(no subject)

[gayalondiel_bak]

[Poll #1814154]

Posted via LiveJournal app for Android.

Comments

[robert-jones.livejournal.com]

When deciding which of two copies of a book or series of books to keep, I consider firstly which is nicer and secondly which will take up less space on the shelf. Since your poll doesn't contain any information on how nice the respective copies are, I selected single volume paperback, on the basis that these usually take up the least space. However, it's very likely that I would make a decision based on my first criterion in practice. Both hardback and boxed sets of paperback books can be nice, so I can't really guess which is nicer.

[didiusjulianus.livejournal.com]

For the reason you have given, if you want to keep rereading them periodically, practicality wins out. Esp. if you read on trips, trains & in the bath. (I used to read in the bath myself and have dropped a few in in my time.)

I struggle with heavy books - I have one that is so enormous I can barely lift it and I only read it in bed (as my current desk is too small to have it laid out like a family Bible or encyclopedia permanently).

But if you both like it and reread it equally, then maybe you should keep both. His view also has merit, I like smallish hardbacks better than paperbooks for certain things (such as Austen, JRRT etc etc) that I plan to read a few times in my lifetime and share with the children etc. Hardbacks keep nice better. So my ideal of those would be a set of hardbacks (but not one huge volume for a whole set).

I have no idea what H2G2 is though!

[jane-somebody.livejournal.com]

H2G2 = Hitch-Hikers' Guide to the Galaxy, so sort of acronym of "H twice, G twice." Similar to AO3 as a shorthand/acronym for Archive Of Our Own (A plus 3 lots of O.) Hope that makes sense!

[didiusjulianus.livejournal.com]

Oh I see. What IS AO3 then?

[atreic.livejournal.com]

Do either / both of them include the fifth book?

[eglantine-br.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with the bag and bath argument. But my H has said that Navy men do not read in the tub. So why not keep all copies?

[muuranker.livejournal.com]

'For any given definition of *better*'.

My definitions of better:
Ease of reading (mostly done in bed) and
Shelf space and
Aesthetics

Hardbacks usually have better aesthetics. From the smell on up.

Ease of reading; hardbacks usually much better (particularly when I am having dexterity problems). For Big Books, multiples are usually better.

Paperbacks are For the Win on shelf space.

Two out of three means hardbacks win, and the multiple volumes gives the edge on ease of reading, so multiple hardbacks it is.

Multiple in a box adds to shelf space, but it does make a hand book end, so I am ambivalent on that one.

[sally_maria]

I'd say, multiple, for ease of reading, but it doesn't matter that much which, as long as they match.

Hardbacks are harder wearing and probably look nicer, but paperbacks are lighter and easier to read and carry around.

[gentlehobbit.livejournal.com]

I think of how heavy it is to hold a single hardcover (or paperback). And I agree with you on the transportability and fitting into bags, and selective book drowning issues too. :)

[tearelateddream.livejournal.com]

Hardback - because they are so much prettier and I am silly like that, but also...
Multiple - for the reasons you cited above and also because big books are a pain to read unless you have something to lean them on and I tend to read upside down, which would only leave my face for the leaning thereof.