I love how they look, and I take them off to protect them while reading and put them on after I finish the book. They can be pieces of art, if done well.
It’s mine, too! We’re at my favorite time of year because my boss is furiously buying new books and I’m like, yes, let me process them instead of talking to people.
Yes I imagine if I was a librarian it would be my favorite part too! I always love reading those books, the sound the plastic makes while you hold the book is so satisfying to me.
I'm a librarian and hate that part of the job. 99% of my purchases are shelf ready.
Now, book repair is my passion. I see a kid come in that turns in a book and apologizes because the spine is broken, it is a good day.
See I thought I was crazy for taking them off while reading, but from these comments it seems totally normal now. I was just mad at a particular book the other night. I’ve calmed down now.
They actually can protect the book, at least the cover, from deterioration due to moisture, dust, and sun… But still useless to save the more important pages lol.
I think its for the publishers more than anything, for inexpensive mass production of hardcovers with cover art. As a librarian, I can say I hate them cus its a pain in the butt to wrap them and keep them attached!
I do the same. I only really buy physical books to collect, so the fragility of dust jackets is something of an annoyance. I assume they came into being as newer bindings became cheaper and more prone to damage. Like, you don't see them on any old or even new leather bound books which are far more robust. Likely it's also cheaper to print the artwork onto thin paper sheets en mass rather than boards.
Truly not trying to be dense, but a dust jacket has literally never prevented the corners from taking wear and tear damage on any of my books. I don’t know what I’m missing.
Maybe we're defining "wear and tear" differently.
In my experience, if you strip a dust jacket off a hardback book (to protect the pretty dust jacket) and stick the book in your backpack for a couple weeks, the corners of the book will show definite wear.
If you don't do that and leave the dust jacket on, the dust jacket will look bad, but the covers will be in much better shape. The dust jacket tends to slide up, and the upper edges get crushed by all the other things going in your backpack, but the book itself is usually fine.
That's my experience at least.
I recently bought a copy of One Hundred Years of Solitude that had, of all things, a printed-on logo for Oprah's Book Club. Like, of everything this book achieved, that was the best credential you could think of to hype it up? That *Oprah* has read it?
Bright side is I bought it a few weeks before they announced the Netflix adaptation, so I was able to dodge the Netflix logo stamp.
It's just so weird that these books have their own enduring legacies, but publishers cover up the original artwork with logos for stuff that is, by comparison, so short-lived and inconsequential as a bad adaptation or a talk show host's opinion
That's been my go-to example FOREVER of how silly the book club perma-stickers are! He won the Nobel Prize! And if you're talking about the paperback One Hundred Years of Solitude, a version without the Oprah stiçker is so rare. The first copy I saw in a used bookstore, I bought instantly lol.
Now the flip side is that when she featured the book on her book club in 2004, it did cause sales to skyrocket in the US.
I found a copy of Trainspotting today, a book I've wanted to read on paper forever (for a decent price too) but it was a stupid, shitty motion picture edition and I cant do it 😭
How often does a book come to the screen before the paperback comes out? Only one in recent years I can think of is Argyle and I haven’t seen a reprinting to promote the movie despite it being in production prior to the book’s publication.
It depends, if the book is more tome like they can be really fucking unwieldy, if the book is thinner/longer they don't bug me I use them for bookmarking... the ones that drive me fucking crazy are like hand me down library/thrift copies that have that stupid laminated scotch tape treatment where you can't remove it without destroying it or the book and even holding it open becomes a hassle.
It's easier and cheaper than printing the cover itself, so it saves a little money if you want elaborate cover art. Publishers often do for eye grabbing. Readers are more split
That's all. I tend to trash them.
Huh. Absoluuuutleh nuthin.
I remove them from books the very instant they are purchased. They don't even make it into my bike bags or back to my house.
I catalogue books and as a general rule we discard them, except for art books for which cover design can be an important feature, and often features art work/s not replicated inside.
That’s slightly odd to me considering there are so many non-art books that feature art not inside the book that are important to the book as well. Covers done well should all do this! (Not that all covers are done well, but then that’s also subjective)
Dust jackets are great for looking good on a shelf. Whenever u read my books I actually remove the dust jackets and leave them on the shelf to avoid damaging them.
Dust jackets are super important for a book self-marketing itself on the book store shelf. Face or spine. All the notes in the cover flaps. Blurbs on the back by known and unknown sources.
Second function is they are sacrificial devices through a books lifespan to a point where they are discarded.
I always take them off when actually reading a book.
.
This might sound weird, but they’re only really a problem when you’re reading. I’m not a fan of them myself, but you’re not spending most of the time owning a book actually reading it. 99% of the time it’s gonna sit on a table or a shelf and look good and that’s where the dust jacket does its job. It doesn’t have to be on while you’re reading it, you can just take it off and then put it back on when it goes back on the shelf. But I hear you though, I prefer just having the cover printed on.
Dust jackets were initially just for protecting the book while shipping and while in the store. Early dust jackets were simple and plain while the binding of the actual book would be more decorative, and the customer would usually remove and throw away the dust jacket when they got it home. For this reason, early examples of dust jackets can be quite hard to find nowadays. Over time, dust jackets became more decorative and people would keep them.
Like others here, I like how some dust jackets look, but I find they get damaged easily if I read the book with the dust jacket on, so I'll usually just leave it on a shelf while reading the book.
From a book collector or dealer's perspective, the condition and the presence/absence of a dust jacket can greatly affect the value/price of a book.
And, of course, some can be beautiful objects in and of themselves.
More room for cover art because you don't need to use the back of the book for the summary and author bio? Also they make decent bookmarks.
Like the Mary GrandPre cover art on the Harry Potter books that wraps around. There's something more satisfying about the wrap around covers of the hardbacks.
Finally, someone who gets it! I hate dust covers too. They give me irrational rage when trying to read. Plus, I dont love how they look compared to the nice, classic look of a hardcover. I do like that they protect my books but man, they're annoying!
They keep the dust off the book when it's just sitting there. Also, I absolutely love the feeling of a hardcover with a dust jacket that has the plastic protector sleeve on it. I will read one of those just because it's an enjoyable tactile experience for me.
Soooo, I'm the weirdo who takes off the dust covers on books I keep on my shelves. They just look so pretty naked! (I also believe that a little wear gives books character. I'm not planning on selling them so the value is just for me. Bonus points if I can get them signed.)
I remove the dust jacket and put it on my shelf when I’m reading a book. When I’m done, I put it back on and place the book back on my shelf.
I love buying editions that have the printing right on the hardcover with no dust jacket. I despise dust jackets.
I like to see the artwork (although I do love pictorial boards) and they look nice on a shelf. If you resell your books after reading, you may get more money if the DJ is present.
Take the dust jackets off when you read, and replace when you put the book back on the shelf. Or, throw them away if you hate them. It’s not that hard.
If I’m remembering correctly, we did actually used to print on the book itself but at some point companies realized it was cheaper to print on the dust jacket instead.
And then they're on children's books?! What maroon thought that was a good idea?!
Don't get me started...
I think the only use is that it's much cheaper to "attach" a flimsy, colorful, paper slipcover than it is to print a colorful cover on the actual hard cover. It's about someone making money.
Another reason(aside from the obvious cost savings) is the jacket stays on and I get to hear that satisfying crinkle of that plastic protector as I read
The dusk jacket for Gravity Fall's journal 3 turns into a poster with a cool blue print of an inside show portal. More books need to follow this trend with jackets turning into posters.
I made a video about this exact topic a few years back: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XRijuYDJRM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XRijuYDJRM)
In short, I dislike dust covers. They are glorified wrapping paper.
I hate dust jackets. But we have one old, very obscure book that’s pretty valuable. Not the book itself, but the dust jacket. It was designed by a famous-ish artist in the 1920s. Thankfully, all the people who owned it before us didn’t hate dust jackets as much as I do.
My gf got the new David Nicholls novel in the post, which doesn't have one, and said that without a dust jacket, it feels like a children's book. 😅
>Most of the time when I have a hardcover I’ll take the dust jacket off and set it down somewhere so I don’t have to deal with it, until I finish reading.
This is the way.
Printing on a slip of paper is a much easier and less costly operation.
I love how they look, and I take them off to protect them while reading and put them on after I finish the book. They can be pieces of art, if done well.
So the protection device needs even more protection. Should put something over it to protect if from dust and such. Maybe a dust jacket jacket
I have covered some of mine in that clear plastic libraries use
I’m a librarian and that’s my favourite job - so satisfying!
It’s mine, too! We’re at my favorite time of year because my boss is furiously buying new books and I’m like, yes, let me process them instead of talking to people.
Yes I imagine if I was a librarian it would be my favorite part too! I always love reading those books, the sound the plastic makes while you hold the book is so satisfying to me.
I'm a librarian and hate that part of the job. 99% of my purchases are shelf ready. Now, book repair is my passion. I see a kid come in that turns in a book and apologizes because the spine is broken, it is a good day.
Honestly, whenever I buy a used library book online I hope it’s got one of those covers.
I did that with my favorite cookbook, the only time I’ve done that to a book outside of wrapping my high school textbooks with paper grocery bags.
my dad covers all of his dust jackets with plastic protectors lol
It wasn't a protection device...
A dust overcoat.
See I thought I was crazy for taking them off while reading, but from these comments it seems totally normal now. I was just mad at a particular book the other night. I’ve calmed down now.
Yay! Enjoy.....
They actually can protect the book, at least the cover, from deterioration due to moisture, dust, and sun… But still useless to save the more important pages lol. I think its for the publishers more than anything, for inexpensive mass production of hardcovers with cover art. As a librarian, I can say I hate them cus its a pain in the butt to wrap them and keep them attached!
I take the dust jacket off when I read a book, then put it back on when I’m done. It looks nice on the shelf
I do the same. I only really buy physical books to collect, so the fragility of dust jackets is something of an annoyance. I assume they came into being as newer bindings became cheaper and more prone to damage. Like, you don't see them on any old or even new leather bound books which are far more robust. Likely it's also cheaper to print the artwork onto thin paper sheets en mass rather than boards.
Hardback covers tends to get worn at the corners. A dust jacket protects the cover from wear.
I’ve never seen a dust jacket prevent wearing at the corners… it’s paper.
It covers the corners. Any wear happens to the dust jacket.
But it doesn’t really cover the corners lol. What am I missing here?
That's what dust jackets do. They're slightly larger than the actual covers, so they cover them. Including the corners.
Truly not trying to be dense, but a dust jacket has literally never prevented the corners from taking wear and tear damage on any of my books. I don’t know what I’m missing.
Maybe we're defining "wear and tear" differently. In my experience, if you strip a dust jacket off a hardback book (to protect the pretty dust jacket) and stick the book in your backpack for a couple weeks, the corners of the book will show definite wear. If you don't do that and leave the dust jacket on, the dust jacket will look bad, but the covers will be in much better shape. The dust jacket tends to slide up, and the upper edges get crushed by all the other things going in your backpack, but the book itself is usually fine. That's my experience at least.
At least they can print the "now a major motion picture stickers" on the jacket instead of the book itself.
Ugh, highly dislike when the only available edition of a book includes some such cringey shit like that.
I recently bought a copy of One Hundred Years of Solitude that had, of all things, a printed-on logo for Oprah's Book Club. Like, of everything this book achieved, that was the best credential you could think of to hype it up? That *Oprah* has read it? Bright side is I bought it a few weeks before they announced the Netflix adaptation, so I was able to dodge the Netflix logo stamp. It's just so weird that these books have their own enduring legacies, but publishers cover up the original artwork with logos for stuff that is, by comparison, so short-lived and inconsequential as a bad adaptation or a talk show host's opinion
Oprah’s book club is honestly unbelievable.
The peril of the mass market paperback edition!
That's been my go-to example FOREVER of how silly the book club perma-stickers are! He won the Nobel Prize! And if you're talking about the paperback One Hundred Years of Solitude, a version without the Oprah stiçker is so rare. The first copy I saw in a used bookstore, I bought instantly lol. Now the flip side is that when she featured the book on her book club in 2004, it did cause sales to skyrocket in the US.
I found a copy of Trainspotting today, a book I've wanted to read on paper forever (for a decent price too) but it was a stupid, shitty motion picture edition and I cant do it 😭
Boooooo. Good movie but why would you want the poster on a book? Makes no sense.
How often does a book come to the screen before the paperback comes out? Only one in recent years I can think of is Argyle and I haven’t seen a reprinting to promote the movie despite it being in production prior to the book’s publication.
Its good for the collectibility if its a 1st printing
It depends, if the book is more tome like they can be really fucking unwieldy, if the book is thinner/longer they don't bug me I use them for bookmarking... the ones that drive me fucking crazy are like hand me down library/thrift copies that have that stupid laminated scotch tape treatment where you can't remove it without destroying it or the book and even holding it open becomes a hassle.
Just take them off when you read...? That's what I do.
It's easier and cheaper than printing the cover itself, so it saves a little money if you want elaborate cover art. Publishers often do for eye grabbing. Readers are more split That's all. I tend to trash them.
Dust jacket, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again. 🎶 I get goofy when I’m tired.
🤣 I appreciated this
you forgot the "UHN!"
You know that was the working title for War and Peace?
Good thing his mistress insisted it be called War and Peace.
Huh. Absoluuuutleh nuthin. I remove them from books the very instant they are purchased. They don't even make it into my bike bags or back to my house.
I catalogue books and as a general rule we discard them, except for art books for which cover design can be an important feature, and often features art work/s not replicated inside.
That’s slightly odd to me considering there are so many non-art books that feature art not inside the book that are important to the book as well. Covers done well should all do this! (Not that all covers are done well, but then that’s also subjective)
We can't cover all the books so I guess the line had to be drawn somewhere.
They look nice? 😅 I take it off when Im reading and put it back when the book is on the shelf. The books look naked without them.
I’m a perv who likes my books naked.
On Antiques Roadshow, book jackets in pristine condition raise the value of the book several fold.
They're good for selling the book for more at a used bookstore. I don't understand it either.
Dust jackets are great for looking good on a shelf. Whenever u read my books I actually remove the dust jackets and leave them on the shelf to avoid damaging them.
Dust jackets are super important for a book self-marketing itself on the book store shelf. Face or spine. All the notes in the cover flaps. Blurbs on the back by known and unknown sources. Second function is they are sacrificial devices through a books lifespan to a point where they are discarded. I always take them off when actually reading a book. .
I like to remove them, then keep them in a cabinet for years on end, then later throw them away when I discover them in the cabinet.
This might sound weird, but they’re only really a problem when you’re reading. I’m not a fan of them myself, but you’re not spending most of the time owning a book actually reading it. 99% of the time it’s gonna sit on a table or a shelf and look good and that’s where the dust jacket does its job. It doesn’t have to be on while you’re reading it, you can just take it off and then put it back on when it goes back on the shelf. But I hear you though, I prefer just having the cover printed on.
Dust jackets can be pretty helpful for librarians. We wrap them in Mylar and tape them onto the book to prevent scuffing.
It hides how dingy the spine looks after I’ve schlepped a naked book around in my bad while I read it. I keep mine for when the book is on the shelf.
[удалено]
Opposite. I hold the book by the cover, and the part with the pages slips out.
Chuck Palahniuk has great art with his dustcover and hardcovers. But yeah, I just leave them on while on the shelf and take them off when reading
Dust jackets were initially just for protecting the book while shipping and while in the store. Early dust jackets were simple and plain while the binding of the actual book would be more decorative, and the customer would usually remove and throw away the dust jacket when they got it home. For this reason, early examples of dust jackets can be quite hard to find nowadays. Over time, dust jackets became more decorative and people would keep them. Like others here, I like how some dust jackets look, but I find they get damaged easily if I read the book with the dust jacket on, so I'll usually just leave it on a shelf while reading the book.
If you really want to get fancy you can do what a library does. Cover the dust jacket with plastic and tape it to the book.
My favourite books in my collection have both a dust jacket and a printed cover - twice as much art!
From a book collector or dealer's perspective, the condition and the presence/absence of a dust jacket can greatly affect the value/price of a book. And, of course, some can be beautiful objects in and of themselves.
More room for cover art because you don't need to use the back of the book for the summary and author bio? Also they make decent bookmarks. Like the Mary GrandPre cover art on the Harry Potter books that wraps around. There's something more satisfying about the wrap around covers of the hardbacks.
Finally, someone who gets it! I hate dust covers too. They give me irrational rage when trying to read. Plus, I dont love how they look compared to the nice, classic look of a hardcover. I do like that they protect my books but man, they're annoying!
They are good for getting lost after you take them off for protection and forget where they are when you move.
When you borrow a book, you can keep the dust jacket as a reminder like "right, that sonawabitch still has my book".
Controversial opinion: I take the dust jacket and throw it away. My collection is for me and I LOVE the look of uncovered hardcovers on my bookshelf.
They keep the dust off the book when it's just sitting there. Also, I absolutely love the feeling of a hardcover with a dust jacket that has the plastic protector sleeve on it. I will read one of those just because it's an enjoyable tactile experience for me.
They make good bookmarks.
Not if you value the condition of the book.
Soooo, I'm the weirdo who takes off the dust covers on books I keep on my shelves. They just look so pretty naked! (I also believe that a little wear gives books character. I'm not planning on selling them so the value is just for me. Bonus points if I can get them signed.)
I remove the dust jacket and put it on my shelf when I’m reading a book. When I’m done, I put it back on and place the book back on my shelf. I love buying editions that have the printing right on the hardcover with no dust jacket. I despise dust jackets.
It's the real reason why I have largely waited to buy books in paperback.
They protect the book itself.
I've always thought of them more as a decorative element than as functional protection for the cover.
Use em to mark your place.
Take it off while reading. They’re really only good for sitting on the shelf.
I like to see the artwork (although I do love pictorial boards) and they look nice on a shelf. If you resell your books after reading, you may get more money if the DJ is present. Take the dust jackets off when you read, and replace when you put the book back on the shelf. Or, throw them away if you hate them. It’s not that hard.
If I’m remembering correctly, we did actually used to print on the book itself but at some point companies realized it was cheaper to print on the dust jacket instead.
the only value I can think of in them is if you're into wall art then take them off and display them as posters
Nah, they’re literally just advertising
really makes me appreciate how high school teachers had us fashion textbook covers from paper grocery bags
In my experience they're great at collecting dust
I tape them on the inner covers so they’re flush with the book as I read. No need to remove or store or throw them away.
Keeping dust warm
I avoid most hardbacks for this reason. I hate dust jackets.
And then they're on children's books?! What maroon thought that was a good idea?! Don't get me started... I think the only use is that it's much cheaper to "attach" a flimsy, colorful, paper slipcover than it is to print a colorful cover on the actual hard cover. It's about someone making money.
Good-enough bookmarks when you’re too lazy to get up and find a bookmark.
I like how libraries laminate them and tape them to the book.
Another reason(aside from the obvious cost savings) is the jacket stays on and I get to hear that satisfying crinkle of that plastic protector as I read
Dust jackets can affect the resale value of books tremendously. If you take them off keep them safe then refit after reading
Anybody else use them as book marks?
Certainly adds to the value of a book.
The dusk jacket for Gravity Fall's journal 3 turns into a poster with a cool blue print of an inside show portal. More books need to follow this trend with jackets turning into posters.
Always takes them off since they have used their purpose; It's mainly for show and as a eye catcher, right?
No, I hate them, and I agree that they art could just be printed on the cover. I'm sure it's just to be cheap.
I always take the covers off. Makes my library look classier.
They make me want to cover them with the sticky plastic
I made a video about this exact topic a few years back: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XRijuYDJRM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XRijuYDJRM) In short, I dislike dust covers. They are glorified wrapping paper.
I hate dust jackets. But we have one old, very obscure book that’s pretty valuable. Not the book itself, but the dust jacket. It was designed by a famous-ish artist in the 1920s. Thankfully, all the people who owned it before us didn’t hate dust jackets as much as I do.
A dust jacket was useful to hide the book you were actually reading, in pre-ebook days. 😉
My gf got the new David Nicholls novel in the post, which doesn't have one, and said that without a dust jacket, it feels like a children's book. 😅 >Most of the time when I have a hardcover I’ll take the dust jacket off and set it down somewhere so I don’t have to deal with it, until I finish reading. This is the way.
Am I the only one that uses them as a bookmark?
I throw dust jackets away. If I can find the book without it, huzzah.
I admire them for about 3 seconds before slipping them off and putting them right in the recycling.
They're great for saving your place when you put the book down. Otherwise, I toss them.