palmer.william DeleteThis @sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Ever get annoyed by weasel-word listers? I do.
> Here are a few of common weasel-words
> which I find especially offensive.
>
> Perhaps the most abused weasel words of all
> are simply that helpful little modal auxiliary
> verb "may." There is no need to expatiate
> on this at length when one simple question will
> make the point: Exactly what sort of
> slippery eel expects me to send $30 for a
> book that "may have a remainder mark
> or other defects." YOU KNOW GOSH
> DARN WELL THAT BOOK YOU ARE
> TRYING TO GET ME TO BUY HAS
> A REMAINDER MARK *AND* OTHER
> DEFECTS, YOU PITIFUL MODAL-
> AUXILIARY ABUSING SLIPPERY EEL.
>
> Another much abused weasel word is
> "acceptable." Exactly how can the lister
> be sure that the beat-up book with the
> two cracked joints and the two cracked
> hinges and the bubbled cloth -- which of
> course the seller would not deign to frankly
> describe -- is "acceptable"?!!! A more
> honest listing might read:
> "Condition: acceptable. That is, it is
> acceptable to ME, the lister -- as is the
> money you are fool enough to pay me for it."
>
> Even a positive-sounding word like "good"
> becomes a weasel word when no description
> accompanies it. After all, if the book is
> simply "good" and not "fine" or "like new,"
> then there is something wrong with it,
> right? And that "something" may very
> well epresent defects that the buyer hates
> to see in his or her books. After all, there
> can be all sorts of things wrong with a
> book that is correctly described as in
> "good" condition. I wiould never pay
> any more for a book simply described
> as "acceptable" or "good" than I would
> pay for a beat-up reading copy. If the
> book is better than that, wonderful --
> if I get the suspected beat-up reading
> copy, then I get what I paid for.
>
> If any readers to this forum are resorting
> to weasel words in their listings, I wish they
> would give that practice some more thought.
> Upon reflection, they may choose to become
> more ethical in their listings.
>
> [Memo from the upstairs office.]
>
I agree with you on all but "good", and partially on "good", because, at least
to collectors and dealers, that is an indication of a grade of condition.
However, it does not take into account the amateur who has not got deep enough
into book collecting to know the definitions.
While the definitions may vary slightly, the Lucas definition is fairly usual:
"Good — either a 20th century or an earlier book showing average use and wear,
but not in need of a replacement binding, not all tattered & torn, not with
moderate to heavy damp stain, basically still intact but worn, spine extremities
can show minor chipping, corners can all be bumped, and (there is disagreement
here) in the case of an earlier book a free endpaper, or other blank page such
as a flyleaf, can be missing, a hinge can be cracked ( the book should not be in
need of recasing — with the covers barely attached), there can be moderate to
heavy foxing in earlier books, a good copy should be a book that has seen
average/considerable use and is added to your collection because you care more
about the content of the book than the condition or you hope someday to upgrade
to a better copy of the same book."
http://www.trussel.com/books/lucas04.htm
The now defunct AB Bookman site defined it as:
"Good describes the average used and worn book that has all pages or leaves
present. Any defects must be noted."
In short, collectors and dealers know that "good" really means "fair". But if
the dealer says "fair" to convey something to amateurs, then the collectors and
dealers will think it a real junker. So, what we probably need is a
redefinition of the terms to adhere to common expectations.
Francis A. Miniter
>> Stay informed about: Weasel-Word Listers 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
