|
They are the worst. They always get in the way and make it really hard to hold the book. If you lay them down somewhere, they always get squished and ruined. Why do publishers keep the scourge of dust jackets alive? Just end this please
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:They are the worst. They always get in the way and make it really hard to hold the book. If you lay them down somewhere, they always get squished and ruined. Why do publishers keep the scourge of dust jackets alive? Just end this please just scotch tape them and don't be a bitch
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:just scotch tape them and don't be a bitch You ruin a book by doing that. A book is more than the sum of the words within them, it's an object full of beauty
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:You ruin a book by doing that. A book is more than the sum of the words within them, it's an object full of beauty Cut off the front cover of all your dust jackets and wallpaper your reading room with them
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:You ruin a book by doing that. A book is more than the sum of the words within them, it's an object full of beauty Cut off the front cover off all your dust jackets and wallpaper your reading room with them
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
See look, even the forums know I am right and emphasized it with a weird double post
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Publishers put effort into the cover board too. Wouldn't you rather have a shelf of serious spines with shiny lettering? Just lay out your dust jackets in a drawer somewhere, they're usually ugly or made of gross material anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Only simpletons keep dust jackets on their books while reading them. Pros get some dust jacket covers. Covers for your book covers, that's right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
If it ain't laminated and strapped on it just ain't right. But seriously just remove it if it bothers you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
The dust jacket was originally just considered the equivalent of wrapping paper and thrown away. That's why things like first editions of Great Gatsby with the dust jacket are drastically more valuable than those without.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The dust jacket was originally just considered the equivalent of wrapping paper and thrown away. That's why things like first editions of Great Gatsby with the dust jacket are drastically more valuable than those without. I take them off and put them in a drawer until done. Downside is I now have some books with hand prints under the dust covers (summer reading, with sunscreen on oops).
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
I really appreciated on the Welcome to Night Vale book how there was no dust jacket and all the cover art was printed directly on the hardback cover.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:I really appreciated on the Welcome to Night Vale book how there was no dust jacket and all the cover art was printed directly on the hardback cover. most likely this was only possible because this book was the first hardback done by Harper Perennial which is otherwise a paperback only imprint. Smoking Crow posted:Why do publishers keep the scourge of dust jackets alive? It is cheaper to put art/design on a dust jacket than it is to put it directly on the bindings and covers of a hardback.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:just scotch tape them and don't be a bitch What do you mean scotch tape them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
he probably means taping the dust jacket down onto the bindings and covers so that it won't move around and get in the way etc. it is indeed a bad idea because this can damage the book. just take the dust jacket off and either throw it away if you don't like it or save it somewhere if you do. or better still, buy paperbacks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:he probably means taping the dust jacket down onto the bindings and covers so that it won't move around and get in the way etc. Nobody would ever do that. that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I refuse to believe that's an actual thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
? people routinely damage books in way more blatant ways than that. its not a good idea but its very far from the most stupid thing people do to books.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
I don't know how y'all put tape on your books but a little piece on the inside flap isn't gonna destroy the book
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I don't know how y'all put tape on your books but a little piece on the inside flap isn't gonna destroy the book From a collector's viewpoint it does. And if we're not talking about collecting, this is a dumb conversation to have because, in the age of ebooks, collecting is the only reason to a) buy a hardcover and b) give a drat about the dust jacket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
or because you really really want to read a new book but don't want to wait half a goddamn year for the paperback version or because hardcovers are about 100% of the books you recieve as a gift
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
If it's a new book over 500 pages you gotta get it hardcover because it gives a tangible sense of accomplishment to read it
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
ulvir posted:or because you really really want to read a new book but don't want to wait half a goddamn year for the paperback version As to the first point, that is why I very specifically mentioned ebooks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
They also prevent damage to the hardcover proper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
yeah sometimes there is no choice, but increasingly many good books are being released as paperbacks first these days. personally I can't stand ebooks, just can't do it. I find it a lot harder to concentrate when reading them for some reason.plus I just enjoy the objects that books are too much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
If it isn't wrapped in dead animal skin, then it doesn't belong on my shelves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
This is why I only read scrolls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:If it isn't wrapped in dead animal skin, then it doesn't belong on my shelves. Is quarter-bound sufficient?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:I really appreciated on the Welcome to Night Vale book how there was no dust jacket and all the cover art was printed directly on the hardback cover. That's good, because it tells you that you can throw the whole book away instead of just the jacket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:I find it a lot harder to concentrate when reading them for some reason. Same. Lose focus very quickly
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:yeah sometimes there is no choice, but increasingly many good books are being released as paperbacks first these days. I totally get this, I feel this way myself. But when you end up moving every few years, and you have multiple bookshelves full of both hardcovers and paperbacks, ebooks become more of an option since the entirety of my book collection now fits in one device that weighs maybe 2 pounds, instead of whatever fuckoff amount half a dozen bookshelves and the contents weigh to move around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:I totally get this, I feel this way myself. Generally when I move I pick out about half my books that I really want to keep and pack those up. Then I put the rest on my shelves and invite a bunch of friends over to take what they want. Then donate whatever is left.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Get a Kindle, it is the best invention of the modern age.blue squares posted:Same. Lose focus very quickly For me it's the opposite, it lets me tear through books at lightning speed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Enfys posted:This is why I only read scrolls. I also prefer Dead Sea Era vellum. That poo poo does decently even though it doesn't have a stupid dust jacket. Well except a clay pot. Now that I think about it, having modern ridiculous dust jacket art printed on clay pots would be mildly amusing on my bookshelf. Amazon should sell that, though shipping would be a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
What's the format where it's a paperback, but larger? That's the best way to book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Oh, I hate those new mass market paperbacks they do that are the same width but slightly taller. Those things are the loving worst. What are they thinking?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:Oh, I hate those new mass market paperbacks they do that are the same width but slightly taller. Those things are the loving worst. What are they thinking? in many cases these are the result of strip and bind. Sometimes when there is still a large unsold quantity of the hardcover, they strip the books out of their hardcover bindings and rebind them as paperbacks. the purpose of this is of course to save money, since they don't have to print anything other than the new paperback cover.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Enfys posted:Trade paperbacks Make all other types of books illegal. These are the proper size and binding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
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
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
Earwicker posted:in many cases these are the result of strip and bind. Sometimes when there is still a large unsold quantity of the hardcover, they strip the books out of their hardcover bindings and rebind them as paperbacks. the purpose of this is of course to save money, since they don't have to print anything other than the new paperback cover. 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 edit: this is what I mean 
boom boom boom fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 21:59
|
|