I’m not interested in today’s actual BTT, so here’s one from last February! Groovy!
All other things (like price and storage space) being equal, given a choice in a perfect world, would you rather have paperbacks in your library? Or hardcovers? And why?
All else being equal, I have to say that I generally prefer paperbacks. They don’t even have to be those fancy “trade paperbacks” either — I like the mass market versions just as well (and sometimes more).
I know that hardbacks often look nicer when sitting on the shelf… but I buy books to read, not to stick on my shelves! And paperbacks are just plain easier to handle. They’re more portable than hardcovers, they’re lighter and easier to hold, and — if you buy them secondhand — they’re dead cheap, so you don’t have to worry too much if you drop one in a mud puddle.
I don’t know why more people don’t think this way.
Last year, for example, I applied for a book collection bursary prize thingamahoosit at my university. The preamble in the “How to Apply” section contained the following sentences:
Emphatically, however, a collection need not include costly or rare items, to the extent that it may include a proportion of paperbacks. Candidates are, however, expected to show some knowledge and appreciation of items in their collections not only for their contents but as books.
To me, that seems to imply that those books that are paperbacks are less appreciable “as books” than their cardboard-sided companions. And that just doesn’t make sense to me. Is it an aesthetic judgement? There are many lovely, lovely paperbacks out there. Is it an economic judgement? Believe me, those trade paperbacks cost quite enough! Is it just an implicit assumption that paperbooks are — let face it — just not as good? I think so.
I told them that in my application essay, actually.
Book collection aside, that’s probably why I didn’t win.
What do you prefer?