(i) has a worn cover and very yellowed pages, is held together by sellotape and has just had more sellotape added to pages that had come apart. At one stage of rereading, I thought that (i) was disintegrating. Pages were not only separating but becoming dust.
(ii) was bought because of the state of (i). However, (ii) stays on the shelf whereas (i), still legible, continues to be used for rereading and references. (ii) will be preserved as long as possible. This is the only book for which I have thought it necessary to buy a second copy.
Today, when (i) had been left downstairs but I was upstairs, I took (ii) from the shelf to reread part of Guion's second dialogue with Everard. Undamaged, white pages made this a different reading experience, more appropriate to the content.
9 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I first started reading and collecting the books of Poul Anderson in paperback. Aside from reading hardback lending library copies. But I soon began preferring to get his books in hard backs. My very first Anderson hardcovers were purchased by me in 1971: THE DANCER FROM ATLANTIS, ENSIGN FLANDRY, and FLANDRY OF TERRA. Then, up till about 1978, the hardbacks I obtained were from the Science Fiction Book Club. It was 1978 and 1979 that I truly went a bit wild buying Anderson hardbacks, both from used book dealers and high quality reprints from Gregg Press.
Sean
Paul and Sean:
I almost always buy paperbacks. Not just because I'm cheap (though I am), but as a habit left over from my Army days, when I wanted the least-bulky and least-weighty copy of any book, for ease in packing when it came time to transfer to a new assignment.
I've bought second copies of four or five books, mostly because poor quality binding was causing the first copy to come apart. Certain paperback publishers in the Seventies used a REALLY cheap glue that let go of pretty much ALL the pages at once after only a few years even of careful handling. My first copy of Verne's *Master of the World* taught me that.
Hi, David!
Oh, I have brought paperbacks too! It's simply that, for my most favorite authors, like Poul Anderson or S.M. Stirling, I prefer to get their books in hardback form.
And I have had paperbacks where they fell apart from sheer age, if nothing else. I've even used glue in attempts to get books I liked not disintegrating. And I generally Scotch tape the spines of paper backs I buy. That helps prolong their "lives."
All in all, for one's favorite authors, I would argue it's better to go hardback.
Sean
Am I alone here in preferring ebooks nowadays? For books that are read end to end that is. Not reference books.
John,
I am sure you are not alone but I am not with you!
Paul.
Hi, John!
I fear you are in a minority here! MY preference is to read books in hard copy. It feels more REAL to me to actually turn the pages of a book, whether hard back or paper back.
Sean
John:
I agree with Paul and Sean. In fact, there was a rather embarrassing occurrence at my birthday a few years back when my sister and her family bought me an e-book reader ... and THEN, before I discovered what the gift was, the topic of e-books came up and I detailed how much I disliked the very concept.
Hi, David!
Oops! That would be embarrassing indeed!
Sean
Post a Comment