Flipback Books: My Verdict

15 Jul

We all know that I am an unapologetic lover of books made from dead trees and that despite selling lots of e-books, I have – to date – read the sum total of two of them. One was only available in e-book and the other was too short for me to justify purchasing in print, and while I read them I had to actively push down my Kindle-induced rage.

These two exceptions aside, I buy every single book I read (when I don’t get them for free, to review) and I like my words on paper, not in computer code. This is because books themselves hold an appeal for me that is entirely separate to the experience of reading them. I like looking at them all lined up on my shelves. I just love books, sometimes to an unhealthy degree. (We all remember the Vintage Books/Jo Nesbo/mismatched cover fiasco, don’t we? Thanks again for my matching set, Vintage Books!)

So when I heard about these new “flipback” books, my first thought was “They. Are. So. CUTE!” and my second was, “I must have them.” The idea is that the books are small (about the size of an iPhone), light (they’re made from bible paper) and extremely portable, so they tick the convenience box while remaining a real, live book. Or a real dead book, to be more accurate. As the name suggests, you flip the cover up to read them top-to-bottom as opposed to left-to-right.

Personally I don’t think books as they currently exist are in any way broken and I don’t mind going on holidays with two outfits and laundry money because I’ve filled my suitcases with a stack of summer reads – in October I actually left clothes behind me in the States to make way for a haul of books from The Strand bookstore in New York and I DON’ REGRET IT ONE TINY BIT – but I acknowledge that other people might not feel the same way and flipbacks are certainly the non-Kindle solution to your holiday suitcase problem.

But there are three things I don’t like about them.

The first is the price, which for now I suppose can’t really be helped. All flipbacks are made by just one printer based in the Netherlands so this explains the €12.50 price tag (although not why The Book Depository can manage to sell them for €8.49.) Maybe – hopefully – that’ll change in the future, especially as they start to add more titles. (Hello? The Help? Would that not be the best flipback title ever?) But it’s a Catch-22 situation because in order for the price to be lower they’ll have to be mass produced on a larger scale, but in order for that to happen there’ll need to be a bigger demand, and in order for there to be a demand people have to rush out and buy them, which they’re dissuaded from doing now because of the high price.

The second is that while I love how the flipback looks as a physical book, it annoys me that the spine text is printed in the wrong direction. Call me crazy – I know you do – but yes, things like that annoy me. When a book is a on shelf, the text should be the right way up with the front cover to the right. On a flipback it’s only the right way up if the front cover is to the left. Maybe, again, this is related to their Dutch origins but if you want me to collect the whole set, the whole set is going to have to look cute on my bookshelves, not make me bristle with book-lover annoyance every time I see it.

Lastly, reading a flipback is easy and comfortable, but only when you get passed the first fourth or fifth of the book. At the beginning  the whole weight of the book is hanging by a page, and that just feels weird. Also I don’t believe this read-with-one-hand business. You can hold it with one hand, yes, but if you read quick there’s no point, because you’re turning the pages so quickly that it’s hardly worth your while putting down the other hand. And why are we aspiring to read with one hand? Because we can with a Kindle and the flipback is trying to compete? I hope so, because otherwise I have to ask: we’re talking about reading a book here. How lazy are you people?!

Having said all that, they do have a high novelty factor, they make a great present (they are much easier to post half way around the world than their bigger brothers) and they’re collectable. They are also so beautifully made that you can practically hear them whisper quality. As a cover junkie I particularly love how well the original cover designs have been so perfectly re-sized to fit the flipbacks, with Misery, one of my two flipback purchases, looking particularly good. But with only 12 titles available for now – and my local Waterstones only stocking four of them – I don’t think they’re quite there yet.

And I can only hope that the Guardian’s headline “Could this new book kill the Kindle?” was penned for effect and not because they actually think there’s a chance in hell the two things are related, because they’re not. It’s like asking, “Could this new spork kill the spoon?”

(Incidentally, my favorite line from that piece was, “Unlike an ordinary paperback, the book lies open without intervention on my part, due to its special spine.” This goes hand in hand – no pun intended, HA! – with the reading them with one hand thing. Again: how lazy a person do you have to be for this to be a selling point?!)

But I don’t doubt I’ll be buying more in the future though.

We all know I’m a sucker for a novelty item, especially if it’s book-related.

What do you think about them? Will you buying one? And what titles would you like to see in flipback form?

Find out more about flipback books here. The Book Depository seem to have the best deal on them and don’t forget they have free shipping worldwide.

(On a related note, I’m extremely disappointed that one of the flipback titles is A Million Little Pieces and that on the cover it’s referred to as a memoir, on its listing all the glowing reviews are pre-Smoking Gun exposé and so contain words like “memoir” and “honest”, and there is no mention of the fact that is a big stinky heap of complete and utter bullshit. A disclaimer inside the book is not enough if you’re going to act like it doesn’t exist whenever it suits you.)

9 Responses to “Flipback Books: My Verdict”

  1. michaelharling July 15, 2011 at 09:27 #

    It occurs to me that, if they put the text in the book the correct way (edge of text to the spine–the way God intended) they would just be a little book. I think I might actually like that better, but I suppose their aim is to make it as different as possible from a traditional book yet still please the ‘dead tree’ crowd. I want one; but I’ll wait for the price to drop.

  2. Stevie Godson July 15, 2011 at 09:34 #

    Great post, thanks. I don’t fancy them at all, Catherine. Here’s my recent newspaper column on the topic:
    IF YOU’RE still sitting on the fence over whether to stick to traditional books or get yourself an e-reader, you may be able to put off the decision for a while longer. At least, that’s what the inventor of the “revolutionary flipback book” wants you to think.
    Just released in England, flipback books are made of paper – just like “real” books – but, says the maker, they’re lighter than a Kindle, fit in your pocket, and don’t need recharging.
    And because these books are sideways-bound – they have especially thin printed pages and their spines are made of a cloth – it’s apparently easy to read two pages from top to bottom, like holding a very light paperback sideways.
    Apparently they’re already “all the rage” in Holland, where they’ve been available for a couple of years, which is not surprising, as they were invented there. Hugo van Woerden, who is chief of Christian printing house Jongbloed was apparently looking for ways to use excess Bible “onion skin” paper when he came up with the idea.
    As the Guardian newspaper’s Patrick Kingsley says, the flipback’s appeal is not only that it’s made of paper, not bytes, but also because it’s so convenient.
    “I can perch it in one fist, and keep my other hand free for shopping,” he says. “The paper is wafer-thin. ‘Great for making rollies,’ says my nicotine-addicted lunch date,” he adds.
    “Unlike an ordinary paperback, the book lies open without intervention on my part, due to its special spine. It’s handy on a rush-hour tube, too. Page-turning with paperbacks will see you elbowing your neighbour in the pancreas in no time. But the minuteness of this little beauty, with its pages that flip rather than turn, help me keep my elbows to myself and pancreases everywhere safe.”
    I’m still not convinced, especially as I don’t have to catch a rush-hour tube and these “little beauties”, which look as flimsy as a feather, cost slightly more than a regular book and around two-thirds more than most e-books.
    As Cory Doctorow on website boingboing says, the Guardian’s headline – Could this new book kill the Kindle? – must take the prize for that newspaper’s silliest headline of the year.
    Talking of headlines, one that did tickle my fancy was on book news website Teleread. New way to read dead trees, they proclaim.
    And that just about sums it up.
    Because however light they are, 3500 of them – the number of books I can load on my Kindle – would still use an awful lot of paper and take up an awful lot of physical space.
    The headline in the Sydney Morning Herald announced: Wee book versus e-book.
    According to their article, the flipback books measure 12cm x 8cm across the cover and the heaviest so far is Stephen King’s Misery, weighing in at 157gm, “which is marginally more than an iPhone”.
    And the best comment so far also came from the Sydney Morning Herald, but from a reader, “Eiszeit”, who says: “If you don’t have space in your bag for a book, then perhaps you are carrying too much crap around with you … most women carry bags large enough to conceal a corpse.”
    Hmmn, wonder who gave him permission to check out mine ….

  3. Karina Halle July 15, 2011 at 17:09 #

    That’s pretty awesome – hadn’t even heard of Flipbacks before. I too would actually really be annoyed by the spine.

    I’ve got an e-reader now which is great for reading pdfs of other self-published books from Smashwords or wherever. But I would still rather have a physical book. Even though I share a 430 sq foot apartment, my books are still proudly displayed…and growing. I’m just old-fashioned that way, plus I never give books away and I treat them like furniture or art.

    I do the same for CDS too, so maybe it’s just an aesthetic thing. I like to be able to stare at it, pick it up, put it back down. Plus, I really don’t feel like the experience with an ereader is the same as a book. It feels…hollow. I don’t know. I also read about studies done saying that memory retention off the physical page is a LOT better than off of a Kindle or Nook. So that says something!

  4. mary hannon July 15, 2011 at 18:06 #

    Just bought Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and think they are lovely!I adore all my books and for me this is just a different way of experiencing them. Have to say it was a very pleasurable hour spent reading from this in coffee shop earlier. Definitely agree its no threat to Kindle though and the spine thing I understand but perhaps its a bit OCD of me so will hold off on that. I think the fine bible paper brings something new to be savoured as well and anything that keeps people connected to the all things booky is good with me!

  5. Christopher Wills July 15, 2011 at 23:09 #

    Hi interesting post; never seen these before. To me they shout gimmick. It’s an old marketing ploy in a shrinking market; throw in some gimmicks to spark interest and prop up the market for a while. They don’t even fulfil a need. Sorry but I will not be buying any.

  6. Keris July 16, 2011 at 06:15 #

    I’m baffled by these books. Yes, they look really cute and they’re light, but I thought the selling point was that you could read them one-handed (I assumed that was aimed at commuters rather than anyone involved in, um, other one-handed activities) and you can’t. “Pages that flip rather than turn” – how? As far as I can tell you just have to turn the pages like an ordinary book. Unless I’m doing it wrong…

  7. laurastanfill July 20, 2011 at 22:37 #

    Great post! I’m waiting for my copy of “Cloud Atlas” to arrive here in America. I ordered it June 30 directly from Hodder & Stoughton and have been assured that the package should arrive any day now. I’ve been blogging a lot about flipbacks over the past few months, including doing an interview with the international marketing manager at Jongbloed BV, the Bible publishing company that came up with the format. So I’m really excited to have my first real reading experience with one. (I have the Cambridge University Press Transetto Bible, but that’s not the same as sitting down with a novel.)

  8. ianf September 20, 2012 at 15:16 #

    Your gut verdict of a year+ ago proved correct…
    the flipbacks do not appear to be going anywhere
    anytime soon, except into oblivion. I think I may
    know why… extremely narrow range of published
    titles underlines the format’s novelty – and that’s
    about it. Too few buyers/ readers of far too few
    titles put out not only by UK publishers, but also
    such in other languages in other EU countries
    where the flip format made a splashdown–possibly
    with exception for The Netherlands where they’ve
    been around for longer. None of that bides well for
    their future.

    Incidentally, paperbacks with pages printed parallel
    to the spine aren’t what’s new here—I’ve seen at
    least a couple odd volumes of such “spineways”
    prose and other genres 10-15 years in the past—
    but that the books now apparently are produced
    and bound on a dedicated flipbooks-printworks
    line capable of handling both super-thin bible
    stock AND cloth covers (previous ones were
    done on standard pulpy paperback lines).

    That said, I looked up by you recommended Book
    Depository outlet, and found just 10 odd flipback
    titles (one, Pride and Prejudice, not from Houghton;
    could well have been a test case for the other
    house–which didn’t pan out). I love Jane Austen
    like me sister, but, hey! I can get her FOR FREE
    from five dozen other places, and for £1 from any
    classics sale bin; what the hell were they ?thinking?
    of, a runaway sales stampede?

    PS. modify the search term under your link to
    The Book Depository – from plural »flipbacks«
    to singular »flipback«. The first does not return
    any results any more… one more sign that the
    format (also explicitly called »paperback« there)
    isn’t going places.

  9. ianf September 20, 2012 at 15:39 #

    Here are a couple links that spell out the »destiny«
    of the Flipbacks: http://www.flipbackbooks.com/
    doesn’t even list where to buy them; and of a total
    of 18 http://www.flipbackbooks.com/titles.html
    published to date–in a year+ that’s all they could
    manage–fully half are not represented in The Book
    Depository – which means TBD doesn’t believe in
    the format’s survival, therefore has quit ordering
    new books.

    The “Pride and Prejudice” Flipback-edition mentioned
    by me above is from John Murray Publishers Ltd.
    Jane (and John), we hardly knew you.

    Keep an eye on TBD – maybe they will discount
    the remaining flickback stocks even more, then
    we could all make a one-off killing! (odd books like
    that will be fetching good prices 100 years hence)

Ah, go on. Tell me what you think...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: