Perhaps it's needed a brief explanation about the main differences between Paperback format and the Soft Cover format.
In this way: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080626090539AAcRzJG
thanks

That info and elsewhere I have looked seems to suggest that the term softcover is indiscriminately used and not standard anywhere, I would suggest we don't have that as a term.

For what it's worth, having worked in the printing industry for several years, primarily in book manufacturing, internally they were refered to as "soft-bound" for the paperback types and "hard-bound" for the hardboard types.

I think we need to band together and start making wiki pages to explain this stuff

A -maybe- useful reference: http://www.patrickrothfuss.com/blog/uploaded_images/DSC03481-706697.JPG

IMO, looking it from an outer point of view, it seems that:
- Hardcover book: stronger, more solid, not necessary bigger, rigid
- Softcover book: the same as the Hardcover one, but not rigid
- Paperback book: a slimmer edition, smaller, maybe without illustrations

We use to call them, in order: Rigida, Morbida, Economica

I was using the term 'soft cover' for large format books eg. http://www.biblio.gs/book/7330-Destroy-Sex-Pistols-1977 But as I was unclear on the term after reading another thread amended them all to 'paperback' - though with the book shown 'soft cover' is probably more accurate.

Bumping this discussion as soft covers are being changed to paperbacks and vice versa without any reasoning.

My understanding always was, that a PaperBACK is at about the size, to have it fit in the back pocket of your Jeans ;)

TraunStaa wrote:

My understanding always was, that a PaperBACK is at about the size, to have it fit in the back pocket of your Jeans ;)

Thats kind of the reasoning i used. So large format books I listed as 'soft cover' instead of paperback. But I still think there should be some guidelines.

So, a 700-page paperback is not really a paperback because it doesn't fit in the back pocket of anyone's jeans? ;-)

And, if paperback is a pocket-sized book with a flexible papercover, then how do you differentiate it from a "pocketbook", which we also have?

These all probably exist in the format list because different countries use different terms. My home country uses either "softcover" or "pocketbook", and I know there are other countries doing the same thing. To confuse things even further, we usually differentiate the printings by the binding (roughly translated as thread-bound and adhesive-bound).

palikao83 wrote:

http://www.patrickrothfuss.com/blog/uploaded_images/DSC03481-706697.JPG

IMO, looking it from an outer point of view, it seems that:
- Hardcover book: stronger, more solid, not necessary bigger, rigid
- Softcover book: the same as the Hardcover one, but not rigid
- Paperback book: a slimmer edition, smaller, maybe without illustrations

We use to call them, in order: Rigida, Morbida, Economica

I'm pretty sure those are the US editions, so officially they are:
1) hardback
2) trade paperback
3) mass-market paperback

In my home country they would be described as:
1) thread-bound and/or hardcover
2) adhesive-bound and/or softcover
3) adhesive-bound and/or softcover and/or pocketbook

The current situation isn't absolute horrible as this way everyone can just use whatever terms they are used to, but it also leads to somewhat redundant edits because different users are used to different definitions.

Also unifying all these different terms might be an overwhelming effort, but some consistency would be nice.

Thanks for resurfacing this, mirva. We could definitely use a tighter definition on the options on that dropdown.
I'll add a document to the Wiki on these definitions and share it here when it's up, would be good to get all your input in there as well and include all the various terms under general headers.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.