I've been on an austerity kick lately. I've been confronted with the fact that, though there's still an uncertain time frame in which I'm working, I will almost certainly have to move some time within the next couple of years. Maybe not a city relocation, but at least an intra-San Francisco move. In a perfect world, I'd have only whatever half-dozen pieces of larger furniture or computer hardware, and a backpack or suitcase to move. That level of clutter-reduction doesn't seem feasible, but I am cutting to the bone, very gradually. I'm having trouble with my books.
I love to read. Books, magazines, whatever is around, even if I'm not interested in the content. "Shape" Magazine while waiting at the dentist, though my "shape" is a perfect sphere. "Golf Digest" while my car is being smogged. "People," even though I hate them so. In literature-deprived bathrooms, I've gone so far as to read up on the mechanics of tampon insertion and hemorrhoid relief. I've accumulated a lot of books over the course of almost 20 years in the wild, and the worst part is that I haven't even read at least half of them. I always get, and appreciate, a book or three for most gift-giving holidays, as well as Amazon gift cards. I also have a pattern of spree-shopping for books well before the last stack is through, and that has resulted in shopping bags full of unread gems.
Well, this morning, a friend asked a question that I had never really considered. "Why," he asked, "do we even HAVE the current model of book distribution?", referring to mass-market retail books, not texts or institutional tomes. "A $30 hardcover, followed 8 months later by the paperback or trade paperback that everyone wants? The fuck is that?" The answer, obviously, is "A massive cash grab." I pointed out how many millions of people were waiting, dicks in hand, for the last Harry Potter book to be published in hardcover, willing to fork over ANYTHING to be among the first to find out Hermione's terrible secret.
But of course, that's the .001% of books. For the other 99.999%, hardcover is nothing but a tax on being an early adopter, like when buying the newest iPhone. Sure, some people like hardcovers better - they look nice on a shelf, they are more durable, and they can foil a mugging if well-aimed. BUT!! A paperback book has, in theory, the exact same function as the hardcover of the same title - the content doesn't change. UNLIKE with the release of the newest gadget, which is usually a marked IMPROVEMENT. When "The Hunger Games'" third installment was released in paperback, a year (or whatever) after hardback, could you read it with 40% less attention span? Was the paper made of a space-age polymer that repels liquids? No, of course not. No, it was just smaller and lighter.
That's my point. Though I don't buy them, I am often given hardcover books as gifts. If I had my entire collection in paperback instead, I estimate a savings of about 50% in volume, and the same in weight. And then maybe I could keep all of my books. Not that I'd read them all, but you know. And I'd probably buy more books anyway. I'm not even going to touch on the idea of e-books. That I could have the entire library in my pocket is a real mind-blower.
I don't want to ban hardbacks, but for shit's sake, release a paperback alongside the more expensive version. Then maybe I'll buy it new, and not for $4.00 used at the Book Hutch.
No comments:
Post a Comment