We don’t need hardback books

Larry Ryan. Guardian, 05/06/2026: The hill I will die on: Heavy, awkward and incredibly expensive – we don’t need hardback books.

Hate to keep stirring things up, but I sort of agree. Too bad publishers are fazing out the mass market paperbacks, eh? You know about that Guttenberg Bible? -- I looked at a copy housed at Yale's Beinecke Library -- hefty mother, there -- can't imagine reading it in bed. Most of the hardcovers in my collection I've picked up from remainder shelves at various bookstores or via bargain mail order dealers. But let me add that trade paperbacks have gotten just as hefty so don't get me started -- ok, maybe for a bit. I've joked that I need the equivalent of one of those gym guy "spotters" to hang around when I'm reading Kristin Lavransdatter: (Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition) in bed, in case I can't lift it off my chest & start to suffocate. And mass-market paperbacks have the binding that ensures you can't read the end & beginning of sentences or you get ligament strain trying to keep them open w/one hand; plus the pages turn the color of autumn leaves in 6 months. Thank heavens for lightweight e-readers.

One major advantage to hardbacks is that they are usuallt printed in a larger typeface.

I guess my appreciation for hard cover books is an extension of my appreciation for paper vs electronic: they are just so wonderfully substantial in the hands and impressive on the shelf. I agree about the weighty ones, but it feels like more of an accomplishment somehow to polish one off in that format. I think they stand a chance of lasting longer, and once they become decorative items (i.e. have been read) they look the best.

>1 featherbear: I've the same edition of Kristen. Haven't gotten to it yet but - oof, yes, I can feel what I'll be up against.

To each their own.

I had owned a Kindle since 2010 (and using it a lot) but I also have a pretty big paper collection, a lot of it special editions (mostly hardcover - even heavier and bulkier than trade hardcovers). Do I wish they take less space? Sure. But they are are beautiful and I really enjoy the art both on the covers and in illustrations where they are there and THAT cannot be replicated on a kindle (you can on a tablet so some of my comics reading had switched over but even there, I like paper for some things).

Ryan is right if you are only interested in reading a new book once or twice, but if you want to keep it around for future generations a glued single-sheet binding is a terrible idea. Sewn bindings can always be repaired as the book wears.

I tend to make my own decisions.

>1 featherbear:

the pages turn the color of autumn leaves in 6 months.

That was true of both paperbacks and hardcovers back when wood pulp paper was common. But that isn't used much in books these days

>5 thorold: "Sewn bindings can always be repaired as the book wears."

Hardcovers don't always mean sewn these days - even very expensive ones (looking balefully at Oxford for example). Most trade hardcovers appear to be just glued - very often the same body as the trade paperback.

>9 AnnieMod: Yes, I know: I’ve learnt to check…

I prefer to read a physical book. I usually read the larger paperback not mass market. If someone prefers to read from a hardcover they should be able to.

I suspect for now major publishers will continue to issue their original print runs as hardcovers because of the captive library market; for libraries, hardcovers seem to be the best medium for multiple borrowing & preservation. But preservation & storage are expensive in terms of space & energy. I could conceive of a future, especially w/publisher consolidation, where most library reading is accessed electronically, & texts are leased by public, academic, & research libraries, as is the case with many academic serials, for temporary use by patrons w/out charge (ignoring the hidden costs of taxes or tuition). Isn't this already the case w/some e-books circulating in public libraries?

With regard to personal libraries, the existential issues with limited space have already been noted, but Ryan also notes that hardcovers may be reaching the limits of individual incomes, especially with increasing financial inequality.

As to the autumn leaves of mass market paperbacks, I haven't shopped for mm genre pbks ever since the newsstands in New Haven went out of business in the late 20th/early 21st centuries, & I haven't been to an airport in years since I retired.

>12 featherbear: for libraries, hardcovers seem to be the best medium for multiple borrowing & preservation.

That was certainly the case when all of a library's collection was made up of physical books. But as e-books become more popular, the lifespan of physical books gets longer. And as that lifespan lengthens and the price gap betwen hardback and paperback increases, libraries are more willing to buy paper over hard (when both are available). Part of the thinking is that the physical book will get fewer uses (and therefore last longer) than it once did, and any book that's popular enough to get so much use that it needs to be replaced is popular enough that it will still be in print when it needs to be replaced.

When I started work in library acquisitions in 1990, every book that we bought in paperback was a book that we had to buy in paperback, either because the hardback was out of print or because it was a paperback original; and when we bought a paperback, it got laminated in clear plastic for durability. By the time I retired in 2021, we had decided that the added expense of binding/covering paperbacks wasn't worth it; better to buy more books -- both more individual titles and more copies of the most popular titles -- than to spend a large chunk of our budget on binding.

The big bestsellers will still be published, and purchased, in hardback well before a paperback edition is available. But when a book is published in both formats simultaneously, libraries are increasingly happy to stretch their budget by buying the paperback. For some collections, paper is already preferred; we found that our YA readers much preferred paperback to hardback, enough so that the format made a difference in circulation numbers.

>13 KeithChaffee: The young people have better eyes, and want to carrt the book around.

People are different. Those who feel no need for hardbacks don't have to buy them. But they should not assume rhat others have the same needs and preferences. And they should not remove the options that are important to others.

I actually quite like the heft of a hardcover, and the text in smaller paperbacks can be difficult for me to focus on (and I'm only in my thirties). Since I carry a backpack-style purse, the extra size isn't much trouble, and if I'm going to be doing a ton of walking I just carry my ereader. Plus there's the aesthetic factor. Leave me my hardcovers!

ETA: It doesn't solve the text size issues for people worse off than me, but there are absolutely smaller-sized hardcovers if size is the main issue. Everyman's Library makes lovely cloth-bound hardcovers the size of a trade paperback.

Perhaps it's being considered because of the ridiculous price being charged for large trade paperbacks. I'd imagine that, proportionally speaking, it rivals the margin on hard covers by now. And if hard covers became a thing of the past, doubtless the trade paperback price would rise even more.

I was at Walmart and spotted a trade paperback copy of I'm Glad My Mom Died, but observed how cheap its paper was (practically gray in tone and felt coarse, like you might find in a kid's colouring book) and noted the price approaching $30 Canadian dollars. I'd imagine it costs less than $2 or $3 to print it.

Honestly, I believe the freelancer responsible for the piece was trolling his audience. First of all, the reason Hardbacks continue to carry the pricing that best offsets the initial costs of bringing the book to market (first copy costs). In trade publishing in particular, that's a critical consideration for a publisher; they hope the heftier price on a hardcover will begin to pay off their expenses more rapidly. Consumers will currently pay between $30 - $60 for a mainstream title (including reference texts) for a hardcover. You can't attach that kind of price to a trade paperback. And some people are loathe to lend out hardcover books, particularly as they've paid that hefty price. Paperbacks (priced at a lower level) are more apt to seep into the used book market as the buyers aren't as invested in their retention. Publishers have for years been concerned with the resale of books in the second-hand market. Publishers don't make money from books donated to the local thrift shop.

The other thing he dismisses is that some of the major publishing entities (at least here in the States) have already made the decision that the paperback format is the least important to them. Only if the volume of sales of a hardback seem to justify continuing sales will they go with issuing a paperback. Bear in mind that these days a manuscript comes in to the publisher in digital format. It gets poured into a content management system for production in either hard copy form or digital form. Paperbacks may need a different trim size and that may require futzing around with both font and paper stock. Unless sales really justify that additional step, publishers will be entirely happy to stick with a practice of either hardback or digital. So really, he can't rely on there being a paperback in 8-13 months. Didn't buy the hardcover when you could? You're stick with the digital version or MAYBE something via print on demand.

His biggest complaint is that he finds hardback covers to be cumbersome. They take up too much room and aren't portable. Riding a train, he can't hold on to the hardcover book and hold on to a commuter strap at the same time. At that point, the publisher is going to point him to the digital format.

Yes, hardbacks take more shelf space. They also may stand up to a longer period of use. I have copies of titles from the Folio Society on my shelf because I know I retain ownership of that physical artifact. (No modernizing or "cleaning up" of language used in the original just because times have changed. I own it as the original author wrote it.)

I did not find the writer's arguments to be very persuasive.

>17 jillmwo: Agreed. Not very persuasive at all.

I've got hardback copies of Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights that are (gets out tape measure) 11 x 16cms (4" x 6" if you are a time traveller from the distant past, or american). They fit (just) into my jeans back pocket, or (more comfortably) into a small sling bag i have. They have proved invaluable when i'm out and about without my backpack. I took the Emily to a gig last night and read much of it in the train to and from, plus the gaps between the three bands playing. Not my all-time favourite novels but always happy to re-read them, especially Jane. Also got a similar-sized Tolstoy hardback (essays not W&P lol).

No publishing date on them but i'd guess mid-20th century. The bindings look glued but they are in excellent condition despite the battering they're getting (the bag strap broke and the bag flew off as i was jumping up and down during a particularly energetic number last night). My eyes aren't what they used to be but i can read the smallish print with glasses. The pages are thin but holding up well with only marginal yellowing. Quite attractive really.

I wish i could get the murderbot books in similar format :(

>19 MrAndrew: Oxford World’s Classics used to have that small hardback format, up to about the end of the seventies when they switched to paperback. As you say, very handy little books, although the thin paper meant you had to be a bit careful with them.

>3 Cecrow: I don't like reading online - my eyes tire more quickly. I've long preferred hardcovers to mass market paperbacks for their durability, even though the paperback editions often have more attractive covers. (It's sad how the paperbacks can fall apart after a few decades. For example, I'm having to be very, very careful how far I open the pages of that 1966 MMPB edition of Doomstar by Edmond Hamilton I bought used. It makes it more difficult to read the words next to the spine, but sure beats having the cover come off and all the pages falling out.)

Now that I am 71 with only five months to go before I'm 72, I've decided that durability is less of a factor. I may have only another 10 - 30 years to go. (Don't laugh -- Aunt Ruth died at 102.) I no longer automatically buy a hardcover edition.

If one reads in bed, why not invest in one of those book holding pillows?

>5 thorold: That's true. One of my church's little books of daily prayer had a couple of signatures come loose. I sewed them back in, as well as sewing in a ribbon for a book mark because that copy didn't have one.

>14 MarthaJeanne: I am reminded that enough vinyl record lovers exist that new music may be issued in that format for that market.

>15 Watry: I have magnifying goggles that were purchased for very tiny counted cross-stitch projects. I find they also work for fine print in books.

>1 featherbear: To be fair, those Guttenberg Bibles were probably printed to be chained to a study carrel, so readers would have a sturdy wooden surface to hold it.

>21 JalenV: Do those pillows work for you? I guess it depends on what books you are reading and how you lie in bed to read. What they really don't work for is big art books. Thry just fall over. And while the thingy to keep the book open looks useful, it requires a lot of adjustment to read the whole page. I boight one each for me and my mother, and neither of us found them useful.

My best friend's mother has one. I no longer read in bed since my cataract surgeries, but I used to just lie on my side and hold the book open.

In my opinion, big art books are for tables or, if in bed, laps.

I'm comoing more and more to the oponion that I don't need large art books. A shame really, but they need two hands to hold them, even on a table, which doesn't leave a hand free for the magnifying glass.

>25 JalenV: Apologies to J Guttenberg, but I read the entire HarperCollins Study Bible on a fire tablet using the Kindle app mostly in bed (bad back) & found it a worthwhile experience. Incidentally, the app allows one to insert those expressive holy moly icons* in one's personalize e-notes where appropriate.

*I was referring to emojis ... couldn't pull up the appropriate word at the time.

>29 featherbear: My parents didn't get a durable copy of the Bible they gave me for my 20th birthday in 1972 -- or even a copy with all of the appendices mentioned on the copyright page. The fake leather cover fell off in 3 pieces many years ago. I've had to tape more than a few pages. I've written many a comment in it over the decades (the one I reread yesterday was my head-shaking lament about good kings of Judah not making sure their sons married proper-minded women). I'm closing in on the part about the wicked Queen Athaliah. IIRC, regarding the fact that she missed having her grandson Joash murdered along with all of his brothers, I wrote a comment about a woman who could do that probably didn't bother to know how many grandsons she had.)

The emojis sound handy.

BTW, when I was a college senior, we took a field trip to D.C. for one of my library classes (just an Amtrack day trip for us). I don't know if it's still there, but a Library of Congress display at the time had a manuscript Bible and a Guttenberg Bible open side by side. I couldn't tell them apart. (Our guide mentioned that the decorations on the library's ceiling had been recently cleaned. I asked how often that was done. He blandly replied, Every 75 years, whether they need it or not.)

>28 MarthaJeanne: Why not buy yourself a set of magnifying goggles such as are used for painting miniatures or needle crafts? These days you can even get them with LED lights, which mine don't have.

I've never seen them. How much do they magnify?

Oh yes we do...so, I guess in my world Larry just bought the farm... :-)