What's the point?

dick · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 2255

I recently bought one of the new-sized paperbacks--JAK's Sizzle & Burn--for a hefty price, especially by Walmart standards. I can't figure out what the advantage of the new size is supposed to be. True, the spacing between the lines is greater, I suppose with the idea that more white space makes the text easier to read. I can't recall having trouble with the old line spacing though. Further, the new size is not only awkward to hold, but nigh onto impossible to shelve in spaces created for the old size paperbacks. Is there some greater profit in producing the new size? Do authors get a better royalty? What's the point? Does anybody know?

willaful · Joined: 02 Jan 2008 Posts: 1468

I just won a ginormous, hardcover size paperback, is that the kind you mean? I agree, it's a terribly inconvenient size and damned if I know how I'm going to store it.
_________________
"I say, don't read the classics -- try to discover your own classics; every life has its own." -- Rudolf Flesch, _How to Make Sense_

Amanda · Joined: 25 Aug 2008 Posts: 289 Location: the midwest

If you are talking about what I think you are, chick lit tends to be published in the larger book and page format. I wonder if that gives it more credibility? Maybe buyers feel more pretentious?

LeeB. · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 1221 Location: Seattle, WA

Amanda · Joined: 25 Aug 2008 Posts: 289 Location: the midwest

I don't know what the size is then. I still like throwing out options, though. Very Happy

Maybe they got a huge shipment of awkwardly shaped paper and the JAK book was up for publication. . .

Linda in sw va · Joined: 27 Mar 2007 Posts: 4707

Dick, I'm with you on those longer size paperbacks, I stopped reading Christine Feehan when she went to those. Not only do they cost more but they're difficult to hold and they don't fit on my bookshelf. The only reasoning I can think of is publishers found a way to try and squeeze out more of a profit. I refuse to buy them.

Linda
_________________
"The Bookshop has a thousand books, all colors, hues and tinges, and every cover is a door that turns on magic hinges." ~ Nancy Byrd Turner

library addict · Joined: 06 Dec 2008 Posts: 1217

I seem to recall reading an article that said the reading population was getting older and they tested the taller format and many people found them easier to hold and read.

Personally, I find the taller mmpb awkward to hold, and they do mess up bookshelves Razz

Not to mention, I think they were priced a $1 more than regular sized mmpbs. I didn’t realize they were still publishing them. I know there were quite a few titles released in the format in 2005-06, but I have seen only regular sized ones since. At least, for the books I‘ve purchased.

xina · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 6628 Location: minneapolis

I've noticed Nora Roberts books in Target in that size. Perhaps you could ask her??? Smile

Anyway....I find them terribly inconvenient and hope theay stop making that size sometime soon. I don't mind the tradesize...the long oddshape books drive me crazy. I think I stay away from them on purpose. I don't own or read hardly any of that size.
_________________
"As you wish"
~The Princess Bride

Kristie(J) · Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:23 pm Post subject:

To me the point is more money for the publishers. Confused

Schola · Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 1867

+JMJ+

I have that size for all of Julia Quinn's Bridgerton books and the few Christine Feehan Carpathian and Ghostwalker novels in my collection.

The size doesn't bother me because I have so many books that I end up stacking them on the shelves rather than lining them up anyway. Sometimes I arrange them like tiles (some vertical, some horizontal) just so that they fit).

What I really like about these bigger ones is the cover art. Those are books I'd never cover in public.
_________________
"To be in a romance is to be in uncongenial surroundings. To be born into this earth is to be born into uncongenial surroundings, hence to be born into a romance." (G.K. Chesterton)

Niftybergin · Joined: 27 Mar 2007 Posts: 1066

xina · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 6628 Location: minneapolis

LizA · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 140 Location: Austria, Europe

I am probably wrong, but I think sometimes these large paparbacks are published right after the hardcover, and only later the normal paperback. Seemed to me like another step in between - cheaper than hardcover but more expensive than soft cover.
I have at least one Nora Roberts novel in that size, I think it is Tribute but I might be wrong....

Nicole · Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:29 pm Post subject:

I agree, I don't like the larger paperbacks either. Change is bad. They always mess up my line of books, and it drives me crazy. I don't buy them, but sometimes when I buy books online used, or trade them, I'll get the longer paperbacks. It's annoying because now that I have the book I don't want to re-buy it to sooth my anal retentiveness. I have a few series where I couldn't wait for the book to come out in paperback so I bought it in hardback and it looks stupid lined up with all the other ones. However those occasions are always my fault so it bothers me less.
_________________
She is too fond of books, and it has turned her brain. -Louisa May Alcott

Schola · Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 1867

Now that I think about it, yes, I'd be very pissed if a larger size messed up the way I arrange my books. Whether they are standing up or lying down, there has to be a standard that they follow.

I guess I didn't have a chance to be bothered because I started my Quinn and Feehan collections with those larger books. If I started with the regular mass market sized ones and only then had to deal with the upsize, then I wouldn't be amused.
_________________
"To be in a romance is to be in uncongenial surroundings. To be born into this earth is to be born into uncongenial surroundings, hence to be born into a romance." (G.K. Chesterton)