|
This is why I only read scrolls.
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:What's the format where it's a paperback, but larger? That's the best way to book. Trade paperbacks
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
ulvir posted:my paperback version of war and peace (penguin) has this weird thing with the pages. though I guess with a massive book like that, it might be an advantage Deckled pages are so annoying and make it impossible to flip through a book. It's just for book snobs to feel posh. The snobbiest of all books are the paperbacks with dust jackets and deckled pages, not designed for reading but for showing off.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:That's not true. I've literally never seen a hardcover book that's the size of a mass market paperback but slightly taller. And most of the books I've seen that have this terrible new format are pulp sci-fi stuff that never had a hardcover release B format books, or small trade paperbacks in the US. It's nothing new but one of the standard paperback sizes. Are you reading books from the UK/Europe? The U.S. doesn't use that format much, sticking mainly to mass market < trade paperback < hardcover. The UK (and consequently most European publishing houses, though their terms vary) does A format (equivalent to mass market), B format (small trade), C format/demy (trade), and then the royal (hardcover). B format has generally been considered more "prestigious" as it was traditionally used to distinguish literary fiction from genre fiction. Very few authors will ever be popular enough to get a royal printing, but many strive to be a B format author.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Bandiet posted:What's the advantage? Does it help fat paperbacks from curving or something? There is no advantage. All books used to look like that due to the printing process because if you wanted even pages, you'd have to hand cut them, so they were more expensive. Then the printing process improved to where machines could cut all the pages evenly. Now deckled pages are a type of "vintage" aesthetic.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
E-readers ruin all the fun of judging people by their book covers
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
SpockandRoll posted:I dunno, the predominance of e-books makes me paranoid that the government is secretly changing all literature to control us all. Haven't you guys read your dust jacket encased, deckle edged copies of 1984? Or the Bible in the original Hebrew? It is unhygienic to have sex with books even if you use a dust jacket.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Moby Dick: a tense thriller that will have you sweating in anticipation.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
drat. How much of your living space is devoted to storing books?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
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
|
|