upvote
> I know I’ve personally lever liked the cheap flimsiness of mass market paperbacks

I'm in the opposite boat. Growing up, I mostly had paperbacks, and when I encountered hardcover, I just couldn't fathom why someone would pay so much more for something so obviously inferior. They're a bigger pain to hold. Not convenient to put in a backpack. Take up way more space on the bookshelf. Etc.

reply
Strong +1 from me. Hardcovers look nicer but are a PITA to read from, especially when traveling with them. I almost exclusively buy paperback when I opt for dead-tree books simply because the actual reading experience is nicer.

That said, I usually just stick to my kindle.

reply
There are different grades or constructions of hardcovers. What you're describing is likely a cheap adhesive casebound. At the other end are the lay-flat hardcovers with sewn signatures and a specially constructed flexible spine. Those are a joy to read.
reply
The high quality hardcovers address none of the complaints.

They are big, and bulky. They don't fit into a backpack. And you can't simply hold them in one hand and read, anywhere you sit. Like a bench in a garden. You need a space dedicated to reading them.

In terms of utility, hardcovers are strictly worse.

reply
Lay flat hardcovers are much nicer for taking notes from. You can place on a flat surface and use your hands to do other things. A paperback will typically need a book weight to accomplish the same thing.
reply
Hardcovers may be made as small as paperbacks, but far more lasting:

https://www.amazon.com/Hobbit-Lord-Rings-Deluxe-Pocket/dp/05...

reply
I own those, I would describe them as semi-hardcover, with fake leather wrapped around some stiff but still pretty flexible material. The text is also so small as to be difficult to read in all but ideal lighting.
reply
Tbh I have a worn UK first edition of one volume (stored for now, I think it was TT). Beautiful fold out map, but the cover was cheap and flimsy. I think my latter US 2nd edition was better manufactured, not sure if that’s a postwar UK problem or not.
reply
What kind of hardback books are you reading that don’t fit in a backpack?

The only hard bound books I’ve ever purchased that wouldn’t fit in a backpack were intentionally oversized “coffee table” books.

reply
If you have a normal size backpack carrying a normal size load like you are going to work or school, it’s easier to slide in a smaller paperback than a bulkier hardcover. The extra volume makes a difference in this case.
reply
If they're bigger than paperbacks (dimensions and weight), then they're inferior.

Sure - if I have a nice chair to sit on in the evening, with good lighting, and can rest it on something, they're quite nice. But the bulk of my reading is either outside of home (so they need to fit in my bag nicely) in an uncomfortable chair, or while lying down so I need to hold the book up. Weight/size really matters here.

When I was a kid I asked around, and in those days the reasons I was given were:

1. They're durable - less likely to fall apart - and may last generations.

2. The font is bigger.

reply
I hate the bigger font too. I prefer fonts and spacing used by most MMPs. It's what I use on my eReader.
reply
No they are not, who wants to haul around a book when my kindle fits in my pocket? One I can’t read in the dark without an external light?
reply
The French are on your side. They love their premium paperback: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collection_Blanche
reply
Hardbacks also hurt more when you fall asleep reading in bed and drop the book on your face.
reply
When I was little, like 10 years old, I was obsessed with reading when not in school. Also I had a lot of insomniac nighttime hours to deal with. And my parents got wise to leaving the light on in my bedroom, or the classic TV-ploy, "flashlight under the covers". So, in an attempt to fool them, I would bring my favorite tome into the bathroom, where they routinely left the light on all night, and I'd slip into the dry bathtub, and read to my heart's content. And I believe that this went on for some time until they figured out or called my bluff. They considered it weird and quirky that I'd chosen that route, but I really needed my books.

Later in my teenage years, I would be spending inordinate time in the bathroom every evening, with a tub of Vaseline. That's right, I was able to solve a lubricated, optimized Rubik's Cube in 63 seconds!

reply
Not just eBooks: the growing popularity of audiobooks has presumably had an effect on traditional book sales too.

Audiobook sales continue to grow strongly every year, where as ebooks have been flat or declining in recent years.

reply
I see audiobooks as crazy expensive and I don't like how they are locked down. If I paid $20-30 for a Martin Prechtel audio book and get an MP3 or something I could use any way I like it would be one thing but to be locked into Apple or Amazon it is just something I do when I am on the free trial... And Prechtel is one of very few authors I'd prefer it for because his work is so oral.
reply
Agreed that they're overpriced. For some reason, I rarely want to own a DRM-ridden audiobook, especially at those prices. (The Lord of the Rings as read by Andy Serkis and The Buffalo Hunter Hunter are two recent exceptions that you should check out.)

Once I'm done borrowing an audiobook from the library through Libby or Hoopla, I might buy a physical book if I liked it enough. I usually don't foresee myself listening to the book again.

reply
Why bother with libraries when you can subscribe to Audible?
reply
It's free, and I'm boycotting Amazon.

In cases where I have trouble getting a book from the library, it's often on Spotify. An Audible subscription would be mostly redundant.

reply
I'm quite happy with OpenAudible: https://openaudible.org/
reply
Which is why most everyone does a subscription model. ~$15 per book, even if its 800 pages written.
reply
You mean per month, not per book? Most people I know that listen to audiobooks, do so through services that charge monthly subscription. Netflix for audiobooks, basically.
reply
Audible does X credits per month subs and a credit is 1 book. I guess there are Netflix style ones too now.
reply
that's more about a desire not to read, with the (IMO flawed) strategy of multitasking, vs. format. The % of people who have read a book in the past year is abysmal and continues to decline.
reply
Multitasking isn't always flawed.

One of the most well-read person I know recently revealed to me that the hundreds of books he read over past few years were actually mostly audiobooks - because it turns out that most of his dayjob is physical, low-cognitive-demand kind, and pairs perfectly with audiobooks, basically keeping his brain engaged while his muscles do the repetitive work.

reply
What you're saying is probably correct for some percent of readers, but I'm not sure how big the effect actually is. Personally, I listen to books that I never would have sat down to read in the first place, and the time it takes up isn't competing with reading (doing chores, driving, etc.).
reply
Add me to the chorus of "I like to have physical books but prefer paperbacks for practical reasons". The relative flimsiness of paperbacks doesn't matter much: I'm not abusing them, I'm not reading any given book that many times, they'll be fine. But hardback books are bigger and heavier than paperbacks.

If you buy a lot of your books second-hand and live in an expensive part of the world (as I do) then you will likely find that the cost of the books is less than the cost of the larger house you need to fit them in. So you want physically smaller editions of the books if possible.

There are exceptions, of course. Anything you frequently want to have open and flat in front of you -- e.g., cookery books -- you will prefer to be a nice hardback that you can do that with. "Coffee table" books whose whole purpose is to look nice need to be hardbacks (though I personally buy very few of those). Some books never get published in paperback editions.

reply
I was thinking that too, but then the article mentioned at the very end that Canada isn’t experiencing the decline and its mass market paperbacks never ballooned in price. That one fact could prove the entire thesis of the article but wasn’t really explored.
reply
Amazingly you can now stream 4K Blu-ray remuxes for a few bucks a month for a debrid service. But if there ever was a physical media I would buy it would be Blu rays.
reply
I fit your hypothesis, with one proviso: even for books that I value enough to want a physical hardcover copy (for example, The Lord of the Rings), I also have an ebook version for convenience in reading. But for books that I would have just bought in mass market paperback years ago, yes, I just buy the ebook now.
reply
> The kind of person who wants the cheapest possible book moved from mass market paperbacks to e-readers.

When I've looked at ebooks in the past they were usually more expensive than mass market paperback, most often on par with trade paperback. Has this changed?

reply
There is a similar effect with DSLR cameras caused by the widespread availability of mobile phones with cameras included.

The “bottom end” of the camera market is basically gone now, but the high end full frame bodies are still selling.

reply
Im my experience, people who read the most were the ones buying paperbacks for practical reasons. Hardcover was gift or for show, paperbavk for actual reading.

You yourself did not read that much by own words and was in harcover group for reasons that sound more aesthetic.

reply