I just read a post from Powell’s blog that referenced a post from guardian.co.uk’s blog…on dust jackets. I’m a fan of Powell’s on Facebook, so I periodically get updates from PowellsBooks.Blog, and this one about dust jackets caught my eye (how boring am I…?)
The Guardian blog post says that dust jackets are an unnecessary encumbrance, and states that books that are casewrapped with art on them are becoming increasingly popular in literary fiction. I can’t say that I’ve noticed this here (the Guardian is based in the UK), but then again, I don’t really buy hardcover books. And when I do, in most cases my textbooks, I always take the dust jacket off. The plan is to save it while I’m reading the book so it doesn’t get torn, and to put it back on afterward. But I usually leave it on a table somewhere, or put other books on top of it, and it gets ripped or smooshed anyway, and I recycle it. One of the only books I have that has retained its dust jacket is The Little Princess, the book I blogged about keeping in my last post. I think many people use the dust jacket as a bookmark.
Some of the arguments for removing the dust jacket are to reduce cost and increase shelf appeal. But I also thought it might be a good way for publishers to save a little paper, and publish somewhat more sustainably. Maybe this seems stupid, based on how much paper is used in any given hardcover book, but also think about how many thousands of books are printed each year with dust jackets. It couldn’t hurt to do away with a few extra sheets. There are those who will be upset if publishers stop covering their hardcovers with jackets, but I think I might be for it.
I’m searching for a profound point to make about dust jackets. I don’t really have one, but it is interesting to see a shift in the way books are produced and presented right in front of my eyes. And Powell’s blogged about it first, so it has to be interesting, right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment