/lit/ - Literature

>>15600120
the cheapest, if they are both cheap, hardcover: its cooler

I prefer paperback because it's more comfortable to carry and read

The hardback books is always superior, because the optimal way to read for maximum focus/speed/retention is at your reading desk.

>>15600219
>the optimal way to read for maximum focus/speed/retention is at your reading desk.
Citation please.

It depends how thick the book is. A 1000 page paperback sucks. A 1000 page hardcover is easier to hold and less prone to break.

>>15600247
this

hardcover because physical books are just decorations now days sense all serious readers have an ereader

>>15600120
paperback unless it's a thick book

Audiobook

>>15600120
With the trade paperback format, you get the best of both worlds. Everything should be printed in trade paperback with high-quality paper.

>>15600120
>1st ed: Hardcover
>n+1 ed: Paperback

>>15600556
Hell yeah, bruh, that's what's up.

>>15600120
I prefer hardcover because it's more comfortable to carry and read. Also I'm not a coping jobless NEET poorfag

For durability, hardcover, but if the binding is glued, then it makes no difference which one you pick.

>>15600289
>t. retard

>>15600556
Worst way to take in a book. Audiobook is for drooling morons

Small hardcovers are great. Hardcovers where you have to devote your entire leg to holding up the book are not so great unless it is something with a lot of photographs

>>15601117
I feel this. Wish more ppl published those little hardcovers.

In general, I suppose I prefer paperbacks, though I am generally willing to shell out for a hardcover in the case of authors I really like or collections like Library of America, etc.

>>15601147
The library of america volumes are neat because the quality is nice and buying the individual works is often just as expensive as buying the LOA volume that includes them.

>>15601155
i appreciate them for this reason but i hate their flimsy ass pages

>>15600247
/thread
Anytg over 700 pages needs to be hardcover. Even 600 pages is questionable for a paperback, depends on the paper.

Hardcover. A worn paperback looks stupid. A worn cloth-bound looks great.

high quality paperbacks with acid free paper and a decently thick cover are great, like nyrb or new directions ones.

yellowed and beat to shit charity shop/used bookstore paperbacks with a cool 70s cover are also great.

paperbacks of middling quality suck.

>>15600120
Paperback feels more comfortable to me. Hardcover is fine for those small hardcovers, but I like to take books around with me and read outside for maximum comfort. With a large hardcover that becomes a chore and I feel as though I need a portable desk just to be able to hold the thing.

Paperback. But only if it has subtle off-white coloring and a watermark.

Imagine buying disposable paperback books

>>15600120
pirate ebooks or whatever is available in my uni's library

>>15600120
>>15601049
this. glue binding is worse than paperback, both being shit. The only benefit of paperback is price.

>>15602104
>torturing your books

>>15600120
Hardcover

>>15602104
anon y...

>>15600120
WHO CARES YOU MATERIALIST FUCKING PLEB