do you like my new poll? I do not like your new poll.

[schmerica]

I have a poll. It is about books.

[Poll #496581]

My subject line is a book reference, in fact. If you identify it, you are one cool dude.

Comments

[meacoustic.livejournal.com]

What's the difference between trade paperback and mass-marked paperback?

[meacoustic.livejournal.com]

Ignore my spelling mistake. *g*

[kijikun.livejournal.com]

Size is an issue for me, I like books that I can easily fit in my purse or backback.

[darchildre.livejournal.com]

seconding this - i have a hard time convincing myself to buy books that i can't easily carry with me or dog-ear in good conscience (i had it drummed into my head from a young age that "nice" books - meaning hardbound - were never ever to be dog-eared but that paperbacks were ok).

[axiom_of_stripe]

i like mass-markey paperbacks because you can fit many more of them into limited space! advantages: bookshelves, boxes, backpacks, jacket pockets, tucked absently in one hand while wandering down to the kitchen in search of snacks and then left on the shelf in the fridge for an hour while one looks everywhere for that damn book that was just here a second ago!

also i find mass-market paperbacks more comfortable to hold as i'm reading, but you gave me a tickybox for that. *hugs the tickybox*

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

tucked absently in one hand while wandering down to the kitchen in search of snacks and then left on the shelf in the fridge for an hour while one looks everywhere for that damn book that was just here a second ago!

Heeee. To be fair, I manage to do that with any size of books. My kitchen is a death trap for stealing all of my books away. The fridge, the counters, the top of the microwave, in the pantry next to the soup cans...

[dine.livejournal.com]

"other" expanded in comments as requested:

one thing that matters to me is that it will fit semi-nicely into whatever bag I'm currently using. I've just about always got to have some sort of reading material available, for all those waiting-around moments. for the past couple years it's been a messenger bag, so that's generally no problem, but before that, I'd always consider a books's size (huge thick tomes were often right out).

of course, I did try to select bags for their size when shopping, but some really nice bags were just too narrow to cram everything in.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

This seems to be a very important consideration for a lot of people -- I should have thought to add it to the poll.

[sophia-helix.livejournal.com]

Haaaaate hardback books. My friends who are book-snobs try to make me feel about this. These are usually the friends who take extra-super-good care of their books, too. While I admire (and own) beautiful editions of books, when I want to read them? They must be portable, light, easy to stash in a purse, and not something I'm worried about ruining. I picked "trade paperbacks" just because they tend to have prettier covers (like, oooh, the matte ones!), and look less trashy, but honestly, most of what I read is in mass-market format. I USE my books, and all I care about is whether or not I can read the words.

(This is not to say I am all for e-books, or that I prefer words-on-screen to words-on-page. On the contrary; I'm a big tactile reader, and I love the feeling of holding and reading a book. I just want it to be *comfortable* -- ever tried to read a hardback lying on your side in bed? Of course, I am also mildly despised by my bookstore clerk husband for promptly removing dust jackets and using them as bookmarks, all smashed between the pages, so maybe I'm just a philistine.)

(Hi. I, um, feel passionately on this subject. *G*)

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

Hardbacks are pretty, but they're no good for actual reading!

ever tried to read a hardback lying on your side in bed?

*g* Many, many, many times. I have to do all my school studying lying on my belly, because they made up buy lots and lots of hardcover books. Bah.

[katallison.livejournal.com]

The big factors for me are (a) weight (my wrists are old and arthritic), (b) ability to open the book reasonably flat without *wrestling* with it, and (c) a decently wide inner margin. Well-produced trade paperbacks come closest to meeting these criteria, but honestly? I've had it with paper, and am waiting for the day that e-books take over the world; it's far far easier for me to read off a monitor (lets me resize text, set line width to wherever I want, rest my arms, etc.) Also, several times lately I've been reading a book, and, wanting to go back and find a specific passage, find myself groping for the mouse so I can do a keyword search.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's interesting! The thought of e-books taking over the world makes me sad, actually, but possibly I am just young and romantic. I love the feel and presence of books, their tangibility. I actually find it easier to read on paper than on screen, too -- though the practice of reading so much fanfiction is slowly changing that, I suppose. Not to mention I've only been reading for fifteen years so far, and I'm already doing awful things to my eyes. Hmm.

[norah.livejournal.com]

Tell me it's not from Go, Dogs, Go.

It's either that or Seuss, and I'm having a very Go, Dogs, Go feeling about it....

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

You win the prize! Yay!

It should be hat, of course. I find myself going around quoting that disturbingly frequently.

[china_shop]

I should've ticked "Other", but didn't. Particularly for books I care about and will want to re-read, I prefer trade paperbacks because the paper quality and type quality are often much better (mass market ones are sometimes grubby and newsprinty), plus I like the bigger margins for aesthetic reasons. :)

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

*nod* Those are close to some of my reasons, too.

[wax-jism.livejournal.com]

I like the idea of hardbacks, their longevity, how they look on my shelf. But in day to day use? Mass market paperbacks cannot be beaten. Ideally, I'd get one of both. But I'm not quite at that stage of budget surplus yet.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

Oh, but wouldn't it be lovely? Reading book, and book to look at.

[umbo.livejournal.com]

I didn't answer the first question, because it really depends. If it's a book I care about a lot and know I'll want to keep it long-term, or a book that I just can't wait until it comes out in soft-cover, I'll buy it in hardcover--but I love the portability of trade and regular paperbacks, not to mention the price differential.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

The "can't wait till it comes out in paperback" is the main reason I ever buy hardbacks, but it really is less comfortable for me to read, along witht he portability and price issues.

[mecurtin.livejournal.com]

"Other" is associated with "comfort", specifically: larger type. My eyes are not as young as they used to be, and my glasses are optimized for my computer monitor, not for print. Most paperbacks dance on the edge of eyestrain for me; most hardcovers aren't too bad.

I get almost all my books from the library, anyway.

[krisdia.livejournal.com]

Hardcovers are attractive, but feel inaccessible and aloof... mass-markets are easy to curl up with, but often not-as-great to look at, often have a cheap or cheesy cover... so I usually prefer trade paperbacks for just *having*, for lining my bookshelves, for looking at, as a compromise between the two. They're what I tend to buy. I'm so weird, because it kind of all comes down to a vibe I get from books...

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

*grings* Books tend to be a thing a lot of us have our own strange compulsions about.

[brooklinegirl.livejournal.com]

there is probably something psychological about my love of trade paperbacks - when I worked in book retail (most of my adult life), they were the one format we couldn't get for free. We could borrow hardcovers, and strip mass markets, but couldn't get the trades unless we actually spent money. (and I love you SO MUCH for knowing the terms for the different sorts of books)

But other than that, there's just something inherently satisfying about reading - owning - touching a trade paperback. I love the feel of them, the look of them, shelving them, and I find them so just - comforting, I guess, to hold and read.

Books! Nrrrrgh.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

They're so PRETTY. They're just, like, the perfect size and weight and their covers are so pretty and they all stack together on slightly different sizes on my shelves, and -- yes.

BOOKS. Mmmmmm.

[metal-dog5.livejournal.com]

I prefer mass-market paperbacks over trade as they stack better on my bookshelves. Having said that, I'm not adverse to buying books in any format, even if it means the series I've bought are combinations of HB, trade & mass-market.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

I prefer my series to match, but that's just because I think it looks pretty; I'm not incredily concerned about it either way.

[damned-colonial.livejournal.com]

AUGH! IT DEPENDS!

I can't even answer the poll. I'm so confused.

My preference for fiction that I haven't read before is:

1) e-books, if available for free (eg classics from Project Gutenberg)
2) otherwise, second-hand in any inexpensive format (usually old mass-market pb)
3) then fall back to mass market pb, trade, and hardcover new.

If I'm buying a *second* copy of a fiction book, because the first one fell apart or whatever, or if I'm buying a physical book for which I already have an e-book but I love it so much I want to have it on the shelf, or sometimes if I'm buying something buy an author who I know I love and will read the book to death, then I skip down to trade or hardcover and avoid mass market pb altogether.

(I am starting to collect Georgette Heyer in trade pb, for example, because I found that the Arrow ones are really well made and I expect they'll last well.)

For non-fiction, I *like* hardcover, especially for stuff I expect to refer to regularly and keep for many years (eg. my dictionary of shakespearean language), but they don't tend to come out in the same way fiction books do, so you can't always expect to have a choice. My exception with non-fiction is popular stuff (pop-history, biography, etc) which I read kind of like novels anyway, in which case I follow the fiction rules above.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

*nod* Reference books are an exception to my paperback preference, but the way I use them tends to be quite different from the way I read and use the rest of my books.

[the-emef.livejournal.com]

I've only ever come accross my favourite, favourite format in second-hand bookstores ; they are these books with the pages sewn together, but a soft cover. But, well. I imagine that if anybody still produced these they would be outrageously expensive.

There is also a format that I just can't deal with : books with movie-still covers (took me years to find a non-hardcover edition of "Possession" without Gwyneth-fucking-Paltrow on the cover. I mean : ew).

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

Dude, I don't know anybody who likes movie-tie-in covers. Ew, indeed.

[dirty-diana.livejournal.com]

I spend a lot of time on the bus. I need books that aren't heavy, and that fit in my purse.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

*nod* A lot of people seem to have that same issue.

[copracat]

I had to look up the difference between trade and mass market! So that's why they come in stupid, bookshelf-not-fitting sizes! I don't care what size I read, though.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

Hee. Which size is the stupid size?

[claire.livejournal.com]

I prefer mass market paperbacks. Because if I own a series of books they need to all be in the same format - preferably with the same edition cover design - and that's the easiest way to achieve it.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

*grins* It's fascinating how many of us have book compulsions, and how different all of them are.

[flobberchops.livejournal.com]

I buy hardbacks - when I can afford them - if I know its a book I will keep coming back to.

Otherwise it's paperbacks: cost, comfort and portability.
Particularly portability - I never go anywhere without stashing something to read in my bag.

In fact, on the rare occasions I've had to dash out and haven't had time to grab something to take with me to read, I have been known to stop off or make a detour and buy something - otherwise I have a, well not exactly a panic attack, but I do feel uncomfortable and edgy. And this even if I'm going somewhere where I'm not going to get the opportunity to read. Odd, I know. But there are worse addictions.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

I agree; as far as addictions go, books are a very very good one.

Without looking at other comments

[the-star-fish.livejournal.com]

Go, Dog, Go by P. D. Eastman.

And.

Aforementioned book needs to fit into my purse easily. Very high priority. If I'm somewhere waiting in line, and I have a book, I don't tend to focus on needing to shoot all the people ahead of me. *g*

Re: Without looking at other comments

[moosesal.livejournal.com]

the 'fit in the purse' issue is the reason I like e-books. I read them on my PDA which I'm already carrying around.

[moosesal.livejournal.com]

While I selected hardcover, I would like to provide additional info.

When I buy paperbacks, I prefer trade paperbacks. Recently, however, I buy mostly e-books if I just want to read the book. If the book is special, I try to get it in hardcover. But I'm trying to stop accumulating 'stuff', books included, because I'm making a major cross-country move next year. The less stuff to pack and move, the better.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

Wow, that's totally logical and yet makes me cringe. I seem to be permanently stuck on "need more books now now now!"

[epj.livejournal.com]

I like paperbacks better because they're more comfortable to read lying down, and I love to read in bed or lying on the couch. Also, it seems as though every time I buy a hardback, the binding breaks within three reads, but my paperbacks hold up endlessly.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

The only hardbacks I don't have either of those problems with seem to be YA books -- I'm not sure if it's just they tend to be much smaller, or what.

[delurker.livejournal.com]

I don't like hardcovers because they're
- more expensive (I'm a student)
- heavier, and so harder to read
- larger, and so harder to cart around and store when you're done with them.


On the mass market/trade paperback question, I choose mass market, because that's what I buy, but I like trade paperbacks too.
Arguments for m.m.:
- Cheaper
- Match the other m.m. books in the series I already have (except when they don't - grr)
- Take up less space
Against:
- Take longer to come out
- Fall apart more (not that I've had problems with this, although people keep bending the spines - more grr.)

Arguments for t.p.:
- Come out sooner
- Some have really cool covers
- A little easier to read

Against:
- I could buy two mm books for the price of a tp
- Take more space


Which factors have a major impact on your preference of book formats?
Other
If it's a series, I want the covers to match.