upvote
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