Elysha thinks I’m crazy. I think not.
I bought a new lawnmower from Lawnboy. Their motto:
Easy to handle. Hard to beat.
These two sentences are incongruous. The first describes the handling of the lawnmower while in use. The second compares the lawnmower to other undefined lawnmowers in some nonspecific competitive way.
These two things don’t go together. It’s equivalent to describing me as:
An excellent putter. His stories win.
It reads like a second grader’s half-finished haiku. Am I wrong?
This Post Has 0 Comments
I disagree. They’re not completely unrelated statements (as in your example.) The motto is using the juxtaposition of antonyms to tell you two positive qualities about the mower and it’s not uncommon in advertising. (i.e. Target: Get More. Pay Less. Harley-Davidson: American by birth. rebel by choice. Secret: Strong enough for a man but made for a woman.) It may not be the best slogan in the world but it does make sense.
I think all of the slogans you gave as examples make sense because the juxtapositions are related. "Get More. Pay Less. " both apply to the acquisition of things. "American by birth. Rebel by choice." both apply to identity. "Strong enough for a man but made for a woman" apply to gender. But "Easy to handle. Hard to beat." are not associated in any way. One deals with the handling of the machine. The other places the machine in a non-specified comparison with other unnamed machines.
I think they are intending a play on the word handle. For instance, if a wrestler was described as "easy to handle", would you not also assume that he was "easy to beat"?
I’ve spent more time on this than I have. Although I agree with you, Elysha is correct.
Yours truly,
Mike Isko
Professional Husband
I am more concerned that you bought a Lawnboy than anything else.