Do you read books with the dust cover
Artistic - on
Bad Reading - off
Ratings are tiny on mobile so I'm gonna go ahead and say...neither, but also both? Most books I own don't have a dust cover, but I expect I would use them if they did, less for practical reasons and more just because they're there.
Always off. I love the look of an uncovered book, and even though I only own like 15 books right now it gives me the feeling of my library as a vast collection of dusty old tome full of ancient history.
Always take it off. It’s awkward to hold a book when you’re trying to prevent the cover from slipping around. The hard cover just feels better to the touch.
Not really.
I don't read hardbacks. I grew up buying second-hand paperbacks for cheap, and so virtually every book I've ever read was paperback.
In fact, only hardback book I can remember reading was Stephen Baxter's Moonseed:
https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1432210982l/63775.jpg
Which, as an aside, I recommend if you're into hard scifi. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
That being said, it's been literal years since I've read a book, and it makes me sad. Just don't have the time anymore - and the only times I do have to really sit down and relax, I'm too exhausted for reading, and so I just turn on an episode of something on Netflix before going to bed.
I miss reading.
If it's a nice copy I'm especially sensitive about the jacket not getting messed up, which it just will if you handle it or take it anywhere, and it's definitely easier to hold with it off.
The real way to do it is to get the jacket laminated.
Btw some hardcovers just have a cool looking binding or color scheme underneath the jacket.
Back when the Harry Potter books were just becoming a thing my family took turns reading them as they came out, so my mom attached a ribbon to the inside that matched the color of the binding to use as a bookmark.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/206832/4989aae4-c259-4018-bdee-b0a9530c70f8/potters.jpg
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
