The Rory Gilmore Book Club discussion

Music, Movies, & Miscellany > Does size matter?

Comments Showing 1-19 of 19 (19 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by whichwaydidshego, the sage of sass (new)

whichwaydidshego | 1996 comments Mod
This is so completely random, but does anyone else here HATE-HATE-HATE the 7" x 4 1/4" sized books? They drive me nuts! The texture of the pages, the way it's such a pain to hold it open... Ergh! Much as I love to save money, I will spend twice as much for a better copy!

Alright, to broaden the topic so it's not so me-specific (hee!), how do you like your books? (I know, opens itself to a whole lot of jokes.) What size? Do you care about the paper? Do you enjoy antique books or want the newest and hottest look? And HOW MUCH do you hate the afore mentioned sized book?? ;D

message 2: by Alison, the guru of grace (last edited Jan 17, 2008 05:16AM) (new)

Alison | 1282 comments Mod
O.K. when I read this topic, I felt we'd officially gone to pot and were starting shameless trash talk here. It's just a matter of time.

Anyway, the tiny books bug me because the words are so small. That can't be good for the eyes. I like big, hard back books, but volumes of work tend to bug me because they're SO big. Like, way too big to fit in a purse. No preference to the paper. I do prefer what appears to be a classic cover rather than some revamped, contemporary thing. I kind of want to experience it the way it has always been experienced, traditionally, you know? I don't want to feel like I've been sucked into some shiny marketing trap.

message 3: by Beth (new)

Beth | 173 comments Funny you guys should mention this, because I was thinking about buying some of those five-inch classics they sell near the counter in Barnes and Noble. I thought they would be the perfect size for my small purse. It would be cool to just whip out a tiny copy of Huckleberry Finn or Moby Dick while out to dinner and sneak in a few pages. I need something to read when my hyper-social husband inevitably leaves the table to talk to the twenty or thirty people he knows that happen to be in the restaurant at the same time.

I do care a lot about the physical properties of my books. The Michael Pollan book I'm reading now has pages made of some funky newsprint that make a cool squeaky noise when I grab the pages and bend them back and forth. If a book has an ugly cover, I'm much less likely to buy it. The typeface has a big influence on me, too. I love those books that have little explanations in the back about the typeface they chose and the history of it. I am definitely a hardcover snob. I love to read my Folio Society hardcovers, even though I know they really aren't supposed to be for pleasure reading, but that means I can't eat or drink anything while reading them, or read them in the bath. I have started going on E-bay and buying Folio editions from the '70s and earlier, so they're cheap but still give you that antique feeling. Plus, they come from these little bookshops in the UK with quaint names, so I like to imagine some little English lady in tweeds and a cardigan picking it off her shelf. Like Alison, I don't like volumes of works, they are too big.

message 4: by Steven (last edited Jan 17, 2008 08:14AM) (new)

Steven | 5 comments This is an interesting thread:

The quality of a book is interesting. I suppose its something that you feel as you read a story rather than judging this when you initially pick the book up.

On a similar note, I prefer paperback to hardback and can never understand the reason for such a difference in cost, even if I do take into account the differnce in their physical composition. Ultimately, I think paperbacks are better value. However, that said, when I store my books, the hardbacks are more robust and the print is slightly bigger. Maybe its a quality thing!

Best Regards

Steven Preece

message 5: by alicia (new)

alicia grant (shesha34) I love my hardcover books.They last alot longer for me.

message 6: by Mindy (new)

Mindy Worley (mindylou00) | 1 comments I think a true Rory Gilmore fan cannot completely discount the advantages to small, paperback books, as they make portability so much easier. You've always gotta be carrying a book with you, and those nice pretty hardbacks can be cumbersome!! I agree that nice quality hardbacks look so much better on the shelf, but I tend to like my books more functinal that pretty. And I like to take them everywhere.

message 7: by Sarah (last edited Jan 17, 2008 08:54AM) (new)

Sarah (songgirl7) When reading a classic, I like the B&N Classics series. But they have two. They have the smaller ones with the pastel colored covers and then the larger ones with more artsy covers. I prefer the latter, but will buy the former when it's all that's available. I really like the footnotes and endnotes because there are often many historical and/or geographical references in the text that I wouldn't understand otherwise. And I think the B&N editors are superior even to Norton when it comes to footnotes.

I love to collect hardcover books but since I often read lying down in bed, they're harder to hold. They're alos not as portable (very heavy in a purse). I buy hardcover when there is a new release book I want. Rarely will I be able to wait for the paperback, although I have been known to do that sometimes. I also buy hardcover when they are massively discounted (usually after the paperback has been released).

As we've talked about in other threads, I hate movie tie-in covers and Oprah stickers. It feels silly to me somehow. Like I'm not a "serious" reader or something.

OK, so I'm kind of weird. When I buy multiple books from the same author, I like to buy the same editions. For example, I like my Steinbeck Centennial Edition covers. But my local B&N, where I do most of my shopping, doesn't have most of the covers I want. So my quandry is, do I go somewhere else, or buy online, or -gasp- buy books that don't match?

message 8: by Meghan (last edited Jan 17, 2008 02:57PM) (new)

Meghan The OCD part of me hates that books do not come in uniform sizes. It annoys me to no end to have books jutting out from each other on my book shelf (it must be from all those movies that portray the fabulous libraries of old with their neat and orderly bookshelves). But I'm learning to let go. It's a process. I think I'm on step 2 - "Love thy books for what they are".

I love hard covered books. I love the dust jackets. I hate books that have covers that look like there was no thought put into it or where the cover has nothing to do with the story. I hate movie poster covers, especially since rarely do movies ever capture the essence of the book. (why can't the dvd cover have a picture of the original book cover?)

I'm so glad they made soft cover books now the size of "normal" books. I require a "purse" book and lugging around a hc is terrible on the back (and it ruins the corners of the hc). But I hate the small ones. Shogun that size is over 1500 pages! It's slightly ridiculous.

And so, to answer your question Michele - yes, I believe size matters in most all things. But I suppose more importantly, it's not the size but what you're able to do with it that really counts. hee!

message 9: by Tiffany (new)

Tiffany Meghan, I like your idea about DVD covers having a picture of the original book cover!

I usually stick to the trade paperback size unless an author I really like has just released something new, then I'll buy the hardcover.

message 10: by whichwaydidshego, the sage of sass (new)

whichwaydidshego | 1996 comments Mod
Regarding the small classics in hardcovers that B&N had for some time, I do love those, but the pages are thinner, the edges guilt, and they are more of a 3" x 5". I love small books... the 4" x 6" or so style... but not the generic ones I was speaking of before. Yes, for portability, but also I just like smaller things.

Oh! And as for Rory needing them smaller, I don't ever remember her reading the 7" x 4 1/4" books. She would often carry many with her, and always at least one, but never those annoying (IMO) sized ones. Like when she went to her first dance with Dean... she had a huge volume of The Portable Dorothy Parker. (How funny is that??)

message 11: by M0rfeus (new)

M0rfeus Ok speaking of size, does anyone here (besides myself) read/collect miniature books?

Last year I bought a number of miniatures by Achille J. St. Onge (a master of miniature books) which I considered to be the Foundation Documents of the western world--you guys can argue that in another thread! ;)

They are:

The 23rd Psalm
The Sermon on the Mount
The Magna Carta
The Declaration of Independence

(and am trying to get a copy of The Mayflower Compact to round this collection out).

Anyway--any thoughts from the assembled multitudes on miniature books?


message 12: by Alison, the guru of grace (last edited Jan 18, 2008 07:43AM) (new)

Alison | 1282 comments Mod
Tom: I'm not familiar with miniature book collecting, but that sounds interesting. Thanks for sharing the info.

message 13: by Courtney (new)

Courtney Stirrat | 201 comments No, Tom!!! Please don't tell me there is ANOTHER form of book collecting available! My P and I already have so many book collections that we are beginning to look like one's batty aunts surrounded by musty books and cats.

My particular favorites are very vintage children books, hilarious lesbian pulp romances from the 1950s that ALWAYS end badly, and the 1940s teen mysteries that read like Nancy Drew but instead headline a Movie Star of the day -- like Ginger Rodgers and the Case of the Tapdancing Ghost of Christmas Past or Betty Grable and the Horrors of the Enchanted Ballroom. Campy, campy fabulousness.

I do, however, own several of my Grandmother's minature books -- including my beloved Uncle Walt and the Rubiyat of (cannot-remember-the-rest) so perhaps I have a collection and don't even know it?

As for me, I tend to prefer hardcovers on the shelves, but trade paperbacks in my hands. Mass market paperbacks are just too generic and end up getting destroyed after a good read. I can get down with small print and a teeny book, but really need bright pages to do it.

I bought a couple of those teensy B&N books during my post-Christmas classics binge but have yet to read either. I am hopeful, especially because they are so ridiculously cute!

message 14: by Sarah (new)

Sarah (songgirl7) Courtney, those 1940s teem mysteries sound fabulous. I could get obsessed with something like that. If you come across any duplicates let me know!

message 15: by Erin (new)

Erin | 47 comments I prefer paperback to hardcover, except for non-fiction and Harry Potters (weird I know). I guess I believe non-fiction should be textbook like. I DO NOT like mass-market paperback books because they never stay open and have no margins for me to write in. I know this sounds silly too but, they are not as pretty as the trade paperbacks. I like books with artwork on the cover, not that silly, shiny, raised lettering (a la cheesy romance novels). I find trade paperbacks to be more flexible as well so they stay open to pages without breaking the binding.

I am glad there are people out there as anal about their books as I am!

message 16: by Robbie (new)

Robbie Bashore | 592 comments Erin:
My husband insisted that we buy the hardcovers of all of the HP books, so we did, and I'm glad.

Ordinarily, though, I prefer paper backs for a number or reasons, not the least of which is the price. Like Sarah, I frequently read in bed or in the bath, and hardcovers aren't comfortable for that. I don't like dust jackets, either. I think I lost one or two of our HP ones. D'oh! My son received a great book on space ships this year. It is a kids' hardcover. When he opened it, he immediately took the dust cover off and threw it aside like it was just a wrapper. (He's 5)

I'm not sure I have a preference of which kind of paperback, except that my over-40 eyes like larger print, and I don't like backs that you have to "break" in order to keep the book open comfortably.

message 17: by Arctic (new)

Arctic | 571 comments My main issue is with paper quality. I really hate those books with pages so thin they're almost translucent. I once came across a MM paperback version of Les Miserables that fit this description, plus the type was extremely tiny, another pet peeve. Les Mis (among others) was just not written to be conveniently portable.

Aesthetics are a big one for me too. I love good cover art and in general, I think the trade papers tend to be prettier than than the mass markets. What I really lust after though are a collection of those leather bound books some companies sell. Ridiculous, as I know I'd never use them as reading copies, but man what I wouldn't give for a personal library full of them. The catalogs alone make me drool.

message 18: by Elle (new)

Elle Mitchell (emitchellwrites) Paperback is my favorite, but if I want the book enough and can't wait I will get a hardback. I hate the thick paper as well, but the thin pages aren't any better, they actually might be worse.

message 19: by Alison, the guru of grace (new)

Alison | 1282 comments Mod
O.K. on reading about Courtney's teen mystery collection, I was briefly reminded of Rory & Lorelai's plates....weren't they collecting a set of Charlie's Angels plates? What great taste those two had.

back to top