Wednesday, June 23, 2010

The Great Wednesday Compare #6- Hardcovers VERSUS Paperbacks


The winner of last week's Great Wednesday Compare (Real Bookmarks VERSUS Hardcovers), with a final score of 10-1 is hardcovers.

While most people seem to think that those real bookmarks with their fancy frills and cutesy phrases are better for keeping your place in a book, they'd gladly use pretty much anything if it meant not giving up hardcover books. Classy people that you are-- just ignore the Walmart receipt now marking where you left off. But what about paperbacks? Lots of people last week started to debate this already, so we might as well make it official. Let's assume publishers suddenly all decided to stop making both hardcovers and paperbacks and were trying to decide which route to take...

This week you have to choose between hardcovers and paperbacks. If you absolutely had to give up one, which would you give up? (Vote for the other.)




18 comments:

Allison said...

Give up the hardcover for the paperback. Paperbacks are easier to carry for this nomad.

Corey Redekop said...

Hardcovers last longer and look better as objects in your home.

Hardcovers.

raidergirl3 said...

oh, this is hard. I'll go with paperbacks because they fit better in a purse to carry, they are easier to read in bed (I'm nearsighted and they are easier to hold close to my face), and they don't hurt my face when I fall asleep reading a book and it falls on me.

Kate said...

Paperbacks all the way! Hardcovers are awkward to read in bed, heavy to pack in suitcases, and usually more expensive.

Anonymous said...

My vote is for paperbacks too!

Tracy S.

Nicola said...

Paperbacks all the way! They fit in a purse easier, are lighter, easier to hold with one hand, easier to read in the tub and are cheaper.

Barbara Bruederlin said...

Hard covers! They make me look classier, and we all know I need all the help I can get.

Bybee said...

Paperbacks, because I'm getting ready to travel!

Chris said...

I'd pick paperbacks if I had to choose.

Remi said...

I'm with Corey and Barb on this one. Hardcovers. I love them.

Trust me, I've loved paperbacks for a long time. My tattered copies of East of Eden, Slaughterhouse-Five and On The Road bear the marks of many trips and travels. It's just that, if forced to choose, I'd rather have something that lasts longer and looks better.

Lahni said...

Paperbacks - so much easier to read!

gypsysmom said...

It's a tough choice but I would have to say paperbacks. As others have said they are much easier to tote around. There have been times that I've had to leave a hardcover at home because it was just to heavy to try to read on the bus.

Teddy Rose said...

For these middle-aged hands/ wrists, no question, paperback! Actually, I am finding the best is my Kobo instead of the really heavy books.

Scrat said...

For looks, the hardcover is tough to beat, but for ease of use, the paperback wins hands down. I have tried to read two novels on the Kobo, which is really convenient to carry about, light to hold in bed and doesn't hurt when you fall asleep but the big drawback with it is that the pages are really slow to turn and you can't dog ear pages...but I digress. My vote this week will have to go to the paperback.

Loni said...

I agree with every point that's been made. Paperbacks are easier to carry around, but hardcovers look great and they last longer. Though I love both, I'm going to vote for Hardcovers, for the good feeling they give me when I look at them on my shelf.

Isabella said...

Paperbacks! Although sometimes I think trade paperbacks are as unwieldy and overpriced as hardcovers. Mass market for me for usability. (Loving my ereader too, for portability and one-handed reading and page-turning while standing in the subway. My Sony does allow for dogearing.)

GeraniumCat said...

Think I have to go with paperbacks, for most of the reasons already given. Got 8 hours of train journey coming up and I need more than one book with me for that - hard covers are just too heavy (but I love them for precious books. Kind of hoping that if I keep on about it enough between now and December, the guys might just buy me an ereader for Christmas. Especially because ebooks don't come in Amazon wrapping so they are easier to sneak in!

cmriedel said...

RaiderGirl and Barbara, you are HILARIOUS! I adore you both instantly. Folks, I propose a consideration that solves both sides. It has come down to longevity and convenience. But we read a book (the need for light weight) for a shorter time than that object is going to last. I vote HARDCOVER for reasons merely starting with durability. There's another asset (aside from display grace).

The audio cassette was the smallest, easiest to carry but a reduced copy of everything the LP record contains: lyrics, publishing information, a full view of the art. It's like full screen versus wide screen. I've discovered it isn't shrunk to fit; it cuts scenery off. I've observed the same on hardcovers versus mass market paperback runs.

Lastly, not all hardcovers are of "The Tommyknockers" stature. Do consider that many hardcovers are slim and light; a point that satisfies the brief period of convenience most often cited. Carolyn www.CMRiedel.Wordpress.com