All other things (like price and storage space) being equal, given a choice in a perfect world, would you rather have paperbacks in your library? Or hardcovers? And why?
Paperback, no question. I have small hands, so paperbacks are more ideal. They are also easier to tote around and read during my commute. There are a few exceptions. For instance, the classics. You can walk into any of the major chains and find several versions of the classics in hardback, trade-size, and paperback. I have two versions of Jane Austen’s six novels, in hardback. However, both sets are considerably smaller and lighter than latest best-seller hardbacks. The smaller set is the from Barnes & Noble. The books are smaller than a paperback and can fit in a coat pocket. The publisher released many of the classics in this format and I’m sorry I didn’t buy more of them. The other set of novels, I bought approximately ten years ago. They are from Borders. The books are closer to paperbacks in size (a little bigger) so they’re easier on the hands. I have a few other classics in this size/imprint. I would love to have a few rows of classics in a similar style. As strange as it may sound, I actually prefer the classics in hardback, as long as they are not heavy or awkward to hold.language