The Paperback Scourge

If you collect books, stop buying paperbacks.

For a few dollars more you can buy a book that will actually hold together after being read.

A shelf full of paperbacks is the surest sign of a pleb.

Have some respect for literature.

Uh I disagree

Outline your reasoning now or never reply to me again.

It's called ebooks.

>Spending money on an intangible sequence of 1s and 0s

I think your argument is invalid. Also if paperbacks fall apart after you've read them, it might be because your handling of them isn't optimal.

1. Not an argument.

2. The optimal way to read a paperback is to never read it.

I like my paperbacks and I like my hardbacks.

You would be able to like your paperbacks for longer if they were hardbacks.

Then they would not be paperbacks tho.

You're starting to catch on.

But I like my paperbacks.

Why?

Comparing books of the same size, paperback is the more enjoyable reading experience, by weight and feel. Look closer into the matter.

However. books over 500 pages or so are better read on an e-reader. I think you meant hardbacks are the sure sign of a publisher, since that's where they make the majority of their money. Shill. JK. Maybe.

>spending money on molecules and atoms

Because.

If you only read a book once you should not be wasting money on hardcovers

I try and buy hardbucks when they're reasonably priced

yeah well your fucking grandkids are gonna donate all your faggy books after you die
also a cup of water renders it fucked

get over yourself, faggot

hardcovers are gay too. we need to bring back leather-bound books

>Inb4 Pléiade or pleb.

Here are my eighteenth century books: Shakespere, Pope, Young, Bossuet, Horace in translation, Congrave. There are seven more which will probably arrive until mid-december or so. I live in Brazil, so it tends to take three months for books to arrive.

My hardcovers. Not all of them, however.

Well, first off all not all authors come out in hardback (for example I've never saw The Hermetic Tradition: Symbols and Teachings of the Royal Art by Julius Evola in hardback). Secondly a lot of hardback editions are pretty pricey. For example some good hardback editions of Crowley cost like $60.

Where do you get them from? I'm addicted to buying books, I don't think I need antique book addictions.

Paperbacks might fall apart if you're a FUCKING retard who can't handle a book, but, as you can see here
hardbacks fade away

I am quite erect.

i never buy a hardback if a cheaper paperback version is available. and nor would i buy a paperback if a free ebook version can be found.

if money wasn't a concern, i'd opt for the paperback every time. i enjoy the feeling after finishing a book, looking at what was a brand new paperback just weeks ago now being damaged beyond repair: loose pages, water damaged, front page missing etc.

AbeBooks.

True. Some of the oldest ones are in very bad state. However, even my books from the 1910's are still firmer than some of my contemporary paperbacks.

I am happy that I have been able to generate such a desirable sensation upon your body.

Here is a Pope from 1752 - but a few years after his death.

>True. Some of the oldest ones are in very bad state. However, even my books from the 1910's are still firmer than some of my contemporary paperbacks.
I was joking because the photo is blurry

Oh.

I took that one with my cellphone. My camera's battery was dead.

comfort and convenience over quality huh. this is what's wrong with the world, people like you. if me were in power you'd be euthanized via meat grinder, then eaten

This is true of mass-market paperbacks but not of trade paperbacks

yea, it's spending money on something that's way smaller than most books and can hold massive texts. The only downside I can find for You would be that it doesn't pimp what you're reading. E-Readers are for modest men.

Good luck reading after the EMPs strike in 2020.

little bit of this, little bit of that, dont you dare judge me patriarchy

I have a calfskin bound bible and its a gorgeous thing to hold and behold, feels like those soft floppy Penguin Classics but is also beautiful and long lasting. Other leather bound books are prohibitively expensive.

>he thinks you have to spend money to read ebooks

ebooks make things less accessible. you shouldn't need a credit card, account of some type, computer literacy to read a fucking book.

I'm not going to have children so I only need my books to survive as long as I do.

yeah but it would be nice if the worthwhile titles are still existing within physical space to be discovered

How much do you pay for them? All the rare/antique/firstprinying books I see on there are like in the thousands of dollars.

I can buy a leatherbound classic for like $12 dollars this board needs to GET THEIR MONEY UP I'm tired of hearing you all bitch

It's ok, your collection is quite impressive, user!

>that will actually hold together after being read.
I've never understood how people manage to hamhand their books so fucking hard.
I cart my paperbacks back and forth to class in a bag on a bus dozens of times and when I'm done they don't look any different.
You have to treat it like trash on purpose to damage a book.

Almost all of my paperbacks are from the 1980s or earlier and are in perfect condition. Learn not to gum up your books, disgusting ape.

Much less than you would think. Average 15-20 dollars. If you truly want them, you will find them.

Thank you. I've been collecting for one whole year now and I feel great satisfaction when I behold my modest yet beautiful small library.

your "library" is a hideous, moldy blight. get fucked.

caring about this kind of thing is 100% the sign of a pseud

Favourite books as hardbacks.
Anything else as ebooks.

share source please...?

Fuck you faggot

I certainly do not think so.

I buy what's cheapest. The information is the same.

gg. I win.

>tfw you don't fetishize books

It takes less shelf space.

Real book aficionados only buy leather bound oeuvres with uncracked spines and uncut pages which they put in their garage.

I've got paperbacks from 1920, they hold fine. You people are bitches.

Some books don't come in hardback.

>caring about format

the surest sign of a pleb.

Never understood the appeal of these clam shell books. What do you do when the author says "as described above" and the referenced text is on another page? All this virtualization and being forced to suspend disbelief cannot be healthy.

>go to Amazon
>click on book
>Paperback: $35.00
>Hardcover: $110.00

Leather bound bibles owned by by people who truly loved the Lord are a sight to behold. Pic related is a 1967 edition of a Collins World concordance bible that was owned by my late grandmother.

>buying books to be a ""collector"" and not primarily to read them or have for reference
What midcult boomer hell is this?

What's the point of highlighting the whole fucking book? Just don't highlight you fucking autist.

I don't understand the hate for paperbacks. I buy them for two reasons. One they are easier to read in public and since I buy them secondhand, I don't mind if they get damaged so I can just chuck one into my bag to bring to work. The red vintage classics are perfect for this and still look good on a bookshelf.
Second, I also collect some books for their beautiful cover illustrations which only exist as paperbacks, see pic related.
These types of illustrations are a dying breed and it seems like only me gives a fuck about them.

She probably just highlighted something every time it came up in a church sermon and that's what it ended up looking like after a hundred years of Sundays.

Comfort and convenience are a quality unto themselves. You're advocating for the higher value that aesthetics and overall durability should hold over ease of use, and that is fine, it's your personal opinion, but books are simply the containers of the information inside them. Holding the physical aspect of a book as a material good to be hoarded is simple and pure elitism.

Nah, I too really enjoy paperback aesthetics.

But I read books, not collect them

>he reads each book once and once only

Or you could not fold your books like a newspaper. Also if you handled your hardbacks in the same way you would snap their covers too. The reason that Hard backs tend to last longer is that people are nicer to them. Not only because they are nicer or more expensive but because the tactile sensation you receive from them tells your brain ''This is stiff an' brittle **Ooga Booga** MUST BE CAREFUL TO NOT BREAK'' and you subconsciously correct your behavior in order to not break them.
Learn to control your mind, Dingus Erectus.

What are you doing that destroys books beyond readability?

What is the best way to transport paperback books without getting damaged? I've found they can easily get warped in backpacks if they aren't stacked between other books or notebooks.

What? I'm saying unless you only read books once only and then trash or toss 'em, you will end up collecting them.

Collecting is an intentional process as opposed to simply accumulating. There are a bunch of coins in my couch, but that doesn't make me a coin collector.

Collecting is the exact same as accumulating. There are a bunch of coins collected down the back of your couch.

Reductio ad retardum

why's it all blurry?

Nobody is going to find your books when you're dead and decide you were a great genius because of what you had sitting on a shelf.

I've read some pretentious garbage on here but this is the best. I've got paperback books that are as good as the day I got them decades ago because I'm not a fucking chimp who smears excrement on everything and I've got hardbacks that have fallen apart because some moron stood on them. You're just a moron OP, sage.

I plan on owning several hundreds of books, most of them bought used.

Bud wud buot muh scribbles?

Cardboard

Fuck off Tolstoy

>people regularly fall for bait like this
Sage and hide

>using amazon
there are plenty of sites with super cheap hardcover books
are you afraid of used?

how did you get all books that fit the same theme of hardcover
most of the books i look at on abebooks have no picture

You changed the subject of my example. Collect can work in that fashion, but I'm pretty sure that's not how OP was using the word.

Contrast
>I collect books
with
>I accumulate books

The first is more likely to mean
>I actively seek out certain books and organize them in a systematic fashion
while the second gives off more of an impression of
>The amount of books I have increases over time for some unspecified reason