dust jackets or the cardboard feel - better for smaller hands - i personally love seeing the creases in the spine and other little hints of a well-read paperback; read a few of mine at least 50+ times and they're still hanging in there.
skytreader 7y ago
I have limited shelf space so I'd rather buy paperbacks 'cause they will take up less space. Yes, my books are there for aesthetic reasons but above all, they're in my shelves because I want to have access to them whenever I want to read them. The more I can cram my shelves, the better, presentation be damned. Paperbacks are also easier to just read. I don't manhandle my books but I often read in unconventional positions: while in a crowded bus, or while laying down on my back before I sleep. It's just difficult to handle hardbacks in these situations. The "give" of a paperback's cover makes it ergonomic. Being cheaper is a plus for my CS books too. Hardbound original versions are indeed prettier, maybe even easier to the eyes due to the paper. But for a book I would use in a semester and consult sparingly thereafter, the price of an original is unjustifiable. I'd make an exception for Biology books where color is often important to the diagram. But I don't really have strong feelings on this as I did not major in Biology. > Paperback are not suitable for repeated readings Paperbacks wear and tear faster than hardbounds but to say they are not suitable for repeated readings is just exaggeration. Heck, my local library stocks up on paperbacks. If any book experiences repeated readings, it's got to be those in the library. Also, from personal experience, wrapping your paperbacks in good enough plastic cover makes it last longer. I've "repaired" old paperbacks whose covers are all but ruined by reinforcing the weathered covers with index cards and thick plastic cover. > really high-quality paperback, if there was one, would be prisewise on par with a hardcover anyway Again, I disagree. For, say, a Harper Collins fiction the price difference between a paperback and a hardcover could range from anywhere to 40%-70% mark down. I specifically cite Harper Collins (and subsidiaries) because I'm really hard pressed to find a significant difference between their hardbounds and paperbacks. Obviously, the size and the binding differs (duh!) but other than that everything compares: the quality of the paper, the legibility of the print, the illustrations, etc.

dehrmann 7y ago

Same reason vinyl outsells CDs? If you just want to consume the content, there are cheaper choices, but for something you want to save and make a statement with, hardbacks are superior.

baroffoos 7y ago

Hardback books seem like a magnet for collectors (hoarders) they know they could more conveniently get the book as an ebook or from the library but they are buying them primarily as an item to store on a shelf. I have seen people buy books they don't even intend to read simply because the hardback is well decorated and the edge of the pages is gold. Perhaps they think the sight of a large bookshelf full of books they never read makes them look smarter. They are probably right as well.

lsaferite 7y ago
Why disparage collectors by conflating them with hoarders? I purchase books both to read and to collect if they are well-made pieces of art. It seems you have something against collecting such things based on how you frame your comments though. I personally do not understand the desire to disparage another person because you do not see value in collecting books.
- baroffoos 7y ago
  You are correct. I am critical of the practice of collecting items that have no continued use to the owner and would be better off sold or gifted to a new owner who could get more use out of it. I will admit though that they can serve as art and part of the room decoration which is a valid usecase.

ropiwqefjnpoa 7y ago

Simple answers are, because people still buy them and they can charge more.

mmmBacon 7y ago

A good solid book printed on good paper is a joy, a gem.

heraclius 7y ago

As Hyphen Press explain, hardbacks used invariably to be bound properly, but now they are often simply paperbacks between boards.¹ Signalling alone as above is the correct explanation. Cloth books can have practical advantages, such as the possibility of rebinding, but modern hardbacks mostly lack them. 1. https://hyphenpress.co.uk/journal/article/bookbinding_survey https://hyphenpress.co.uk/journal/article/bookbinding_survey

thekevan 7y ago

My reason for buying them wasn't mentioned as far as I saw--I like them better.

xiaodai 7y ago

Price differentiation. Well known theory in economics. It's like asking why do ppl still release movies in cinemas.

nils-m-holm 7y ago

Hardcover books are a pleasure to read, especially if they are smyth-sewn. You can identify a smyth-sewn book by placing it on a table and opening it in the middle. If the pages stay flat on top of each other, it is. The pages of a case-bound hardcover will separate from each other and stick out, and a softcover book will just close and fall over. And that is exactly why hardcover books are a pleasure to read: it takes little effort to hold them open. A smyth-sewn hardcover you can pretty much put on a table and leave it alone while reading it. When reading softcovers, my fingers often get tired before my eyes do.

foobarbecue 7y ago
I bought a hardcover Le Guin anthology recently after balking a bit at the price. But then I was amazed to find it stayed open when I put it on a table and very happy to have paid the premium! Now, thanks to you, I know there is a name for this technology.

cafard 7y ago

My impression is that paperbacks from US publisher tend to be superior to their hardbacks. But for constant use such as library books get, hardbacks might hold up better.