GO!
I usually prefer paperback because they're smaller, lighter, and don't have annoying covers that keep slipping off.
Paper: 1, Hard: 0.
Hardcover is more useful as an improvised blunt instrument in self-defence emergencies.
Paper: 1, Hard: 1.
Are we allowed a third option?
Otherwise I go for hardcover.
I like to carry around paperback, and I hate the covers on hardback.
Paper 2 Hard 1
I like both. Hardcover are more pleasent when you read by the chimney, in a library, at the desk or something like that; Paperback are more handy for reading outside, in the bed, etc.
It's a draw for me.
Hardcover looks far better on a bookshelf, especially if all the books are cut and bound in a uniform fashion like in some stately old-world library.
Paper: 3, Hard: 3.
Hardbacks are way too big and bulky. I don't care if they look nice or last longer or whatever, I mean, I just want to be able to carry the book around and read it where I like.
Paper: 4, Hard: 3.
Actually, I think the best are those tiny little moonspeak books (I don't know if they're common anywhere outside Japan, but I guess they might be in China and/or Korea). I wish there were English books printed in that format. They're so small and convenient and somehow nice to hold...
I prefer paperbacks. They are cheaper, and easily to carry. Only thing is they always publish the hard covers first so if I want to read a particular book, I have to wait for the paperback to come out.
Paper 5, Hard 3
Paper 6, Hard 3 because I can just toss it in a recycle bin when I'm done. Hardcover is a waste of money and paper.
A small hardcover kept in a shirt pocket could possibly save your life by deflecting a low-calibre bullet an inch further to miss your heart.
Paper 6, Hard 4.
>>10
Yeah, but it can also deflect a bullet that would've missed your heart an inch further, so it effectively hits. Did you think about that?
>>11
Hey, I'm trying to provide some arguments for the covers everybody loves to hate. I can't be bothered thinking rationally.
That said, given the low popularity of Hard Covers, saying how great they are might give you some 'underground' cred amongst impressionable poseurs.
Paper 6, Hard 5.
hard. but i use an e-book reader almost exclusively now.
paperback...hardcover r more expensive, heavier, and more likely to break.
Paper 7, Hard 5.
I just prefer paperbacks because they're lighter and sexier.
Paper 8, Hard 6
it's starting to change but paperbacks generally use acidic paper and that yellows and low quality binding falls apart at an alarming speed.
Paper 8, Hard 7
Hardbacks... heavy, more expensive, dust jackets, impossible to get open (sometimes) - I'll stick with paper.
Paper 9, Hard 7
If it's a math textbook, definitely hardcover. Because it'll stay open flat, so I don't have to hold the damn book open while solving the exercises.
Paperbacks fall apart.
Paper 9, Hard 8.
I'm a man of tradition. I simply have a certain attachment to hardcover.
Also there's a practical reason. I hall around books in a very crappy backpack that I've stitched back together in so many places it's probably made more out of my thread than the original material! If they're big (like most hardcovers), they'll do fine, but little tiny paperbacks have a tendency to get wrecked.
oops, forgot to post the vote
Paper 9, Hard 9
Paperback, I don't feel comfortable with hard covers, feels like I actually need to find a position to read, it doesn't feel natural. That makes for:
Paper 10 x 9 HardAlso, I detest the way books are made in the United States. They feel too disposable, in fact, a newly print book will take only a matter of months to age and yellow. It's like those books are meant to be read once and disposed of, I don't like that; I prefer durable paper in which I can write and to which I can return years later ;)
>>25
Really? Maybe you keep your books in some wet, fungus filled hole.
>>26
Lovely :)
No, seriously, I try to keep them with reasonable care, but they're obviously not anywhere near a good, off-white polen soft bound book in terms of durability.
Paperback, if I wanted to carry around something heavy all day I'd wear wrist weights.
Paper 11, Hard 9
It really depends. If it's just a book I want to read once or even twice, paperback. But if it's a book I love and will want to last a very long time because I plan to read it again and again and maybe even pass it on to my children, I definitely want hardback.
So I guess it's still:
Paper 11, Hard 9
I'm not the >>26 but I know what he's talking about, everything in the USA nowadays uses cheap paper.
I actually buy stationery for class from Kinokuniya now, because everything you can buy at Office Depot without spending a lot of money is so thin, the ink ALWAYS bleeds through the paper. And the bindings on the notebooks always come apart, or tear through the page, too. I'm not even that rough on my things.
So yeah, newer books age badly, especially paperbacks. I have books on my shelf from the 1930s and 1920s, including some Soviet volumes that probably changed hands dozens of times before making it here to America, and they are in better condition than stuff I bought new in the 1990s!
I prefer Hardback because, unlike paperback, it's easier to hold open.
Paper 11 : Hard 10
Paperback for practicality. It's the contents that matter and paperbacks are arguably a hell lot more versatile at delivering it.
Paper 12 : Hard 9
I vote for paperback. They are lighter, cheaper, and in my opinion easier to hold comfortably. Hardbacks usually look better, are in some cases somewhat more durable (I've got a 13 vol. set of The Jewish Encyclopedia (Funk and Wagnals) thats celebrating it's 105th birthday), and newer ones usualy have a dustjacket that you can use use a bookmark. If you're carrying it in a pocket or backpack, with paper backs you have to worry about the cover geting bent, but with hardbacks you have to worry about the dustjacket getting ripped and corners wearing, so I think it breaks even there.
My favorite though is a soft leather cover, like an old manuscript or something. I have journal bound in such a way.
Paper 13 : Hard 10