Mass market paperbacks will all but vanish from the publishing scene in a few weeks

[rantanplan]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

No, they are not the same. Trade paperback is a large paperback, only a bit smaller than a hardcover, while mass market paperback is a small paperback, the size of your average ereader. Mass market paperbacks were usually released a year after the hardcover edition and were cheap (less than 10$). Trade paperbacks were priced between hardcovers and mass market paperbacks, usually more than 10$ but less than 20$.

Oh, I think they might be similar to the small Reclam books that we have. A lot of the books we had to read in school were in this tiny format. I still have a few Shakespeare books in this format.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

No, they are not the same. Trade paperback is a large paperback, only a bit smaller than a hardcover, while mass market paperback is a small paperback, the size of your average ereader. Mass market paperbacks were usually released a year after the hardcover edition and were cheap (less than 10$). Trade paperbacks were priced between hardcovers and mass market paperbacks, usually more than 10$ but less than 20$.

Here we get only one format, either a hardcover or a paperback, and that's it. But I've bought books in English since I earned enough to buy them, because Estonian books are more expensive and the selection is pitiful compared to the larger markets.

I can remember buying new MMPBs i the 1960's for $0.25.
Apache

[Wiggo]

Originally Posted by rantanplan

Oh, I think they might be similar to the small Reclam books that we have. A lot of the books we had to read in school were in this tiny format. I still have a few Shakespeare books in this format.

No, Reclam is something different. Old Heyne Taschenbücher were MMPBs.

[Cactus Chef]

Oh well. TBH, I never really liked mass-market paperbacks if I had any other choice. They were awkward to read--especially if they were thick--and prone to wearing out much faster than a book with a proper binding. The only advantage was their portability, and, I suppose, the "better than nothing" factor.

But if those disappear as a result of the rise of ebooks, I don't think that's too much of a loss. The physical book may start to become like the record vinyl of today, where it exists more as a collector's item on your shelf than as the thing you actually consume. My bookshelf is already turning that way.

[DiapDealer]

I always liked the MMPB format when I was younger and my eyes still worked well. I was mad at the seeming rise of the TPBs. Their sizes were all over the place and made my bookshelves look like garbage (not to mention TPB's higher prices).

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Cactus Chef

But if those disappear as a result of the rise of ebooks, I don't think that's too much of a loss. The physical book may start to become like the record vinyl of today, where it exists more as a collector's item on your shelf than as the thing you actually consume.

I don't know. A decade ago I used to think so too. But ebooks aren't popular at all in my corner of the world; very few people here read them and I don't know anyone who actually prefers them to paper books, besides myself. No one in my family has ever wanted to try an ereader or an ebook.

At the rate it's been going here, ebooks won't be replacing paper books any time soon, maybe not even in this century. Frankly it seems more likely people will give up recreational reading altogether, with many of them already preferring constant scrolling and jumping around on their phones to anything else. They no longer have the necessary focus for long-form reading.

[Cactus Chef]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I don't know. A decade ago I used to think so too. But ebooks aren't popular at all in my corner of the world; very few people here read them and I don't know anyone who actually prefers them to paper books, besides myself. No one in my family has ever wanted to try an ereader or an ebook.

At the rate it's been going here, ebooks won't be replacing paper books any time soon, maybe not even in this century. Frankly it seems more likely people will give up recreational reading altogether, with many of them already preferring constant scrolling and jumping around on their phones to anything else. They no longer have the necessary focus for long-form reading.

I see them becoming like audio cassettes. Like, yeah, we had them, because they were the cheapest and most portable format at the time for listening to music...but did anyone actually use them because they liked them once better formats came along?

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Cactus Chef

I see them becoming like audio cassettes. Like, yeah, we had them, because they were the cheapest and most portable format at the time for listening to music...but did anyone actually use them because they liked them once better formats came along?

If you mean mass market paperbacks, sure. Paper books in general? Not seeing any signs of their dying out here. And while I might think ebooks are a better format, the vast majority of readers here wouldn't agree.

Maybe it's different on your side of the pond.

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I don’t know. A decade ago I used to think so too. But ebooks aren’t popular at all in my corner of the world; very few people here read them and I don’t know anyone who actually prefers them to paper books, besides myself. No one in my family has ever wanted to try an ereader or an ebook.

Coming out of my years-long lurkerdom just to say you’re not alone.

I think ebooks are starting to pick up some popularity even in Estonia, actually - with several local subscription services (Rahva Raamat and Elisa Raamat) apparently having enough users to be worth it. And I just recently came across a thread on Bluesky with people complaining about Mirko (the local library service) and how much it sucks with the ebook selection being very small, so .. there definitely are people who have embraced ebooks. I think more people read them than want to admit to it in public, possibly, because of all the sneering about “not real books” that can accompany such an admission.

But I do get the impression e-readers are uncommon enough, with people reading mostly on their phones, it seems.

My mother (she’s 71) has got bad eyesight and hasn’t been able to read paper books comfortably for years now (she’s had cataracts removed on both eyes but also has glaucoma, and has had a difficult time even getting glasses that work well enough with large text), so some years ago I got her to try ebooks and there’s no going back to paper for her. But she does read on her iPad (with large text, needing a large screen) and isn’t interested in any eInk devices as the iPad works for her.

As for the original topic … I’ve been a voracious reader my whole life (with the exception of some recent years when I was just too exhausted) but the mass market paperback was a format I always hated with passion. The tiny text, the lack of space between lines, the text going so far into the inner margins that I’d always have to wrestle with the book and crack the spine to be able to read the entire text… also, they tended to stink (“the smell of books” has never been a pro-paper-book argument for me, heh) and make my hands itchy.

So not a big loss for me, personally. I’ve very rarely bought paper books these last 15 years - no more space on the shelves, and no more space for more shelves, plus I enjoy reading ebooks! - and when I do, I want a hardcover. I guess as long as people (young people, people who can’t afford hardcovers, people who don’t have space for trade paperbacks or hardcover books) do still read books - like ebooks on their phones, even - then it’s not a big loss. But it does sort of feel like the end of the “era of the reader”, I suppose, in some way, even if it’s perhaps not.

[Cactus Chef]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

If you mean mass market paperbacks, sure. Paper books in general? Not seeing any signs of their dying out here. And while I might think ebooks are a better format, the vast majority of readers here wouldn't agree.

MMPB's are what I was referring to, yes. Paper books in general will likely endure for some time, especially since the resale market will effectively vanish should all books become ebooks.

But for MMPB's in particular...I can't think of any on my bookshelf where, if I read it and thought it was worth keeping/re-reading, I wouldn't have preferred to have a nicer copy.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I always liked the MMPB format when I was younger and my eyes (s)till worked well. I was mad at the seeming rise of the TPBs. Their sizes were all over the place and made my bookshelves look like garbage (not to mention TPB's higher prices).

That was my feeling as well.

I could still read a mass market paperback. Partly I moved on to ebooks because I just had too damn many of them and space was an issue.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Cactus Chef

I see them becoming like audio cassettes. Like, yeah, we had them, because they were the cheapest and most portable format at the time for listening to music...but did anyone actually use them because they liked them once better formats came along?

Well, the fact that hard covers would sell in the thousands while mass market paperbacks would sell in the millions says that somebody out there preferred the format. I know I did.

[issybird]

I think some of you kids are missing the point. MMPBs were cheap and portable. Indeed, the first line of MMPBs produced in the US were called Pocket Books. If you were a person who wouldn't leave the house without something to read, they were life-changing. Their defects resulted from their virtues.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I wouldn't read one now. But they were great. They made it possible to own a bunch of books and always to have something to read. Why disparage them? And they could still serve that exact purpose, too. As well as being lendable and giftable.

[Dazrin]

MMPBs are the only books I could afford growing up so I have many fond memories of them.

Other than ebooks, they are still the easiest form factor for me to read - small enough for a pocket or one-handed reading and cheap enough that I didn't care too much if I damaged one. I always hated when I needed to take a hardback onto a train during my commute.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by issybird

I think some of you kids are missing the point. MMPBs were cheap and portable. Indeed, the first line of MMPBs produced in the US were called Pocket Books. If you were a person who wouldn't leave the house without something to read, they were life-changing. Their defects resulted from their virtues.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I wouldn't read one now. But they were great. They made it possible to own a bunch of books and always to have something to read. Why disparage them? And they could still serve that exact purpose, too. As well as being lendable and giftable.

And because they were cheap you could find book racks in almost any store.

I always carried a book with me. I still do, even if it is an electronic one now. They fit in a pocket perfectly. And when I started wearing a suit every day, I carried them in the inside pocket of my jacket. No one could even tell it was there. I couldn't do that with hardback books.
Apache