Does anyone else find it annoying when a printing house changes the font size in a book to deliberately mislead the reader into thinking the book is larger than it is?
It's one thing to make the print larger to appeal to an older generation of readers who need larger type.
It seems like some publishing houses change the size of the book to placate the reader. If the reader wants a light read, make it thinner. If the reader prides themselves on reading thick books, lets just up the font size a tad.
There should be two standard sizes in each type of book published. One general size and typeface and one larger size marketed as easy to read, if the target audience is appropriate.
There was some discussion this morning about readers making a big deal out of font size in an author's new book. The book in question was the same size as the previous three in the series but the larger font attempted to cover up the fact that the book was about eighty pages shorter.
In this instance it is a big deal because it's misleading.
When a reader already has three books and buys a forth that looks exactly the same size, it stands to reason that they will be getting equal bang for their buck, not half the value.
I realize the author is under no obligation to write a longer book. However, it behooves the publishing house to be honest about the fact that the book is shorter, especially if it's shorter at their request.
We wouldn't accept half a box of cereal, or half of an adobe program, or half a tank of gasoline without a significant decrease in price. Why should we accept half of a book?
Maybe the price of books should be based upon length/eloquence, as opposed to length/wordiness.
The only thing most consumers would accept half of at full price is something that has equal the value and function of the original and takes up less space.
Some may argue that the books look nicer if they come in a standard format. I am sympathetic to said argument. Another solution, have publishing houses print the word count on the spine or back cover.