TS: Hardbacks vs. Paperbacks

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Hardbacks feel weighty and authoritative and are often beautiful. They are released before paperbacks. But they cost more and are cumbersome.

I ask because I'm three-quarters of the way through a year-long wait for the paperback release of this book The cover design is naffer and cheaper than the hardback, and it has a baffling Uncut endorsement. Still, I'm happy to put up with the wait and the ugliness because hardbacks are such a pain in the arse to actually read.

What say you?

Mike W (caek), Saturday, 25 February 2006 23:32 (twenty years ago)

material attachments are a hangup man.

j blount (papa la bas), Saturday, 25 February 2006 23:42 (twenty years ago)

Whatever the library has, man.

Austin Still (Austin, Still), Saturday, 25 February 2006 23:43 (twenty years ago)

When I had really horrible eye problems I was reading with one eye through a magnifying glass. Actually, after my first operation I didn't use the magnifying glass, but it was still one eye. While hardbacks open so that the page is pretty flat, paperbacks don't - the page is strongly curved near the spine. When you don't have stereo vision adjusting for you, this is really apparent and I found it quite hard to move my eye accurately from one line to another.

My eyes are fine now, so not an issue. Hardbacks are nearly always bigger and heavier, which is a drawback on the move, when you are standing on the tube say, but they are easier to hold open in readable fashion with one hand.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 25 February 2006 23:46 (twenty years ago)

whoa! I just posted about page hump in the moleskine thread!

Austin Still (Austin, Still), Saturday, 25 February 2006 23:50 (twenty years ago)

xpost, surely hardbacks are too heavy to hold open with one hand unless you lay them on a table. Is that what you mean? You're right though, score one for hardbacks, particularly for desk work.

Mike W (caek), Sunday, 26 February 2006 00:00 (twenty years ago)

Trade paperbacks are easier to carry around and easier to read in my experience - mass-market paperbacks are harder to read for paper/font issues and giant hardbacks are a bother.

I've never had any kind of depth perception/stereo vision, so page hump has never bothered me (or is something I've ever noticed), it was part of learning to read I guess.

Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Sunday, 26 February 2006 00:10 (twenty years ago)

i hate hardbacks. even things i really want to read, i'll wait for the paperback.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 26 February 2006 00:20 (twenty years ago)

I'm reminded of that bit in Curb Your Enthusiasm when Larry gives Ted Danson a shirt with a hole in it. "That's not a gift. It's a problem." I feel this way when people give me hardbacks for Christmas (unless it is an excellent dictionary or the Viz annual).

I'm beginning to think I feel a little too strongly about this.

Mike W (caek), Sunday, 26 February 2006 00:34 (twenty years ago)

The outside covers on hardbacks suck for all practical purposes.

jim wentworth (wench), Sunday, 26 February 2006 02:18 (twenty years ago)

Of course larger hardbacks do tend to be heavy, but I am strong and that isn't much of a concern: if you don't like breaking the spines of paperbacks, they can be hard to open in fully readable fashion with one hand. I admit that when reading 1000-page hardbacks on crowded tubes, holding them up with one hand does get to be a strain.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 26 February 2006 13:13 (twenty years ago)

Hardbacks - storage issues.

Bob Six (bobbysix), Sunday, 26 February 2006 13:19 (twenty years ago)

Either one, just sell it after you finish reading it.

def zep (calstars), Sunday, 26 February 2006 13:54 (twenty years ago)

I can't stand hardbacks. I like paperbacks that I can fold the pages over and batter about and scribble on. With hardbacks you sort of feel like you ought to take care of them, m}because they{re so heavy or expensive or something.

Cathy (Cathy), Sunday, 26 February 2006 14:56 (twenty years ago)

It seems most people agree. So why do publishers persist with the staggered release of hardback novels followed by paperback. Why don't they just give the people what they want? Capitalism isn't working.

Mike W (caek), Sunday, 26 February 2006 15:06 (twenty years ago)

Because no one would ever pay all that money for a big stupid hardback unless they couldn't get the paperback for months, I guess.

Cathy (Cathy), Sunday, 26 February 2006 15:29 (twenty years ago)

So just don't make hardbacks? Unless the margins are higher.

Mike W (caek), Sunday, 26 February 2006 15:32 (twenty years ago)

So just don't make hardbacks? Unless the margins are higher.

I think you've probably got your answer.

theantmustdance (theantmustdance), Sunday, 26 February 2006 15:46 (twenty years ago)

I despise dust jackets. I had so many dust jackets get damaged when carrying hardcovers around with me on the subway etc. that I started leaving the dust jackets at home, where they would often still get damaged. I don't want my books to be damaged like that. So I prefer hardcovers which were designed to not have dust jackets.

And I think I might actually prefer such hardcovers to paperbacks, even.

Casuistry (Chris P), Sunday, 26 February 2006 16:57 (twenty years ago)

One other reason why publishers are reluctant to make the move: it's still VASTLY more difficult to get a paperback reviewed in most places than a hardback, even when the paperback is the first edition. Admittedly that would vanish if everyone went straight to PB, but it's one of those times where the unilateral move is a risky one.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 26 February 2006 17:47 (twenty years ago)

What is origin of dust jacket? Was it from some era when the ackshual cover was some pricey leather business and one wanted to keep it from getting mussed, i.e. the book version of the "car bra"?

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Sunday, 26 February 2006 18:41 (twenty years ago)

So just don't make hardbacks? Unless the margins are higher.

Ding ding ding!

I also leave dust jackets at home on the shelf, and put them back on when I'm done reading. Mostly because I shove books into my tote-/handbags on the train and would tear them all up otherwise. Trace, I'll have to look up the Origins of the Dust Jacket later, unless someone else gets to it first. I've got bits of info bouncing around my head but can't confirm any of it.

Laurel, Sunday, 26 February 2006 21:58 (twenty years ago)

I don't read new books anyway (it's the snotty contrarian in me), so I guess I gotta go with paperbacks. Ideally, trade paperbacks.

Pork Cheops (willpie), Sunday, 26 February 2006 23:39 (twenty years ago)

When the paperbacks first come out and the hardcovers are remaindered: Happy times.

Casuistry (Chris P), Monday, 27 February 2006 00:48 (twenty years ago)

(I assume dust jackers were for prettiness/marketing reasons? Sort of the longbox of the book world. But I don't know, and Wiki doesn't mention.)

Casuistry (Chris P), Monday, 27 February 2006 00:50 (twenty years ago)

I don't really read new books, either. paperbacks are better because I feel less bad abt the beating they take, when I'm reading, and they're cheaper and smaller and stuff

RJG (RJG), Monday, 27 February 2006 00:52 (twenty years ago)

(Googling has found some books that describe the history of the dust jacket, which seems to have started around 1820 or so, I guess, but not the actual history itself, which is a tricky thing to google for.)

Casuistry (Chris P), Monday, 27 February 2006 00:54 (twenty years ago)

I think the Henry Petroski Book on the Bookshelf has some info on the history of dust jackets. It's here on a shelf somewhere.

I like both fairly equally - I lend a lot of books out and hardcovers are durable and so better for that. Paperbacks are more portable and I don't feel bad about cracking their spines so much. But if I have the choice between a paperback and a remaindered hardcover, I take the hardcover.

Jaq (Jaq), Monday, 27 February 2006 01:04 (twenty years ago)

Hardbacks. Having nice things is nice. I treasure my JG Ballard short stories hardback, especially as I already had the paperback when I bought it, and was able to sell it to a friend.

I can tell I'm missing out by only having the paper back of this. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375703764/103-6599196-8673456?v=glance&n=283155
Among other things (colour, I believe) the hardback has 27 more pages.

S- (sgh), Monday, 27 February 2006 01:23 (twenty years ago)

I knew that was going to be House of Leaves.

I didn't even believe the color thing mentioned in the opening, since every copy I saw had the same color situation, but then I saw a colorless edition. Bah.

Casuistry (Chris P), Monday, 27 February 2006 01:37 (twenty years ago)

Dust jacket flaps are good for place-saving. As for the weight, you can always rest it on a pillow on your ribcage. Or hire an assistant to hold it for you.
Mass market paperbacks are hard for me to read with my middle-aged eyes, and the inside margin is stingy. They run the type right into the binding, the bastards. Their only advantage is that they're cheap, so if your friend or lover needs something to read you can slice hunks of it off as you finish and hand it to them.

Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Monday, 27 February 2006 01:51 (twenty years ago)

I really like hardcovers in the octavo size, which publishers never, ever seem to use for initial hardcover release. They seem to think that if they charge $35 or $40, it had better be massive and cumbersome so you'll get your full poundage of paper - rather like the servings at an upscale steakhouse.

Aimless (Aimless), Monday, 27 February 2006 05:36 (twenty years ago)

Hardbacks are rubbish. It's like carrying a block of wood around with you. Paperbacks are lovely and small and cheap. I went through a phase where I'd only buy books which fitted into my jacket pocket. Then I got a new jacket and the pocket was slightly smaller and none of the books fitted so I abandoned that habit.

James Ward (jamesmichaelward), Monday, 27 February 2006 10:27 (twenty years ago)

It seems most people agree. So why do publishers persist with the staggered release of hardback novels followed by paperback. Why don't they just give the people what they want? Capitalism isn't working.
-- Mike W (mik...), February 26th, 2006.

it is for jordan -- i don't think her book made paperback for two years.

The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Monday, 27 February 2006 10:39 (twenty years ago)

i cant believe this hate for hardcovers. i cant believe you're all calling them 'hardbacks'. anyway, for me, the only annoying thing about a hardcover is the jacket. i always take them off straight away and slot them into a bookcase partly so I don't destroy them in transit but mainly because i prefer the plain look of the hardcover. ah to have a library full of jacketless hardcovers. paperbacks always seem trashy to me unless they are have that thick textured paper some publishers (im think city lights here) use. also, i associate paperbacks with stephen king readers and people who think reading penguin classics makes them seem smart. besides all that, i destroy paperbacks really easily but im pretty rough on books.

sunny successor (katharine), Monday, 27 February 2006 17:24 (twenty years ago)

I have to say, I do feel like HCs are the more "official" version, so if I end up with both a PB and a HC of the same title, I keep the HC and give the PB away. Unless the jacket/cover design has been changed for the PB, in which case if I really like it I might keep both. Unsurprisingly, when I move house this week most of the cargo will be crates of books.

Laurel (Laurel), Monday, 27 February 2006 17:31 (twenty years ago)

also, how can you wait that long for the paperback? why the hell wouldn't you read new books? and if youre going to wait that long, the hardcover is usually $4 by the time the paperback comes out. cheap!

the only instance i can think of where the hardcover has followed the paperback: david berman's actual air

sunny successor (katharine), Monday, 27 February 2006 17:34 (twenty years ago)

yeah, i always had that problem with moving. movers complaining about giant boxes packed with books. now i own pretty much nothing. its very liberating.

x-post

sunny successor (katharine), Monday, 27 February 2006 17:35 (twenty years ago)

Also, I think the official terminology (such as it may be) is "hardcover" and "paperback cover" so "hardback" is sort of a reverse-engineered thing. Really it ought to be HC and PBC, which you do sometimes see, depending on where you're looking. Although I might have made all that up.

Laurel (Laurel), Monday, 27 February 2006 17:37 (twenty years ago)

hardbacks are for presents and things i can't wait a year to read (gibson, reynolds, peel), paperbacks for everything else. have special bag-friendly books for reading on the tube (Samurai Executioner vol 6 at the mo, A6 size but quite thick).

did recently buy The Algebraist in hardback because it was cheaper in the remaindered bookshop for the HB than it was in whsmith for the paperback. didn't get more than 20 pages in on the first attempt though.

koogs (koogs), Monday, 27 February 2006 18:03 (twenty years ago)

Koogy!! Good to see you pop up here. Try The Algebraist again, it's one of the funnier ones, I think.

Laurel (Laurel), Monday, 27 February 2006 18:05 (twenty years ago)

Hardcovers for my library and for longevity. Paperbacks for carrying around with you.

M. White (Miguelito), Monday, 27 February 2006 18:07 (twenty years ago)

what ever happened to small format paperbacks anyway? the kind you now only see in second hand book shops?

(yeah, i stopped with the algebraist because i bought something else more interesting (but can't remember what). the whole of feb has been spent catching up on comics so i'll give it another go. see also that 700pp hardback of Son Of The Circus i abandoned 5 years ago)

koogs (koogs), Monday, 27 February 2006 18:10 (twenty years ago)

i really dont see that much difference in weight when i have a hardcover in my bag. i mean, i'm not carrying around a volume of encyclopeadia brittanica.

sunny successor (katharine), Monday, 27 February 2006 18:12 (twenty years ago)

What about the one you're carrying in your head?

Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Monday, 27 February 2006 18:16 (twenty years ago)

I tend to love hardbacks but lord knows paperbacks are certainly easier to manage.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 27 February 2006 18:18 (twenty years ago)

xpost: thats all in pictures

sunny successor (katharine), Monday, 27 February 2006 18:24 (twenty years ago)

two years pass...

I mean seriously, the number of times I've read a review and thought, yes, I will read that when it comes out in paperback and then forgotten about it in the intervening year. I never thought I'd say this, but surely publishing can get its act together like the film industry has done with bringing DVD releases closer to theatrical. Jackasses.

With the enormous power and flexibility of the 2007 Microsoft Office system, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 14:59 (seventeen years ago)

Good heavens, no, it's much too profitable to leave a good bit between pub dates, especially if the hardcover sales are still healthy. After all, if people will buy the book for $29.95, why offer them a version that's only $15.99?

Laurel, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 15:03 (seventeen years ago)

My point then is are hardcover sales still healthy? I think they would make more money in more units sold if they raised the price of new paperbacks for the first year or so. Well, they'd make more money off me.

With the enormous power and flexibility of the 2007 Microsoft Office system, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 15:08 (seventeen years ago)

this is the worst antiquated publishing practice. fuck hardbacks. i resent being punished for anticipating a book and buying a first run copy by having to carry around some heavy bullshit hard cover unyielding brick

flopson, Saturday, 21 March 2015 06:00 (ten years ago)

otm it feels very antithetical to 2015, a hardback should be the equivalent of a collector's edition vinyl that gets released to fans a few months after the itunes digital album

lex pretend, Saturday, 21 March 2015 07:56 (ten years ago)

Funny coincidence bcz I went quickly to that bkshop on Sloane Sq, they used to have a healthy supply of used paperbacks 'back in the day'. But yesterday it was mostly used hardbacks, asked the girl whether they had given up on paperback. She larfed and sadly confirmed it as they do 1st hand paperbacks. I was going to say they had always done this as long as I had been going there but its not as if arguing was going to do anything.

The one hardback I have (given to me by an ilxor) is of Helen DeWitt's The Last Samurai which is one of my favourite novels of the last 20 years. I really do treasure that. Otherwise there are many beautiful paperback editions.

I buy almost exclusively used hardbacks. Somewhere around 2200 volumes about. Handsome on the shelves, no more expensive than used paperbacks

Where is this paradise where used hardbacks are more expensive than used paperbacks?

xyzzzz__, Saturday, 21 March 2015 12:10 (ten years ago)

sorry 'NO more expensive'.

xyzzzz__, Saturday, 21 March 2015 12:15 (ten years ago)

otm it feels very antithetical to 2015, a hardback should be the equivalent of a collector's edition vinyl that gets released to fans a few months after the itunes digital album

― lex pretend, Saturday, March 21, 2015 7:56 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

These do exist but only after the regular HC has run out its life and probably so has the PB and doing a slipcased special edn is a way to continue milking the content without investing more $$ into development. And they cost lots more than the original.

Orson Wellies (in orbit), Saturday, 21 March 2015 12:51 (ten years ago)

it's just like, you should have the choice

flopson, Saturday, 21 March 2015 17:27 (ten years ago)

it's all music man

sexpost TMIing! (wins), Saturday, 21 March 2015 17:29 (ten years ago)

xyzzz in both my local oxfams hardbacks cost less!

sexpost TMIing! (wins), Saturday, 21 March 2015 17:31 (ten years ago)

(Mostly commercial fiction tbf)

sexpost TMIing! (wins), Saturday, 21 March 2015 17:32 (ten years ago)

Yeah, I sold second-hand books for about five years, and hardback fiction - especially popular hardback fiction - was MUCH more difficult to sell than their paperback equivalents, and often sold for less than a pound in the end. Yet at the same time, people selling them - or trying to sell them - would think they were prestige, premium items that should net them a small fortune, not the buttons I would invariably offer them. Horrendous all round, so I grew to hate hardbacks. I can see their value to libraries, still, but for anything else they're a pain in the arse.

sʌxihɔːl (Ward Fowler), Saturday, 21 March 2015 21:15 (ten years ago)

I like a variety of lots of different designs, dimensions/sizes and materials, as long as there is no unnecessary special collector edition bullshit. Tend to prefer paperbacks but some recent hardcovers have had such beautiful designs that I want them.

Robert Adam Gilmour, Saturday, 21 March 2015 21:44 (ten years ago)

I hate dustjackets though. If you're going to have artwork, put it on the damn hardcover. But some have such nice art that I keep the dustjacket.

Robert Adam Gilmour, Saturday, 21 March 2015 21:48 (ten years ago)

i like the trend of that waxpapery translucent dustjacket over a colorful cover (like iq84) aesthetically but yeah f dustjackets

flopson, Saturday, 21 March 2015 21:49 (ten years ago)

Even more valueless are hardcovers without their dustcovers, or book club hardcover editions (in the uk, often printed at a smaller size than the 'real' UK hardcover, and a very unpleasant physical reading experience).

sʌxihɔːl (Ward Fowler), Saturday, 21 March 2015 21:55 (ten years ago)

Why so unpleasant?

I was going to buy Big Book Of Penis a while ago but some bastard had removed the overlay cover that had the underpants that covers the nudity underneath and I figured I might get into trouble for carrying the book to the counter with the nudity on both sides. I could have asked a staff member to cover the book and take it to the counter but I didn't want it that badly.

Robert Adam Gilmour, Saturday, 21 March 2015 21:58 (ten years ago)

Where is this paradise where used hardbacks are more expensive than used paperbacks?

Internet sales, where niche market books (of the sort I'm interested in) are regularly remaindered at $0.99, eventually, regardless of whether they're HB or PB. Shipping in the US is typically 3-3.99, so the expense is largely out of the seller's control. I've little idea whether literary HBs see these price nadirs, as I'm usually buying technical books and popcorn non-fiction.

You and your damn elves, I'm sick of it! (Sanpaku), Sunday, 22 March 2015 02:04 (ten years ago)

Right I avoid the internet as far as buying books goes.

xyzzz in both my local oxfams hardbacks cost less!

― sexpost TMIing! (wins), Saturday, March 21, 2015 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

(Mostly commercial fiction tbf)

― sexpost TMIing! (wins), Saturday, March 21, 2015 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

When I browsed the only hardback that piqued my interest was Svevo's As a Man Grows Older. Eight quid. Could come across the paperback of this for three or so.

xyzzzz__, Sunday, 22 March 2015 08:55 (ten years ago)

Thread reminds me that this is hardback only:

http://www.tobypress.com/books/preliminaries.htm

:-(

xyzzzz__, Monday, 23 March 2015 11:25 (ten years ago)

two weeks pass...

I was organising my books and while I'm largely pro-paperback, I found two annoyances.

The residue from peeled off stickers kinda glues to other books and often rips the other covers when the books are pulled apart. It happens with some paper covered hardbacks too but more often with paperbacks.
I've recently made a point of always sellotaping over any sticky residue.

I don't have bookshelves (I'm usually reluctant to buy any kind of storage because I could buy more exciting stuff with that money) so when I pile up thick paperbacks (like 400 pages and over), they tend to lean and fall once the pile gets a certain height, even when stacked against a wall.

Robert Adam Gilmour, Monday, 6 April 2015 17:51 (ten years ago)

The trick there is to put enough smaller paperbacks on the top of the pile to move the centre of gravity closer to the wall.

koogs, Monday, 6 April 2015 21:35 (ten years ago)

bookshelves are a scam. stack some lengths of plywood between some cinderblocks: cheap, modular, movable, chic to the gullible. from the desk of

difficult listening hour, Monday, 6 April 2015 21:42 (ten years ago)

i have kind of a horror of vertical stacks.

difficult listening hour, Monday, 6 April 2015 21:43 (ten years ago)

in france most books don't ever come out in hardback 📚

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 6 April 2015 21:48 (ten years ago)

was reading an american mass-market paperback in france recently and got a snide comment about the cover; apparently any paperback with an actual illustration/photo on it (as opposed to just black serif type on a white cover) is gauche downmarket swill for sensation-seeking rubes

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 6 April 2015 21:54 (ten years ago)

I've tried to put smaller books at the top but I've got quite a lot of series books, like 25 volumes of Mammoth Best New Horror, obviously I want to keep them together.

Hmmm, that's an interesting idea, I might look for bricks and shelves and stack them but I'd be worried about them tipping.

Robert Adam Gilmour, Monday, 6 April 2015 21:56 (ten years ago)

russia seems to have a lot more pulp hardbacks. (this is going by russian sections in various western bookstores so idk.) they lack dust jackets and have lurid illustrations printed directly onto the covers, like children's illustrated classics. sometimes while the edition is pulp the book itself is some titanic 19c classic (i.e. old pulp), but all of those have the lurid illustrations printed directly onto the covers too. these and roleplaying rulebooks are the only hardbacks i fuck with.

difficult listening hour, Monday, 6 April 2015 21:57 (ten years ago)

academic publishing wouldn't know what to do with itself if hardbacks went away, couldn't rightly sell someone's barely edited phd thesis for £80 in paperback could you

cis-het shitlord (Merdeyeux), Monday, 6 April 2015 21:59 (ten years ago)

Hmmm, that's an interesting idea, I might look for bricks and shelves and stack them but I'd be worried about them tipping.

it helps to make them wider than they are tall which your space may not support, but regardless on level ground and with three bricks a shelf, left-middle-right, this has gone pretty well for me over the years

difficult listening hour, Monday, 6 April 2015 22:06 (ten years ago)

was reading an american mass-market paperback in france recently and got a snide comment about the cover; apparently any paperback with an actual illustration/photo on it (as opposed to just black serif type on a white cover) is gauche downmarket swill for sensation-seeking rubes

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, April 6, 2015 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Gotta love the French - no half measures!

xyzzzz__, Monday, 6 April 2015 23:22 (ten years ago)

unless it's a naked woman obv

https://midite.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/vitrine-librairie-mollat-alintes.jpg

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 6 April 2015 23:47 (ten years ago)

..or a representation of :-)

xyzzzz__, Tuesday, 7 April 2015 09:47 (ten years ago)

ten years pass...

Well...here we are:

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/99293-last-call-for-mass-market-paperbacks.html

Ned Raggett, Monday, 15 December 2025 19:04 (three months ago)

Mass market paperbacks used to be sold in wire racks at news stands, grocery stores and drugstores. Now it's mainly airports, because it's harder and harder to find a title/author/subject/cover illustration that can attract a mass of readers who'll buy a cheap paperback on impulse. That includes me I guess. All of the mass markets I buy are used, which does the publishers no good.

more difficult than I look (Aimless), Monday, 15 December 2025 19:56 (three months ago)

There was something pleasing about that size of book, especially for fiction and especially for genre fiction. I remember when they used to dye the outside of the pages different colors to indicate which genre the book belonged to. I guess they virtually gave up on this format for non-fiction long ago.

Josefa, Monday, 15 December 2025 20:43 (three months ago)

Shameless flacking for my thread ILB: Post your canonical covers here

Nicholas Raybeat (James Redd and the Blecchs), Monday, 15 December 2025 21:20 (three months ago)

RIP mass market paperbacks

"Jacqueline Susann’s megahit Valley of the Dolls sold 300,000 hardcovers in 1966, while the Bantam paperback sold four million in its first week on sale in 1967, and more than eight million in its first year, Margolis notes."

it's strange to remember how many people used to read books for entertainment

Brad C., Monday, 15 December 2025 21:32 (three months ago)

as our caustic JM has pointed out, the art/design of MM paperbacks has been moribund for decades; it's little wonder that readers might prefer (even more-expensive) QPBs or ebooks

there are cliches but design is fucking important!

also maybe this should be moved to i love books

mookieproof, Tuesday, 16 December 2025 03:12 (three months ago)

You'd have to start a new thread there. ILX isn't designed to move thread among boards.

more difficult than I look (Aimless), Tuesday, 16 December 2025 04:26 (three months ago)

No, threads can be moved, always has been.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 16 December 2025 05:10 (three months ago)

(rubs hands together) Oh boy! Lots of misplaced threads out there that belong elsewhere. Only question is where to begin?

more difficult than I look (Aimless), Tuesday, 16 December 2025 05:16 (three months ago)

Always thought it was, if not impossible, at least frowned upon.

Nicholas Raybeat (James Redd and the Blecchs), Tuesday, 16 December 2025 05:57 (three months ago)

Lol pictured in that article is the Warren Commission report as a mass market paperback... 800 dense pages!

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/47sAAeSww3JpI1fK/s-l1600.jpg

visiting, Tuesday, 16 December 2025 06:17 (three months ago)

Ha! I found a copy of that exact edition in a used bookshop last week. 'With all illustrations'

I love old MM pbs from the 1960s-1970s. It's the main thing I look for when I'm browsing these days.

Sam Weller, Tuesday, 16 December 2025 13:10 (three months ago)

mass market paperbacks were the perfect format for just keeping in your coat pocket so you could just keep reading wherever you happened to have a couple of minutes of free time. I guess this was replaced by my e-reader for me, which I drag with me pretty much everywhere. I don't actually buy many physical books anymore, which is a shame because I love them, but practicality has won out (also e-books take up way less space in my house).

silverfish, Tuesday, 16 December 2025 14:53 (three months ago)

Except for the occasional remaindered hardcover, couldn't afford anything except paperbacks in university. As I got older and had income, that changed. All my paperbacks were boxed up for a number of years, till I moved and was able to re-shelve them. Mostly I'll haul around hardcovers to read now. The size of paperbacks is great, but they are susceptible to falling apart.

clemenza, Tuesday, 16 December 2025 14:57 (three months ago)

mass market paperbacks were the perfect format for just keeping in your coat pocket so you could just keep reading wherever you happened to have a couple of minutes of free time. I guess this was replaced by my e-reader for me, which I drag with me pretty much everywhere. I don't actually buy many physical books anymore, which is a shame because I love them, but practicality has won out (also e-books take up way less space in my house).

^This

Nicholas Raybeat (James Redd and the Blecchs), Saturday, 20 December 2025 20:47 (three months ago)

My local branch library has a Classics section that I haunt which is at least fifty percent this format.

Nicholas Raybeat (James Redd and the Blecchs), Saturday, 20 December 2025 20:48 (three months ago)

It's oddly or not so oddly comforting to see this books and sometimes to actually borrow and read them. And just stick them in your coat pocket or course.

Nicholas Raybeat (James Redd and the Blecchs), Saturday, 20 December 2025 21:00 (three months ago)

one month passes...

So Long to Cheap Books You Could Fit in Your Pocket
(NYT)

Kim Kimberly, Wednesday, 11 February 2026 00:44 (one month ago)

Mass markets were not just cannibalized digitally. Readers now seem more willing to buy books in larger, pricier formats like trade paperbacks and hardcovers. [...]

“We follow the consumer,” said Dennis Abboud, the chief executive of ReaderLink. “In the case of mass markets, the consumer spoke. They were just done with it.”
[...]
Still, the format makes less and less financial sense. There is only about a 30 cent difference, Abboud said, between producing a mass market and a trade paperback of the same title — but the trade version could easily sell for $6 more.

Kim Kimberly, Wednesday, 11 February 2026 00:47 (one month ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.