Paperback vs. Hardcover

>>7797060
In what do they compete?

Physical is fedora shit

cheap used paperback from online bookstores

>>7797060

Paperback
Pros:
>one handed grip feels better
>lighter

cons:
>gets damaged easier

Hardcover
pros:
>sturdier
>looks better

cons:
>harder to hold with one hand
>heavier

Mass Market Paperback. Cheap, portable, disposable, and, with the exception of Ulysses and some philosophy books, represents all the you'd ever want to own. (Btw if anyone knows a mass market edition of Ulysses...)

Kicker: Carl Sagan agrees.

>>7797060
if books and prices are arbitrary, what's the discussion?

>>7797116
>Kicker: Carl Sagan agrees.
Got a source on this, senpai?

File: 1456185954787.jpg (45KB, 495x500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 495x500px

>>7797106
Hardcover
cons:
>those annoying, pointless dust jackets which become damaged and creased, the instant you try to hold the book
>90% of hardcovers actually look shit without the dust jackets because the publisher assumes you are never going to take them off
>cost more
>less fit into a suitcase for travelling
>limited translations available in hardcover

>>7797186
Says it in an episode of Cosmos (I think the last one).

"There's a fair number of Gutenberg Bibles and first folios of Shakespeare in the world but most of the books you see here [NY Library] are limited editions with very few surviving copies. But there also exists in the world mass printings of paperbound books that I think are still more wonderful. For the price of a modest meal you get the history of Rome."

>>7797213
Thanks, anon

>>7797090
If you think the difference in fedora factor between eReader/physical is anything but negligible, then you must be extremely euphoric