this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
70 points (97.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43392 readers
1478 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For me, when I get books I often get the cheaper paperback option, give it a read.

Then if I really liked this book, I'll donate it to a charity shop or in my social circle and purchase the hardcover version.

The only gripe I have with hardcover though is some books come with that sleeve cover around it, you know the one, bit fidgety to use when reading.

Paperback I like if there's a book I am mildly interested in and I'll just go "whatever" I'll keep it as part a collection.

Paperbacks = cheap as chips but aren't as protected as hardcover, easy to fill up your collection or shelf with, might sell it if i want the luxurious version of that book. this is for me.

Hardcover = More luxurious as it provides proper protection to the pages and outer area of the book, Often comes with items as part of a collectors set. Usually I get the same book if I really enjoy it to add as a gem of my shelf.

What are your tastes? Same as me or do you lean more heavily to one or the other?

top 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xiao@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 month ago

Actually I prefer E-ink (using Kobo with Koreader).

But when I have to take a physical book I prefer to choose the paperback one, it is light, cheap and flexible.

Hardcover are nicer in a bookshelf than in my hands.

[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 15 points 1 month ago

I like paperback for reading, such as novels or whatever book I'll be holding for an extended period of time.

In contrast I prefer hardcover for books that are more visual in content or that are made to be consulted briefly such as encyclopaedias, dictionaries, etc. Or if I want it to stay open and flat on a surface, hardcover.

I'm ambivalent about small/medium sized gift books or trinket books. Those can be whatever type of cover.

[–] afox@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Old ass musty smelling paperback. 50's and old racist 60's sci-fi books smell best. I have a problem.

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think you and I would be good friends. Other than buying books by the Grandmasters, I pick based on the ridiculous cover art. Woman in a space-bikini with an atomic raygun threatened by a lizard/wookie hybrid with a jetpack? Yes please!

[–] afox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I love you already. Favorite authors? Ray Bradbury and Arthur C Clark.

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Clarke, Niven, and Heinlein for me. The original _Rendezvous with Rama _inspires awe in me every time. Stranger in a Strange Land is beautiful. The Known Space (Ring world) books are among my favorites. I'm also very fond of Ian Bank's The Culture , though they are from this millennium and maybe out of scope for this conversation!

I have and love Burroughs' John Carter of Mars, Zelazny's Amber, and Castle Perilous by John De Chancie. I've just started collecting E. E. "Doc" Smith. I'm slowly adding to my Ursula Leguin and Lester Del Ray shelves.

And I really can't resist buying old yellow books with ridiculous titles like "_Mutiny in Space" , "assault on the gods" , or "The shattered stars". _ Bonus Points for awesome spaceships on the cover. I'll buy those any day without any idea of the author or story.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Kindle. I rarely re-read, so why waste the paper/space.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

The only time I prefer physical books to ebooks is when there’s a heavy focus on maps, diagrams, or other illustrations. In those cases I generally want the physical book to be as large as possible, which usually means hardcover.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

Paperback. I've sometimes waited for paperback versions of books after their initial hardcover release. Cheaper, lighter, same reading, I used to be less patient so would suck it up and get the hardcover, nowadays I don't read as much so waiting is easier. I read a lot when traveling and hardcovers are just such a pain. The only "nice" collection I have is LOTR+hobbit.

I'm trying out an eReader soon but I'm not sure I'll be able to get away from the desire of physically turning pages.

Paperback if I'm reading in my recliner. It's just lighter and more flexible in my hand. Hardcover if I'm sitting at a desk because it's nice to set the hardcover down flat.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Ebooks all the way. An eink e-reader is delightful and ever since I got a Pixel Fold I like to read on that even though it's not eink (Now if I could get a foldy eink e-reader I would be sooo happy!) because I can hold it like a physical book.

Plus, you just can't compete with being able to bring an entire library with you and the physical space savings for storage in general

[–] tuckerm@supermeter.social 4 points 1 month ago

If it's a new book and one that I think other people may be interested in borrowing, I'll get the hardcover for the extra protection.

However, there's a used paperback store down the street from me that has a whole bunch of heavily used paperbacks for like $1 each, and those have definitely been dominating my collection lately. Sometimes I'll just pick up a dozen of them. That little store is one of those treasure troves of unexpected things, even though when you find one of those treasures, you might need to flip the pages carefully to prevent it from falling apart.

[–] MicrowavedTea@infosec.pub 4 points 1 month ago

I don't care about keeping books on selves and ebooks and paperbacks are easier to read. Hardcovers are always so heavy.

[–] xorollo@leminal.space 3 points 1 month ago

I like free books from my library and usually read on my phone. I like that I can try a book, and if it's garbage, I have zero sunk costs. Just move on and read something else.

[–] rhacer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Hardcover on the bookshelf that will never get read. Ebook on the Kindle.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

I mostly prefer ebooks and audiobooks. If I am buying physical books I usually prefer paperback if it's something I intend to only read once or twice like a novel, and hardcover if it's something I expect to open a lot like a TTRPG manual or coffee table book.

[–] kaitco@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Kindle.

ADHD usually means that I’ll stop mid-word and want to read something else. If I have all my books in one place, I can still sit in my comfy chair and switch, instead of wasting further hours perusing my library and getting lost in memories of acquiring each book.

[–] Vanth@reddthat.com 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Audiobook > ebook > paperback > hardcover.

I listen to audiobooks way more often than reading. I can keep listening to the same book while driving or exercising or doing whatever around the house.

Paperback over hardcover if I'm going to have a physical book because it's less expensive and more space and weight efficient.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

Ebooks and hardcovers.

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago

When I was younger, paperback because they were cheap. These days I prefer hard back because the font is easier on my eyes.

That I said, like everyone else it seems, I do much more reading on my Kobo. It has the font benefits if I need it, but huge space savings. I still have a large collection of books but every time I move I tend to move more and move of them into ebooks.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago

Either, so long as it's a physical book. I don't like reading on a screen for books, but don't mind for Wikipedia and news.

Paperback so I can cuddle with it in bed.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 2 points 1 month ago

I love a good hardcover, but tend to flip between hardcover, paperback, and kobo e-ink. I try to buy used books where possible just for the environmental impact. They are often less expensive, too.

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

Not a big difference really.

I have most of the classics in paperback. Hardcovers do come out first, so if you're in a hurry to read something new, that's there first.

[–] communism@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

Paperback. For big books maybe hardcover so it stays in one piece, but tbh all the 1000+ page books I have are still paperbacks. Even if they were the same price, I think paperbacks are easier to hold and read since they're more flexible. But the sturdiness of hardbacks can be nice sometimes

[–] sga@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

PDFs

I know it was implied to be physical book, I usually read academic stuff, and having ability to select stuff and searching, dark theming, and ability to carry my older almost closet full of books, in something like 100-200 MBs of PDFs is just great. There are times when I actually had physical books, I would scan and ocr if i could not find a digital copy from the 7 seas.

When I actually would get stuff, Hardcover (preferably jacketted) because they were thick (like 400-1400 pages thick) and not having hardcover meant the covers would have a half life of something like 50 uses, maybe less, or atleast it would get stained.

[–] observantTrapezium@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Digital only. Who even has room for physical books.

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

people who live in rural

space is one thing we're not short on

[–] Taalnazi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Personally I'd like me some blend between paperback and hardcover.

Paperbacks can be laid flat (but damage quickly), hardcovers not as easily (but don't damage quickly).

Something like a concealed Cased-in-Wire-O might be best, but where you don't really see the spirals between the pages.

[–] Jackthelad@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I find paperbacks more comfortable. Though I have just bought a Kobo so I'll probably be using that more soon.

[–] TheV2@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

I always choose hardcover. I try to keep the number of my owned physical books low. So when I do buy it, I want my eyes to be satisfied and they prefer the looks of hardcover. Since I usually buy secondhand books, overall it's very cheap (although I don't have high standards on the book's condition).

[–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: It depends. To own? Definitely a hardback. They last longer. To borrow (i.e. from the library)? Paperback for sure. (Often) easier to read imo.

[–] casino@feddit.nu 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I assume you mean that you prefer owning hardcovers?

[–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, I mistyped. Lol. Thanks for the correction. It is now fixed. :)

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Honestly, there is a subtle but distinct difference between hardback and hardcover.

A hardback book has the cover fully designed with graphics, as it is meant to be seen.

A hardcover has a minimalist cover, without any designs since the dust jacket is what is visually flashy and attractive and is meant to be seen.

Otherwise, the two are structurally identical, only with the hardcover having an extra protective layer in the dust jacket.

[–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That's interesting, if true.

However, I've never seen that distinction mentioned anywhere. After you mentioned it, I looked it up on my own and none of the search results I found mentioned that distinction.

What I did find was that at most they are merely examples of British English (hardback) vs American English (Hardcover), though that was only in one source, so take even that with a grain of salt.

Unless you have a reputable source to back up your claim, as far as I'm concerned, this is either dialectal differences at best or someone (not necessarily you) making up a distinction merely to feel superior to others at worst.