The high quality hardcovers address none of the complaints.

They are big, and bulky. They don't fit into a backpack. And you can't simply hold them in one hand and read, anywhere you sit. Like a bench in a garden. You need a space dedicated to reading them.

In terms of utility, hardcovers are strictly worse.

▲

sio8ohPi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Lay flat hardcovers are much nicer for taking notes from. You can place on a flat surface and use your hands to do other things. A paperback will typically need a book weight to accomplish the same thing.

▲

WillAdams 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Hardcovers may be made as small as paperbacks, but far more lasting:

https://www.amazon.com/Hobbit-Lord-Rings-Deluxe-Pocket/dp/05...

▲

floren 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I own those, I would describe them as semi-hardcover, with fake leather wrapped around some stiff but still pretty flexible material. The text is also so small as to be difficult to read in all but ideal lighting.

	▲	ChickeNES 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Tbh I have a worn UK first edition of one volume (stored for now, I think it was TT). Beautiful fold out map, but the cover was cheap and flimsy. I think my latter US 2nd edition was better manufactured, not sure if that’s a postwar UK problem or not.

▲

dpark 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What kind of hardback books are you reading that don’t fit in a backpack?

The only hard bound books I’ve ever purchased that wouldn’t fit in a backpack were intentionally oversized “coffee table” books.

	▲	ses1984 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If you have a normal size backpack carrying a normal size load like you are going to work or school, it’s easier to slide in a smaller paperback than a bulkier hardcover. The extra volume makes a difference in this case.