Wednesday, August 08, 2007

I Just Don't Get It...

Happy Wednesday to you all. Hope your week has been terrific thus far. Mine has been filled with tons of stuff to do so, sorry I've been neglecting my duty of commenting on the last few blog posts. Please forgive me and know that I was with you all in my thoughts, but waaay to swamped to take it much further than a good guilt trip. ;)

Okay, here's what I just don't get...

Hard back books.


I mean, what's their appeal anyway? Why would anyone want to hold a big ol' heavy, stiff book to read when there are such nice wrap-aroundy paper ones? (Yes, I meant to say "aroundy".)

While making dinner together last night, my daughter and I were discussing a great YA series we're reading by Stephenie Meyer. We couldn't discuss too much because I've not had anytime to read anything the last few days. I only made it to page 154 then handed the book over to her because I knew I'd not have the time to finish it this week. So, good mommy that I am, I let her read the series first. She finished the first book in one day, sitting up in her room, only coming out to eat, drink, and pee. LOL

Anywho... The first book in the series is one of those big trade paperback books, it's called Twilight. The second book in the series, New Moon, is a hardback. So, what's up with that?!! Lame! I'm hoping the third book, Eclipse, is all bendable like the first one, but I doubt I'll get that lucky. It comes out this month, big excitement!!

What I don't get is why publishers publish the first book one way and the rest another. It makes no sense. I like all my books in a series to match while they sit on the shelf. Is this weird? I don't think it is. I'm very anal about stuff matching. LOL

Like the Harry Potter series, it doesn't match! Oh, sure, they sell matching ones now, but I already bought the ones that DON'T MATCH!! And I'm not putting more money out just so they line up the same. I'd rather get rid of the entire mis-matched set!

So tell me...

How do you feel about hardback vs. papery-bend-aroundy type books? Do you like your keeper shelf to have matching sets in their series? And finally, what book OR series are you currently reading and are you enjoying it?


Elisabeth Naughton said...

I don't like hardbacks that much. 1) They're heavy and I can't take them to the gym. 2) Not conducive for bathtub reading (which is where I do a lot of my relaxation reading because I can actually lock the bathroom door and escape from the Gremlins. 3) They cost a lot, and I have trouble shelling out $25 for a book I may not get three chapters through. I have Jennifer Crusie's Don't Look Down sitting on my shelf in hardback. I really want to read it but . . . it's hardback. I keep finding other books to read instead of diving into that one.

As far as paperbacks go, I like the mass market size much more than the trade paperback size. They're just more comfy to hold in my hands.

And book series I'm reading? I'm not at the moment. Right now I'm reading a Harlequin RS I got free at Nationals. But I'm having trouble getting into it.

Barrie said... doesn't bother me if my books don't match. Although I have friends who are bothered by this. I think a hardback shows how invested a publisher is in a book (more invested for hardback over any form of softback, more invested for trade over paperback). Currently reading the most recent Janet Evanovich. And it's keeping me on the treadmill. :)

Alice Sharpe said...

Hey Piper, you anal retentive cupcake, you.

I like it when my books don't match. Paperbacks, hardcover, trade paperbacks, stiff and hard or bendy aroundy ... it's all good. My Harry Potter books don't match, either, Though they are all hardbacks, one of them I bought from England when it came out there before it did in the US (btw, Those books were responsible for a major shift in publishing -- because Scholastic lost zillions of dollars when anxious Americans bought the English books so they wouldn't have to wait a few more weeks (# 3, I think) they started coming out simultaneously. I love it that a YA series did this and not Tom Clancy...)

Why? Because they are all books. And the more used and different and rag taggetedy they look, the more real they look, the more friendly they look, less decorative and more genuine. I don't line em' up, I stack them, they sit wherever I finish reading them, they are everywhere.

I just finished the last Harry Potter and am rereading Mary Higgins Clark while I'm on the library list for Steven Havill's newest mystery -- can't wait for that one) and sooner or later I'll get around to Janet Evanovitch's latest -- though they're getting a little "precious" for me. Hope she's calmed down a little.

Fun blog!

Anonymous said...

Eli-- I agree, way to heavy and not good around water,especially if you drop one into the drink. :)

I'm with you on the mass market size, too. It just fits right in the hand.

As far as your Harlequin RS that you can't get into, at least is was free! LOL

Anonymous said...

Barrie-- You're probably right about the whole publisher being invested more with the hardbacks, but really, hardbacks seem to be just a bit archaic for the age we live in, IMHO, and I don't get why they think we'd want to hold such a heavy thing while we're laying around on the sofa or pool side trying to enjoy a great read. Makes my hands lose blood and my elbows ache! LOL

Good for you and the treadmill! I envy you and your skills at being able to read and walk at the same time. :) I'd just zoom off the back and end up dead. I've tried reading while walking on the treadmill and I either have to go really slow or I concentrate on putting one foot in front of the other so much that I get nothing from the book! Oh, if I just had the coordination. :)

Anonymous said...

Alice-- "anal retentive cupcake" ROFLMAO!!! I love that title, but only because it involves cake. ;)

You are a true book hound aren't you?

It's interesting that some people are very particular about the size and shapes of books and others aren't bothered at all by the differences.

I have to have all my books on a book shelf, lined up in alphabetical order by author name and when the book was published. Very strange huh?

But they don't call me "anal retentive cupcake" for nothin'!

Karen Duvall said...

I prefer the mass market size, too, Piper. And hardbacks cost a fortune! They're hard to read when you want to hold the book in just one hand, as we often do (must use the other to lift coffee mug or wine glass, depending on time of day).

But I do know why publishers bring books out in hardback first. That's the higher price point, so they make more money as do the authors in royalty payments. It used to be that Publishers Weekly would only review hardbacks, but I think they're reviewing trade size paperbacks now, too. Also, libraries prefer hardbacks because soft covers get ruined too quickly. Five Star Books only prints in hardback because they cater mostly to the library market. Their books aren't returnable so few if any chain bookstores will carry them.

wavybrains said...

My first four Harry Potter books are paperback. I generally take what I can get. I'm not picky. I prefer non-fiction in hardback just b/c it's more durable (cookbooks, reference books, knitting books), but I also usually wait until they're on clearance (bad, bad, bad I know!). I get a lot of books from the library, and it's nice to have the hardbacks b/c they get less messy than the paperbacks, but again, I just take what I can find.

Series? Finished Harry Potter. I was trying to get into a Christina Dodd series about lost princesses, but just not happening. Right now, I'm reading "Corset Diaries," and it's so good, I'll be looking for other stuff by her, but it's not a series. Nonfiction, I've been reading the Dr. Sears' series of Babybooks. :)Later this month, Suzanne Brockmann's latest Troubleshooter book is out and I can't wait.

Alice Sharpe said...

My first nineteen books were published hardback. They're small because the word count is low, so they're easy to hold, etc... And I will say this about them...published mainly for libraries, they are on acid free paper and the books look as good today as they did when they came out whie the paperbacks are looking a little worn around the edges...paper yellowing, etc...

Paty Jager said...

There was a time I coveted hard back books. To me it wasn't a book if the cover wasn't hard. LOL Now I covet paper backs because, I too, like to read one handed either in the bathtub or while sipping tea or hot chocolate.

At one time books came out first in hardcover and then come out in paperback, but I don't think they do that much any more, but I could be wrong.

Piper, you would go nuts at my house! There is no rhyme or reason to the books piled and in the book case. I do try to keep my research books grouped to either region or subject, but other than that it is every book for itself! I have a shelf of books that are keepers in no particular order and a pile of TBR.

As for series. I want to get a hold of Suzanne Enoch's next book about the millionaire and thief. I haven't read a Stephanie Plum book since I think book six, so I am way behind in those! But right now I'm reading a Linda Lael Miller western. And Wavy, her writing is like mine.

Barbara said...

Like Wavy, I prefer hardbacks for books that I plan to keep or get from the library. For lighter reading I prefer trade paperbacks because they have more white space and are easier on my eyes than mass market paperbacks. But then I shower, so I don't read in the tub, and I usually don't eat or drink beverages while reading. I haven't read another series since Nancy Thayer's Hot Flash Club books in May. Now I'm reading The Nine Emotional Lives of Cats.

Anonymous said...

Thanks everyone for your insights and opinions and for sharing what you're reading right now.

Barb-- The Nine Emotional Lives of Cats?!! Too funny! I guess I didn't realize cats had emotions. LOL Silly kitties.