Are paperbacks memes?

Paperbacks are much more comfortable. And why would you want to lug one of those hardcovers around?

tell me this is not true

i read it on /r/history

I only read paperbacks because the outward folding on the edge of the page is proof I have actually read the book

>Opening your paperback needlessly wide, shredding the binding
Why do people do this? If you don't read it like a sperg, it's really easy to just NOT destroy the binding and keep the aestetic quality of paperbacks. The frayed creases on the binding look ugly as fuck and you know it.

Attached: HowToDestroyYourPaperback.jpg (1000x714, 438K)

I only buy paperbacks, second hand as often as I can.

If you care about keeping your books in mint condition, why not get digital copies that you cannot harm?

paperback may not be as aesthetically pleasing, but they are more comfortable for residing.

no, paperbacks are the most comfy to read, i prefer french folio livres du poche and vintage editions

the point of a good paperback is that you can bend it just enough to be more comfortable with it than with a hardback

thanks user, I didn't even realize i was doing this
Here, have a cute asian

Attached: ec25f95412eb754e78a180f326c1be7a3c2ec8b7402244a5feb85d2345cba325.jpg (2048x1836, 660K)

If you're not memeing, the best way to prevent over-opening the book is to keep your hand or fingers on the binding to keep it flatter and prevent you from accidentally opening it too far. I read a 827 page paperback with no resulting cracks in the binding this way.
I generally don't worry if books, or any media for that matter, gets damaged in the process of being used. Books are meant to be read, not sit on a shelf. I just dislike causing unnecessary damage to them, especially when people like the user I responded to wear it as a badge of pride.

Attached: 0810191624a.jpg (2560x1920, 1.35M)

Livres du poche are the comfiest books. The French know how to make a satisfying paperback.

>not choosing the superior Gallimard Blanche collection or Editions Grasset
Never gonna make it

Faggot. Books are meant to be read and it is fine that they show their purpose has been fulfilled.

Since you're a ultra retard fag that doesn't read replies. I'll quote my post from here :
>I generally don't worry if books, or any media for that matter, gets damaged in the process of being used. Books are meant to be read, not sit on a shelf. I just dislike causing unnecessary damage to them, especially when people like the user I responded to wear it as a badge of pride.

Attached: 1564871525170.png (288x326, 19K)

Of course they are memes. Everybody hates broken spines, they fall into pieces after one read, and look atrocious in your library. The sort of people purchasing peasant paperbacks are invariably short on financial resources and try to defend the value of paperbacks thinking that it will obscure their pauperism. They wish they owned a library like OP's pic, but instead they possess a pile of dogeared pocket books. Those people are madly envious for real libraries with real books meaning hardcovers.

Also, thanks to OP for making the Saturday e/lit/ist thread saving me work.

Attached: bookcase.jpg (736x981, 145K)

A book is literally just a book. Anyone who says different is trying to be a fucking hipster or a status-seeking whore.

Point is, whether it be livres de poche or livres brochés like Gallimard Blanche, the French show that one needn't fuck around with hardcovers, and can manage elegantly with paperbacks

No, paperbacks are superior to hardbacks. They're generally more wieldy, portative, and aesthetic. I generally despise personal property as cumbersome to my being, so I don't like having overly expensive books that I wouldn't be okay giving away to a friend. Hardcover books are overrated, too bulky and ugly. Paperbacks are basically modern scrolls. Hardcovers are bourgeois decorations for shelves. Hardbacks were created in order to provide for more durability in the case of really large texts. If a text is huge, a hardback might be necessary to prevent the spine from falling apart. Apart from this, hardbacks are unnecessary, ugly and superfluous. Can you imagine how silly a book of less than 200 pages would be as a hardback (or even less than 300)? In the end though, it's the content of the book that matters.

General rule: smaller texts should be paperbacks; really large texts should be hardback. Paperbacks are preferable in all cases except those in which the bulkiness of a text requires a hardback to prevent spine damage.

Attached: 518qQNt-cEL._SX302_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (304x499, 33K)

I really like the flexible penguin paperbacks desu. Great books to hold

Non brainlet response

>Opening your paperback needlessly wide, shredding the binding
This blew my mind when I first visited Yea Forums. You guys read like animals

/thread

Agreed, although the Pléiade collection is absolutely stunning and tasteful

Not necessarily.
Though I prefer to use a hardcover for it's weight, it's ruggedness, and it's aesthetic.
Preferably none of that fake shit either, I'm talking real hardcovers, not this "modern" shit.

Pleiade are expensive as fuck, but...
>All the books offer a similar high quality appearance—leather bound, with gold lettering on the spine and bible paper, and they have a practical small format
>They are also sold in a transparent rhodoïd dust jacket, and inserted in a white printed cardboard slipcase, although multiple volumes are often sold in a single slipcase

That's ok. I throw my books away once I finish reading.

I just read my books in whichever way is comfy. If that cracks the spine why does that matter?
It doesn't

>paying twice as much because the cover is cardboard

Attached: 1557774867377.jpg (640x628, 40K)

Female spotted. Tits or gtfo.

What publisher sells books like that?

>how your bookshelf looks doesnt matter because no one even comes to your house anyway
>contents of the books dont change one bit between paperback and hardcover
>Its harder to read in bed
>cannot read with one hand
Paperbacks are the only patrician choice.

Those are all ZeroBooks.

Yeah, very funny. I found a few publishers anyway so whatever

do you just ignore every left page?

Bad bindings are a meme

SPBP

Ever thought of rotating the book in your hand?

and reading upside down?

They're cheap, ultimately disposable and a good way to get stuff out en masse. Hardbacks are preferred for long term ownership.

All books are memes after you've read them. Once you've absorbed the information they contain they become useless objects.
I recommend borrowing library books.

rereading certain books can be pretty enjoyable actually

>he doesn't buy old, heavily used hardcover copies off of eBay whenever possible
You're not actually that gay, are you? I 100% respect the pragmatism of paperbacks, but hardbacks are more aesthetic and comfortable. When my son is old enough, I also want him to be able to think of my office library as mysterious and exciting, like I felt with old books as a kid. It's fun and encouraging.

Attached: s-l1000.jpg (1000x750, 186K)

I'm going to put my finger in your son's ass in your office library so he has traumatic associations with it

For the most part, I don't disagree.

Bet I can beat you to it.

What if it just gives him a fetish for old books and libraries and getting buttfingered?

Both are fine, with Paperbacks being better if you going to use them a lot/travel (unless you're a literal child and don't know how to take care what you carry with you).

I Really wish I had just stuck to one format though. It really trigger my autism anytime I notice I have hardcovers and paperbacks on my shelf that'll make my collection look haphazardly placed when organized in any logical way.