Books: Hardcover or Paperback?

So we all read books, right? My question is which format do you like to read books in more: Hardcover or paperback? They both have they're advantages (hardcover books are more durable and usually come out first, paperbacks have better transportability and save on shelf space, etc.), so which ones do you prefer more?

For me, I'm not really a collector of books or anything, so I prefer paperback. After I read a book, I'm probably not gonna read it again anytime soon (if at all), so I don't see a need to spend more for higher quality. I also like to take books with me to school or where ever, just in case I need something to do. I've tried bringing hardcover books before, but they're just too bulk for me to take comfortably most of the time.

I'll read hardcover books, but usually only if I find them on the cheap or it's a new book that I really want to read that hasn't come back in paperback yet.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I tend to carry a book in one of my pockets at all times so I prefer [a[erbacks by a fairly wide margin. Also they're not nearly as expensive so that helps too.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I do collect books, so I guess hardcover is to my preference. Also, there's just something about a hardcover that is unexplainable.

If hardcovers weren't so damn expensive, I'd own a lot more of them.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I only purchase paperback books for novels required for classes. I don't often read books for enjoyment though, but I still prefer paperback versions from my favorite authors.

How ya doing, buddy?

I usually wreck whatever I get my hands on so I like Hardback books.

Paperback books usually die within a week that I have one.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Note: That's obviously supposed to be Hardcover in the poll (typo), and I for some reason accidently voted for Hardcover, though I meant to pick paperback (as I said in my post).

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

personally it really depends... generally speaking, I pick the paperback because it's cheaper, but if I am collecting a series, then i'd prefer the hardcover... there's something about looking at a collection of all hardcover books after it's aged a while... I guess it's the old library feel that i like... paperbacks generally don't have as long of a lifespan as a hardcover because they are so easy to deform...

FELIPE NO

If the book is 'discount' or at a used store, then I'll *always* go for the hardcover, since I just prefer to have a sturdy book. Plus I love dustjackets and the artwork/presentation found in the hardcover edition.

I also will go out and get the hardcover version of a book if I particularly enjoyed it in paperback; Gary Jenning's Aztec is one of my favorite books, but rather cumbersome as a 1000+ page paperback. The 750-page hardcover is more managable, but since it's one of my favorites I'd like a first edition without paying over $20 for it.

But I compulsively buy books, so it really doesn't bother me if I can only find a copy in paperback. Some books I have in both, just so I can lend one and keep one.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Where's the "PDF" option?

Whenever I buy a book, it's Paperback because I'm cheap. But I read more hardcovers because I tend to utilize libraries whenever I actually feel like reading. That or eBooks. I've got a few thousand pages of programming texts on my Hard Drive.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Oddly enough, I never really latched onto the idea of eBooks. I don't mind scanlations of comics (much), but it bugs me to read massive amounts of text on a computer screen. Even on the odd chance I read fanfiction, I have to print it out if it's over 10 pages.

But I do not like libraries, with the exception of my school's Fine Arts Library (mostly for the multimedia materials). I just like to own my reading material, even though I don't screw up the books or write in them or anything -- on the contrary, I like my books to be in relatively good shape.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Hardcover=too expensive. Paperback=not as heavy. That's just a couple of reasons, and maybe they're kind of trivial, but that's the way I see it.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I like Hardcovers and pefer them to paperbacks, but I usualy end up going for paperbacks anyway because they're cheep. But sometimes they seem to require a magnifining glass to read them....so sometimes if I really want to read the book, I end up spending the money for a hardcover that for some reason has slightly larger print and yet they have the same page count as the paperback ...go figure.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Paperbacks for me as they are easier to store and I move around a lot. Now, art books, art catalogues and stuff, well it really depends, although there isn't a second choice in that case.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I like hardcover books much better because they last longer. I have several books that are over hundred years old, hardcover, and still readable. While I have some that are that old, paperback, and falling to pieces on me. ;____;

Even with newwer books I like hardbacks, it makes me sad when I have a book I like and it's a paperback and falling apart. But it seems like as of late though hardcover books are starting to fall apart rather easily.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I like hardcovers more in terms of durability, feel, and general appearance, but they're soooo expensive most of the time that I just wait for paperbacks to come out before I buy it - the content is the same in the end.

If I can find hardcovers for a good price I'd buy hardcovers more often. *sigh* why are most good things so expensive?

FELIPE NO

Hardcover is always superior if you've bought the book. And if you've borrowed it, since paperbacks are always far more battered when borrowed from the library. However the price kills hardcover. I find the prices to be unfair; and sometimes it's impractical to buy a new, hardcover book. Frustrating that one must pay several dollars for binding in itself, or perhaps to merely even get the book without waiting several weeks or months.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Paperbacks, just because they're so cheap. I read quite a bit, but I'm not really picky about format or appearance. A hardcover is definitely a little more enjoyable to read - larger text, sometimes brighter pages, you don't always have to hold it open - but not so much as to justify the price difference.

The biggest downside of paperbacks for me is waiting for them to come out if my library hasn't gotten the hardcover in.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

hardcover books are more durable

Durability lies with factors such as signature collation and binding methods, not in covering. Hardbacks are generally more durable (e.g. edition-binding) for the same reasons that magazines (e.g. saddle-stitch) are less durable: attaning the right balance between the unit's consumption span and publishers' keeping in the black.

I'm a softback man, and vastly. I like to fold back, reverse, over and under; and I do a lot of writing on books, so paperback stock grades are much more convenient than your expensive hardback fare with six billion different shiny finishes.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

It all depends on the size of the book.

If I'm reading a large book such as The Count of Monte Cristo, I will definitly need a paperback. Otherwise my arms would fall off of my torso from its incredible weight.

I generally only get the hardcover version if the book is new and I want to get it right away, actually.

One type of book I try to avoid at all times, though, is the mass-market paperback version. You know the one, with the tiny text and the miniaturized pages.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I prefer hardcover. The print is often bigger, it feels sturdier and I can just open it in my lap and read. With paperbacks I'm always afraid of opening it too much, which would result in a creased spine. Paperbacks are better for on the go reading when you don't have much room in your bag. The only thing that I dislike about hardcovers is the price.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I'm generally fond of paperbacks. While I understand that there is increased life with hardcover books, I do not think that trait in and of itself justifies the increase of costs to me. At least for some books.
Additionally, I have a tendency to read books only once, which further justifies my desire to get them for cheap.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Paperback for me. Main reason is that it's easier to store, less heavy, and when it comes time to move, lugging a box full of hardcovers is downright insane. The only thing hardcovers has going for them is the fact they last longer, but for everything else, paperbacks all the way.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I prefer paperback. They are cheaper, so if you lose your favorite book you can go on amazon or whatever and find the same one for probably 99 cents.
They are much easier to lug around campus too!

FELIPE NO

Paperback since hardcover is about 4 times more expensive. However, it takes forever for the paperback versions to come out. I only read books once through...more than once if it really like it (Dan Brown/Amy Tan). Currently, I'm waiting for Tan's "Saving Fish From Drowning" to come out on paperback.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by RockgamerXIII

So we all read books, right?

Nope. If I did I'd probably prefer paper backs because of they're slightly more portable nature.

Jam it back in, in the dark.