This week's question:
All other things (like price and storage space) being equal, given a choice in a perfect world, would you rather have paperbacks in your library? Or hardcovers? And why?
Hardbacks are so much more expensive and cumbersome ... so perhaps I lean more towards paperbacks. They're lighter, cheaper, usually smaller (so they don't need extra headspace on shelves), and soften up as you read deeper into them, so they become more comfortable.
I'd rather go to bed with a paperback.
I can get a bit anal about any hardcovers I own, making sure their dustcovers remain neat and tidy, and that they are stored correctly.
Paperbacks are far less formal, more like old friends than old relatives!
3 comments:
Paperbacks, for all the reasons you mentioned. Plus they travel better, don't object to being left in the sun in the car (I read while I wait for the school pick up), don't object to getting wet in the bath, the pool, or when they fall off the sun lounge and have to get dried on the pool fence.
They also are not cold on your leg when you sit on the loo for a quiet read ;)
Well, but see, hardcovers do hold up better over time, and are *generally* printed on a better grade of paper. If you crack open a favorite paperback from, say 20 years ago, the paper has likely yellowed and the glue of the binding may have stiffened. A hardcover of similar vintage will have aged much better. Not to say that I like paying for hardcovers because I don't. But I love having beloved books in hardcover so I can keep them and re-read them and treasure them. Important caveat, though, is that you go through a LOT more books than I do in a year (I have a difficult time finding/making the time to read for pleasure) so I can understand your preference. Maybe it TAKES me 20 years to finish a book so I need lasting power ;-)
True.Paperbacks are more friendly!
Post a Comment