I saw a video by Daniel Greene, where he says that paperbacks are actually more durable than paperbacks, and he swears that paperbacks are the way to go. What do you guys think? I’ve seen that the general consensus is that hardbacks are more durable, but after watching Daniel throw and stab both a paperback and a hardback, and watching the paperback stay mostly readable, I’m no longer sure. What do you guys think?

Thanks! :)

Edit: forgot to mention that after the abuse, the hardback fell apart, like entire pages fell from the spine but the paperback remained mostly ok, although very beat up, but perfectly readable.

  • Gyr-falcon@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    As u/CanthinMinna said, paperbacks are glued, not stitched as hardbacks are traditionally made. Paperbacks are made from much cheaper paper and ink. I have old paperbacks from the 60s where the paper is fragile and discolored. I remember reading paperbacks where the covers fell off, pages fell out, and the ink reeked of kerosene. Some of those have been replaced by special edition hardbacks. I had a couple of paperbacks rebound as hardbacks. It was a wasted effort, the books are unreadable because of the deterioration of the paper.

    As my income increased, I switched from buying paperbacks to hardbacks. Mass produced hardbacks have decreased significantly in quality. They’re mostly glued now rather than stitched. Not much better production than paperbacks. The paper quality is typically better and I don’t smell the ink. I have hardbacks purchased in the 60s that are generally in excellent condition.

    Library books have special, heavy duty bindings. Part of the reason they hold up toto multiple readers as well as they do.

    My current purchases have switched from hardbacks to ebooks. I no longer have the room to store thousands of books.