[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 41 KB, 696x380, Paperback-vs-Hardcover-Books-696x380.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19475502 No.19475502 [Reply] [Original]

The great debate

>> No.19475507

>>19475502
If you're a capitalist, the left. If you're a ride-the-tiger aristocrat, the right.

>> No.19475566

>>19475502
hardbacks when they're bound in material that doesn't make you hate reading it
paperbacks when it is

>> No.19475568

>>19475502
I go for hardcovers if they're sewn, which most are not. They're glued and so not different from paperback. Some things are also only available in paperback.

>> No.19475570

>>19475502
it's not a debate, they're for two different purposes

>> No.19475612

>>19475502
It depends. Soft goatskin leather for Scripture, stiffer genuine leather for select classic works (but not for everything lest the shelf looks gaudy), hardcovers in slipcases for select multi-volume collections or for second-tier classic works that you didn't get in leather (but again, not too many slipcases for the same reason as too many leathers), regular hardcovers for most general works, and paperbacks for either reference/academic texts or just stuff that doesn't exist in hardcover form. And always prefer sewn bindings to glued bindings in all cases. All told, you should know in your gut whether a work belongs aesthetically in paperback, hardcover, or leather.