Friday, December 9, 2011

Paperback vs Hardcover

Copyright Square Enix

In my collection of books (which isn’t very big, but I’m working on it), I only have one hardcover book.  And this isn’t by accident.

From what I can tell (correct me if I’m wrong), hardcovers are usually released first for a year or so after which the paperback follows.  Apparently this is to promote the author since a new book will be out soon.  Or something of the sort.

When I look for books, I look for paperbacks.  This means that I will often have to wait around a year to get a newly released book because it came out in hardcover first.  This is somewhat annoying, but it beats the alternative.

Hardcover books, for me, are extremely bulky and clumsy.  They’re heavy to hold and hard to handle with only one hand (which I do often with books I read) and they’re generally bigger which also adds to the previous two points.

Now I haven’t really had a lot of books for very long (gasp, I know) since I was a heavy library goer, but it seems (and logically follows) that paperbacks wear down quicker than hardcovers and thus will not last nearly as long.  While I’ll cling to the belief that proper care (and very little rereading) will keep them in good condition, that is a significant advantage the hardcovers have.

But even so, I prefer comfortableness over long-lasting-ness and I’ll be in the paperback camp for a long while yet.

I want to know, which do you prefer, paperback or hardcover?


  1. I like hardbacks, but I agree that they can be a pain to read, especially if they are really big. All I know is that I'm dying to have one of my books published in hardback. I don't know why, but my little dream will come true in 2013 with BONDED, which will be released in hardback for 6 months, then paperback. So you won't have to wait a year if you want to read it and get the paperback. :)

  2. I think having a book published in hardcover will make one feel very fancy.

    And I'll be reading Bonded only six months after its release then.