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.

[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*

[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]

They're different sizes. The trade paperbacks are usually closer to the size of the hardback books -- most of the ones on my bookshelf across the room look about the same size as my dvd cases. Mass market paperbacks are the smaller, thickers ones -- the kind you see in racks everywhere, say.

[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*)

[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.

[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....

[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. :)

[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.

[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]

You win the prize! Yay!

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

[meacoustic.livejournal.com]

That's what I figured but I wasn't 100% sure. Thanks!

I am a book snob and prefer hardcovers, because they're prettier and there's less chance of me ripping or bending the cover that way. Or the spine of the book breaking and the whole thing falling apart. (I had a paperback copy of Nicholas & Alexandria once that was held together by a rubber band.)

However, I only buy the books I know I'll keep and love and use in hardcover, because they're expensive.

[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.

[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.

Do you like my new hat? I do not like your new hat.

[norah.livejournal.com]

I AM A COOL DUDE!

I just this evening caught myself quoting to my mother from a v. bad children's book about a cat named Carl who is grumpy and his family goes to the beach...

All I remember is that they say to him, over and over, "Oh, Carl, please, Carl, please come to our picnic!" and despite the fact that it was a bad book that I read when I was, like, five, and I remember nothing about the rest of it, I frequently find myself entreating people, "Oh, [people], please, [people], please [do what I tell you]". Amazing how these things stick with you.

[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.

Re: Do you like my new hat? I do not like your new hat.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

Heeeee. Sticking with the Eastman theme, I find "You are not [whatever]! You are a SNORT!" comes in handy surprisingly often.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

Hee. I have a copy of Shirley Jackson's Life Among the Savages right now that is basically a pile of like eight different sections stacked together. I would be sad, but I got it at a thrift store for 50 cents, and it did last me a couple of readings, so I don't think I have the right to be sad. I do need a new copy, though.

[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...

[brooklinegirl.livejournal.com]

eeeeeeee! I knew there were MANY REASONS why I love you but I didn't know this waas one of them! That is one of my OMG FAVORITE BOOKS EVER, I love Shirley Jackson so very, very much, that is a GREAT BOOK, have you read Raising Demons?

[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.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

I have not! It is on my really long reading list, but the last time I was looking for it, I couldn't find it in my library system anywhere. I think I may have a copy at home now, in this ugly huge really old Shirley Jackson omnibus thing I got at a bookstore, but I am not absolutely certain. When I go home this weekend I need to go check.

But, yes. Shirley Jackson ROCKS MY SOCKS. Between Life Among the Savages and We Have Always Lived in the Castle -- man alive. <3 (Although, strangely, I am not as much in love with "The Lottery" as most people seem to be.)