Books come in all sorts of shapes and sizes now. Some are large, or thick, others can be pocket sized with fewer pages. They can be a variation of colours or just plain. There is no limit when it comes to designing a book. However, there is one age old debate that I have been wondering about recently: hardback covers versus paperback covers.
As any book collector / lover will know, there are both positives and negatives to each type of book cover and at the end of the day, it's all about personal preference. But what are some of these pros and cons?
Moving away from aesthetics, it is also important for other aspects. For example, is a paperback or hardback book easier to hold? Hardback books are certainly heavier to carry, put on your already collapsing book shelf, or to fit into a bag, whereas paperbacks are more flexible and can be squashed into tighter spaces; this is especially helpful for women who like to carry a book in their handbag in case of those train delays, coffee breaks or just as a conversation starter. It can be uncomfortable holding a hardback book for extended periods of time and frequent breaks, or the use of a desk to lean up, will be necessary. Paperbacks are light and cause no weariness in the hands or wrists. Not only this, but hardbacks tend to be of a considerably larger physical size.
Paperbacks can be folded back to increase the ease of reading. This is seen as blasphemy by many, just like dog-earring pages, but we've all done it at one point in our lives and probably grew up watching our school teachers do it during story time. Hardback books are rigid and so not always the easiest read when you're lying in bed, on the sofa, upside down... anything to find that comfortable reading position. And don't even think about laying on your back and holding it above your face. All you want is for it to drop and face plant you; I do not recommend this position.
Hardback books protect the contents better than a paperback. If a closed hardback novel gets rained upon or lies beneath a dripping tap, the cover image may distort, but the story itself, the words within and the world it tells of will be safe and in one piece. As soon as a paperback meets water, it shrivels up and the pages stick together, ruining not only the cover, but the story inside. A hardback will also stop pages from creasing should it fall off of your bed or its shelf, whereas a paperback will twist so much that it could land a job at the circus as a contortionist.
Both types of covers can look beautiful, especially when kept in a consistent set. However, the hard backs often arrive with a dust jacket to keep the cover safe, or often the dust jacket is the cover. Take the jacket off the book and you will find an equally beautiful, but elegant, design on the book itself. A paperback has one cover and no surprises, sometimes with a dust jacket but this is the sole purpose of protecting the book and is just a clear sheet of plastic.
There's also the issue of price. Is one cheaper than the other? Usually, paperbacks are cheaper by a significant amount of money due to the added cost of creating a sturdier cover for a hardback. This can lead to certain books, such as in the Harry Potter Saga, originally being released in hardback format to earn as much money from the sales as possible. Paperback will usually follow a few months to a year later. There is also a theory that those books released as hardback first are destined to become successful, hence the more expensive printing option: the publisher has a great deal of faith in the story. So keep that in mind next time you go book shopping!
There is not a great deal of difference between the two types of covers; it is all down to personal preference. Both types are beautiful and a mixture look appealing on book shelves, as long as they're different series and tend to match. Or is that just me, wanting them to match? What are your thoughts on this long debated topic? Comment below and let us know.