Thursday, November 22, 2007

Hardback Books

I couldn't believe it, but there it was in a magazine, a whole article delivering the awful news. Publishers in London were considering publishing fiction only in paperback. There would be no more of those attractive books with the stiff backs and the attractive covers with their artwork and information about the book and author. No more beloved novels that you could pass along to your children or grandchildren so another generation could enjoy them. As I read further, the news became increasingly worse. Publishers in the U.S. were also considering this option. It would make books easier to produce and the cost would be considerably less. Will this dreaded trend catch on in America? What do you think?

Joe Prentis


David said...

As a part-time library clerk, I'd have to say that while most books remain hardback, there are an increasing number of new books coming in that are "trade paperback". I honestly think that publishing companies may be trying to head off the squeeze from the e-book market. Although I hate reading from a computer. I'm a reader, a REAL reader and I need to hold a REAL book in my hands. One of my proudest possessions is a hardbound, 2nd edition (1925) copy of IVANHOE. To think that a nation once known for leading the literary world now turning to paperbacks is sad. Not a disgrace. Good book binding can be expensive, but the book also lasts. Paperbacks generally do not last long. I think the change of course is wrong.

David Brollier
author of THE 3RD COVENANT

susan said...

As one who seldom buys hardback books, I have to say that I disagree. It's a cost and a space issue for me. Paperbacks are cheaper and take up less space. The only exception I can see would be libraries. In this case, they would really need to buy hardcover copies for the durability.