Certainly, but sometimes the jacket is cited explicitly. Perhaps sometimes an online source is used and the jacket inaccurately cited as the source.
This is obviously not a major issue. I was letting off a little steam, perhaps for not much point. But I do think some catalogers may not entirely grasp what quotation marks mean. Quoted text is a bugaboo for me—I’m annoyed, for example, when text in a book includes a title, fully capitalized, but the text is transcribed (in quotes) using cataloging rules for capitalization.
Have you considered that the cataloger copy and pasted this from a website and that the summary on the website differed somewhat from what is on the dust jacket or other location on the book?
Wow, Pete. That's quite a switcheroo from the more common sin of plagiarism ... to put quotes around a made-up narrative, as opposed to putting no quotes around a genuine narrative. I have never seen this phenomenon. One is called plagiarism. I wonder what the other one is called. "Putting words in someone's mouth"?
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Wilson, Pete <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I am curious: Why do catalogers routinely rewrite descriptions like those found in jacket copy, but leave the result in quotations, as if they were quoting directly from the jacket?
Maybe catalogers need training as journalists.