Do you buy books in hardcover, or wait?

[Sunhawk !nZQ2xl.g.6 No.1954178]

Depends for me. I used to have no problem buying hardcovers on release day, or the first 6 or 12 months, but now I tend to wait for the paperbacks. Hardcovers are just too damn expensive here, £20 versus £7. Three times more, for a book that's heavy and unwieldy? No. I'm actually waiting on about 5 different Roberto Bolano books to come out in paperback, which I want to read but are to expensive. On the other hand, I intend to get 11/22/63 and 1Q84 on release day in (I think) October.

>implying paperbacks aren't better than hardcovers anyway, regardless of price

[Anonymous No.1954182]

Ebooks only these days, i haven't got the money or the space for real books.

[Tom Harper !agc.6D4SKQ!!6S3i+JD8/EQ No.1954183]

Paperback > Kindle > Hardback

[Anonymous No.1954186]

I usually don't buy hardcover copies if I can help it. Though some of what I buy is only available as such, so I have to and it makes me sad.

That doesn't apply to leather-bound or fancy editions though.

[Dr. Seussicide (SLAF) No.1954188]

I just buy either. Generally though most of my books are paperback. But the difference in price doesn't really bother me. If I want a book and it's only available in Hardback, then the way I see it, it is worth getting.

I prefer paperbacks though, they are usually less clunky. Some hardbacks however are better. See: House of leaves. It uses colour etc while the Paper back version is B&W only.

[Anonymous No.1954262]

>>1954178
In the year fucking 2011, only complete idiots read from paper. There's no sensible reason whatsoever apart from fetishism and hsallowmindedness in persisting with print.

I know there are people shallow enough to value medium over the contents, of course. That figures. While the intelligent people read actaul text in the most convenient way possible, some mostly derive pleasure in sniffing paper and touching cardboard.