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?
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.
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.
Kindle. I rarely re-read, so why waste the paper/space.
Digital only. Who even has room for physical books.
people who live in rural
space is one thing we’re not short on
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.
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.
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.
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
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. 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
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).
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: It depends. To own? Definitely a paperback. They last longer. To borrow (i.e. from the library)? Paperback for sure. (Often) easier to read imo.
I assume you mean that you prefer owning hardcovers?
Yes, I mistyped. Lol. Thanks for the correction. It is now fixed. :)
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.
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.
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.
Ebooks and hardcovers.
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.
