Does WotC have a new printer?

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

You seem unable to seperate two issues. "low physical quality" means the binding and/or paper is not doing it's physical job. If binding breaks, or does not hold, it is not doing it's job, right?

"I find the binding ugly" is what you're saying. My DMG2 did creak a little when I opened it, but so? My CoCd20 and countless other WotC books have been subtly warped when I got them. The condition corrects itself when compacted under the intense pressure of an overstuffed bookshelf, just as the creak disappeared as soon as the book was slightly broken in.

The reason you can't understand why we're still argueing, is basically semantics. Your sense of aesthetics was offended, so you're presenting a thread like the binding is substandard. You need to qualify your statements better ("the binding looks bad") vs proclaiming to the internet that the binding is bad, because to most people "bad binding" is a physical quality, not some personal aesthetic.

Hopefully that's clear enough.

See, I think that part of the job of the binding is to feel solid. So if the binding feels bad, it is bad. If the binding feels like it will eventually fall apart, it is bad.

Binding that feels cheap is below my standard (and I don't think I'm alone on that), so therefore yes, it is substandard.

And the "feel" of the binding is a physical quality. Perhaps it is somewhat subjective, but I would argue that there is a real, objective difference between things that feel high quality and things that feel cheap. Consider the difference between a table made of oak and a table made of plywood. Neither one is going to fall apart in the first month, but one definitely would feel, and be, low quality.

The new WotC books are plywood tables, and I want my good old sturdy oak tables back.

 

[TwistedBishop]

That doesn't really make much sense. A table analogy? You're entirely dismissing the content of the books, which are the main reason anyone purchases these things. Really to be accurate, the type of wood would be the content, and the binding would be the joints in the table. Which is precisely why most of us don't care, as long as it holds up.

 

[Vocenoctum]

And the "feel" of the binding is a physical quality. Perhaps it is somewhat subjective, but I would argue that there is a real, objective difference between things that feel high quality and things that feel cheap.

You still don't see it, you're describing a "feel" as if it were a durability issue. It's pretty obvious this far in the thread, but I'm not sure why you can't acknowledge that most people think of a bindings "physical quality" with the way it performs it's job, not how it looks doing it. It's semantics, so it doesn't really matter, but I'm not sure why you can't see the difference in what you posted at thread-start vs what most people expect from the phrasings you use.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Well I really don't know how else to phrase it off the top of my head to make you get what I'm saying, and frankly it's not really worth any more of my effort. I don't need your permission to describe what I see as a problem.

For me this is a problem. And it's a problem with the book, not with me. After all, it's the books that changed, not my tastes.

If it's not a problem for you, fine, but I really don't quite understand why you care whether I see it as a problem or not.

Whatever.

 

[Vocenoctum]

If it's not a problem for you, fine, but I really don't quite understand why you care whether I see it as a problem or not.

Whatever.

My issue is that you're telling people that the binding is bad. Instead of making it clear that you dislike the binding.

If someone doesn't know that you mean "looks bad" when you say "bad" then it can cause a misunderstanding. If someone reads "the binding is substandard and low quality" and doesn't buy a good book because of it, then you may have acheived your objective of driving people away from the book, but not because of your opinion, but because you're using your own definition, rather than what most people assume it means.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

My issue is that you're telling people that the binding is bad. Instead of making it clear that you dislike the binding.

If someone doesn't know that you mean "looks bad" when you say "bad" then it can cause a misunderstanding. If someone reads "the binding is substandard and low quality" and doesn't buy a good book because of it, then you may have acheived your objective of driving people away from the book, but not because of your opinion, but because you're using your own definition, rather than what most people assume it means.

If you actually go back and read my first post I think you will find that your concern is misplaced. I clearly stated that the binding "felt" and "seemed" cheap.

 

[Vocenoctum]

If you actually go back and read my first post I think you will find that your concern is misplaced. I clearly stated that the binding "felt" and "seemed" cheap.

Right, everyone understands it's your opinion, but your definition of "physical quality" is different. That's the point we're (or, at least some of us) trying to make.

 

[ThirdWizard]

while(futile_conversation != null){
	postcount++;
}

I want me some of this!

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Right, everyone understands it's your opinion, but your definition of "physical quality" is different. That's the point we're (or, at least some of us) trying to make.

Ah, OK, I will concede the point.

Yes, I am using my own definition of physical quality.

My definition includes physical aspects of the book that influence the "feel" of good, solid, quality. I think that this is a perfectly good and valid definition. If your definition does not include those things (perhaps it is based more on actual durability), I completely respect that, and you should keep the differences in our definitions in mind as you read my posts.

Now, it is also true that I suspect that the actual durability of these new bindings is much lower than the old bindings, but I should be clear and say that this is just a suspicion based on my impression that the books feel "cheaper".

It will likely be some time before we can confirm or deny this. Right now, no one can say; we can only acknowledge that the bindings are definitely different. As time goes by and the books age, either they will or won't wear out faster. We'll see.

In the mean time, pick up one of the books at your FLGS and see for yourself whether or not they "feel" lower quality.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

while(futile_conversation != null){
	postcount++;
}

I want me some of this!

LOL! Jump on in!

(postcount = postcount + 1)