This is the first graphic novel to be reviewed on Flying Houses, but (pseudo-oeuvre rule.....I mean, genre rule!) I have read Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth by Chris Ware, and Horror Hospital Unplugged by Dennis Cooper. "Horror Hospital Unplugged" was included in short story form in the collection Wrong, and though I did not review that book, I read it shortly before this book http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2008/04/userlands-new-fiction-writers-from.html, which inspired me to start Flying Houses. So, it is not unreasonable to assume that Flying Houses will start to offer more reviews of graphic novels, because wow, they can be a lot more fun than straight up fiction.
I couldn't get into Jimmy Corrigan as much as I could Horror Hospital Unplugged. Both were depressing. But JC was just kind of boring to me, whereas HHU contained all the insanity of Dennis Cooper's other books. However, I recognize that JC is a work of art, and that Ware is clearly going for something different than your typical graphic novel (though I cannot really say I am an expert on the genre, by any stretch!): it's not really plot-driven, a lot of it is just extraordinarily elaborate art, content is sort of minimal though there are interesting forays into the history of Chicago--I can't really remember what it's about? He has a sister, and their father is dying or something? I can't remember. Of course, I remember HHU is about a punk band with a singer who is gay and seems largely modeled off of Nirvana--or at least a parody of Nirvana-imitation-bands.
The Dark Knight Returns is my favorite of the three. I believe I have mentioned on Flying Houses that I am planning on making a shot-by-shot remake of the original Batman, the 1989 version directed by Tim Burton, and I have been studying the film, and the special features on the DVD in order to understand how best to make a low-budget version. The Dark Knight Returns and Killing Joke are both mentioned as major influences on the "darkness" of the film, which dissociated themselves from "Batman the Comedian," played by Adam West, but not from the original spirit of the comics created by Bob Kane.
Bob Kane said he loved these two books, and Killing Joke will be reviewed shortly (as soon as I buy it). I devoured The Dark Knight Returns-started it on Monday and finished it on Tuesday. It's about 200 pages long, but densely packed with action. Maybe I didn't study the illustrations closely enough to understand what was going on towards the end, which is my chief complaint with the book.
The richness and complexity of the work, however, is what makes it classic. It was actually assigned to me as required reading for a course I took at NYU called "Writing New York," which, obviously, studied the concept of New York as represented in literature. And Gotham City is, basically, New York in this. There are references to the Twin Towers of Gotham, there is a reference to Bay Ridge, and there are a few other obvious signs that Gotham City is New York City.
This book takes place in present-day Gotham City, which was 1986, and Ronald Reagan (or at least a character very similar to him) is President, and plays a somewhat prominent role in the story. And this book is deeply political, and complex. It's sort of funny--I asked my older brother last weekend why Superman and Batman hated each other. He responded that Superman was a Republican and Batman was a Liberal.and a lot of this book suggests that.
I am going to avoid the temptation of spoiling the story for you, except to say that Batman is 55 years old, and 10 years retired, Commissioner Gordon is 70 years old and weeks away from retirement, Harvey Dent/Two Face is about to be released from Arkham Asylum, a gang called The Mutants have overrun Gotham City with crime, and there's a female Robin.
I won't reveal anymore, because I had such a good time anticipating what might happen in this story. Let me just say it is action-packed and beautifully written. It doesn't lend itself easily to excerpting, so I will not attempt any. Sometimes it is hilarious. It is also pretty vulgar and gruesome. It's definitely not for little kids.
I love Batman more than ever and want to read all the best comics about him. I loved it, and highly recommend it, except for those that are easily confused or don't have the patience to figure out what order to follow the panels in. I would only say Book Four is the one that really started to lose me. It was awesome, but I sort of had no idea what was going on.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: On the Cusp
NIED #13: On the Cusp (The Last Year of the 40%/50%/65% Scholarship
Cut-Offs)
I found
out on Friday (June 8) that my class rank was 239/475. This puts me in the top 50.3% of the
class.
A
person that I do not know but hope to contact is ranked 238/475—and they are in
the top 50.1%.
Person
#237/475 is ranked in the top 49.9% of the class, and is in the clear.
#238
and myself are not the only ones in the class of 2013 that may have a claim for
negligent infliction of emotional distress—but the other 473 don’t write a
weekly column on it. So allow me to
stand on my soapbox for an issue affecting a small number of students that
underscores another reason why law school can make you want to kill yourself.
It is
perhaps worth noting that I drafted column #13 as a response to my grade in
Corporations, which I felt was an unfair course, and requires a more
significant time commitment than other 4 credit classes. This is not to say I think it should be a 5
credit course, for then I would not be in this frustrating (yet oddly
serendipitous) position. I contend that
I deserved a B+ in that course but this is a personal thing to take up with my
professor, and I do not think the authority exists to change grades,
particularly after the class ranks have been announced. Chalk up my negligence to the fact that I’m
in Chicago and can’t review my exam in person.
Oh well.
On BLS
Connect, it reads: “While we feel that
these minimum academic rank requirements are generous, they nevertheless are
exact. Rounding a rank that is different in any amount from the required
renewal rank cut-offs is not permissible for scholarship renewal.” See Merit Scholarship Renewal Upper
Class Students, available at https://blsconnect.brooklaw.edu/finances/Pages/Scholarships-Grants.aspx
(last visited 6/10/12).
Maybe
it is just me, but I feel that all of the little descriptions on BLS Connect
need to be revised extensively. There is
also this confusing chart:
Total Merit Scholars Enrolled at the end of Spring Semester 2011:
358
Portion of Scholarship
Renewed: 100%
- Class
Rank Required: Upper 40%
- Approximate
GPA Cut-Off: 3.355
- Number
of Scholars Renewed: 162
- Percentage
of First-Year Scholars: 45.3%
Portion of Scholarship
Renewed: 80%
- Class
Rank Required: Upper 50%
- Approximate
GPA Cut-Off: 3.244
- Number
of Scholars Renewed: 39
- Percentage
of First-Year Scholars: 10.9%
Portion of Scholarship
Renewed: 55%
- Class
Rank Required: Upper 65%
- Approximate
GPA Cut-Off: 3.099
- Number
of Scholars Renewed: 60
- Percentage
of First-Year Scholars: 16.8%
Portion of Scholarship
Renewed: 0%
- Class
Rank: Below 65%
- Approximate
GPA Cut-Off: Below 3.099
- Number
of Scholars Not Renewed: 97
- Percentage
of First-Year Scholars Not Renewed: 27.0%
Fall 2011 Cumulative
Renewal Rate: 72.9%
Some of
us may vaguely remember the school’s announcement in December 2010 that it
would “boost” our GPAs in a similar way that Loyola Law School (our unofficial
“sister school” on the opposite coast) did several months earlier. Perhaps it’s interesting to look at this
chart I found. Note that it was
published in March of 2008, and updated in July of 2010—so it is unclear which
years this chart represents: See Brooklyn
Law School, available at http://www.top-law-schools.com/brooklyn-law-school.html
(last visited 6/10/12)
Maybe
the school thinks we should feel lucky that we weren’t graduating in 2009,
2010, or 2011….At the time this chart was published, this website noted that
full-time tuition was $43,990.
I am
sure this (Chart #1) will be updated come Fall 2012, but from what I recall,
these numbers (approximate GPA cut-offs) did not change from last year. After Fall 2011, my GPA had risen from 3.14 to
3.26. So I thought, okay, I’m in the
clear, I just need to do as well as I did this Fall. And this was not an easy task, for I did no
worse than a B+. My GPA for the Fall was
a 3.5.
I
checked Spring 2012 grades with baited breath, and when I saw that B in
Corporations, I asked my parents if I could borrow their keys, took the car to
the local Dominick’s, and bought 12 cans of bud light, came home, and
drank. My parents were having a moving
sale and I sat outside and drank like Will Ferrell in Everything Must Go. Then, my
last grade came in the next day—an A in a 3 credit course. I screamed, “YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” My GPA went up to a 3.31. I sighed in relief. Clearly, I would hit the top 50%--and while it
was highly doubtful I’d hit the top 40, it might even be possible.
My
first year, I had a merit scholarship in the amount of $24,300.
My
second year, this total dropped to $13,365.
My
third year, this total will either be: (1) $13,365; or (2) $19,440. This is a difference of $6,075.
(Full Disclosure: My need-based grants have risen from
$4,200 my first year, to $8,400 my second year, to an astounding $9,200 for my
third year—while these are pleasant surprises, and I could potentially receive
up to $28,640—or $240 more total dollars in funding than I had my first
year—tuition hikes have made such a windfall relatively moot.)
Then I get the Class Ranking on Friday, and several
arguments come to mind as to why I should be entitled to coverage in the top
50%:
(1)
Only a few students can ask for similar relief
(and it is questionable what the change in #238’s scholarship amount reflects,
if any, but for me, it is a matter of some $6,000.)
(2)
The new policy for incoming 1Ls (only must be in
top 80% to recover 100% of scholarship).
(3)
Tuition Hikes: the Class of 2013 has seen its
tuition rise from $46,300 (approximately) to $48,090 to $49,486 for our last
year. (I am not going to get into the
living expenses that the school calculates at $5,880—but please sign up for MEP
in the Fall if you want to investigate this issue more closely.) So the total cost is an additional $3,186, or
about the cost of a Bar Review Course.
(4)
2L Transfers: Their first year grades are
eliminated for purposes of calculating their class rank. If you treat me like a second year transfer,
my GPA is 3.5005, and I’m in the top 40%.
Oh.
(5)
NYU gives students grades, but does not rank
them, and does not set a cut off for OCI.
I know BLS is not NYU but I do believe the students here are generally
of as high a quality as there, and we should do away with rankings and just set
these scholarships according to GPA.
(6)
I took a Health Law Practicum internship where I
got a “HP” and would have gotten an A had the clinic been entitled to “grade
credit.” Kids that get high grades (and
big credit numbers) for clinics stand on unequal ground.
(7)
To me this was the final straw, the last time
the school could screw us, and it’s trying to take advantage of the opportunity. Please join me in this fight for economic
justice.
Christopher J. Knorps
is a 3L at Brooklyn Law School. He
serves on the Career Services Committee as an Upper Class Delegate of the Student
Bar Association, is the Founder and President of Monthly Expense Project, a
subsidiary of the Thrift Club, and is Managing Editor of the BLS Advocate. He seeks Person #238 from the Class of 2013
in particular, and any other students “on the cusp” to form a group to collectively
bargain with the school in regards to this issue.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Triple Homicide - Charles J. Hynes
Triple Homicide is Charles Hynes' first novel and has received scant attention (but see New York Times Review, available at http://www.triplehomicidebycharlesjhynes.com/reviews/brooklyn_murders.htm) since it was published in 2007. Those that have written about the novel usually end up writing about Hynes himself, and his "day job." It states in his author profile that Hynes' has been the District Attorney of Brooklyn for 17 years, so he was elected in 1990. He still is the D.A. twenty-two years later.
There are six reviews on Amazon, which are, as usual, of varying degrees of intelligence. However, most of the reviews do mention that the book gives an "insider's look" at the NYPD from 1970 - 1990, and in this respect it is faultless. Clearly, this is a story that needs to be told, as all of the police departments in major American cities undoubtedly have a fascinating history. However, it would not be fascinating if they were all just great cops, and it is in the details of the despicable "cyclical" corruption and the "Blue Wall" of silence that protects cops from discovery that makes Triple Homicide an essential read for anyone that (1) wants to be a cop, (2) is already a cop, (3) wants to work for Corporation Counsel and must defend police officers in lawsuits brought against them, (4) wants to be a prosecutor (particularly an ADA in Kings County), (5) wants to be a criminal defense attorney, (6) enjoys reading about "true crime."
However, this is not the type of book that Flying Houses usually reviews (but see TRAIL OF THE DEAD. JON EVANS, available at http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2009/03/trail-of-dead-jon-evf booans.html). It is a "pulp" mass-market paperback "page-turner." But while that may be a bad thing, as I would consider the majority of books in that genre a waste of my time, it is not always a bad thing. There are high-quality mass-market paperbacks out there, and this is one of them.
While it is somewhat difficult to describe the plot without spoiling anything, certain events and characters may be mentioned. This is principally the story of 2 cops in the NYPD: Robert Mulvey and Steven Holt. Robert Mulvey is Steven Holt's uncle, and a role model. Both of these cops become entrenched in a system of corruption, and though they try to be good cops, they are forced to make certain compromises. Mulvey works in the late 1960s and has his own controversy which is never spelled out until the end of the novel, which is the right decision. Holt works in the late 1980s and early 1990s until he is indicted for the murder of three individuals in 1992.
My single greatest complaint about this novel is that it can be extremely confusing. There are a number of characters that fly in and out of the picture: Captain Nevins, Connolly, Kenny Rattigan (the Queens D.A.), Larry Green, Buddy Cooper (the Brooklyn D.A.), Brendan Moore, Wallace Goss, Scott Ruben, Gabe Perone, Kurland, Pressler, and Meyer Hartwell.
Hartwell only appears in a scene or two, but Hynes' description of him is worth quoting in full, because it is one of the few times that I couldn't help myself from laughing out loud:
"Meyer Hartwell was as unlikely looking a cop as you could imagine. Short, overweight, and mostly bald, Meyer had grown his black hair as long as he could from the left side of his head and then folded it over to cover the rest of his bald pate. The effect was an unintended burlesque look. Meyer had a perpetual crown of perspiration hanging on his forehead. His distinctive and in certainly no way attractive face brought attention to itself with a large, bushy black mustache flecked with gray and some strange-looking pieces of debris that remained from a recent meal. His tiny dark and deep-set eyes were obscured by a long, thin nose discolored by popping blue and red veins. Protruding aimlessly from his nostrils were several strands of nose hair. Police Officer Hartwell appeared to have selected his uniform each day from the bottom of his closet. Frayed and always wrinkled, his uniform shirt with the lower two buttons missing hung over a belt forced out by his bulging stomach. His black shoes were almost gray with scuff marks. None of this mattered, though, because he had graduated third in his class from the Police Academy, and because of his grades his first commanding officer at a police precinct in the Bronx tapped him to be the 124 man." (59)
I won't explain what the 124 man does--I'll let you find out if you choose to read this novel, which I would recommend despite the great quantity of characters and the difficulty of keeping everybody's name straight. That said, there are many characters that are memorable--usually the bad guys. But the two principal characters won't be confused, and they're the heart of the story. The "sub-plot" is the internal structure of New York City crime-fighting, and attempts to end police corruption, and this is very interesting stuff, but this is where the names get confusing, and it's tough to tell exactly who is opposing whom unless you go back and verify what each characters does.
So, if I had to review it on Amazon I would give it 4 out of 5 stars because of this issue. Otherwise, this is a real "page-turner" that just gets better as it goes along. The last 100 pages flew by for me.
It is perhaps worth noting that I would not have read this book if Charles Hynes had not been my professor for Trial Advocacy. I like to say that this style as a professor is "Taylorist," that is, he teaches Trial Advocacy as if there is "one best way" to carry out a given task--in this case, 4 tasks: opening statements, direct examination of a witness, cross-examination of a witness, and summations. In this sense, it is worthwhile to read this book if you are taking this course as well, because the trial scenes are probably the highlights of this book. Hynes also offers an interesting roadmap for a career for those interested in being a judge, and coming from a person like him, one is bound to respect it as authoritative:
"Kerner was just warming up. "Then there's the ADAs. Used to be that a guy would get out of law school, join a political club, usually the Democrats, get a job as an assistant district attorney, and have a law practice on the side. He'd hustle to make a buck, didn't get nothin' without workin' for it. The guy knew how much the public wanted law and order, so he'd never break our balls. He never questioned a cop. He didn't care that we'd fuck around a little bit--nothin' serious, just enough to get the bad guys off the street. Then after a few years the ADA would graduate to a job as a judge's law secretary, sort of half an ass-kisser and half a gofer. And finally, after a while, with a few bucks placed here and there, you know..."
Holt didn't know, but he pretended he did.
"He'd become a judge, and that concluded a fine career. I used to think that one of my jobs in life was helpin' a young ADA become a judge." (213-214)
The chapter from which this passage is excerpted is titled "33, East New York, Brooklyn, the 75th Precinct, June 1985," and is the "first lesson" that Steven Holt gets as a new officer straight from the police academy. This is one of the best chapters in the novel, as Hynes goes on to explore a few interesting cases through the voice of Kerner. It is an interesting way to look at the law--to have a character that has obvious biases, who seems to be fairly intelligent, and who interprets judicial decisions through their own lens--and I have not seen it done before, so in this respect it opens up a lot of possibilities for writers that have a good knowledge of the law, and can mange to make it fairly interesting for the lay reader.
Hynes does this well, and as I said, my chief criticism of the book is its bevy of characters with indistinguishable features. It's possible Hynes had written a much longer book that more fully developed the characters and was forced to edit it down, but perhaps I am being picky. After all, I read this book at intermittent moments from February 2012 - June 2012, and if read in the course of say, one week, which I think is par for the course for a 288-page novel, then the reader is less likely to forget who was who, and generally read the book much more smoothly. However, I do not think I am the only that would make this complaint about the book, but to a certain degree, this effect is impossible to avoid in a story with so many players.
The quality that this novel brings is "realism." Once a reader has finished, they will have effectively taken a crash course in the history of the NYPD, and the way it functions in conjunction with other city agencies and city government in general. Along the way there are a dozen or so intriguing scenes of "true crime," and as mentioned earlier, the trial litigation scenes. The "lawyering" that is done in this book may not be universally endorsed by Hynes, but you can usually tell from the voice of the narrator when he approves or disapproves of the tactics used in the decisive trial.
Several reviewers on Amazon express their hope that Hynes will offer up a sequel, and he was, at least 6 years ago, working on one. There is an interesting interview that took place at a Barnes & Noble on Staten Island in June of 2006, and is worth watching for anyone that thinks they might be interested in reading it. Among the highlights are Hynes' disdain for literary agents, which I could certainly identify with, and his mention of real-life inspirations for the book. A link to that interview can be be found here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC8BB94E32F8F108E
In short, I agree with those several reviewers, and would certainly read a follow-up to Triple Homicide, not because this is the usual genre of literature that I enjoy (more likely because I was lucky enough to take a class with Hynes), but because it would undoubtedly be a fascinating read from which many lessons can be learned when it comes to operating city government.
Also, Hynes gave me a B+, so I would give this book a B+.
P.S. - Flying Houses will now start annotating everything Blue Book style to show how ridiculous it is.
There are six reviews on Amazon, which are, as usual, of varying degrees of intelligence. However, most of the reviews do mention that the book gives an "insider's look" at the NYPD from 1970 - 1990, and in this respect it is faultless. Clearly, this is a story that needs to be told, as all of the police departments in major American cities undoubtedly have a fascinating history. However, it would not be fascinating if they were all just great cops, and it is in the details of the despicable "cyclical" corruption and the "Blue Wall" of silence that protects cops from discovery that makes Triple Homicide an essential read for anyone that (1) wants to be a cop, (2) is already a cop, (3) wants to work for Corporation Counsel and must defend police officers in lawsuits brought against them, (4) wants to be a prosecutor (particularly an ADA in Kings County), (5) wants to be a criminal defense attorney, (6) enjoys reading about "true crime."
However, this is not the type of book that Flying Houses usually reviews (but see TRAIL OF THE DEAD. JON EVANS, available at http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2009/03/trail-of-dead-jon-evf booans.html). It is a "pulp" mass-market paperback "page-turner." But while that may be a bad thing, as I would consider the majority of books in that genre a waste of my time, it is not always a bad thing. There are high-quality mass-market paperbacks out there, and this is one of them.
While it is somewhat difficult to describe the plot without spoiling anything, certain events and characters may be mentioned. This is principally the story of 2 cops in the NYPD: Robert Mulvey and Steven Holt. Robert Mulvey is Steven Holt's uncle, and a role model. Both of these cops become entrenched in a system of corruption, and though they try to be good cops, they are forced to make certain compromises. Mulvey works in the late 1960s and has his own controversy which is never spelled out until the end of the novel, which is the right decision. Holt works in the late 1980s and early 1990s until he is indicted for the murder of three individuals in 1992.
My single greatest complaint about this novel is that it can be extremely confusing. There are a number of characters that fly in and out of the picture: Captain Nevins, Connolly, Kenny Rattigan (the Queens D.A.), Larry Green, Buddy Cooper (the Brooklyn D.A.), Brendan Moore, Wallace Goss, Scott Ruben, Gabe Perone, Kurland, Pressler, and Meyer Hartwell.
Hartwell only appears in a scene or two, but Hynes' description of him is worth quoting in full, because it is one of the few times that I couldn't help myself from laughing out loud:
"Meyer Hartwell was as unlikely looking a cop as you could imagine. Short, overweight, and mostly bald, Meyer had grown his black hair as long as he could from the left side of his head and then folded it over to cover the rest of his bald pate. The effect was an unintended burlesque look. Meyer had a perpetual crown of perspiration hanging on his forehead. His distinctive and in certainly no way attractive face brought attention to itself with a large, bushy black mustache flecked with gray and some strange-looking pieces of debris that remained from a recent meal. His tiny dark and deep-set eyes were obscured by a long, thin nose discolored by popping blue and red veins. Protruding aimlessly from his nostrils were several strands of nose hair. Police Officer Hartwell appeared to have selected his uniform each day from the bottom of his closet. Frayed and always wrinkled, his uniform shirt with the lower two buttons missing hung over a belt forced out by his bulging stomach. His black shoes were almost gray with scuff marks. None of this mattered, though, because he had graduated third in his class from the Police Academy, and because of his grades his first commanding officer at a police precinct in the Bronx tapped him to be the 124 man." (59)
I won't explain what the 124 man does--I'll let you find out if you choose to read this novel, which I would recommend despite the great quantity of characters and the difficulty of keeping everybody's name straight. That said, there are many characters that are memorable--usually the bad guys. But the two principal characters won't be confused, and they're the heart of the story. The "sub-plot" is the internal structure of New York City crime-fighting, and attempts to end police corruption, and this is very interesting stuff, but this is where the names get confusing, and it's tough to tell exactly who is opposing whom unless you go back and verify what each characters does.
So, if I had to review it on Amazon I would give it 4 out of 5 stars because of this issue. Otherwise, this is a real "page-turner" that just gets better as it goes along. The last 100 pages flew by for me.
It is perhaps worth noting that I would not have read this book if Charles Hynes had not been my professor for Trial Advocacy. I like to say that this style as a professor is "Taylorist," that is, he teaches Trial Advocacy as if there is "one best way" to carry out a given task--in this case, 4 tasks: opening statements, direct examination of a witness, cross-examination of a witness, and summations. In this sense, it is worthwhile to read this book if you are taking this course as well, because the trial scenes are probably the highlights of this book. Hynes also offers an interesting roadmap for a career for those interested in being a judge, and coming from a person like him, one is bound to respect it as authoritative:
"Kerner was just warming up. "Then there's the ADAs. Used to be that a guy would get out of law school, join a political club, usually the Democrats, get a job as an assistant district attorney, and have a law practice on the side. He'd hustle to make a buck, didn't get nothin' without workin' for it. The guy knew how much the public wanted law and order, so he'd never break our balls. He never questioned a cop. He didn't care that we'd fuck around a little bit--nothin' serious, just enough to get the bad guys off the street. Then after a few years the ADA would graduate to a job as a judge's law secretary, sort of half an ass-kisser and half a gofer. And finally, after a while, with a few bucks placed here and there, you know..."
Holt didn't know, but he pretended he did.
"He'd become a judge, and that concluded a fine career. I used to think that one of my jobs in life was helpin' a young ADA become a judge." (213-214)
The chapter from which this passage is excerpted is titled "33, East New York, Brooklyn, the 75th Precinct, June 1985," and is the "first lesson" that Steven Holt gets as a new officer straight from the police academy. This is one of the best chapters in the novel, as Hynes goes on to explore a few interesting cases through the voice of Kerner. It is an interesting way to look at the law--to have a character that has obvious biases, who seems to be fairly intelligent, and who interprets judicial decisions through their own lens--and I have not seen it done before, so in this respect it opens up a lot of possibilities for writers that have a good knowledge of the law, and can mange to make it fairly interesting for the lay reader.
Hynes does this well, and as I said, my chief criticism of the book is its bevy of characters with indistinguishable features. It's possible Hynes had written a much longer book that more fully developed the characters and was forced to edit it down, but perhaps I am being picky. After all, I read this book at intermittent moments from February 2012 - June 2012, and if read in the course of say, one week, which I think is par for the course for a 288-page novel, then the reader is less likely to forget who was who, and generally read the book much more smoothly. However, I do not think I am the only that would make this complaint about the book, but to a certain degree, this effect is impossible to avoid in a story with so many players.
The quality that this novel brings is "realism." Once a reader has finished, they will have effectively taken a crash course in the history of the NYPD, and the way it functions in conjunction with other city agencies and city government in general. Along the way there are a dozen or so intriguing scenes of "true crime," and as mentioned earlier, the trial litigation scenes. The "lawyering" that is done in this book may not be universally endorsed by Hynes, but you can usually tell from the voice of the narrator when he approves or disapproves of the tactics used in the decisive trial.
Several reviewers on Amazon express their hope that Hynes will offer up a sequel, and he was, at least 6 years ago, working on one. There is an interesting interview that took place at a Barnes & Noble on Staten Island in June of 2006, and is worth watching for anyone that thinks they might be interested in reading it. Among the highlights are Hynes' disdain for literary agents, which I could certainly identify with, and his mention of real-life inspirations for the book. A link to that interview can be be found here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC8BB94E32F8F108E
In short, I agree with those several reviewers, and would certainly read a follow-up to Triple Homicide, not because this is the usual genre of literature that I enjoy (more likely because I was lucky enough to take a class with Hynes), but because it would undoubtedly be a fascinating read from which many lessons can be learned when it comes to operating city government.
Also, Hynes gave me a B+, so I would give this book a B+.
P.S. - Flying Houses will now start annotating everything Blue Book style to show how ridiculous it is.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Discourse on Method - Rene Descartes
Rene Descartes (1596-1650) is inarguably one of the greatest philosophers of all time. His short book "Discourse on Method" explains how he derived most of his philosophy out of his own experience, and he would later go on to develop his theories in longer works. He is also one of the most important mathematicians of all time. Who knows if the computer would even exist if Descartes had not combined the methods of algebra and geometry in the new field called analytic geometry?
"The importance of this achievement is difficult to overestimate, for it not only served as an example of the possibilities of the new scientific method and as a spur to men's enthusiasm, but also laid the foundation for the growth of mathematics in modern times. From analytic geometry came the simultaneous discovery of the calculus by Leibniz and Newton, and on the calculus is based the whole superstructure of modern developments in mathematics and of its application to the understanding of nature." (ix)
Descartes believed in God and the Church, but the author of this above quote, Laurence J. LaFleur, thinks he may have been being a little sarcastic about it. Nevertheless, it does not particularly stand out--the devotion to the Church anyways. His belief in God is, I think, quite justified by his reasoning.
What I love about Descartes (though this is the only book of his I've read) is how deep he can go. He goes into my very soul, literally. He hits at the deepest feelings you can imagine: why where you born? Why are we here? How can you tell that you exist?
His writing style is quite humorous. I have underlined almost the entire book because I feel as if almost every sentence is essential. Each naturally builds upon the other, and in so slim a volume by such a master, you can expect to find pearls of brilliance in every word.
The first thing I love about it is his first sentence: "If this discourse seems too long to be read in one sitting, it may be divided into six parts." He's already looking out for you! And it's just like a law review article!
Except--no footnotes. And the entire opening paragraph from the first part, "Some Thoughts on the Sciences" is worth quoting in full, as it is a good representation of the work as a whole:
"Good sense is mankind's most equitably divided endowment, for everyone thinks he is so abundantly provided with it that even those most difficult to please in other ways do not usually want more than they have of this. As it is not likely that everyone is mistaken, this evidence shows that the ability to judge correctly, and to distinguish the true from the false--which is really meant by good sense or reason--is the same by nature in all men; and that differences of opinion are not due to differences in intelligence, but merely to the fact that we use different approaches and consider different things. For it is not enough to have a good mind: one must use it well. The greatest souls are capable of the greatest vices as well as the greatest virtues; and those who walk slowly can, if they follow the right path, go much farther than those who run rapidly in the wrong direction." (1-2)
I wrote "Great Summation Intro" in the margin for that.
The cause of his inspiration is quite provocative:
"I was then in Germany...There was no conversation to occupy me, and being untroubled by any cares or passions, I remained all day alone in a warm room. There I had plenty of leisure to examine my ideas. One of the first that occurred to me was that frequently there is less perfection in a work produced by several hands than in one produced by a single hand. Thus we notice that buildings conceived and completed by a single architect are usually more beautiful and better planned than those remodeled by several persons using ancient walls that had originally been built for other purposes. Similarly, those ancient towns which were originally nothing but hamlets, and in the course of time have become great cities, are ordinarily very badly arranged compared to one symmetrical metropolitan districts which a city planner has laid out on an open plain according to his own designs." (7-8)
He describes his four step process as follows: (1) Only accept things as true that you are absolutely certain are true (i.e. that you are alive); (2) For everything that you cannot accept as true, in order to get closest to the truth, break it down into as many different parts you can think of; (3) Then, think about each of the different parts, starting with the easiest one to understand, and going onto the most difficult by the end; (4) Make enumerations so complete as to omit nothing.
Descartes talks about how he was 23 when he decided to form his philosophy, but he did not feel he had experienced enough of life to fully form it, so he devised certain rules to live by: (1) Obey laws and religion and follow more moderate and least excessive opinions of those in the community; (2) Be firm and resolute in one's decisions--and here he draws a nice metaphor--"I patterned my behavior on that of travelers, who, finding themselves lost in a forest, must not wander about, now turning this way, now that, and still less should remain in one place, but should go as straight as they can in the direction they first select and not change the direction except for the strongest of reasons. By this method, even if the direction was chosen at random, they will presumably arrive at some destination, not perhaps where they would like to be, but at least where they will be better off than in the middle of the forest." (16)--(3) Conquer one's self rather than fortune, change one's desires rather than the established order and believe that nothing but one's thought are under one's control; (4) Make a review of the occupations in life and choose the best one--and here Descartes writes beautifully:
"Without intending to disparage other occupations, I thought I could do no better than to continue in the one I was engaged in, employing my life in improving my mind and increasing as far as I could my knowledge of the truth by by following the method I had outlined for myself. I had experienced such periods of happiness after I had begun to use this method, that I could hope for no greater or more innocent joys in this life." (17)
About nine years later, he was ready. And he says he wasn't ready until, quite funnily, that he would not have dared to write it down so soon, until "I had learned of a rumor that I had already completed my philosophy." (19)
He then goes on to discuss God and the Soul.
"I then examined closely what I was, and saw that I could imagine that I had no body and that there was no world nor any place that I occupied, but that I could not imagine for a moment that I did not exist." (21)
From this he derives that the body and soul are distinct. He goes onto talk about things like how we may all be made of stars, but that the stars had to have been made by something even more perfect--which is God. He sees that doubt, inconstancy, and sorrow--imperfect qualities--could not be part of God's nature.
He goes on to talk about the laws of nature, and comically says that what he was originally going to write was much more ambitious--putting everything into the discourse that he thought he knew--but decided that it was dangerous, so he decided to limit himself:
"Therefore, fearing that I would not be able to put into any discourse all that I intended, I undertook solely to describe at length what I thought on the subject of light, and took that occasion to add something concerning the sun and the fixed stars, since they are almost the only sources of light; of the sky, since it transmits it; of the planets, the comets, and the earth, since they reflect it; and in particular of all the objects on earth, since they are either colored or transparent or luminous; and finally of man, since he is the observer of it." (27)
I wrote "Not ambitious at all!" in the margin.
This is in Part Five, which is about Physics. But it also goes into anatomy, and Descartes' description of the heart freaked me out while I was reading it, thinking about how of all of the processes he was describing were going on that very moment. He sees man as a machine created by God, and therefore decides that no machine created by man can be as perfect as man.
He makes the rather incredible statement (which might be offensive to animal lovers) that a "monkey or a parrot which was one of the best of its species should not be equal in this matter of one of the most stupid children, or at least of a child of infirm find, if their soul were not of a wholly different nature than ours." (37)
But then he states that he knows the Soul is immortal--which is also somewhat incredible.
In Part Six he talks about how he doesn't want any of his writings published during his lifetime because he fears ridicule. Comically, "for fear that the opposition and controversy which they might arouse, and the reputation which they might possibly bring me, would cause me to waste time which I plan to use in research." (42)
Then he says if his writings can be of any use to people that's great--but he knows they can't be as useful to anyone else but himself, for it is his mind alone that he can perfect. He ends the discourse by stating that he has no interest in worldly advantages because "I shall always consider myself more obligated to those by whose favor I shall enjoy uninterrupted leisure than I would be to those who offered me the most honorable office on earth." (50)
It is hard to review a book of philosophy, but this is a short one, and worth reading. It is very funny at times, and it is amazing to read intoxicated.
"The importance of this achievement is difficult to overestimate, for it not only served as an example of the possibilities of the new scientific method and as a spur to men's enthusiasm, but also laid the foundation for the growth of mathematics in modern times. From analytic geometry came the simultaneous discovery of the calculus by Leibniz and Newton, and on the calculus is based the whole superstructure of modern developments in mathematics and of its application to the understanding of nature." (ix)
Descartes believed in God and the Church, but the author of this above quote, Laurence J. LaFleur, thinks he may have been being a little sarcastic about it. Nevertheless, it does not particularly stand out--the devotion to the Church anyways. His belief in God is, I think, quite justified by his reasoning.
What I love about Descartes (though this is the only book of his I've read) is how deep he can go. He goes into my very soul, literally. He hits at the deepest feelings you can imagine: why where you born? Why are we here? How can you tell that you exist?
His writing style is quite humorous. I have underlined almost the entire book because I feel as if almost every sentence is essential. Each naturally builds upon the other, and in so slim a volume by such a master, you can expect to find pearls of brilliance in every word.
The first thing I love about it is his first sentence: "If this discourse seems too long to be read in one sitting, it may be divided into six parts." He's already looking out for you! And it's just like a law review article!
Except--no footnotes. And the entire opening paragraph from the first part, "Some Thoughts on the Sciences" is worth quoting in full, as it is a good representation of the work as a whole:
"Good sense is mankind's most equitably divided endowment, for everyone thinks he is so abundantly provided with it that even those most difficult to please in other ways do not usually want more than they have of this. As it is not likely that everyone is mistaken, this evidence shows that the ability to judge correctly, and to distinguish the true from the false--which is really meant by good sense or reason--is the same by nature in all men; and that differences of opinion are not due to differences in intelligence, but merely to the fact that we use different approaches and consider different things. For it is not enough to have a good mind: one must use it well. The greatest souls are capable of the greatest vices as well as the greatest virtues; and those who walk slowly can, if they follow the right path, go much farther than those who run rapidly in the wrong direction." (1-2)
I wrote "Great Summation Intro" in the margin for that.
The cause of his inspiration is quite provocative:
"I was then in Germany...There was no conversation to occupy me, and being untroubled by any cares or passions, I remained all day alone in a warm room. There I had plenty of leisure to examine my ideas. One of the first that occurred to me was that frequently there is less perfection in a work produced by several hands than in one produced by a single hand. Thus we notice that buildings conceived and completed by a single architect are usually more beautiful and better planned than those remodeled by several persons using ancient walls that had originally been built for other purposes. Similarly, those ancient towns which were originally nothing but hamlets, and in the course of time have become great cities, are ordinarily very badly arranged compared to one symmetrical metropolitan districts which a city planner has laid out on an open plain according to his own designs." (7-8)
He describes his four step process as follows: (1) Only accept things as true that you are absolutely certain are true (i.e. that you are alive); (2) For everything that you cannot accept as true, in order to get closest to the truth, break it down into as many different parts you can think of; (3) Then, think about each of the different parts, starting with the easiest one to understand, and going onto the most difficult by the end; (4) Make enumerations so complete as to omit nothing.
Descartes talks about how he was 23 when he decided to form his philosophy, but he did not feel he had experienced enough of life to fully form it, so he devised certain rules to live by: (1) Obey laws and religion and follow more moderate and least excessive opinions of those in the community; (2) Be firm and resolute in one's decisions--and here he draws a nice metaphor--"I patterned my behavior on that of travelers, who, finding themselves lost in a forest, must not wander about, now turning this way, now that, and still less should remain in one place, but should go as straight as they can in the direction they first select and not change the direction except for the strongest of reasons. By this method, even if the direction was chosen at random, they will presumably arrive at some destination, not perhaps where they would like to be, but at least where they will be better off than in the middle of the forest." (16)--(3) Conquer one's self rather than fortune, change one's desires rather than the established order and believe that nothing but one's thought are under one's control; (4) Make a review of the occupations in life and choose the best one--and here Descartes writes beautifully:
"Without intending to disparage other occupations, I thought I could do no better than to continue in the one I was engaged in, employing my life in improving my mind and increasing as far as I could my knowledge of the truth by by following the method I had outlined for myself. I had experienced such periods of happiness after I had begun to use this method, that I could hope for no greater or more innocent joys in this life." (17)
About nine years later, he was ready. And he says he wasn't ready until, quite funnily, that he would not have dared to write it down so soon, until "I had learned of a rumor that I had already completed my philosophy." (19)
He then goes on to discuss God and the Soul.
"I then examined closely what I was, and saw that I could imagine that I had no body and that there was no world nor any place that I occupied, but that I could not imagine for a moment that I did not exist." (21)
From this he derives that the body and soul are distinct. He goes onto talk about things like how we may all be made of stars, but that the stars had to have been made by something even more perfect--which is God. He sees that doubt, inconstancy, and sorrow--imperfect qualities--could not be part of God's nature.
He goes on to talk about the laws of nature, and comically says that what he was originally going to write was much more ambitious--putting everything into the discourse that he thought he knew--but decided that it was dangerous, so he decided to limit himself:
"Therefore, fearing that I would not be able to put into any discourse all that I intended, I undertook solely to describe at length what I thought on the subject of light, and took that occasion to add something concerning the sun and the fixed stars, since they are almost the only sources of light; of the sky, since it transmits it; of the planets, the comets, and the earth, since they reflect it; and in particular of all the objects on earth, since they are either colored or transparent or luminous; and finally of man, since he is the observer of it." (27)
I wrote "Not ambitious at all!" in the margin.
This is in Part Five, which is about Physics. But it also goes into anatomy, and Descartes' description of the heart freaked me out while I was reading it, thinking about how of all of the processes he was describing were going on that very moment. He sees man as a machine created by God, and therefore decides that no machine created by man can be as perfect as man.
He makes the rather incredible statement (which might be offensive to animal lovers) that a "monkey or a parrot which was one of the best of its species should not be equal in this matter of one of the most stupid children, or at least of a child of infirm find, if their soul were not of a wholly different nature than ours." (37)
But then he states that he knows the Soul is immortal--which is also somewhat incredible.
In Part Six he talks about how he doesn't want any of his writings published during his lifetime because he fears ridicule. Comically, "for fear that the opposition and controversy which they might arouse, and the reputation which they might possibly bring me, would cause me to waste time which I plan to use in research." (42)
Then he says if his writings can be of any use to people that's great--but he knows they can't be as useful to anyone else but himself, for it is his mind alone that he can perfect. He ends the discourse by stating that he has no interest in worldly advantages because "I shall always consider myself more obligated to those by whose favor I shall enjoy uninterrupted leisure than I would be to those who offered me the most honorable office on earth." (50)
It is hard to review a book of philosophy, but this is a short one, and worth reading. It is very funny at times, and it is amazing to read intoxicated.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
James Bond 007: Dr. No - Dir. Terence Lawrence
James Bond 007: Dr. NO – Dir. Terence Young
The Beginning of a
Film Dynasty
By Jay Maronde
Where
to begin when reviewing the longest running film series ever? Well, the first movie,
obviously! The whole 007 movie franchise all began way backin 1962 with Dr. NO. Now, it’s very much worth noting
that, James Bond, 007 was around for some time before the first movie. Much like
Twilight or The Hunger Games, “James Bond” was already an extremely successful
series of novels, and the rumors are true, Dr.
NO was NOT the first novel (Casino
Royale, which we will review in due time gets that honor). Dr. NO was
however the first film produced in the series, which of course has had
incredible success with the 23rd installment due this autumn (Skyfall), and even though numerous
directors have had their way with the world’s most famous secret agent, some
things have always remained the same.
Maybe
it’s just that I’m a child of the internet generation, maybe it’s because I
just get all hot and bothered about cool gizmos, but one of the first
differences that I noticed between this, the “original” Bond, and all the
Modern Bonds is the distinct lack of technology. When I speak of technology I
of course mean Bond’s technology, not Hollywood’s. Of course when one enjoys a
movie from 1962 you had better not expect too much CGI, as computers, let alone
computer graphics were still a far flung theory proposed by some guy named
Turing. I personally enjoy the old timey effects! It’s far better to watch a
real station wagon actually explode while plunging off a cliff (even if it’s obvious
from the way the film was cut that it was an empty car) than watch what is
essentially some sweet—andgranted—very realistic computer animations. Call me a
classicist, I don’t care. What I’m really trying to get at is Bond’s lack of
technology: the customary Q branch consultation includes nothing more than (the
somewhat important) introduction of James Bond’s classic[j1]
Whalther PPK. When he sends for more equipment he receives a Geiger counter, a
big ole boxy government lab model; not a slick Q branch model with super-secret
extra features built in. Bond (played exquisitely and dashingly by a young (but
not as young as I had imagined) Sean Connery) still makes it work, when he
needs to know if someone is messing with his briefcase, he’s got pencil dust on
the latches to check for finger prints, and who could forget the now classic
“wet hair across the door jamb?” Even I knew about that one as a kid, I didn’t
even know back then that I was through some shocking pop culture translation I was
emulating the great man, but I knew how to tell if my Moms had been in my
closet. Bond doesn’t have a poisoning reversal kit anywhere so every time he
returns to his room he just cracks a fresh bottle of vodka. The lack of all
these gizmos, actually serve to advance the film more, because the viewer gets
the gist that Bond is just so nice he simply doesn’t need anything other than
his wits.
Speaking
of Vodka, one thing that this movie, in particular, basically invented, and has
remained in almost every James Bond Film since is Product Placement. It’s not
incredibly obvious like in the later movies where the world’s greatest spy uses
the world’s worst cell phone because its manufactured by the same company that
owns the studio producing the film; but every time Bond picks up a bottle of vodka
it’s always Smirnoff and the label is always facing the camera so it can be
easily read. Also, if you note, most of the cars in the entire movie are all
Chevrolets. The Bond Franchise essentially invented product placement, and Bond
has been enjoying the gifts of America’s corporations ever since.
One of the most notable things that
has always remained the same within the world of Bond, from Bond’s first scene
at the Ambassadors Club in London, up to and including the new movie (I haven’t
seen it yet, but I’m quite sure) is the women. It has been said that every
“Bond Girl” since has wished she could
have had as amazing an entrance as the Swedish beauty, Ursula Andress. As
“Honey Rider” swims out of the Jamaican ocean with her knife and bikini, movie
history is made. So much history that, in
fact Halle Berry’s entrance twenty movies later in Die Another Day was intentionally filmed as an homage to the
original. (Supposedly some of the scenes from the Bo Derek (who happens to
actually be Andress’ step daughter in real life) movie ‘10’ were also a homage)
What most people don’t know is that Andress was extremely new to America and
her English was broken and accented. In response the producers dubbed every
single one of her lines. And more
remarkably (for those in search of the ultimate Jeopardy clue), she was the
only Bond Girl to ever appear onscreen inside Bond’s home.
Now, while Honey Rider may have
been the most famous girl in the movie, she was certainly not the only swell
looking lady to grace the silver screen next to Bond. In fact, in the first
scene with Bond at the aforementioned Ambassadors Club we meet the epic Sylvia
Trench (played exquisitely by Eunice Gayson) and she sets our hero up for one
of his most famous lines ever when she first introduces herself as “Trrench,
Sylvia Trench,” leading our hero to drop his now famous “Bond, James Bond.”
Considering all that has taken
place in the years since its first release, Dr. NO is clearly an inimitable classic of American
cinema. Sean Connery began a dynasty that actors still fight to get a chance to
be a part of, and Terence Young adapted a popular novel series in a way that
modern novelist heirs could only dream about.
The Bond Project
For some reason I cannot realign this first paragraph and I am too lazy to figure it out, and also too lazy to send this review back to Jay with my edits built in, to publish which ones he approves. I have primarily corrected typos and one or two stylistic choices in favor of proper grammar--but I do not think Jay will find this disconcerting. He writes the way he talks, and I try to do the same thing, and if you can't appreciate that, then you might as well give up on Flying Houses. I love writing the way I talk. It's like a continual process of discovery is happening before your eyes, and there's no feeling that everything has been so intricately refined and calculated to speak "the truth." I say the truth is in the present.
Jay Maronde and I have been friends since August of 2001. I met him at the same time as another friend, with a friend I made on the second or third day, neither of which I still talk to--and not by my choice. We simply drifted apart and I miss them. But Jay and I stuck.
The night we met, he asked if we could be drinking buddies and I said yes (we were 18). We would sneak into a package store and I would trust him to buy the whiskey because he looked older than me. But eventually we wouldn't have much trouble finding places to sell us some kind of alcohol in Greenwich Village, and we found ourselves going to Smalls Jazz Club, sitting in the back by the bar on the floor, drinking from a bottle of 99 Bananas, staying until 5 AM and watching the sun rise over the skyline of the World Trade Center, as a hundred bikers crossed our path, and we waved.
Later on, I became Editor of the Film Section of Washington Square News (formerly, Culture Shock) and asked Jay to be my co-editor. We had gone to screenings and written reviews during our freshman year, and we loved the feeling of importance we got from it. I remember forcing him to go to see L.I.E. with me (and the other two friends that formed our Fab Four) on September 10, and I remember noting in my first ever review, praising the film, that Jay had called it, "The worst fucking movie I have ever seen." And I remember spending the second half of the next day with him, and drinking in his dorm room.
In the first meeting I held as Editor, I introduced Jay as my co-editor and put my feet up on the table to a dozen or so dazed onlookers and said, "I don't consider myself very professional, but this is the way we are going to do things." I remember him liking that moment very much.
Recently, he called me (we have only seen each other twice in 2012--but that is much more often than in 2011, or 2010, or 2009, or 2008, or 2007---but 2007 is another story...) and proposed that he write reviews of all 23 James Bond films in anticipation of the newest one--Skyfall.
I told him I was always looking for writers at Flying Houses, looking to expand my operation to Huffington Post-type levels and get bought by AOL Time Warner for millions of dollars, and thought the project was a fantastic idea. Flying Houses only has a few film reviews (The Brave One, The Dark Knight, The Girlfriend Experience, Antichrist, The Visitor, Le Scaphandre et le Pappilon (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly), A Lawyer Walks Into a Bar..., and perhaps a few more) but I have never viewed it as purely a book review blog--though they do comprise the majority of the posts. I have viewed it as a blog to review books, movies, music, live experiences (The Pitchfork Festival and Ray Bradbury, for example), my Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Columns, short stories, and whatever else anybody would like to write.
So, without further ado, I present to you, the first in a series of 23, The Bond Project.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: No. 12: Law Review, Journals, and Blue-Booking
As we come to the close of another productive year at BLS,
1Ls once again huddle into the library at 9 AM on a Saturday morning to pick up
their journal writing competition packets.
They are not supposed to have any idea of “the law” on their topic, and
they are supposed to learn it based upon a limited set of materials, and get it
right, or lose. You are not allowed to
do outside research (or, outside research is not required?), and I seriously
question the degree to which “cheating” occurs here, but that is another column
for another time.
2Ls
this year will remember last year’s painful topic on tax apportionment of
franchises that have more than one branch in a state. I came up with a brilliant argument that it
was not the mortgage underwriters’ labor that should be taxed by Ford Motor
Credit Company, but rather, it should be the labor of the salesmen, who –it is
true—do make a sizable part of their wages from commissions of sales (which may
have different tax implications), but are responsible for the purchaser’s
initial seeking of the loan. The labor
they expend over two or three days was far more “valuable” than the
underwriters estimated time of twenty minutes to “put the loan together.” Perhaps this was an incredibly stupid
conclusion to reach for this case comment, but it appeared to be original,
concise, assertive, and reasonably well-cited (I will avoid a deep discussion
of the “?’s” I put into my endnotes to stay within my word limit). And then the fateful day came when people
began receiving their phone calls. And I
slowly realized that, after dropping beneath the 50% mark in the class, and
failing to make moot court, I was not going to be on a journal. Being a writer (and having improved from a B
to an A in Legal Writing between semesters), the one thing I wanted out of law
school more than anything else was denied me, and it hurt.
So I turned
away and laughed with derision at the beginning of 2L year, when all I heard
for a few weeks were complaints about “pre-emption” and “not knowing what to
write about.” I said, “I wanted it as
much as anyone, and you got it, so you better shut up.”
Of
course I never said that to their face.
But law students that complain about not being able to find a topic to
write about are a perfect example of the whiny types that flood law schools
across the nation: let’s complain about everything that’s not perfectly suited
to our needs—because, we’re not
supposed to be creative. These students need not concern us, for
pre-emption is, again, a much bigger topic.
However, law students that complain about the process of becoming a member of a journal and the responsibilities
that membership and/or publication entails, may have a good claim for negligent
infliction of emotional distress—for few other activities may be as tedious and
inconsequential as this.
Blue-Booking
is the first bane of existence. “The
central function of a legal citation is to allow the reader to efficiently
locate the cited source.” (THE BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION, “General
Principles of Citation,” at 1 (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et al. eds., 19th ed.
2010)). Great! How about this? “Because of the ever-increasing range of
authorities cited in legal writing, no system of citation can be complete. Therefore, when citing material of a type not
explicitly discussed in this book, try to locate an analogous type of authority
that is discussed and use that citation from as a model. Always be sure to provide sufficient
information to allow the reader to find the cited material quickly and easily.
(See id.). Even the Bluebook recognizes that its system
cannot be comprehensive. One could
question why we need a whole other separate citation system apart from those
already in existence, but I’d rather ask a more interesting question: what is
“authority?”
Just
because I earned a J.D. from Harvard, just because I made their Law Review,
just because I clerked for a Federal Judge, just because I worked at a
white-shoe law firm, just because I published a few articles, and gained some
kind of respect in my field, I might seek a career in academia and publish and
then I will have become “an authority.” Or,
(less hoops) if I become a judge (or a law clerk), and I write an opinion, I
become an authority. However, writing
about one’s own life has no place in a law review article, even though I may be
considered an authority on my own existence.
“You’re not allowed to have any original thoughts,” people often
say. It’s too likely you come off
sounding like an idiot who has not deeply canvassed the law if you don’t cite
to authority for every proposition you introduce. And yet, you must do a pre-emption check, and
make sure that your topic has never been written about before.
My
argument is that all journals should be abolished at every law school except
for one Law Review. I mean no disrespect
to my friends on the other journals (and indeed, there is no qualitative
difference in intelligence, so far as I can tell), but membership is hardly
prestigious when 20-25% of the class gets on a journal. When you’re one of the few that’s put in a
good faith effort for every honor they could get, and you lose, and lose, and
lose, you think you’re doing something wrong.
Memo to
disaffected law students: you’re not doing anything wrong. It’s an imperfect system. Once all journals are abolished, we will only
produce the amount of articles that we “need.”
We won’t have a tidal wave of articles on every conceivable legal topic
known to mankind, only to be revised to make an alternative conclusion
acceptable when a case like Citizens
United comes along.*
Me,
bitter? Maybe—but I proudly write on my
name card, whenever I sneak into a journal event, “NOT A MEMBER OF XXX JOURNAL;
FOUNDER OF MEP.” There are other ways to
make a positive contribution to this school than to be one of the hundred
Bluebook Slaves in your class. If you
don’t make it onto a journal you should make fun of everyone who is. Not only will you make yourself feel better,
but you will be right that it is all-too-often nothing more than an exercise in
extremely-refined masturbation. Better
yet—start, or join, a student organization that is devoted to sitting around
and making fun of journal articles. Call
it the Brooklyn Law School Journal of Rejects, put out one volume per year, and
write boldly original articles that are sloppily-blue-booked (because no one
really cares about that anyway—see Posner's article "Goodbye to the Bluebook" for an hilarious evisceration of the stupidity of elitist citationism) and written for the Us Magazine crowd—people would dig
it.
Maybe a
lot of this is coming out wrong but here is my main point: as long as you are
proud of what you produce, that is all that matters. If you do make a journal, and you slave away
for months on your note, and you find out that, unfortunately, you won’t be
getting published, the satisfaction you derive from the process should be your
reward. Good luck, 1Ls. If it doesn’t work out for you, join the BLS
Journal of Rejects. My 14,000 word,
40-page, 120-footnoted UCWR Employment Law paper gets to be in volume #1. And I also promise to accept ONE failed
competition submission from this year.
Open notes now being accepted.** (***).
*The complaint often leveled at journals is the glut of
faculty scholarship—not student scholarship.
This does not change the rationale behind my proposal to abolish all
journals but one. The only question is
whether faculty members are compensated for publishing, or if retention of
their job is contingent upon a steady stream of publications. Encouraging a greater amount of original
student work rather than faculty might be one possible reform.
**While this is a legitimate call for Open Notes for the BLS
Journal of Rejects, 1Ls should be made clearly aware of two things: #1- My
friend, who did not make into a journal, revised his competition submission a little
bit, entered it into a competition, and won—so don’t trash your submission
unless you are absolutely certain it is a complete failure. #2– Open Notes are accepted by all 4 journals
here—the Law Review is the most unforgiving (with the same deadline, around
January 20, for Open Notes as for “member notes”) and the Journal of Law and
Policy provides the generous extension of June 15th.
***Submissions are also being accepted for the BLS Advocate.
Christopher J. Knorps is a 3L. He enjoys studying bankruptcy law. He runs the blog
flyinghouses.blogspot.com. This summer
he is in Chicago. Next year he will
institute the Monthly Expense Project, serve as an upper class delegate on the
SBA, and serve on its career services committee. He will also be filming a Batman remake. Please e-mail him at Christopher.knorps@brooklaw.edu if you have complaints or are interested in participating. You may also start a passive-aggressive
comment fight but only if you promise not to be lame or mean about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)