Newer books with huge font = bad

[cabbagescribe]

Am I the only one who notices how huge a waste of paper that recently-published books are? I am not commenting here on the quality of the actual stories, but on the printing itself. As an example, I am reading "The Tyrant's Novel" by Thomas Keneally for school. Each page has very heavy paper, with margins nearing an inch on each side. The font size is huge: there can't be more than 200 words a page.

Am I the only one that likes the style in which old books are printed? Smallish font, nice light pages, and if softcover, actually BENDABLE?

 

[abecedarian]

Since I just got my first pair of bifocals a few months ago, I'm beginning to appreciate larger print Sorry, I'm for it if it makes a book more accessible.

 

[Miss Shelf]

are you sure you didn't get a large-print book and you think it's normal?

 

[Fantasy Moon]

I ordered a book through the campus library and disliked how big the margins were on each page. The font wasn't that big though. Meh, it just seemed that the book could have been half the thickness that it turned out to be. I don't particularly like large print.

 

[Justin91]

Large margins are great if you like to write notes in the margin...many books sold in campus book stores are for coursework...this usually requires note taking.

 

[Shade]

I so agree, cabbagescribe! My particular hatred is when they bump up the font size and line spacing for the paperback, so the page count is often 100 pages higher than the hardback - eg Andrea Levy's Small Island, one of Michael Dibdin's latest, the recently reissued adult editions of Harry Potter... and Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment (329 pages in hardback), when published in paperback in the UK, was actually set entirely in bold type just to fill more pages! (429 in total. Have a look at a copy if you don't believe me...)

My theory is that this stems from some contemptible belief in publishing circles that when people buy a book they are not looking for excitement, escape, beautiful writing, thrills, or even the author's reputation, but some bizarre value-for-money judgement where a £6.99 book with 400 pages is somehow preferable to a £6.99 book with 300 pages. Ooh it makes me mad!

[/rant]

 

[Halo]

Cabbagescribe, you're right, that is annoying! Just as annoying though, is the book printed in tiny font, with barely any white space on the page.

The worst culprit I have ever seen for small font size is "Worldstorm" by James Lovegrove. Even worse, the paragraphs routinely last for a full page, so there's just no break in the words. I was enjoying the actual plot of this book, but had to give up because the font and the almost complete lack of white space on the page made it so difficult to read. It became almost a chore to pick this book up.

Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment (329 pages in hardback), when published in paperback in the UK, was actually set entirely in bold type just to fill more pages! (429 in total. Have a look at a copy if you don't believe me...)

*makes a note to have a look when I get home*

 

[Calliope]

I hate it when books have large font. For some reason I find this sloppy. I prefer it when books have smaller font...10 maybe or 12...they look neater and more elegant. I know it's a weird way of describing it, but that's what it makes me feel like .

 

[SFG75]

Perhaps they are books for aging baby boomers? I know that Reader's Digest and other magazines produce large print varieties for them. A disturbing trend is the increasing of text size and widening of margins in textbooks. I guess that those things coupled with huge pictures and graphs are to help students learn to read more.

 

[beer good]

I so agree, cabbagescribe! My particular hatred is when they bump up the font size and line spacing for the paperback, so the page count is often 100 pages higher than the hardback

I agree to some point, and the case you describe with bold fonts etc sounds ridiculous, but the pages in a paperback ARE smaller and fit less text. When the choice is between either shrinking the font or increasing the number of pages I definitely prefer the latter. I don't want larger fonts, but I don't want them to be so ridiculously small they become hard to read, either.

 

[Anamnesis]

When the choice is between either shrinking the font or increasing the number of pages I definitely prefer the latter. I don't want larger fonts, but I don't want them to be so ridiculously small they become hard to read, either.

I agree with this. While large fonts can ruin the presence of a book, I do like seeing the words on the pages . I don't like looking at pages repeatedly just to make out what I'm reading.

 

[angerball]

I once borrowed a Large Print book. I found it so horrendous to read, that I couldn't finish it. Mind you, it may have been that it was a Dean Koontz book, and I don't particularly like his books. It was Intensity, and I'd heard so much about it, that I had to read it, but the library only had the Large Print copy. When I gave up on it, I did actually wonder if it was the large print that put me off, and it probably is. At least it made me not bother persevering.

 

[abecedarian]

I wonder which is more cost productive for publishers: increasing font size or attaching a small plastic magnifying glass to each and every book they sell.. There's been a few books I tried to read where I would have been better off with a huge magnifier draped around my neck like a reject from an old Carol Burnett skit..

 

[Miss Shelf]

I can't read the large Print books comfortably either but I do appreciate a bit larger font in regular books, since my eyesight isn't what it used to be-and I don't have bifocals like abc!

 

[zen]

yep.. i'll raise my hand here, in favour of larger print rather than smaller, and i don't mean LARGE print books.. i already have to use a stronger prescription pair of reading glasses for books.. starting to consider going to ebooks, for lots of reasons, not just being able to adjust font size, but i do like that! i blame too many hours reading!

 

[abecedarian]

I can't read the large Print books comfortably either but I do appreciate a bit larger font in regular books, since my eyesight isn't what it used to be-and I don't have bifocals like abc!

You know the dirty rotten truth about bifocals?



They don't help! I still find myself squinting sometimes

 

[Miss Shelf]

My problem is I can't wear my glasses while reading, but when I look up from the book to the TV, I can't see the TV. I suppose I need bifocals, but I guess I'll just have to put my glasses on a chain around my neck, which I swore I would never do. Getting older is tough.

 

[Miss Shelf]

i blame too many hours reading!

shh! You'll cause Them to issue a warning label on books-"Frequent use may irreparably damage eyesight". We'll need a prescription to get into a library or bookstore.

 

[Shade]

OK, I'm not talking about using tiddly font (like the omnibus edition of George Orwell's complete novels: just ridiculous, and I had similar problems with an omnibus Penguin Modern Classic edition of three Nancy Mitford novels, where there was so much text per page I got bored before the end of each one). But I do think that any book, of any size page, is capable of having 30-40 lines of text on it which can be read comfortably. Any more than that is eye-straining and pointless. Any less makes it look like a children's book, or a space-waster.

 

[Ryouko]

Large-font books make my head hurt. Mind you I'm near-sighted, so when I'm without contacts or glasses, I have to hold the book about 5-6 inches from my face. And with large print, I tend to get really frustrated. However, I do know people for whom bigger words are a blessing. All of my grandparents need glasses of some sort and large font allows them to continue one of they're favorite pastimes with ease. So I guess I'm neutral.