Rant: Useless hardbacks

What good is a hardback novel? None. A paperback is better is every way.

Too big
It's bigger and bulkier than a paperback, making it harder to carry it around; a paperback will fit nicely into a pocket in my laptop bag. A hardback won't.

Too many sizes
Paperbacks are all roughly the same size. I have shelves and shelves full of paperbacks, all neatly sitting on the shelves. It's a beautiful thing. My few dozen hardbacks are eyesores. Each is a different size. Put them all together on one shelf and you don't get a nice neat row, you get a mish-mash of sizes, with no rhyme or reason. It's ugly. And don't even bother trying to pack them neatly if you have to move. Paperbacks, being of uniform size, can be easily and neatly boxed up. You might as well throw your hardbacks away as try to box them up; it's like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle with no solution.

Dust jackets
Then there's the useless invention known as a dust jacket. They were invented because somebody noticed that books, being made in one piece, are too easy to read. "What can we do to make reading more difficult?" they asked. Dust jackets fall off, get torn, and generally get in the way of the reading experience. There are no such problems with paperbacks.

Shoddy quality
Hardback novels today are crummy pieces of junk that fall apart after a few readings. (The exceptions are books designed as collectors items, but those aren't really books, those are collectibles. Real books are designed for reading, not for setting on a collector's shelf as a trophy.) So if you're looking for a good quality book that will last a century, today's hardbacks will disappoint.

And why should a novel last a hundred years, anyway? If the novel has any merit, it will still be in print next century. If it's not any good, nobody is going to read it then anyway. Some books need to last a long time--dictionaries, almanacs, atlases, and other reference books--but there's not much use for a forgotten novel of last century.

Price
Hardback novels are more expensive than paperbacks. You can't get a hardback for much less then $25, whereas a paperback rarely costs more than $11. Why would I want to pay extra for a book that is bulkier, does not come in a standard size, has an annoying dust jacket, and is just a shoddily constructed as a paperback? I can't think of a single reason.

Conclusion
The Reader of Books says: Only a paperback novel is worth my money. Hardbacks are worthless.