|
Ornamented Death posted:Small cost savings, perhaps. Nope, they have to artificially deckle those edges now. It is entirely a weird status symbol.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
Mr. Squishy posted:Nope, they have to artificially deckle those edges now. It is entirely a weird status symbol. Haha drat, that's dumb as hell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
its probably more of a weird status symbol/ego thing for the imprint or the author rather than the consumer - the number of people who try to show off the deckled edges of books they own to impress people is most likely to be too small to make any kind of financial sense in itself
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Pre-1800s, a deckled edge was unavoidable because pages were individually made by dipping a wooden frame (a deckle) into a paper slurry and then draining off the water. Excess slurry would collect around the edge of the deckle frame, creating the uneven page edges. Trimming individual pages was too expensive, so deckled edges were a cost saving method and the cheapest way to produce books. In the 1800s, new machinery allowed paper to be created in bulk on long rolls, so they didn't have a deckled edge. Because people are people, deckled edges then became a status symbol because cheap old things are superior to improved new things more readily available to the masses even when the old things were an unavoidable flaw too expensive to fix, so publishers would sell a cheaper non-deckled version and a more expensive artificially deckled version. Poor people couldn't afford the more expensive fake version of the formerly cheap version, so buying books with deckled edges was a way to distinguish yourself from the grubby masses of common readers. Now, not many people know the history of deckled pages, but the vague idea remains, so some people still seek them out for status symbols because their books look more important and they are serious readers unlike the common masses. At the same time, Amazon has to have a disclaimer on books with deckled edges since people who don't know their book has intentionally been designed to look shoddy and be annoying to read will complain about receiving a terrible quality book, failing to understand that it's supposed to look like a terrible quality book to advertise that it is in fact superior to ordinary books.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Enfys posted:Now, not many people know the history of deckled pages, but the vague idea remains, so some people still seek them out for status symbols because their books look more important and they are serious readers unlike the common masses. again, I would bet there are less than 1000 people in the entire US that seek out and buy books with deckled edges for that purpose. And I would also bet there's some imprint/author ego-stroking involved just as much if not more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
I have a copy of Borges' Book of Imaginary Beings with deckled edges and it just looks really nice?? I don;t think this makes me some insane book millionaire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
CestMoi posted:I have a copy of Borges' Book of Imaginary Beings with deckled edges and it just looks really nice?? I don;t think this makes me some insane book millionaire. I mean I like the look of deckled edges but they have absolutely zero influence on what books I buy. Also no on can see that stuff when the book is sitting on a bookshelf so even then it's of limited aesthetic impact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Deckle edges on books (or pseudo-deckle) are largely an American things, I think. I don't see it much on European books. I think that there is a slight quality difference. Deckle edges usually denote slightly higher paper quality and production quality. I think if consumers subliminally associate deckle edges with higher quality than there is a status/quality aspect, even if it is marginal. It may boost sales very marginally, if at all. Given two editions of identical text then I would go for the deckled version. I might even spend $1-2 more on the deckled one. I'm not an insane bibliomane. My deckled copies are the Borges PBs and biography/history HBs, not much else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
I always cut my finger on deckled pages
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
What's the gooncensus on dipped or sprayed edges?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Unless it's gilt on the pages of a book some girl won as a school prize in the 1930s, I don't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
precision posted:- There are people who don't know about the trick to reading paperbacks without bending the spine? This drives me insane. If I ever see someone reading a book in a method that shows that they are breaking a spine, I make a mental note to never let them touch my books.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:This drives me insane. If I ever see someone reading a book in a method that shows that they are breaking a spine, I make a mental note to never let them touch my books. First thing I do with a paperback after I bought it, is breaking the spine. Get it over with and live the carefree reader's life. Nowadays it's either Kindle or hardcover, so it isn't an issue any more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
the proper way to read a softcover is to bend the left-hand pages of the book around so that the edge touches the spine and the right-hand side is flat. this prevents damage to the spine at the cost of your covers curling outwards a bit, though the pressure of storing the book on the shelf generally correct this keeping both sides of the book flat is uncomfortable and for newbies, while intentionally cracking spines is the behaviour of barbarians Ornamented Death posted:What's the gooncensus on dipped or sprayed edges? garish chernobyl kinsman fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Apr 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
I rip all the pages out and carry them in a wad in my pocket
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Throw them the gently caress away. Seriously they serve no purpose at all except to get in the way. They constantly fall and who the gently caress cares what your books cover looks like? Even if you're a show off your books kind of person usually you put them on the shelves with the spine out where you can't see the covers anyways. As far as spine breaking and stuff goes, break the poo poo out of your books. Well worn well read books have more character and are far more interesting than pristine condition books. I love going to garage sales and finding books with highlighting and writing in them. Dog eared pages and all. It shows that a book was properly and thoroughly enjoyed. ulvir posted:or because hardcovers are about 100% of the books you recieve as a gift I've also experienced this, why? Why people why? Give me a paperback edition of a book. I feel bad when the first thing I do with your gift is tear off part of it and throw it away because its stupid and serves no real function. Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Apr 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
You seem awfully angry about dust jackets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:You seem awfully angry about dust jackets. For so many reasons. Pointless. Annoying. Wasteful. Like deckled edges, dust jackets are a relic of the past and should be completely done away with. I'd almost say that for physical copies of books, but being able to pick up a book off my shelf and throwing at somebody while screaming "READ THIS loving BOOK!!" is so much easier and less copyright infringement than sharing digital copies, so I can't quite make the argument to completely do away with physical books all-together just yet. But I'd really, really like to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Reason posted:As far as spine breaking and stuff goes, break the poo poo out of your books. Well worn well read books have more character and are far more interesting than pristine condition books. In fact, break the poo poo out of everything you own, so people know you used it (and that you're a neanderthal who can't take care of things).
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Reason posted:For so many reasons. Pointless. Annoying. Wasteful. Like deckled edges, dust jackets are a relic of the past and should be completely done away with. I'd almost say that for physical copies of books, but being able to pick up a book off my shelf and throwing at somebody while screaming "READ THIS loving BOOK!!" is so much easier and less copyright infringement than sharing digital copies, so I can't quite make the argument to completely do away with physical books all-together just yet. But I'd really, really like to. I have well over 1000 hardcover books with dust jackets. I am slowly going through and putting dust jacket protectors on them. Does that trigger you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:I have well over 1000 hardcover books with dust jackets. I am slowly going through and putting dust jacket protectors on them. In some ways. Its obviously a greater argument than are "dust jackets just annoying and dumb?" and more an argument about consumerism in general as an example the idea that our possessions should remain in pristine condition or we are neanderthals is a pretty convenient argument for people who want to charge extra for hard covers and then more for protectors and then are producing and selling those things. Collections of things that are 'yours' can be shed in the same light. In general the attitude of "Hey this is a good book borrow my copy." seems less wasteful, but instead if you go "Hey this is a good book, but my copy can't be touched because you might bend a page or break the spine or lose the dust jacket so go buy a copy" you're kind of contributing to a whole bunch of negatives. Of course none of that really has anything to do with 'a book' in the sense that a book is a collection of words that have been written down to be read. Does a dust jacket(and cover) and a hard cover make those words and the story they tell better? Maybe in the same sense that a fancy label and a hefty price tag can fool a person into thinking that one glass of wine is better than another, regardless of the actual flavor of the wine. Again a much deeper conversation than just simply loving hating dust jackets, but making an argument for why you loving hate them can be a daunting task for anything a person has put a reasonable amount of thought into.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
If I really want someone to read a book, I will buy them a copy rather than lend my own out as that actually helps support the author I obviously enjoy and will help encourage them to keep writing books I can buy in hardcover and then slap a Brodart over the included dust jacket. You are very worked up over what other people do with their money. Not everyone is down with minimalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
sit down man
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
I am angry angry about book covers
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Breaking the spines of PBs reduces the strength of the spine and shortens the usable life of a book, meaning you have to buy a replacement sooner. Breaking spines costs money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
I buy hardcover for the shelf then read the ebook.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
opinions about dust jackets
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Dust jackets are useless. I put them in a binder waiting for a future use, but there isn't any so I expect them to be there until I throw them out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Wait, this is a thing for people? I still just want every hardback to come already done library style, with a dust jacket that's either laminated or in a protector that's taped to itself at the cover corners so I have a waterproof cover on the book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Yeah, having checked out a couple of hardbacks from the library recently, I have to admit that the laminated dust jacket is not entirely terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
I recently purchased 600' of Brodart dust jacket covers and have been slowly working my way through all my hardcovers. That's still probably not enough by half :'(.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
drat. How much of your living space is devoted to storing books?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Enfys posted:drat. How much of your living space is devoted to storing books? Just one room in the house.   
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Curly book covers are way worse than broken spines, in fact. Broken spines are a sign of love.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:Just one room in the house. Calvin and Hobbes? Right on!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:Just one room in the house. Do you live in a salvation army shop?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
A human heart posted:Do you live in a salvation army shop? You wound me, gentle goon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
I like your shelves and your collection. Bums me out that all my books are in archive stacked in a storage unit. I've had to buy copies of books that I know I already own simply because I can't find my first copy...
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:Curly book covers are way worse than broken spines, in fact. Broken spines are a sign of love. curly book covers don't make the book fall to literal pieces in 10 years though
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
Josef K. Sourdust posted:I like your shelves and your collection. Bums me out that all my books are in archive stacked in a storage unit. I've had to buy copies of books that I know I already own simply because I can't find my first copy... Maybe you should organise/sell your book horde instead of paying to store them someplace you can't find or read them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:17
|
|