Thick Books

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheInquirer

Puritan Board Junior
Wondering if those of you in publishing might be able to answer this one.

I have noticed a trend toward hardback books becoming thicker and wider, sometimes much more than they need to be given the text size and spacing on the actual pages.

I am wondering why this is? Is it marketing (bigger=better value) or perhaps a more pragmatic reason in the process of publishing?

As I run out of shelf space, I find myself avoiding books that are too thick if I don't feel I really need them - especially multi-volume sets.
 
I understand thicker; what do you mean by "and wider"? I wasn't aware of a tend to go thick just to be thick. For my recent titles for a new series I've gone with a design with a larger typeface and to accommodate that larger block size (7x10 rather than 9x6) with a paper of lesser ppi (pages per inch) than the standard. This is usually done for shorter books to beef them up to a thickness that meets sewing and binding minimums. If there is a trend to do it just to do it I was not aware of it. Can you post examples of what you are talking about/
 
Thick and wide referring to the same thing - horizontal shelf space.

My two volumes from you - Gillespie and Bownd - strike a nice balance to me in thickness and font size.

I think I first noticed the trend with volumes 2 and 3 of Frame's Lordship series. The font is noticeably larger and more spaced out than the first volume. I remember volume 1 of the Perkin's series from RHB to be surprisingly thick compared to the number of words (I have since sold it, apologies if my memory is faulty). Beeke's Reformed Systematic Theology vol.1 isn't too bad but I think the text could have been a bit more compact (like the two volumes of yours I mentioned) to reduce the thickness (sorry RHB, love your books, don't mean to pick on you specifically!). Bock's 2 volume Luke commentary is another example. Some pages don't seem to have all that many words on a page.

Perhaps some of these decisions have to do with footnote spacing or even an older reading demographic that prefers large font size more spaced out?
 
The only thing I can think maybe: I have had complaints for my standard font size I've used for Bownd and Gillespie and for the last few years (and my eyes are older too) so it could be that some of this is upping the type size for older eyes. Or maybe with folks ability to resize type in electronic or the fact electronic text can be big and clunky, there is a trend. I'll ask my contact with RHB if there is any conscience choice in this regard, some sort of industry trend, etc.
 
It may also be folks are designing with end goal of digital and so design goes out the window and that is driving the larger type and consequently larger number of pages and thicker books.
 
Good design makes the typography not so crowded on the page. Supposedly the optimum length of a line is about 65 to 70 characters. Make the font size larger to make it more readable. Make the leading larger so each line has comfortable white space in between. Margins a bit wider on outside and bottom. Make the paper weight higher so there isn't so much bleed through. But every single one of those things adds a little to thickness...

Many of the "budget" books of the past would make the font smaller, crowd the lines, and have 80 or 90 characters per line, all to save paper and cost, presumably. Perhaps we are more affluent and can afford better quality? Not to say there isn't a lot of badly typeset books still. Curious, I haven't really noticed a trend.

I really doubt digital design is driving it. It's the other way around usually: they try to format the ebooks after the same font and rules as the printed books, including embedding smaller fonts, which drives me nuts!
 
Banner of Truth:
Calvin's Sermons on Galatians, printed 1979, ~700 pages, 48 sermons.
Slightly thicker is
Calvin's Sermons on 2 Timothy, printed 2018, ~820 pages, 54 sermons.

Not sure about other publishers but Banner's seems pretty comparable over the years.
 
volume 1 of the Perkin's series from RHB to be surprisingly thick compared to the number of words

Perkins volume 1 comes in at 777 pages. The margins do not appear to be excessive. It is larger than say Edward Reynolds or William Bridge's works.

We use a thicker, high-quality paper. Also, proper font spacing and size are critical for a pleasant reading experience that won't quickly lead to fatigue. Our end goal is to deliver the best reading experience that we can. This at times will result in a larger format. Take a Perkins or VanderGroe volume and compare it to one of our Witsius titles or Banner's Jonathan Edward set. The typography makes a world of a difference. It is a blessing to live in an age where we can be incredibly nuanced with the typography of books.

I suppose it could also come down to practical reasons. A publisher can publish a book in one larger format or spend more time and money to break it down into two volumes. I do not own any of the Frame volumes to review the font. I am familiar with the size of them.
 
The book "Moses' Choice" I published by Jeremiah Burroughs was over 700 pages. That's a pretty thick book, but not due to anything I chose to do. As a publisher I want to make the font large enough to read easily so I use 12 point Baskerville for Puritan titles and 12 point Goudy Old Style for 19th century works. I use 50# natural paper, which is acid free. I don't know if that's thicker than other stock or not. There is more profit in a larger book than a smaller one, but that's no factor in choosing a book to print. Does this answer any questions for you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top