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.
Portability is rather important for those of us who like to take our books with us wherever we go. The smaller hardbacks are nice in that way.
That’s way I don’t carry my Harry Potter books around. 😉
I love those little B&N classics… I just wish they would still sell them. I haven’t seen them in a while now.
Me, too. 🙂