Paperback vs. Hardback

[EGGammon]

Paperback vs. Hardback...

1) Which do YOU prefer when buying OTHERS' books?

2) Which would you prefer when publishing your own?



I love hardback - all the way.

E.G.

[Nateskate]

I want to have my own books published in hardback if I have the chance, although I wouldn't mind it being released in both, but hardback is classy.

I prefer owning hardback, although from a cost perspective, I generally buy paperback if available.

[CindyBidar]

Hardback carries a sense of respectability that paperback just doesn't quite match. But I can afford to buy 3 or 4 paperbacks for each hardback, and I can stuff a paperback in my purse on the way out the door for line-waiting and other down time. For those reasons, I prefer paperback, both for books I buy and books I (plan to) sell.

[maestrowork]

I read books for entertainment, not collection. A trade paperback is good enough for me and I can afford a few more books that way. I also buy mass market paperbacks.

However, if it's a book that I really like and would like to keep for a long time, I'd get the hardback. It's better quality and classy.

I'd like to have my books in hardback for that reason... maybe a short run, limited edition -- but I know paperback is where the sales are.

[Azura Skye]

Paperback. They're easier to hold onto when I'm curled up in bed with them.:D

[Kallahan]

e-book, the backlite on my palm is just what I need at 4 am in the morning.

opps, well actually I much perfer paperback, much more portable, though damages easier. I think If I were published however, I'd choose hardcover, looks better.

[cwfgal]

I'd have to agree with the paperback voters. I prefer it for reasons of portability, affordability, and hold-ability. But there are certain authors for whom I'll splurge and get the hardcover.

Beth

[Jamesaritchie]

I prefer paperbacks for writers I've never heard of, and hardcovers for writers I know and love and want to keep. Paperbacks are great for portability, but they aren't put together very well, and don't last worth anything.

[DarkHaven80]

I always preferred paperbacks. Something about them just 'looks' nicer. This may not make sense, but for some reason they appeal to me more. Also, I find them easier to read. The small pages and the bendable covers, etc. Hardcovers - I always take off the flap when I'm reading them, those things irritate me to no end.

I would like to be published in hardcover and paperback - more money that way. :)

[Fresie]

I'm in the minority here, but I hate paperbacks. I only buy them out of necessity. I want a book that doesn't fall apart after you've read it once, and that doesn't turn into a mess of loose pages after you've lent it to someone. It's the quality I'm after here, I like my books to last decades, and I think paperbacks have this "disposable" feel about them.

MY book? Jeez, I may be a fussy bitch myself, but as long as people read it, I don't care even if it's carved on stone tablets.

[Jyndral]

Forget paperbacks falling about after one reading. There have been a couple times I've bought paperbacks that were falling apart when I got them home before I'd even really opened them myself.

Both times, I took them back to the store. One time the clerk was rude and wouldn't take the book back saying that I did something to it. Even the manager agreed with him. The other time, they were very nice and very apologetic about it. (Different stores.)

To the original question....

As far as affordability, I'm all over paperbacks! But for longevity and attractiveness, I like hardbacks.

For being published? I'd like to say hardback because with the higher price, there would be higher royalties. Realistically speaking, though, people are more apt to buy the paperbacks. So in the long run, there'd be more money to be made (however minor it may still be in the scheme of things) in paperbacks.

How's that for a long-winded answer? :)

[maestrowork]

I do hate hardback book jackets. I always take them off, then the book itself is "plain" beyond belief... They do look good on the shelves, though.

[Jyndral]

That reminds me. I forgot to say this earlier.

I use the bookjacket as a built-in bookmark. :)

[triceretops]

I guess I was always under the impression that if your book was good enough for hardback publishing, a mass market paperback naturally followed. Hardbacks are for library and collector consumption because they are more durable (lasting).

But, alas, my books were published in Quality Trade Paperback, which is a combination, I suppose. The larger QTP editions can support larger typeface, photos and line-drawings, and their prices usually reflect a medium cost outlay.

I'll read and buy mass market paperbacks, only. My non-fiction books are probably all destined for QTP printing. Makes me sad--I'll never know what it's like to see my book at the supermarket checkout stand. But I'll be in all the dag
gum libraries!

Tri

[Zane Curtis]

I must be more careful with my books than I thought. I've got paperbacks on my shelf that I've had for thirty years, and they're still very much intact.

Otherwise, I agree with Triceratops. I like the traditional method, where you do a hardback edition first, and then go for a paperback. That way, you get two bites at the cherry. But I'm not sure how prevalent that approach is anymore.

[ChunkyC]

I'm definitely of the 'paperbacks for general reading' ilk. If I want a classy-looking copy of something, then I'll splurge on the hardcover.

I'm also like Zane. I have some 30+ year old paperbacks that are still in good shape and very readable. Definitely no bathtub-reading sessions with those!

[Oklahoma Wolf]

I actually don't have a preference for either... as long as the story is good, I'll buy it in any form. Even if it's a water damaged paperback missing one or more covers from a yard sale. I draw the line at actual missing pages, but I have bought books that were one step away from falling apart.

My copy of Jack M. Bickham's "Twister" was in terrible shape already when I got it from a library book sale... 15 years later, it's being held together by Scotch tape and a prayer. Still gets pulled out and read every once in a while.

For my own books, as long as they're out there being enjoyed I don't care what form they take ;)

[Hapsburg]

I buy paperback, then if I love the book I get another copy in hardback and give the paperback to someone I'm recommending the book to. I've become a voracious reader and bobliophile over the years...

[katdad]

Obviously we'd all love for our books to be published in hardback first, followed by a brisk and growing soft cover sales.

But for primary editions, I think a well-designed "trade" paperback format is okay.

[STORMTURNER]

I want my first book in hardback, but it costs more and marketably, is more appealing.

I prefer to read paperback because it's easier to fold into my purse and allows me to be discreet when I'm bored at the homes of all my inlaws.