5 ms·

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. Paperb

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.
Xelbair 7y ago
I would agree, but somehow ebooks cost same or more than paperback books... and they also come full of DRM. Not to mention licensing nightmares - i wanted to buy one ebook in english.. and i couldn't because someone else had rights to distribution in UK, so i couldn't order US ebook as i was from europe. To make matters worse - UK publisher/rightholder/whatever had no plans to even release an ebook.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Format-shifting is allowed in USA copyright law, iTunes even facilitates it (it's not allowed in UK, it was briefly allowed). So, presumably a company could format-shift a copyrighted book too. Then customers could choose paper weight, cover style, binding type, etc., or just have an ebook with no DRM?
- beatgammit 7y ago
  This is it for me. If I'm going to buy a book, I'm not going to buy DRM, so my choices end up being paperback or hardcover. I prefer to read paperback because it's more portable, so that's what I end up buying. If ebooks without DRM were available, I'd probably buy a lot of them. However, DRM drastically reduces the value of an ebook for me, so they'll have to drastically reduce the price of an ebook for me to buy (or maybe have a reasonable rental option). Until then, I'll buy paperbacks and restrict my ebook reading to my library and copyright-free titles.
- ZoomZoomZoom 7y ago
  This is only tangential to the matter of media, it's a problem of distribution. In such case one could buy a paperback and make an ebook, or, you know, ask the web to "produce" you one. I would go one step further and recommend this method even if an ebook is available but DRM'ed.
narraturgy 7y ago
Re: "not suitable for repeated readings" I have seen this sentiment repeated elsewhere and this thread, and I feel compelled to ask what atrocities are you folks committing to your paperback books on a daily basis that they can only be read once before they are evidently turning to dust in the wind? I regularly check out paperback books from my library which have not only withstood dozens of readers before me, but also the automated sorting machines that my library chain (Queens NY) uses, as well as regular shipment between different libraries. Despite all of this, most of these books are still entirely readable and some of them honestly look pretty good for their usage. There seem to be a lot of people in this thread who value books primarily as an art medium for filling up bookshelves, and I'm happy that they get enjoyment from that, but the point of getting a paperback book is the ability to read a book, take in its content once or twice, maybe lend it to some companions, and then move on with your life without worrying about the proper conditions under which to store paper for archival purposes.
- reallydontask 7y ago
  I guess a lot of people commit the unpardonable crime (tongue firmly in cheek) of folding the paperbacks open .. no wonder they don't last
  - stinos 7y ago
    Even if you'd fold them open to the point they almost break and individual pages get loose, it still does not yield the book unreadable. I've read books like that. No, it's not exactly the best experience, but as long as all pages are there and in order then I still don't really see it as a major problem, there's already enough thrash in the world. (not addressed toyou, but don't feel like making separate comments and it in agreement with OP): Likewise for the yellow pages problem another commenter mentions. If it's just the color the only real effect is, I think, a bit less contrast between the letters and background. I seriously wonder if this has an actual effect on reading. I get that if you somehow attach, for whatever reason, value to paper being white, you consider yellow paper as less valueable. But imo this is in most cases purely artificial value: for reading the content matters way more than the medium. Those hundreds of years old yellow books do have value because of their content, and are perfectly readable.

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.

Xelbair 7y ago

I would agree, but somehow ebooks cost same or more than paperback books... and they also come full of DRM. Not to mention licensing nightmares - i wanted to buy one ebook in english.. and i couldn't because someone else had rights to distribution in UK, so i couldn't order US ebook as i was from europe. To make matters worse - UK publisher/rightholder/whatever had no plans to even release an ebook.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Format-shifting is allowed in USA copyright law, iTunes even facilitates it (it's not allowed in UK, it was briefly allowed). So, presumably a company could format-shift a copyrighted book too. Then customers could choose paper weight, cover style, binding type, etc., or just have an ebook with no DRM?
beatgammit 7y ago
This is it for me. If I'm going to buy a book, I'm not going to buy DRM, so my choices end up being paperback or hardcover. I prefer to read paperback because it's more portable, so that's what I end up buying. If ebooks without DRM were available, I'd probably buy a lot of them. However, DRM drastically reduces the value of an ebook for me, so they'll have to drastically reduce the price of an ebook for me to buy (or maybe have a reasonable rental option). Until then, I'll buy paperbacks and restrict my ebook reading to my library and copyright-free titles.
ZoomZoomZoom 7y ago
This is only tangential to the matter of media, it's a problem of distribution. In such case one could buy a paperback and make an ebook, or, you know, ask the web to "produce" you one. I would go one step further and recommend this method even if an ebook is available but DRM'ed.

narraturgy 7y ago

Re: "not suitable for repeated readings" I have seen this sentiment repeated elsewhere and this thread, and I feel compelled to ask what atrocities are you folks committing to your paperback books on a daily basis that they can only be read once before they are evidently turning to dust in the wind? I regularly check out paperback books from my library which have not only withstood dozens of readers before me, but also the automated sorting machines that my library chain (Queens NY) uses, as well as regular shipment between different libraries. Despite all of this, most of these books are still entirely readable and some of them honestly look pretty good for their usage. There seem to be a lot of people in this thread who value books primarily as an art medium for filling up bookshelves, and I'm happy that they get enjoyment from that, but the point of getting a paperback book is the ability to read a book, take in its content once or twice, maybe lend it to some companions, and then move on with your life without worrying about the proper conditions under which to store paper for archival purposes.

reallydontask 7y ago
I guess a lot of people commit the unpardonable crime (tongue firmly in cheek) of folding the paperbacks open .. no wonder they don't last
- stinos 7y ago
  Even if you'd fold them open to the point they almost break and individual pages get loose, it still does not yield the book unreadable. I've read books like that. No, it's not exactly the best experience, but as long as all pages are there and in order then I still don't really see it as a major problem, there's already enough thrash in the world. (not addressed toyou, but don't feel like making separate comments and it in agreement with OP): Likewise for the yellow pages problem another commenter mentions. If it's just the color the only real effect is, I think, a bit less contrast between the letters and background. I seriously wonder if this has an actual effect on reading. I get that if you somehow attach, for whatever reason, value to paper being white, you consider yellow paper as less valueable. But imo this is in most cases purely artificial value: for reading the content matters way more than the medium. Those hundreds of years old yellow books do have value because of their content, and are perfectly readable.