Showing posts with label BLS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BLS. Show all posts
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Tales of Two Cities: The Best & Worst of Times in Today's New York - Ed. John Freeman (2015)
It's not every day a publisher or publicist reaches out to me and asks if I want to review their book. In the past, I asked Tao Lin myself if I could get free copies of his first novel, novella, and second novel. Once, someone from a bigger publishing house sent me a random book and I reviewed it. A couple times, publicists sent me e-mails teasing a new book, asking if I wanted a review copy. This is the first one where I expressed interest, and they actually followed through. So, I'd like to say, thank you, Shannon Twomey, for reminding me that I am not yet totally irrelevant.
Tales of Two Cities is an anthology, and these pose particular challenges for the critic. Of course, Userlands is partly responsible for the existence of Flying Houses in the first place, and no other reviews of anthologies have appeared since then. Certain books of short stories, or essays, by Thomas Mann, James Franco, Bret Easton Ellis, Chuck Palahniuk, Chuck Klosterman, Wells Tower, Jonathan Franzen, and others have spurred lengthy reviews that potentially lacked focus. Like Userlands, there are many writers in Tales of Two Cities, and most of them will not be familiar to the casual reader.
Certainly, Zadie Smith, Junot Diaz, Jonathan Safran Foer, Dave Eggers and David Byrne are pretty famous, but their work is probably not the strongest in this volume. I suppose we can start there, keeping in mind that people's attention spans on the internet are less than ideal.
We'll start with Smith because her story appears closest to the beginning. I've never read White Teeth or On Beauty or NW but she's certainly one of the literary stars of our time. For better or worse, "Miss Adele Amongst the Corsets," will forever remain my introduction to her. It definitely took me a minute to figure out what was happening in this story. I feel weird not wanting to give away spoilers for short stories, but it feels necessary here. Basically, this is the story of a drag queen going to buy a corset from a store run by Eastern European immigrants that may or may not be fundamental Christians. It is about Miss Adele's mentality as she veers toward her late forties and reflects upon her situation. It is about paranoia, insecurity, and the expectations we all have of common decency.
Parts of this story are engaging, and other parts drag a bit. It's only 17 pages long, but it's one of the more memorable moments in the anthology. I like in particular how Smith weaves in memories from Miss Adele's childhood, when her name was Darren and he was the twin of Devin (who is now successful/married) and their parents fought, all while she changes in a dressing room. It also reminded me of my own work from 2003, "Autointoxication," with the insecurity, paranoia and egotistical impression that everyone is really talking about you. While this is far from a great short story, it should serve Smith well. It makes me want to check out White Teeth.
***
Before we move on, the theme of this anthology merits attention. Of course, this book harps on the same themes over and over again! Bill de Blasio and his infamous description of New York as two cities, for the haves and have-nots. The rent is too damn high! Those darn 1%-ers!
Income inequality is a hot topic (see the Democratic Debate on 10/13/15, see also the rapid rise of the minimum wage) and as a person that enjoys reviewing books by modern day heroes and doctoral journalists that attack the issue head on, as well as spearheading one's own faulty program to assess how much "fun" poor people are allowed to have, to say nothing of the 6+ years I lived in New York on my parent's/the government's dime, reviewing this book is a no-brainer.
Why the fuck do you need to live in New York? Is it really that nice? Oh, you've got Central Park---great! An urban oasis. You feel like you're not really in the city! Oh, and the pizza--the pizza is just the best. The museums, the culture! Greenwich Village! Brooklyn! All the greatest artists come out of the village scene, don't you know? The best public transportation system in the country, hands down. Those wonderful 24 hour delis on every corner, or at least many corners. The people, who are all in this struggle with you! The energy--the city never sleeps! It is the #1 biggest city in the country, and so much better than L.A. God, who can stand to sit in all that traffic! Oh, the food, such wonderful restaurants. It is the epicenter of the legal industry! All your friends live there, too.
Perhaps you can tell that I have conflicted feelings about New York. Certainly, the years I spent there from 2001 through 2004 were some of the very best of my life and I will forever cherish such memories. But, the years I spent there from 2010 through 2013 were different. I was older. I wasn't in college. The Great Depression Part 2 happened in between. I had to take out student loans this time. I was in Brooklyn Heights rather than Greenwich Village.
When I was 22, I moved back to Chicago because my dad offered me a job there, and I had no job offers in New York (I hadn't really started looking for one, and had always lived in the NYU dorms, never my own apartment). When I was 30, I moved back to Chicago because I had no legal job offers in New York, and again, lived in the same "apartment-style" dorm at Brooklyn Law School for 3 years, the rent approximately $1,000 per month for a 2 bedroom. My room was small, but my roommate's (there were 3 different ones of varying quality, one of whom was the best roommate I have ever had, and there have been many) was only about $60 per month more than mine, and I think this place was a steal for the neighborhood. Sometimes I see friends on Facebook moving out and posting their craigslist ad when they want someone to take over their lease, and it's usually almost $1000 per month to live in one room in a 3BR in a vaguely desirable neighborhood in a wave of gentrification.
Compare that to the $580 (up from $540 as of 9/1/15) for my room in Logan Square (say nothing of sharing that room and cutting the cost to $290), a neighborhood in Chicago that has been in a steady state of gentrification over the past 10 years.
Now granted if I could have lived in New York with a rental at $500 or $600 per month, I would have stayed. But I would have probably needed to split a room to get that. And it would most likely be in Crown Heights.
***
There are two stories in this collection that are focused laser-like on housing: "Partially Vacated" by D.W. Gibson, and "A Block Divided Against Itself" by Sarah Jaffe. The latter features Crown Heights as the epicenter of the current gentrification fight in NYC and the former features South Brooklyn Legal Services and Housing Court on Livingston St. Guess which one I liked better.
It's not that Jaffe's story is more boring. Actually, I kept flashing back to Show Me a Hero while reading it. It's quite compelling, but also one-sided, like many accounts of housing issues. I am not a Pollyanna for landlords. I used to prosecute them for bad behavior, and I currently live under one that I'd like to report. The Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance in Chicago is quite tenant-friendly, and I'd presume a similar situation exists in New York. Yet all we hear are stories about the bad landlords. What about the bad tenants? One day I will write a story about bad tenants.
Apart from the Show Me a Hero comparison, I don't really know what to say about the Crown Heights story. It was basically average for the collection, and maybe it gets a bonus point for being so perfectly on topic.
However, "Partially Vacated" is one of the finest moments in the anthology. Of course, I may be biased, because one does not often get to read books about things one knows semi-intimately:
"The civil courthouse in Downtown Brooklyn sits amid a cluster of bureaucratic towers, adjacent to a mix of 99-cent stores and restaurants where bartenders prefer to be called mixologists. The Quaker-affiliated Brooklyn Friends School, $28,000 a year for pre-school, is just up the block.
Inside the rectangular building of steel and glass leased by the civil courthouse, the elevators break down year-round, the air-conditioner only in summer. Before he was mayor, Bill de Blasio, acting as Public Advocate, put the building's landlord on his 'Worst Landlord' watch list. The city's lease for the property expired last week, but, unable to find new housing, housing court--ironically, or perhaps not--will stay in the ailing building.
The line to get in the door--to shuffle through security and wait in a second line for the persnickety elevators--usually runs out the door and all the way down the block well before eight in the morning.
On the tenth floor, the elevator doors open onto a crowded hall, filled with the strident din of heated conversations in every direction. Clumps of three or four people stand together: always a landlord, always a tenant, usually a landlord's lawyer, occasionally a tenant's lawyer, too. They're all haggling, trying to reach a settlement; when and if they do, the details are immediately written on a piece of paper and taken into one of the court rooms to receive a judge's approval. There are dozens of courtrooms--some for hearings, some for trial--and all guarantee long waits." (63-64)
I didn't do housing in Brooklyn, but I did have a few friends work for South Brooklyn Legal Services, and I'm sure this story would be quite interesting for them. I did work at that civil courthouse, and I had forgotten about those ridiculous lines! In short, this story is great because it is true. And for what it's worth, the landlord in this story has to be one of the all-time worst.
***
More generally, these stories are just about people living in poverty in New York. The introduction by John Freeman is wonderfully written. It teases the entry by his brother, Tim Freeman, and provides a little snippet of each story to come in the collection. I have to say that while reading John's intro, I thought he came off as a total douchebag; after reading Tim's story "Home," much less so:
"I tell this story now because we need to change the way we talk about inequality. The reasons it exists are as complex as the reasons why my brother wound up in a shelter. Inequality is not an issue of us and them, the rich and the poor. You often see these same so-called divisions within one family, like mine. I have an instinct here to apologize for making this point, to add a caveat that my experience of witnessing my brother's homelessness was not nearly as hard as it was for him to live it, while I'm sure there are people who have suffered far more than both of us. All this is true, I suppose, but it leads us into a cul-de-sac. To rank suffering creates a false hierarchy of pain, as if there were a way to compare and weight grief with, say, physical discomfort, or career frustrations, or hopelessness. It allows us, to some degree, to say that some forms of suffering are OK while others are not." (x)
"I did not want anybody's help when I was homeless. If a family member had offered to take me in, I most likely would have declined the offer. When I was trying to stay at Bellevue, my brother John lived less than a mile away on the other side of town. I only saw him twice during the whole time that I was homeless. Again, I think this is because of the awkwardness. I also didn't want to be a burden on anybody. I know this probably sounds like an old homeless cliche, but it is how I felt." (213)
***
As for the other "famous" writers in the anthology, Junot Diaz has one of the better entries. It's a very short and sweet essay about an act of larceny. However, I found it was published in 2001 in The New Yorker, so even though this had to be one of Diaz's breakout pieces, it has little to do with "today's New York." It's a remembrance from his childhood. It's only a few pages long, but it's as good as any single part of Oscar Wao.
Jonathan Safran Foer's is also an older piece--from 2004, I believe--and let's just get this out of the way: I don't like him. People may think it's cruel for me to say that when I've never read him, but I just don't like him. Once I got my mom Eating Animals from the library, and she seemed to think it was pretty good. But I have never read anything by him before and I never wanted to, but it would have been irresponsible to skip "The Sixth Borough," which details the secret history of another borough that was once part of New York City. It is probably the silliest piece in this book and has almost nothing to do with its theme. I think it was included for "star power." In any case, this was the one chance for JSF to prove to me that I should give him a chance. I think putting in previously published work is a bit of a cop-out, but whatever. I still liked Diaz's piece. This one, not as much. Sorry, I guess I am just jealous.
Dave Eggers is his typically good-natured self, and introduces an essay by a fifteen-year-old girl whose family moved into Park Slope. She wrote the story as part of his 826 program. While her story is certainly impressive for a 15-year-old and sits comfortably alongside all of these other writers, I still thought Eggers little anecdote about living around a certain area in Brooklyn in the late 90's was more interesting. Both of these submissions add up to about 7 pages total, so it's not a huge part of the book.
I should briefly mention Colum McCann here, because he's "semi-famous." At a wedding over three years ago, a younger guest who was just starting college and wanted to be a writer, asked if I had read him, I said no, and he suggested Let the Great World Spin. Maybe one day I'll read that. In any case, McCann writes an essay that could be a viewed as a companion piece to the film Dark Days, which is a documentary that came out around 2000 and was about the "mole people" living in tunnels beneath the city. This is also really short--only about 4 pages--but it's another highlight from the book.
Last but not least, David Byrne's essay is wonderful. It's quite in your face and filled with quotable moments. Byrne does not try to pretend that the Talking Heads haven't made him rich, and openly admits that his relationship with New York may be souring:
"Many of the wealthy don't even live here. In the neighborhood where I live (near the art galleries in Chelsea), I can see three large condos from my window that are pretty much empty all the time. What the fuck!? Apparently, rich folks buy the apartments, but might only stay in them a few weeks out of the year. So why should they have an incentive to maintain or improve the general health of the city? They're never here.
This real estate situation--a topic New Yorkers love to complain about over dinner--doesn't help the future health of the city. If young, emerging talent of all types can't find a foothold in this city, then it will be a city closer to Hong Kong or Abu Dhabi than to the rich fertile place it has historically been. Those places might have museums, but they don't have culture. Ugh. If New York goes there--more than it already has--I'm leaving.
But where will I go? Join the expat hipsters upstate in Hudson?
Can New York change its trajectory a little bit, become more inclusive and financially egalitarian? Is that possible? I think it is. It's still the most stimulating and exciting place in the world to live and work, but it's in danger of walking away from its greatest strengths. The physical improvements are happening--though much of the crumbing infrastructure still needs fixing. If the social and economic situation can be addressed, we're halfway there. It really could be a model of how to make a large, economically sustainable, and creatively energetic city. I want to live in that city." (246)
***
Like any anthology, there are bound to be a few disappointments. Edmund White (whom I would designate as "quasi-famous") submits a very nicely written biographical essay that seems to have almost nothing to do with the "theme" except for the fact that his subject (Lorenzo Da Ponte--a.k.a. the writer of Mozart's librettos) eventually settled in 18th century NYC. I found it occasionally entertaining and out of place.
"Small Fates 1912" by Teju Cole (the only other writer listed by name on the cover besides Smith and Diaz, though one I would not designate as any kind of famous) starts off great, and quickly grows tiresome. Some of these "fates" are uproariously funny, but after about two pages of them, I realized they were really all just "tweets" and I fucking hate twitterature. I know it can be experimental in the same vein as an Oulippo-stunt, but I don't think it can be revelatory when it's trademarked by a publicly-traded company.
"Due North" by Garnette Cadogan is about walking around Manhattan, and it's pretty good. I like walking around, too. But it's also about feeling that people are friendlier in certain areas like the South Bronx, and more standoffish or invisible in areas like the Upper East Side. Unfortunately it made me wonder what Cadogan did in order to have all this leisure time to loaf.
"Options" is probably one of the stronger stories in this book, and perhaps deserves to be placed in the next section (I am saving the best for the last here). It's about moving to New York to try to get the best possible care for one's autistic child. It's about seeing a sign for a lost child that is autistic, and reflecting on your own. It's pretty powerful stuff, but it seems a little over the top, too. It strikes me as being 100% factual, but ultimately foolhardy.
"The Children Suicides" by Maria Venegas is interesting, but it's not about the NYU suicides in 2003-2004, so I have trouble relating. Then again as a former 10-year-old that confided suicidal thoughts to a teacher, it's affecting to see it from the other perspective. Not that they didn't take it way more seriously than they needed to or anything.
I almost want to put "Four More Years" by Jonathan Dee in the next section, too, because it seems like it's the only story that's really about "the 1%" and it's about driving around the neighborhood during a horrible snowfall and navigating the horrible conditions. This is actually a really memorable story and I don't know, I guess the characters came off as being sort of one-dimensional, and that's why it doesn't go in the next section.
"So Where Are We?" is a poem by Lawrence Joseph. I rarely review poetry on Flying Houses. I think I did once before. Is it a good poem? I don't know. Is it a bad poem? I don't know. It seems like it's about 9/11. 9/11 is obviously a big topic for New Yorkers but it almost never gets mentioned in this book. I skimmed this poem and moved on.
"Round Trip" by Akhil Sharma is certainly no failure at all, but it is slight at four pages and feels almost like Diaz's story. It's about a guy who has money, but is super frugal anyways because he hates spending. I can relate. However, he quits his job that pays pretty well to be a writer. I wish I had the luxury.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and call "Aliens of Extraordinary Ability" by Taiye Selasi a weak spot. It's stylish and while not exactly pretentious, seems to take itself a bit too seriously as "art." It's not bad, but it just seems calculated. I don't remember very much about it.
"One, Maybe Two Minutes from Fire" by Tea Obreht--I am very tempted to move this into the next section, but ultimately I cannot. It's got a great ending, on top of everything else. It's about being a victim of a scam. There needs to be more literature about victimhood. Not just woe-is-me victimhood, but God, I'm-so-fucking-dumb victimhood. Great story, and its placement in this review is faulty.
"Service/Non-Service: How Bartenders See New Yorkers" by Rosie Schaap is more like a special newspaper article or essay than an anthology essay, but most of the truisms about the service industry remain relevant. I still don't know how anybody makes it in the service industry, unless you spend your whole life (i.e. 60 hours a week, not 60 years) at the business in question, or unless it's a ridiculously expensive place.
"Mixed Media, Dimensions Variable" by Michael Salu, I put in the same category as the Selasi story. It's a little more ambitious than it has any business being. I think it's actually a bit better than the Selasi story, but I would not put it in the next section.
"Zapata Blvd" by Valeria Luiselli, "Seeking" by Victor Lavalle, and "Walt Whitman on Further Lane" by Mark Doty, can round out the "yawns" for me. As you can see, these anthology reviews get difficult because I do not want to give anyone short shrift. Doty's essay on Whitman and Long Island does have some pretty amazing insights, and some great surprises, but overall I found its tone to be off. Like, when literature/poetry PhDs try to make criticism interesting for the lay reader. "Zapata" is about being vaguely revolutionary, and there was a nice image or two in it--certainly I would not call it bad, but I found it disjointed. "Seeking" is actually quite good--though not as good as "One, Maybe Two Minutes from Fire." It's actually an incredibly deep essay about whether or not God exists. Worthwhile for anyone that still contemplates philosophical problems.
I'm conflicted about whether to put both "First Avenue & Second Street" by Hannah Tinti and "Traveling to Brooklyn" by Lydia Davis in this section or next. I guess they belong in the next.
***
Because they barely make this list, the last two stories should be mentioned first. Both of them fall squarely in the realm of creative non-fiction. I'm not sure which one is better, but I'm inclined to pick Davis.
Tinti's is very good, but it is pretty much just about one of her co-tenants. Kind of a character study. But it's a building near the Library, a good dive bar at 1st & 1st, and a handful of my friends moved out of the dorms after freshman year and got places in the East Village, and the memories of the Towers being there, and then not being there, made me nostalgic for that brief time that I shared in that wonderful area (even though it was only about 10 blocks north of that corner that I almost got mugged in 2002)
Davis's is great, because it reflects upon the nature of her fantasy, and how it has changed as she has aged, and then hits on a specific incident that happened recently on the subway around South Brooklyn. Basically, it is a personal essay par excellence, a near-perfect prototype of what one should write for a college essay, perhaps. Okay, the subject matter would not necessarily be great, but the way it's so beautifully written would get an admit from any admissions officer (this is why I think we studied personal essays as a form in high school).
Bill Cheng's entry, "Engine," is one of the best in the collection, though two others are better because they don't end on a kind-of-awkward last sentence. Basically, this story is a complete well of misery, with some quite graphic descriptions of medical maladies, silly jobs, and lack of self-worth. It's not very long, but it will punch you in the gut. For a person such as myself, that can identify quite strongly with the subject matter (even if I haven't worked in a movie theater), it is the sort of thing I need to read to remind myself that life can be just as frustrating for others:
"I don't know how to talk about money. It's one of those things we can't seem to get shook of. As much as we pretend it doesn't matter, it sets the stage for all our relationships. What I have, what you don't--all of it bound up in our identity, our careers, our ambition, our self-worth.
That was the gall of this first job, the improbability of being seen, how a stranger could just look at you and shrink you down into nothing. I was in college. I wanted to be a writer. I considered myself intelligent, ambitious, sensitive, with a full inner life. But every day wore me down to the nub until I carried in me a reservoir of abiding hate.
One summer at the theater, I spotted someone I knew from high school lining up at my register. He had gone to college upstate, and now he was back for the break. He looked good: lean, tan, handsome.
He recognized me.
Hey, Billy, how are you?
And it wasn't embarrassment but rage prickling at my face.
I pressed the bottoms of my hands to the counter.
I glared at him.
Would you like to try our super combo? (163)
The final two stories I loved for similar reasons. The first is "Every Night a Little Death," by Patrick Ryan. It concerns the travails of a team of graveyard shift proofreaders at a large law firm. The story is just hilarious and it made me laugh more than anything else in the collection. It seems completely over the top. I know that many of these entries are essays, or pieces of creative non-fiction, and some of them are works of complete fiction. I really could not decide where to categorize this piece. Certainly, it reads like creative non-fiction, but it's so extreme that it has to be fiction.
Cue person chiming in that life is often stranger than fiction.
I just don't believe someone who would come into work every night wearing a clown wig would get so upset about office propriety. It is slightly more believable that a person would bring a stuffed chimpanzee into work with her--slightly--but not that she would use such a toy as a weapon of assault. Frankly, I wish I worked in an office where such shenanigans were commonplace.
"I'd never had a job in the corporate world before. I'd been a house-painter, a waiter, a stockroom clerk, an English teacher, a bartender. The graveyard shift seemed a fitting place for me to land, given that I'd just moved from the 'sleepy' South to the city that never sleeps--an exciting change for me, though most of my friends back home had told me I was being foolish. 'New York?' one of them had asked. 'Really? I hope you have a lot of money, and a lot of tears.'
Another, pulling up beside me at a traffic light, had rolled down his window to shake his head and holler, 'That place is going to chew you up, spit you out, and piss on you.'
'I'll tell you exactly what's going to happen,' an older, chain-smoking neighbor had said as I was helping him sort his recycling. 'You're going to fuck up your life beyond belief, and you're going to be back here in six months--probably addicted to heroin.'
All of which made me more determined than ever to succeed (success meaning only my not having to move back south in six months). I took the job. I even decided graveyard shift had an impressive ring to it. Responsible people worked the graveyard shift. Guys who wore matching-cap-and-jacket uniforms and carried lunchboxes worked the graveyard shift. Copyeditors in newsrooms, security guards who shone flashlights into warehouses, EMTs who stanched gunshot wounds--these were the secret heroes who kept the gears of the world turning while everyone else snoozed.
I was thirty-three and living in New York. I had an illegal sublet on the upper west side that was mine for another two months, and I had employment. To celebrate, I went to dinner with friends." (19-20)
This story isn't especially deep or dramatic, but it's just very entertaining from start to finish, and pretty original. I am reminded of a book I've never read called And Then We Came to the End. I guess that is the closest reference point. It feels like non-fiction, but again, it's just a tad unbelievable. It's right near the beginning of the anthology, which is brilliant sequencing. Maybe it's not actually the second-best story in the collection, but the sequencing made me feel that was so.
The best story in the collection, then, is "Quid Pro Quo, Just as Easy as That" by Jeanne Thornton.
I'm not just saying that because it has a transgender narrator. I am definitely not playing that game.
This is straight-up creative non-fiction. Unlike Ryan's story, none of it strikes me as too absurd to be true.
Can I profess some ignorance? I still get really confused when transgender people identify themselves. The narrator in this story is a trans woman. I need to think for a second to make sure I get it right. They were born male, but transitioned to female. Whether they have undergone hormone treatment or not is unclear in this story. To be honest, it doesn't matter. The transgender issue is almost secondary to the poverty issue. Just looking at the first two pages of this story, every sentence begs to be excerpted. Because of my obsession with monthly expenses, I must excerpt the very end of that second page, and the top 1/3 of the third page:
"It was a flush time for me in New York City. According to invoices I still have, I was making the sweet sum of $12 per hour and working enough to clear about $1600 every month. The rent at the time was $1100, which I split evenly with a roommate. My share of the bills was usually about $125 total, and the Metrocard rate $100 per month. I knew of a cheap grocery store and cooked when I could. I smoked back then too, a hideously expensive habit at $13 a pack in NYC. So I'd switched to smoking three of four 'lucies' a day at $0.75 per cigarette, or $2 for three, from the grocery store just down the street from me that kept lookouts. Sometimes you could run across illicit cig pushers on the streets--especially, for some reason, on Roosevelt Island--who'd let you have a whole fat pack of Delaware-smuggled Newports for seven bucks. A devotee of The Richest Man in Babylon, I kept back about $100 or $200 from each paycheck to put into a savings fund, though I inevitably ran out of money every three or four months--food, doctor bills, miscellany--and had to raid it back to zero. But it all worked." (113-114)
So it seems, finally, here is another person that makes the same sorts of observations I do, and has similar concerns. Perhaps this is why I feel this is the best story in the collection.
This story is about the narrator herself, her boss at the publishing company where she works, and her friend that sleeps on her couch (her roommate, who paid the other $550, moved to Chicago to work for Groupon, and paid the next couple of months to be nice). There is a footnote about "All My Friends" by LCD Soundsystem. The story is about everything and nothing. It's a story whose style, tone, structure and plot I'd like to emulate. The only thing that slightly annoyed me about it was that the narrator would not reveal what her friend wrote on Facebook:
"Friends--without exception, female friends--began to tell me explicitly that they would not come over to see me when my friend was at the apartment. After the Facebook message incident, my friend was not a big fan of women, and he liked to discuss this with other women whom I was friends with. He would discuss it with me, too. In part this was because I hesitated to defend myself as a woman to him, and because I don't think he particularly thought of me as one anyway. (As evidence of this, the time he laughed at me and said you're a dude.)" (117)
Ultimately I think this is one of the most entertaining stories in the anthology, and while the ending may be one of failure, it feels happier than that, like the narrator will be going on to better things.
So we come to the end of this lengthy review. I think this book makes an excellent gift for any person moving to New York for the first time. The only question is whether it will be eternally relevant, or if NYC will completely transform itself in 20 years. This may be sold for a buck on tables arrayed on various streets in Greenwich Village in five years, but it is a worthwhile project for capturing the city at a crucial time in history.
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress #26: Didn't We Deserve a Look at You the Way You Really Are?
For decades, you paraded around like a crazy bitch
Wretchedness, your lucky charm
Hung on a bracelet displayed on your arm
All we saw is not how you are
Caught a glimpse of you
In an unselfconscious smile
Revealing yourself
Didn't we deserve a look at you the way you really are?
-Shellac
Don't judge me for posting Shellac lyrics again. They were appropriate for #24 and they are appropriate for #26. There are three interpretations to make of this reference: (1) we deserve a look at the way law schools (and legal jobs) really are; (2) you deserve a look at the way I really am; (3) we deserve a look at the way all the anonymous scam-bloggers really are.
Not for decades, but for nearly a decade, we have all paraded around like crazy bitches, trumpeting inflated employment statistics, selling our desperate souls for a pittance, blacklisting alternative voices. The time has come to take off the mask.
I have never worn a mask. But I have taken off my make-up. Let's see if you can take off yours.
***
BLS was #67 on The List when I accepted. Now they are #78 (and list their tuition as $1,795 per credit). This isn't that egregious of a decline, but I've seen a graphic that the median LSAT of incoming students has, in fact, egregiously declined. I read once that top 50 schools were first tier, schools 50-100 were second tier, and everything after 100 was third tier. I disagree and think most people know the top 14 schools are first tier, 15-50 are second tier, and everything after 50 is third tier. But then I have heard the whole tier system has been purged. Regardless, I like referring to BLS as TT. So that is the working title for my fourth book.
The book will mostly be about social life, but it is certainly aimed squarely at my debt and the need to relieve myself of it. So I will not comment on that here, except to say that Pepperdine struck me as being like a high school, when I overheard or observed the students interacting. I did not want that. BLS ended up being its own version of high school. Regardless, while I regret basically everything that happened in my life between the years of 2010 and 2013, I do not regret, for one second, any of my interpersonal relationships from that period. Ironically I have about two friends in Chicago, so a whole lot of good my BLS friends have done me, updating their status, allowing me to compare myself unfavorably. I am happy that I will not run into certain classmates in court, but I miss most of them very, very much. They were all intelligent, open-minded, curious, and inspiring. I could tell them everything and never feel ashamed. I feel the need to write TT to honor my love for them and the memories we shared, before any more of us are lost in unfortunate accidents.
Nothing more about BLS, except that their employment statistics are grossly inflated. I believe they have changed their disclosure: their website now links to an ABA-stamped employment summary. However, only 44 out of 478 defined themselves as unemployed. So when they said 91% employment before, it wasn't untrue. But it was probably highly misleading. Supposedly, there were only 33 law school funded positions. All I know is, I filled out that employment survey, and my CTA post-graduate fellowship counted as "employed." But if you knew what my life was like from November 2013 through May of 2014, you would not feel "employed." (I do have to say though, that these numbers do not look that bad, and that maybe I am unnaturally disappointed because BLS has zero pull in Chicago.)
***
I never had BLS on my radar until they solicited an application from me with the fee-waived. This was warning sign #1. Plenty of schools do this, but it is nefarious.
Oh, you haven't heard of our school? It's free to apply! What is it going to hurt?
Inevitably, these schools end up offering tempting scholarship packages.
I picked BLS over Loyola Law School. I've written about this before, and I'll be writing about it again. Neither BLS or LLS would have been a smart decision. LLS gave me slightly more money, subject to finishing in the top 33% of the 1L class. BLS gave maybe $6,000 less, but only subject to a top 40% finish. BLS also coordinated student housing, and this ultimately won the day for them. LLS has a beautiful campus with beautiful architecture, though it is not in the best neighborhood. BLS must have one of the ugliest law school buildings in the country, but it is in the fanciest neighborhood in the hippest borough. I couldn't pay too much attention to the quality of the faculty, but for what it's worth BLS did have a more impressive "sample class" than Pepperdine, DePaul or LLS (though LLS was definitely #2). If it's not already clear to you, I regret going to BLS. Given that I live in Chicago, I wish I had gone to DePaul or Loyola University. I also wish I had gone to LLS, but there it was more apparent to me that I was making a huge financial gamble - I'd have enough to afford first and last month's rent, and a security deposit, but not 12 months of rent, and I was not going to have a job. A loan, untied to the school's bursar, frightened me. Of course in retrospect, I would much rather have given government-borrowed money to a landlord than an institution [at least partly] responsible for my demise.
I think that's all we need to say about that.
***
You deserve to know that I work for a wage--not a salary--but if you attend work perfectly, logging the maximum 37.5 hours per week, staying late Tuesday through Friday to make up for the 7.5 hours you can't work on the dozen or so holidays throughout the year, perhaps using your accrued vacation days (1 per month), billing 52 weeks, it would work out to $26,949.
I'm wary about spilling too many details about my job, except to say I am a crime-fighter and building-doctor. I do not practice criminal law, but I am put into a position where I have to request that criminal offenders be banned from their place of abode. It can be pretty unsavory at times, and I'm not really sure it's providing any transferable experience. What I do is very niche, and the only option might be to "go to the dark side"--i.e. the solo practitioners or bank-funded midsize firms we meet in court and AH. I could say a lot more about this, but again, do not want to call undue attention to what I do. Even with all of my frustrations about my job, I mentioned in the previous post that this year felt better than last probably because of my professional situation. You probably deserve to know how that has changed, too. But before I get there, let me just say, while I may hate a lot of things about my job, I do not hate my job. It's a tremendously depressing experience, but it has lent me a certain stability.
I nearly had a job, and I'm not sure I've ever written about this here. But, to cut to the chase, I pretty much decided to move back to Chicago after spending my 2L summer here in 2012. Still, I interned at Legal Aid when I got back to Brooklyn that fall, and apparently got my "guaranteed" interview. Just about two years ago, I went up to the Bronx and delivered a summation in defense of a woman who had been caught shoplifting from a Target, to two attorneys. It went well, I suppose, because I received an invitation to interview a second time, in lower Manhattan on Water St., across the street from a building I lived in for the first half of the summer, 11 years earlier. Interviews never go well for me, so this was something.
The second interview didn't allow me to show off the more dramatic side of myself, and I guess I came across as a dullard. No offer came. At that point, I decided to withdraw from the NY Bar Exam. I was fully refunded, which I will never forget. Illinois, however, charged me $1,550 to register ($1,450 for "really late" registration, and $100 for the computer fee) at that late date, and I guess that's when I really started feeling the sting for how outrageously Illinois will gouge you on everything, particularly if it has to do with practicing law. Just curious, but how much is it to renew your bar license in NY? $395? Higher? And now there is all sorts of talk about slapping a sales tax onto legal services, as if the poor people and generally poor attorneys (unless of course there is no exemption for large firms, which would be surprising) that will bear the brunt of this revenue boosting measure can afford that little extra ding.
I put out all the feelers I could when I moved back into my parents' house in August of 2013. I would only live there a couple months before it would be foreclosed upon and short-sold. Miraculously, the moment I found an apartment, I got offered a short term document review job. It only lasted six days, but I made over $1000 on it after taxes, and that would cover the rent for the next month and most living expenses. I would also be starting my post-graduate fellowship at CTA, which would pay $1000 per month for 20 hours per week.
I do not want to say too much about CTA except that it was a mistake to do the fellowship there. About a year ago, I interviewed with the Cook County Public Defender. If I had tried to do my fellowship there, I would still have been an "employee" at the time of that interview, and might have been a more impressive candidate. I wrote about this when I reviewed Defending the Damned (which technically was before last year's 6th anniversary post, but should now be mentioned as a notable read), but here I wanted to make that clear. I wanted to do my post-graduate fellowship with an organization that could build on my past experience. I had worked for New York City Transit Authority as my first internship after my 1L year. It had been a very positive experience for me, and at one point I was falsely led into the anticipation of a job after law school with them. They gave me free rides. I never used them, because the building was three blocks from my apartment, but I could go anywhere that summer for free. I also got paid $5,000 for three months.
Compare that to $4,500 for 5 months at CTA. And despite the fact that law school interns were not only paid directly by CTA, but also given the benefit of free rides, I was not given any such special treatment as a "volunteer attorney." I asked my fellowship coordinator if she could argue my case to the General Counsel, in light of this disparate treatment. She said she did, but the decision remained the same. I still wonder how hard she had advocated for me. Might it have been better just to knock on the GC's door myself?
So I was working for a pittance with an end date in sight. An Assistant FOIA Officer position became available, and I applied immediately and got the interview. It would have paid $50,000. I interviewed over the phone on a conference call with a woman who worked on the same floor as me. Clearly I could have come down in person, but they needed to keep it depersonalized, I guess not to show any favored treatment. I didn't get it. Another girl, who had a very similar resume to mine, but had done FOIA work for the Law Dept., got it. I applied later to be a representative for the labor division, working with grievances from the union, but did not get an interview. Nor did I get one for the associate attorney position in the torts division.
I started doing part-time work. One day I worked for a solo attorney in Schaumburg. She paid me $20 per hour to do minor paralegal type work for 6 hours. I was in at 9, out by 3, and had a check for $120. Moreover, she had been cool. She had given all kinds of insight into what it was like to be a solo attorney, and how some months were good and others were not. I remember one case she was trying to get a settlement from an insurance company for a client who had broken their tooth on a rock in a yogurt cup. It was freezing cold that day but I remember driving back the long way from Schaumburg, east through Oak Park into the city, down North Ave, going to the Aldi on Milwaukee Ave. and then to the Citibank there to deposit the check, then going home and having a drink and being very happy.
I also covered cases for a foreclosure defense firm. They paid $20 per hour too, I think. Maybe $25. I had to drive out to Kane County a couple times for that, covered another couple cases at the Daley Center. I stopped doing it after too long, because my current position prohibits outside representation. And also ironically because it was only the cases in Kane County that were worth it, since you could bill for commuting time and get $0.50 per mile in gas reimbursement. 100 miles round trip, plus a 15 minute appearance signing, might net $150 or $175.
I also got a job at a small firm, which gave me a place to go when my fellowship ended in late April or early May. They paid $15 per hour. I worked there for about a month, and the work environment was less than ideal. All of my co-workers were very nice, but it was a very disorganized place. I took a doc review project (I had worked another one, also, from February through April, taking a leave of absence from CTA so I could make the hours) and made decent money, maybe about $6,000 in six weeks. But it was during that doc review job that I got offered a start date at my current job. I took it, and was sad I was taking an almost 50% cut from my doc review wage. But, this job offered health insurance, and paid nominally less than $15 per hour, so I talked with the partner at the small firm, and he agreed it seemed like the best move for me. I have since seen him in court and prosecuted a case against him. He's one of my very few "connections" to the legal community of this city, and I will always be grateful that he kept me from fearing homelessness.
There's not much else to say except that I am happy to live in and work for this city. It's a really terrible place, but it's my really terrible place, and no matter how fucking frustrating it gets, I am going to try to make things better.
My loans are up around $98,000 right now and I have paid $0 back. I will be renewing PAYE next week with an AGI around $25,500. I think some people pay about $30 per month on our salary, and it just sucks because you are not even covering the interest at that level. That's only $360 a year, so it's amazing. But my interest is going to climb at like $7,000 per year. So it's just going to escalate, and the only way out is through forgiveness. If I stay on track, and if Congress doesn't try to fuck even further with our economic "promised-land," I will be debt-free in about 9 years. I will consider these 9 years to be better than those spent in a prison, but I am not going to stay in my position forever.
Some of my colleagues have stayed more than two years without having a conversation about their future there. I will go ballistic if I hit that point and the powers that be still feel it's reasonable to ask me to live on this salary.
I have heard one of my colleagues turn down a job offer of $40,000 per year (it may have even been $45,000 per year), because it would change the loan treatment. I agree that the value of public service, over a long term of loan repayment, is high, but it's difficult to measure. You have an extra 10 years of payment on the expanded form of PAYE now, and the dreaded "tax bomb." Still, I would probably go for $40,000. I can understand not wanting to leave, though, because our positions are relatively more stable and less stressful than those of young associates at small firms. An extra $1,000 per month in pay would be nice, though.
And I think that's all we need to say about that.
***
We deserve a look at the anonymous bloggers and commentators who have told me to swallow a shotgun, who have called me ugly, who have kicked me while I was down. I have zero problem with them calling out law school as a ruinous life choice, but when someone personally attacks you for making such a stupid fucking awful decision, it hurts,
In case it is not already crystal-clear, I hereby disavow any pollyannish statements previously made about BLS or other law schools generally. They are overpriced, and their outcomes are not good.
In the event that you hope to have a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress against the institution that harmed you, you must prove that you have done everything in your power to achieve a good result.
Did you pass, or even take, the bar exam?
How high was your GPA and class rank?
Did you work for a journal, or moot court?
Did you do internships or externships or clinics (or whatever you want to call them) every semester?
Other questions might be pertinent (i.e. foreign language fluency, previous law firm experience), but there is no talisman for success. I have known people that were spectacular students at BLS and could not get a job, and people who were mediocre students and still managed to get a decent public interest job. While I understand that the risk/reward is rarely justifiable, it is not fair to lump everyone else together with you when you just suck, or give up without really trying.
I sucked. I had a 3.28 and finished in the bottom half (top 65%), no journals, no moot court. I did do do internships every semester, but after 1L year I had a 3.14, and my Property professor [strongly] suggested that I take a year off and work on my writing, since I said that was what I really wanted to do. My Constitutional Law professor, by contrast, said he didn't mean to be pollyannish, but he had a student that didn't do so well her first year, and came back and finished near the top of her class (though nothing about her getting a great job). I remember another reception, early in my 3L year, when our Dean highlighted one particular student from the class of 2012 that finished at the very top--maybe 2nd or 3rd--but still had no job. It was an alumni reception and he exhorted everyone there to give the student a job, plugging some cute acronym initiative.
So maybe my fate isn't all that unusual.
In summation, while the lawsuit naming BLS claiming negligent misrepresentation was dismissed, and while my claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress may not prevail, this is not a clear case of contributory negligence or culpable conduct. Numerous bad actors have unwittingly collaborated on my demise. Blame BLS. Blame the U.S. government. Blame my friend who went to Cardozo and planted the seed. Blame my dad for wanting to tell people his son was an attorney. Blame Bush and/or Obama and/or greedy Wall St. bankers for the recession. Blame the ABA for failure to warn. Blame baby boomers for saying that all you need to do is get your foot in the door. Blame as many parties as you can name. But do not blame yourself.
Unless, of course, you suck.
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Lawyer Boy: A Case Study on Growing Up - Rick Lax (2008)
"Write what you know."
That is the advice most writing teachers give. Or at least that was the popular wisdom back in the late 90's/early 2000's. Later on, there was a twist: you should write what you know, but also what you can learn and confidently write about as if you've experienced it yourself. I do not think I will ever be able to do the latter, and for that reason I may never be a successful novelist--though that does not mean I will ever give up on my dream. I know I wouldn't be able to write a law school memoir unless I went.
And it is a good idea, at this point in history, to publish a law school memoir. Because the landscape has changed. Rick Lax published Lawyer Boy in 2008, probably right around the moment the markets crashed. Did he graduate in 2008? I have no idea. And one of my major complaints about Lawyer Boy is that it's only about the first year.
So it's basically very easy to sum up: One L but at a TTT turned TT set immediately before people started using those acronyms.
It could have been so much better. As it is, it's pretty good. It's definitely a page-turner. But I don't think anybody who didn't go to law school or is planning on going to law school will find it very intriguing. That is the problem with the law school memoir as a genre. Still, I think Lax made better use out of his law degree than a lot of disappointed graduates nowadays. At least it gave him good material for a book.
Then again, there is one non-nitpick critique I can make of this book: it loses steam in its second-half. Lax seems to rush through the story of the spring semester. Part of this is understandable: his school was not crazy and probably enrolled 1Ls in 3 credits of Constitutional Law and Contracts both semesters, instead of 5 credits in one semester. So there's not a lot of new stuff to mention except Torts and Property.
But now we get to the fun part: comparing experiences. Because it really is sad, how similar every law school is to every other one, regardless of ranking. It's one of the reasons so many people criticize the proliferation of law schools today--because they are just so easy to plan. There are too many of them and I have been saying for a couple years now that the ABA should limit the number of new graduates entering the workforce because that is the only way to prevent a highly-indebted unemployed glut of new graduates applying for the same few entry-level jobs that get posted. The market will fix itself, some believe, and while overall enrollment has dropped, I think it's still way too high. If it's unfair to close schools, then each should just be forced to reduce the size of their first-year class to a quota. It might sound like a totalitarian regime, but it would be better for those choosing to enter the profession in the long run (it is really depressing to go through such hell for 3 years, take on a load of debt, jump through dozens of hoops, only to be laughed at because you're useless) and at the very least it would make for an interesting Supreme Court case. I digress.
Rick Lax went to DePaul Law School. I almost went there. Now that I have chosen to live in Chicago, I wish I had gone there. But I did get in and I could appreciate some of the details. The book starts out very strong, with Lax describing why he wanted to go to law school in the first place, what it was like to take the LSAT, and what it was like to choose his school:
"I realized that my full-time immaturity shtick would one day inevitably turn from cute and charming to sad and creepy. I realized that I couldn't live with my parents forever, that I needed a place of my own, and that magic wouldn't pay the bills--the ones I'd presumably have if I had a place of my own. I realized that I had to go to law school...because it's not like I was going to get a job or anything." (9)
Of course, plenty of people on the internet will laugh at that paragraph as a supreme exercise in irony. But this was in 2006 (or so). Lax wanted to go to University of Michigan, which is where he went for undergrad, where his father went, and which was closest to home. But he couldn't get in. I could say the same thing about myself and NYU:
"Getting into the University of Michigan's undergraduate program was tough--I'd needed to transfer in. Getting into their law school, I recognized, would be almost impossible. The Supreme Court made that much clear in the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger. The case's opinion begins: "The [University of Michigan] Law School ranks among the Nation's top law schools. It receives more than 3,500 applications each year for a class of around 350 students." In Grutter, the Supreme Court held that state universities have a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body, and that this interest justifies the use of race as a factor in admissions. But even without affirmative action, plaintiff Barbara Grutter, who had a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, probably couldn't get into the University of Michigan Law School today. In recent years, the average incoming University of Michigan Law School student has had a 3.7 GPA and a 168 LSAT score." (12-13)
Lax got the same score as me: 163 and we didn't get to go to our dream schools. But this is pretty much where our stories diverge. He also applied to UNLV, DePaul, University of Chicago, NYU and Columbia. He got rejected everywhere except for the first two. And it probably would have been better for him to go to UNLV in the long run since apparently he lives there now (I know this through Twitter and I will post this review @him and hope not to get trolled) and it is probably the best place to make a living as a magician--which is the "hook" of this book.
Because see--if I wanted to write a law school memoir, there wouldn't be a "hook." It's that extra little something that makes a literary agent think that your book is going to be special or memorable or something. And some of the magician anecdotes are funny, but sometimes it feels a bit like "padding." First there's the appendix, which has a couple tricks that I am pretty sure you wouldn't be able to do just from reading it (I think with magic you need an in-person demonstration from someone willing to show the secrets). Second there are the numerous jokes about how no self-respecting person chooses magic as a profession, which okay, was probably true in 2006, but in 2014 no self-respecting person chooses law as a profession, unless they are sure they're really, really smart and are going to be in the top 10% or going to one of the very best schools. Sorry--must contain my cynicism.
But the details about DePaul are pretty priceless, and as a resident of Chicago, I can say the book is certainly true to life. First, there is the t-shirt:
"As expected, the University of Las Vegas accepted me, and even threw in a $9,000 annual scholarship. DePaul University College of Law in Chicago trumped that with an $18,000-a-year offer, accompanied by a 100 percent cotton XL school T-shirt."
I got the same one with a $20,000-a-year offer, four (?) years later. So still, we're in the same boat. However, there is a sad anecdote later on that I have trouble believing:
"On Monday, I wore my complimentary XL DePaul T-shirt to Con Law...as did Dan and two of the other serious students. I figured we'd all run out of clean clothes at the same time.
'Lookin good, Rick,' said Dan.
'You, too.' I turned to Nadeeka, who wasn't wearing a shirt, and said, 'It's DePaul T-shirt day. You didn't get the memo?'
She hadn't.
'Congratulations,' Dan said.
'On what?'
'Your scholarship. You got the shirt with the scholarship, right?'
The shirt went with the scholarship. Ah.
'You mean they didn't make you pick between the two?'
At the start of the semester, everybody must have assumed a handful of Section 2 students just happened to buy the same ill-fitting DePaul law school T-shirt. By the second week of class, most people had figured out what the T-shirts meant. By that week, wearing the shirt was no longer considered just a fashion misstep; it was considered a statment about the wearer's refusal to hide or apologize for her intellectualism." (82-83)
I think it is just incredible that DePaul would be so callous as to give scholarship students T-shirts, and non-scholarship students nothing. Perhaps the practice changed after a few years, but it just strikes me as a really cynical (maybe the wrong word?) thing to do. I got mine, and I liked wearing it to class because it was sort of a message like "fuck you, I hate this place and wish I went to DePaul" but I don't think anybody got it (and truthfully I didn't hate my school--just my first year, and I hate myself for what happened after--I actually have ridiculously fond memories of my second and third years).
Which is why I felt like Lawyer Boy was missing something. Of course, a lot of people say "1L is all that matters" and sure that's true for jobs--but I felt that the ending of the book was inaccurate. Lax writes about people getting jobs at big firms as if they're working there the summer after their 1L year. That's not the way it works! It's misleading. Maybe a couple of his friends got to do that, but I know basically no one that worked at firms during their 1L summer. Then again our school gave out a (fairly generous, at the time) public service grant so maybe most people did that because it was close to a livable wage. Basically this book ends like 1L is the end of law school and that's just not true--there's two more years of crap, and at least in my experience, the social aspect gets really interesting at that point because people stop spending 90% of their free time studying (maybe 90% is inaccurate but it felt like that for me) and start having social lives.
Still, it was funny to read about how similar our experiences were. One notable example was this introductory exercise, a welcoming speech from the Dean:
"Head Dean Glen Weissenberger spoke last: 'You've heard a lot about us, the faculty, and you've heard a lot about DePaul, but now I'd like to talk to you about something else: you. All two hundred and forty of you. Some of you came here from state college; some of you came here from Harvard. One of you has a Ph.D. in organic chemistry, another of you has one in materials engineering. One of you even designed spacecraft parts for Boeing.
'One of you is the president of a gospel choir. One taught English in Ghana. One survived testicular cancer. One lost over one hundred pounds in two years. One was attached by sharks. One worked for NATO in Kosovo as a counterintelligence agent with the U.S. Army.
'One of you is a professional magician, and that particularly excites me because I used to be a professional magician, too.'" (52)
Any of my classmates will recognize this ritual. It is almost as if the law schools feel obligated to perform this tradition--just like the obligation to retain the same first year courses, though some of them (*cough*property) are basically niche areas filled with arcane nonsense.
Weissenberger was later dismissed from the law school in 2009, so apparently Lax used real names. I'm not so sure about the other professors. While most of the professors are generally treated quite well in the book, the Legal Writing professor seems like one of the biggest jerks on the planet. I wouldn't be too surprised if this was an accurate portrait, but I'd be surprised if Lax didn't use a pseudonym. While Legal Writing assignments are graded anonymously, there is a fair amount of discussion of how the professor knew which assignments Lax had turned in, and so maybe it wouldn't make a difference if Lax used a pseudonym or not: the professor obviously must have known it was written about him/her. But apparently Devenpeck is a pseudonym. This is only interesting to me because Turow used pseudonyms for his professors, and as I toy with the idea of writing a law school memoir, I tend to wonder about the "libel" aspect. I wouldn't write anything bad about any of my professors, but I still feel weird writing about them, period, whether using pseudonyms or not, in a memoir. But if you don't use pseudonyms, you're pretty much obligated to only say nice things. Whatever.
The only other aspect I want to mention is that Lax seems to exhibit what a good percentage of my law school classmates also did: complete disregard for fiscal responsibility. This is mainly due to where he chooses to live, and how his parents are able to pay for it. Also I don't think he mentions taking out any loans. So a very important part of the puzzle is also missing for aspiring law students. This is also why I wish the 2L and 3L years were also included in this book.
One other thing I like about this book is that Lax provides snapshots of some of the cases he studied, and generally he picks out interesting ones (while also including a fairly concise summary of Marbury v. Madison, though I think someone else probably did a better job).
Finally, Justice Scalia is not mentioned until page 206. At least he gets mentioned. But any law school memoir in the late 20th or early 21st century has to say something about Scalia. The thing I like most about him is that most law students hate his philosophy, but still love him because he can be a very witty writer. Justice Douglas is not mentioned at all, and I will still persist in calling him my favorite. He may not be the wittiest (though there is usually a humorous sentence or two in each of his opinions), but I still think he's one of the few who lived his life according to his judicial philosophy, and so he is automatically interesting.
In the end, I can only give a lukewarm recommendation for this book. I don't want to say "not recommended" because I think it does about as good a job as can be expected, and I shouldn't judge it because I wanted to see it do something differently. However, I would be curious to know why Lax didn't want to include the 2L and 3L years. Maybe that is a blessing, because perhaps the law school memoir that is an exhaustive account of the entire thing has yet to be written. Perhaps I haven't really been looking for it, or just wouldn't want to read it, but I have to believe that a law school memoir published in 2010 or later from a non-T14 student/graduate could be a contender for the Pulitzer Prize due to tragic content. I pray for all of us--that we make something of our lives, and that they are not cut short by psychosomatic tragedy.
That is the advice most writing teachers give. Or at least that was the popular wisdom back in the late 90's/early 2000's. Later on, there was a twist: you should write what you know, but also what you can learn and confidently write about as if you've experienced it yourself. I do not think I will ever be able to do the latter, and for that reason I may never be a successful novelist--though that does not mean I will ever give up on my dream. I know I wouldn't be able to write a law school memoir unless I went.
And it is a good idea, at this point in history, to publish a law school memoir. Because the landscape has changed. Rick Lax published Lawyer Boy in 2008, probably right around the moment the markets crashed. Did he graduate in 2008? I have no idea. And one of my major complaints about Lawyer Boy is that it's only about the first year.
So it's basically very easy to sum up: One L but at a TTT turned TT set immediately before people started using those acronyms.
It could have been so much better. As it is, it's pretty good. It's definitely a page-turner. But I don't think anybody who didn't go to law school or is planning on going to law school will find it very intriguing. That is the problem with the law school memoir as a genre. Still, I think Lax made better use out of his law degree than a lot of disappointed graduates nowadays. At least it gave him good material for a book.
Then again, there is one non-nitpick critique I can make of this book: it loses steam in its second-half. Lax seems to rush through the story of the spring semester. Part of this is understandable: his school was not crazy and probably enrolled 1Ls in 3 credits of Constitutional Law and Contracts both semesters, instead of 5 credits in one semester. So there's not a lot of new stuff to mention except Torts and Property.
But now we get to the fun part: comparing experiences. Because it really is sad, how similar every law school is to every other one, regardless of ranking. It's one of the reasons so many people criticize the proliferation of law schools today--because they are just so easy to plan. There are too many of them and I have been saying for a couple years now that the ABA should limit the number of new graduates entering the workforce because that is the only way to prevent a highly-indebted unemployed glut of new graduates applying for the same few entry-level jobs that get posted. The market will fix itself, some believe, and while overall enrollment has dropped, I think it's still way too high. If it's unfair to close schools, then each should just be forced to reduce the size of their first-year class to a quota. It might sound like a totalitarian regime, but it would be better for those choosing to enter the profession in the long run (it is really depressing to go through such hell for 3 years, take on a load of debt, jump through dozens of hoops, only to be laughed at because you're useless) and at the very least it would make for an interesting Supreme Court case. I digress.
Rick Lax went to DePaul Law School. I almost went there. Now that I have chosen to live in Chicago, I wish I had gone there. But I did get in and I could appreciate some of the details. The book starts out very strong, with Lax describing why he wanted to go to law school in the first place, what it was like to take the LSAT, and what it was like to choose his school:
"I realized that my full-time immaturity shtick would one day inevitably turn from cute and charming to sad and creepy. I realized that I couldn't live with my parents forever, that I needed a place of my own, and that magic wouldn't pay the bills--the ones I'd presumably have if I had a place of my own. I realized that I had to go to law school...because it's not like I was going to get a job or anything." (9)
Of course, plenty of people on the internet will laugh at that paragraph as a supreme exercise in irony. But this was in 2006 (or so). Lax wanted to go to University of Michigan, which is where he went for undergrad, where his father went, and which was closest to home. But he couldn't get in. I could say the same thing about myself and NYU:
"Getting into the University of Michigan's undergraduate program was tough--I'd needed to transfer in. Getting into their law school, I recognized, would be almost impossible. The Supreme Court made that much clear in the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger. The case's opinion begins: "The [University of Michigan] Law School ranks among the Nation's top law schools. It receives more than 3,500 applications each year for a class of around 350 students." In Grutter, the Supreme Court held that state universities have a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body, and that this interest justifies the use of race as a factor in admissions. But even without affirmative action, plaintiff Barbara Grutter, who had a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, probably couldn't get into the University of Michigan Law School today. In recent years, the average incoming University of Michigan Law School student has had a 3.7 GPA and a 168 LSAT score." (12-13)
Lax got the same score as me: 163 and we didn't get to go to our dream schools. But this is pretty much where our stories diverge. He also applied to UNLV, DePaul, University of Chicago, NYU and Columbia. He got rejected everywhere except for the first two. And it probably would have been better for him to go to UNLV in the long run since apparently he lives there now (I know this through Twitter and I will post this review @him and hope not to get trolled) and it is probably the best place to make a living as a magician--which is the "hook" of this book.
Because see--if I wanted to write a law school memoir, there wouldn't be a "hook." It's that extra little something that makes a literary agent think that your book is going to be special or memorable or something. And some of the magician anecdotes are funny, but sometimes it feels a bit like "padding." First there's the appendix, which has a couple tricks that I am pretty sure you wouldn't be able to do just from reading it (I think with magic you need an in-person demonstration from someone willing to show the secrets). Second there are the numerous jokes about how no self-respecting person chooses magic as a profession, which okay, was probably true in 2006, but in 2014 no self-respecting person chooses law as a profession, unless they are sure they're really, really smart and are going to be in the top 10% or going to one of the very best schools. Sorry--must contain my cynicism.
But the details about DePaul are pretty priceless, and as a resident of Chicago, I can say the book is certainly true to life. First, there is the t-shirt:
"As expected, the University of Las Vegas accepted me, and even threw in a $9,000 annual scholarship. DePaul University College of Law in Chicago trumped that with an $18,000-a-year offer, accompanied by a 100 percent cotton XL school T-shirt."
I got the same one with a $20,000-a-year offer, four (?) years later. So still, we're in the same boat. However, there is a sad anecdote later on that I have trouble believing:
"On Monday, I wore my complimentary XL DePaul T-shirt to Con Law...as did Dan and two of the other serious students. I figured we'd all run out of clean clothes at the same time.
'Lookin good, Rick,' said Dan.
'You, too.' I turned to Nadeeka, who wasn't wearing a shirt, and said, 'It's DePaul T-shirt day. You didn't get the memo?'
She hadn't.
'Congratulations,' Dan said.
'On what?'
'Your scholarship. You got the shirt with the scholarship, right?'
The shirt went with the scholarship. Ah.
'You mean they didn't make you pick between the two?'
At the start of the semester, everybody must have assumed a handful of Section 2 students just happened to buy the same ill-fitting DePaul law school T-shirt. By the second week of class, most people had figured out what the T-shirts meant. By that week, wearing the shirt was no longer considered just a fashion misstep; it was considered a statment about the wearer's refusal to hide or apologize for her intellectualism." (82-83)
I think it is just incredible that DePaul would be so callous as to give scholarship students T-shirts, and non-scholarship students nothing. Perhaps the practice changed after a few years, but it just strikes me as a really cynical (maybe the wrong word?) thing to do. I got mine, and I liked wearing it to class because it was sort of a message like "fuck you, I hate this place and wish I went to DePaul" but I don't think anybody got it (and truthfully I didn't hate my school--just my first year, and I hate myself for what happened after--I actually have ridiculously fond memories of my second and third years).
Which is why I felt like Lawyer Boy was missing something. Of course, a lot of people say "1L is all that matters" and sure that's true for jobs--but I felt that the ending of the book was inaccurate. Lax writes about people getting jobs at big firms as if they're working there the summer after their 1L year. That's not the way it works! It's misleading. Maybe a couple of his friends got to do that, but I know basically no one that worked at firms during their 1L summer. Then again our school gave out a (fairly generous, at the time) public service grant so maybe most people did that because it was close to a livable wage. Basically this book ends like 1L is the end of law school and that's just not true--there's two more years of crap, and at least in my experience, the social aspect gets really interesting at that point because people stop spending 90% of their free time studying (maybe 90% is inaccurate but it felt like that for me) and start having social lives.
Still, it was funny to read about how similar our experiences were. One notable example was this introductory exercise, a welcoming speech from the Dean:
"Head Dean Glen Weissenberger spoke last: 'You've heard a lot about us, the faculty, and you've heard a lot about DePaul, but now I'd like to talk to you about something else: you. All two hundred and forty of you. Some of you came here from state college; some of you came here from Harvard. One of you has a Ph.D. in organic chemistry, another of you has one in materials engineering. One of you even designed spacecraft parts for Boeing.
'One of you is the president of a gospel choir. One taught English in Ghana. One survived testicular cancer. One lost over one hundred pounds in two years. One was attached by sharks. One worked for NATO in Kosovo as a counterintelligence agent with the U.S. Army.
'One of you is a professional magician, and that particularly excites me because I used to be a professional magician, too.'" (52)
Any of my classmates will recognize this ritual. It is almost as if the law schools feel obligated to perform this tradition--just like the obligation to retain the same first year courses, though some of them (*cough*property) are basically niche areas filled with arcane nonsense.
Weissenberger was later dismissed from the law school in 2009, so apparently Lax used real names. I'm not so sure about the other professors. While most of the professors are generally treated quite well in the book, the Legal Writing professor seems like one of the biggest jerks on the planet. I wouldn't be too surprised if this was an accurate portrait, but I'd be surprised if Lax didn't use a pseudonym. While Legal Writing assignments are graded anonymously, there is a fair amount of discussion of how the professor knew which assignments Lax had turned in, and so maybe it wouldn't make a difference if Lax used a pseudonym or not: the professor obviously must have known it was written about him/her. But apparently Devenpeck is a pseudonym. This is only interesting to me because Turow used pseudonyms for his professors, and as I toy with the idea of writing a law school memoir, I tend to wonder about the "libel" aspect. I wouldn't write anything bad about any of my professors, but I still feel weird writing about them, period, whether using pseudonyms or not, in a memoir. But if you don't use pseudonyms, you're pretty much obligated to only say nice things. Whatever.
The only other aspect I want to mention is that Lax seems to exhibit what a good percentage of my law school classmates also did: complete disregard for fiscal responsibility. This is mainly due to where he chooses to live, and how his parents are able to pay for it. Also I don't think he mentions taking out any loans. So a very important part of the puzzle is also missing for aspiring law students. This is also why I wish the 2L and 3L years were also included in this book.
One other thing I like about this book is that Lax provides snapshots of some of the cases he studied, and generally he picks out interesting ones (while also including a fairly concise summary of Marbury v. Madison, though I think someone else probably did a better job).
Finally, Justice Scalia is not mentioned until page 206. At least he gets mentioned. But any law school memoir in the late 20th or early 21st century has to say something about Scalia. The thing I like most about him is that most law students hate his philosophy, but still love him because he can be a very witty writer. Justice Douglas is not mentioned at all, and I will still persist in calling him my favorite. He may not be the wittiest (though there is usually a humorous sentence or two in each of his opinions), but I still think he's one of the few who lived his life according to his judicial philosophy, and so he is automatically interesting.
In the end, I can only give a lukewarm recommendation for this book. I don't want to say "not recommended" because I think it does about as good a job as can be expected, and I shouldn't judge it because I wanted to see it do something differently. However, I would be curious to know why Lax didn't want to include the 2L and 3L years. Maybe that is a blessing, because perhaps the law school memoir that is an exhaustive account of the entire thing has yet to be written. Perhaps I haven't really been looking for it, or just wouldn't want to read it, but I have to believe that a law school memoir published in 2010 or later from a non-T14 student/graduate could be a contender for the Pulitzer Prize due to tragic content. I pray for all of us--that we make something of our lives, and that they are not cut short by psychosomatic tragedy.
Labels:
1L,
BLS,
DePaul Law School,
Justice Douglas,
Justice Scalia,
Law School,
Lawyer Boy,
Legal Writing,
Rick Lax,
Scott Turow
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Special Comment: I will say this twice
First of all, I'd like to apologize. I haven't written a post in what, two months? And no hiatus message? Clearly, other things have been going on. Rest assured, a review of The Big Short will be coming down the pipeline in the next week, so stay tuned.
Second, I'd like to apologize for writing this post. I really don't want to do it. It forces me to say a lot of things I'd rather not say. I am sure I could say nothing and just let it die, and I'm afraid if I do this it will start things back up again. I've never been one to attack strangers on the internet, and I don't want to do it. But I have to defend myself.
For those of you that don't know, I have had my pathetic little fifteen minutes of crappy fame. I don't even want to post a link here. You can just google my name. Luckily only one of the two posts shows up in the first results. Unfortunately there were some pretty terrible pictures (or one, at least) that I just had to "report" on google.
I could launch into a full-on screed about cyber libel and how I should really turn this unfortunate event into a life lesson for all the scambloggers out there, but I don't want to invite any more speculation about what is or is not possible. I kindly left a comment after the first story was posted and it was deleted. I would rather not kindly ask anymore because if it goes down voluntarily, then it won't be as satisfying as, oh, returning the punch.
Because that is what we're told. In Catholic school at least. Do not get into fights. If someone hits you, do not hit them back. Turn the other cheek.
If I were making a six figure salary right now, I probably could do that. However, while I really didn't want to make substantive comments about scamblogging, I think I have to. Because I have to set things straight:
#1: I am not Mr. Infinity.
A lot of people think I am, for some reason. I will tell you this: I really did not do myself any favors by writing a special comment about scamblogs. I featured two of the blogs (maybe there was a third, but it had no fallout) in the comment. One of them responded in truly vicious fashion, and the other one wrote, "Thank you very much for featuring my blog, 'Law School Fail' on your analysis. Sincerely, Mr. Infinity." Now, I had already read the first post about me, so this did not come as a happy comment. I wanted to be like, "WTF dude, didn't you see that everyone thought I was you? Why didn't you tell them we're two different people?" Instead, he just linked to Flying Houses on his blogroll. I do not get very many hits from him.
But I'm not mad at him. I could speculate that he's a made-up person, too, but I don't want to fuel speculation that I'm paranoid schizophrenic.
However, I am not him. And the people that set out to destroy me (and if you think I'm being dramatic by saying that, you haven't read all the comments yet) probably won't believe that, but they should listen to reason and read the rest of my posts here. Flying Houses is my only blog (apart from http://daylightsavingstime-jk.blogspot.com/, which was my way of putting my first novel online) and it has always been primarily about book reviews.
I rarely get into trouble with book reviews. And in fact, the authors of some of the books I've reviewed have actually found them, and taken my criticism to heart. So blogging is not a totally stupid thing to do.
However, writing a column called NIED was probably not the smartest thing to do. I expected to get a lot of hate mail for what I wrote, and I did get a fair amount. But some of this hate mail crossed the line. Still, I am proud of (most of) my work for BLS Advocate. Of course I wrote 24 pieces, and some of them became extremely esoteric (i.e. http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/09/negligent-infliction-of-emotional_16.html), but overall, I think I wrote relatively well. Some people just didn't get the joke.
#2: I never said the scamblogs were wrong.
This is what infuriates me most: the only reason I became a target is because I made some very mild comments! I called the blog in question "an especially vicious site that seems to revel in parade after parade of horribles." I guess the really offensive thing is that I may have expressed what appeared to be sympathy for a person that has been skewered about ten times worse than I have, but who truly can "turn the other cheek" because fighting back is beneath her and she would rather have everyone wonder what she does than answer why she needs to get paid like half a million dollars a year, but whatever. What would be really cool is if she would notice what was going on, and pay me to "take care of the situation"--but I am sure she would rather pay her personal attorney than one of her "victims."
#3: I never took the NY Bar Exam.
And I did pass the Illinois Bar Exam. You can check iardc.org now if you need proof.
Actually, those commenters on story #2 alerted me to the fact that there was one more hoop to jump through after being sworn-in: registering. I registered a couple weeks after the comments came in that I was a liar.
Why did I not take the NY Bar Exam? I really don't think I need to explain myself, but people seem to want to know. First of all, let me agree with the person that said I was a "fucking idiot" for going back to Illinois. I know--it was a mistake. It is very hard to start off in a "new" city, even if you were born here and did your post-2L summer internship here. I certainly made more "contacts" in NYC, but most of those contacts were at the places I interned.
And I really did want to stay in NYC. I interviewed with one of those places where I did an internship, and I made it to the final round--but alas, I was not hired. At that point, I had registered for the NY Bar Exam. However, I cancelled that registration, and received a $250 refund (so for all the hesitant bar takers out there--it is possible! But you may need to show them a copy of your bank account balance). And, yes, I paid $1,450 to register in Illinois. It hurt, but so did paying like $1,800 to have my stuff (which wasn't even very much stuff!) shipped from Brooklyn to Chicago and stored for two months. And it hurt paying $1,080 for first month rent + security deposit without knowing when I would (or if I ever would) have stable income again.
But, I knew it wasn't likely that I would get a job at any of the other places I interned. They just weren't the types of places to be able to hire all (or most) of their past interns. I guess most places that do internships (and not summer associate-ships) are like that--but I always did my best at internships, with an eye towards the future. It almost worked out a couple times, but in the end it didn't, and while it was a painful decision, I just didn't want to face the horrible reality of taking the NY Bar while trying to find an apartment with a dwindling cash reserve and no proof of stable employment. I would have had to move out of my place two days after I took it.
So for the person that said it was "well-known" that I stayed in New York until August, you are correct! I flew back to Chicago, stayed here a few days, took the Bar, passed it (somehow--and I find it offensive that some of these commenters think I am a cocky POS when I have always been painfully honest about my grades and general level of intelligence), flew back to NYC, packed up my apartment, and then went to my sister's wedding in Massachusetts. I stayed so I could go to that wedding, and because I was working two days a week at the library.
#4: I did not move to California (that happened six-and-a-half years ago)
Seriously, why would I take the NY Bar if I was moving to California? The only time I contemplated moving to California after law school was when I interviewed for a bankruptcy clerkship in Oakland. I would never voluntarily go to CA to take the Bar there. That is the hardest bar exam in the country by a lot. However, if I was dead-set on moving there, I would have taken it over the NY Bar because it really would be retarded to think I'd be competitive in the job market there without in-state licensure.
I did move to Calfornia in 2007. But this is going to get into the fact that my life is "all sorts of epic fail," a comment that especially made me want to kill myself. Oh, don't let me confuse the issues here! This is not about cyberbullying; this is about cyber libel. It's not like I have a great reputation, okay, but when they swore us in on Halloween, all they wanted to talk about was that constant refrain that it takes years to build your reputation and minutes to destroy it, so be careful. And I have been pretty careful. People may think I'm reckless, but honestly, I have always been paying attention to the things I write and post online and the way I carry myself in day-to-day reality.
I moved there, and--what happened there, I will not tell. I'll let other people try to figure it out for themselves. But I will admit that Flying Houses was born in West L.A.
I'll also admit that I've pretty much said what I wanted to say, and unfortunately, I just have to record everything else that everyone got wrong.
#5: I am not a vegan.
But I wish I could be.
#6: I never wrote an e-book called "Derailed at my Law School"
And I would never publish a 25-page e-book. A 25-page book is probably not worth $0.99 (especially if it's electronic).
#7: I do allow comments on my site.
Even negative ones. But I delete spam.
#8: I don't always defend BLS.
I was complimenting the comment about the entering class size at BLS being too big. Some people just do not want to say a single nice thing about anybody. :(
#9: I am not Odnan.
I really didn't want to have to get into this either, but I seriously would not be so lame as to make a "copycat blog" or to write another e-book called "How to Win at Law School." While those may be uncanny parallels (perhaps Mr. Infinity does moonlight as Odnan), when I write an e-book, it's going to be called "TTT" or "A Mark" - not something lame and generic. I also wouldn't waste my time creating mirror blogs to make it seem like I have more fans than I really do. I'm proud of the fact that I have 52,000 page views. My audience is limited, but I care about creating quality content--not becoming a limited public figure.
#10: I am not going to address all of the comments after story #1.
It would take too long and get too tedious.
#11: I did not talk down to JD Painter.
And I would never make fun of someone who was deeply in debt and unable to get a decent job in the legal industry. That is just mean. And yes, I guess we are now in the same boat.
#12: I am not $300,000 in debt.
But I may be after 24 years of IBR at $30/month or whatever it ends up being if I attempt to live off tips. Wait for my blog and new pseudonym: JD Waiter.
I have nothing more to say except that I have always intended for my writing to bring other people a brief moment of happiness, or to feel less alone. I would never write about a person to try to destroy them unless they had done something pretty bad to me or someone I loved. I don't think I've done that and don't feel I deserve to be treated this way. People feel free to act like dicks on the internet because they can hide behind a pseudonym or declare themselves anonymous and nobody will ever call them out on that. But I honestly hope that one day all of the hurtful and insensitive comments, made with reckless disregard for the truth, will be treated as unprotected speech, as they are words that, by their very utterance, tend to inflict harm.
Second, I'd like to apologize for writing this post. I really don't want to do it. It forces me to say a lot of things I'd rather not say. I am sure I could say nothing and just let it die, and I'm afraid if I do this it will start things back up again. I've never been one to attack strangers on the internet, and I don't want to do it. But I have to defend myself.
For those of you that don't know, I have had my pathetic little fifteen minutes of crappy fame. I don't even want to post a link here. You can just google my name. Luckily only one of the two posts shows up in the first results. Unfortunately there were some pretty terrible pictures (or one, at least) that I just had to "report" on google.
I could launch into a full-on screed about cyber libel and how I should really turn this unfortunate event into a life lesson for all the scambloggers out there, but I don't want to invite any more speculation about what is or is not possible. I kindly left a comment after the first story was posted and it was deleted. I would rather not kindly ask anymore because if it goes down voluntarily, then it won't be as satisfying as, oh, returning the punch.
Because that is what we're told. In Catholic school at least. Do not get into fights. If someone hits you, do not hit them back. Turn the other cheek.
If I were making a six figure salary right now, I probably could do that. However, while I really didn't want to make substantive comments about scamblogging, I think I have to. Because I have to set things straight:
#1: I am not Mr. Infinity.
A lot of people think I am, for some reason. I will tell you this: I really did not do myself any favors by writing a special comment about scamblogs. I featured two of the blogs (maybe there was a third, but it had no fallout) in the comment. One of them responded in truly vicious fashion, and the other one wrote, "Thank you very much for featuring my blog, 'Law School Fail' on your analysis. Sincerely, Mr. Infinity." Now, I had already read the first post about me, so this did not come as a happy comment. I wanted to be like, "WTF dude, didn't you see that everyone thought I was you? Why didn't you tell them we're two different people?" Instead, he just linked to Flying Houses on his blogroll. I do not get very many hits from him.
But I'm not mad at him. I could speculate that he's a made-up person, too, but I don't want to fuel speculation that I'm paranoid schizophrenic.
However, I am not him. And the people that set out to destroy me (and if you think I'm being dramatic by saying that, you haven't read all the comments yet) probably won't believe that, but they should listen to reason and read the rest of my posts here. Flying Houses is my only blog (apart from http://daylightsavingstime-jk.blogspot.com/, which was my way of putting my first novel online) and it has always been primarily about book reviews.
I rarely get into trouble with book reviews. And in fact, the authors of some of the books I've reviewed have actually found them, and taken my criticism to heart. So blogging is not a totally stupid thing to do.
However, writing a column called NIED was probably not the smartest thing to do. I expected to get a lot of hate mail for what I wrote, and I did get a fair amount. But some of this hate mail crossed the line. Still, I am proud of (most of) my work for BLS Advocate. Of course I wrote 24 pieces, and some of them became extremely esoteric (i.e. http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/09/negligent-infliction-of-emotional_16.html), but overall, I think I wrote relatively well. Some people just didn't get the joke.
#2: I never said the scamblogs were wrong.
This is what infuriates me most: the only reason I became a target is because I made some very mild comments! I called the blog in question "an especially vicious site that seems to revel in parade after parade of horribles." I guess the really offensive thing is that I may have expressed what appeared to be sympathy for a person that has been skewered about ten times worse than I have, but who truly can "turn the other cheek" because fighting back is beneath her and she would rather have everyone wonder what she does than answer why she needs to get paid like half a million dollars a year, but whatever. What would be really cool is if she would notice what was going on, and pay me to "take care of the situation"--but I am sure she would rather pay her personal attorney than one of her "victims."
#3: I never took the NY Bar Exam.
And I did pass the Illinois Bar Exam. You can check iardc.org now if you need proof.
Actually, those commenters on story #2 alerted me to the fact that there was one more hoop to jump through after being sworn-in: registering. I registered a couple weeks after the comments came in that I was a liar.
Why did I not take the NY Bar Exam? I really don't think I need to explain myself, but people seem to want to know. First of all, let me agree with the person that said I was a "fucking idiot" for going back to Illinois. I know--it was a mistake. It is very hard to start off in a "new" city, even if you were born here and did your post-2L summer internship here. I certainly made more "contacts" in NYC, but most of those contacts were at the places I interned.
And I really did want to stay in NYC. I interviewed with one of those places where I did an internship, and I made it to the final round--but alas, I was not hired. At that point, I had registered for the NY Bar Exam. However, I cancelled that registration, and received a $250 refund (so for all the hesitant bar takers out there--it is possible! But you may need to show them a copy of your bank account balance). And, yes, I paid $1,450 to register in Illinois. It hurt, but so did paying like $1,800 to have my stuff (which wasn't even very much stuff!) shipped from Brooklyn to Chicago and stored for two months. And it hurt paying $1,080 for first month rent + security deposit without knowing when I would (or if I ever would) have stable income again.
But, I knew it wasn't likely that I would get a job at any of the other places I interned. They just weren't the types of places to be able to hire all (or most) of their past interns. I guess most places that do internships (and not summer associate-ships) are like that--but I always did my best at internships, with an eye towards the future. It almost worked out a couple times, but in the end it didn't, and while it was a painful decision, I just didn't want to face the horrible reality of taking the NY Bar while trying to find an apartment with a dwindling cash reserve and no proof of stable employment. I would have had to move out of my place two days after I took it.
So for the person that said it was "well-known" that I stayed in New York until August, you are correct! I flew back to Chicago, stayed here a few days, took the Bar, passed it (somehow--and I find it offensive that some of these commenters think I am a cocky POS when I have always been painfully honest about my grades and general level of intelligence), flew back to NYC, packed up my apartment, and then went to my sister's wedding in Massachusetts. I stayed so I could go to that wedding, and because I was working two days a week at the library.
#4: I did not move to California (that happened six-and-a-half years ago)
Seriously, why would I take the NY Bar if I was moving to California? The only time I contemplated moving to California after law school was when I interviewed for a bankruptcy clerkship in Oakland. I would never voluntarily go to CA to take the Bar there. That is the hardest bar exam in the country by a lot. However, if I was dead-set on moving there, I would have taken it over the NY Bar because it really would be retarded to think I'd be competitive in the job market there without in-state licensure.
I did move to Calfornia in 2007. But this is going to get into the fact that my life is "all sorts of epic fail," a comment that especially made me want to kill myself. Oh, don't let me confuse the issues here! This is not about cyberbullying; this is about cyber libel. It's not like I have a great reputation, okay, but when they swore us in on Halloween, all they wanted to talk about was that constant refrain that it takes years to build your reputation and minutes to destroy it, so be careful. And I have been pretty careful. People may think I'm reckless, but honestly, I have always been paying attention to the things I write and post online and the way I carry myself in day-to-day reality.
I moved there, and--what happened there, I will not tell. I'll let other people try to figure it out for themselves. But I will admit that Flying Houses was born in West L.A.
I'll also admit that I've pretty much said what I wanted to say, and unfortunately, I just have to record everything else that everyone got wrong.
#5: I am not a vegan.
But I wish I could be.
#6: I never wrote an e-book called "Derailed at my Law School"
And I would never publish a 25-page e-book. A 25-page book is probably not worth $0.99 (especially if it's electronic).
#7: I do allow comments on my site.
Even negative ones. But I delete spam.
#8: I don't always defend BLS.
I was complimenting the comment about the entering class size at BLS being too big. Some people just do not want to say a single nice thing about anybody. :(
#9: I am not Odnan.
I really didn't want to have to get into this either, but I seriously would not be so lame as to make a "copycat blog" or to write another e-book called "How to Win at Law School." While those may be uncanny parallels (perhaps Mr. Infinity does moonlight as Odnan), when I write an e-book, it's going to be called "TTT" or "A Mark" - not something lame and generic. I also wouldn't waste my time creating mirror blogs to make it seem like I have more fans than I really do. I'm proud of the fact that I have 52,000 page views. My audience is limited, but I care about creating quality content--not becoming a limited public figure.
#10: I am not going to address all of the comments after story #1.
It would take too long and get too tedious.
#11: I did not talk down to JD Painter.
And I would never make fun of someone who was deeply in debt and unable to get a decent job in the legal industry. That is just mean. And yes, I guess we are now in the same boat.
#12: I am not $300,000 in debt.
But I may be after 24 years of IBR at $30/month or whatever it ends up being if I attempt to live off tips. Wait for my blog and new pseudonym: JD Waiter.
I have nothing more to say except that I have always intended for my writing to bring other people a brief moment of happiness, or to feel less alone. I would never write about a person to try to destroy them unless they had done something pretty bad to me or someone I loved. I don't think I've done that and don't feel I deserve to be treated this way. People feel free to act like dicks on the internet because they can hide behind a pseudonym or declare themselves anonymous and nobody will ever call them out on that. But I honestly hope that one day all of the hurtful and insensitive comments, made with reckless disregard for the truth, will be treated as unprotected speech, as they are words that, by their very utterance, tend to inflict harm.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
My Beloved World - Sonia Sotomayor
It is appropriate that My Beloved World will be my final post on Flying Houses before I leave Brooklyn Law School. I expected to put the blog on hiatus for most of law school, but I ended up remaining somewhat prolific and increased its popularity exponentially. "My Beloved World" refers to Puerto Rico in this book, but my beloved world will be the library at Brooklyn Law School, which I will be sad to leave. There have been many miserable things about law school, and while aesthetically our library cannot compete with say, Pepperdine's (which features a view of the Pacific Ocean that surely puts it at the very top), I have always felt that there has been such a wealth of knowledge and information here that learning about the "legal aspect" of any topic was within my grasp. In my case it came in the form of the biographical accounts of Supreme Court Justices--truly the best models one could hope to have in trying to achieve excellence.
Of course, it is extraordinarily unlikely that I will ever be a federal judge, but at the very beginning of this book, Sotomayor assures all that it is okay to dream:
"A student recently posed another question that gave me pause: 'Given that there are only nine Supreme Court Justices, each with life tenure, can anyone realistically aspire to such a goal? How do we hold on to dreams that, statistically, are almost impossible?' As I tell in these pages, the dream I first followed was to become a judge, which itself seemed far-fetched until it actually happened. The idea of my becoming a Supreme Court Justice--which, indeed, as a goal would inevitably elude the vast majority of aspirants--never occurred to me except as the remotest of fantasies. But experience has taught me that you cannot value dreams according to their odds of coming true. Their real value is in stirring within us the will to aspire. That will, wherever it finally leads, does at least move you forward. And after a time you may recognize that the proper measure of success is not how much you've closed the distance to some far-off goal but the quality of what you've done today." (viii)
Most striking about My Beloved World is Sotomayor's natural flair as a storyteller. It is written almost as if it were a novel, and even has a couple of moments of "magical realism" that would not be out of place in a Marquez novel. However, Sotomayor ends the story when she is appointed as a federal judge in the Southern District of New York in 1992. Of course many law students and legal scholars will want to hear about Citizens United or Sebelius or other landmark decisions that were heard sufficiently long before publication, but no such treats are offered. And it is probably for good reason: Sotomayor (like almost all federal judges) is politically savvy. Later on in the book she rebuffs a colleague's suggestion to join the Republican party in order to have a better chance of nomination, deciding instead to register without any party affiliation. Of course people view her as one of the "liberal Justices" and for the most part she has lived up to that stereotype. However, I was quite surprised to read about her feelings on the criminal justice system. While I am sure that she considers all cases fairly and without bias, I would generally presume that a "liberal Justice" would show slight bias to the Defense, and not the Prosecution. However, Sotomayor started her career at the New York County District Attorney's Office, and I was shocked to read some of her statements regarding criminal law:
"However caustic, Judge Rothwax was no cynic, though like many a cynic he had been disillusioned, having started his career as a Legal Aid attorney and civil rights advocate before becoming a prosecutor. That early experience led him to conclude that given all the elaborate protections of the rights of the accused, any defendant whose case eventually came to trial was almost certainly guilty. In a controversial book, the judge proposed abolishing the Miranda warning and other rules that he believed handicapped the police and prosecutors; he also argued that a 10-2 jury verdict was close enough to unanimous for conviction. I wasn't prepared to accept his presumption of guilt, though it is borne out statistically: policemen don't normally make arrests on sheer caprice; most defendants do turn out to be guilty. But a probability of guilt doesn't seem reason enough to revise our standards of due process. These are designed to protect everyone from the human frailties of those whom we entrust to enforce the state's tremendous powers. Even if the vast majority of the law's agents exercise these powers scrupulously, it is unconscionable that anyone should pay for a crime of which he was unjustly accused. Blackstone's famous ratio ('better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer') still speaks to a deep-seated sense of what is just." (208)
Thus, Sotomayor covers herself--at least in this regard. She does offer up some incredible stories and is not afraid to write about sensitive topics. I would say that this book should be required reading for anybody that would like to be a prosecutor (or a criminal defense attorney, for that matter), if only because she offers valuable tips for success. It is extremely difficult to argue with Sotomayor: she is wise, and what the book beautifully captures is how she turned her "humble beginnings" into an asset rather than a liability. But first, two tips for criminal trial attorneys. The first is emotion:
"Granting myself permission to use my innate skills of the heart, accepting that emotion was perfectly valid in the art of persuasion, amounted to nothing less than a breakthrough. Warren [Murray] would teach me much else in the way of trial skills, as had John Fried, Katie Law, and others at the DA's Office. But that was the single most powerful lesson I would learn. It changed my entire approach to jurors, from the voir dire to the structure of my summations, and the results spoke for themselves: I never lost a case again. I had hung juries a couple of times, and once or twice a conviction on fewer than all counts of the indictment, but never an acquittal.
Leveraging emotional intelligence in the courtroom, as in life, depends on being attentive; the key is always to watch and listen. You don't need to take notes with the court reporter getting down every word. Lower your eyes to your pad, and you're bound to miss that hint of a doubt that flits across the witness's face. Scribble instead of listening, and you won't notice the split second of hesitation in which a witness hedges a choice of words, avoiding the ones that would flow naturally in favor of the ones whose truth he or she is more certain of." (210)
The second is jury selection, debunking a myth that still seems to creep into the minds of attorneys today:
"Other lessons I would figure out for myself, often contrary to conventional wisdom. Some prosecutors, for instance, would look for legitimate reasons to eliminate black and Hispanic juror candidates in the voir dire, the assumption being that minorities are biased in favor of defendants. But to me that made sense only if you saw all people of color as potential perpetrators and believed, even more implausibly, that they all saw one another that way, too. It was obvious to me that any black or Latino who held a job, or went to school, or stay home to care for an elderly parent was likely as law-abiding as anyone in my own family and, if anything, far likelier to be the victim of a crime than to commit one. The notion that such a person would, on the basis of racial or ethnic solidarity, let anyone walk who might pose a danger to the community would have seemed laughable where I came from. And so I packed my juries with the kinds of people I'd grown up among; the results, again, spoke for themselves." (211-212)
While I do not believe this book will get any "bad reviews," it is not perfect (I found two typos: "Riven" instead of "Driven" near the beginning; "judge (last name)"). Some might decry sections of the book as being too "touchy-feely" and lacking in clues to Sotomayor's jurisprudence--but she anticipates this in the preface. I would have liked to see a section on her decision that ended the Major League Baseball strike in 1994, but perhaps we will need to wait until she retires for her "judicial autobiography." I must say that I read the book in a week, as "pleasure reading" while studying for the Bar, and was dismayed that she did not devote a single word to her experience of taking it (perhaps some memories are better forgotten). But while I cannot say it is one of the best books I have reviewed on Flying Houses, it contains unmistakable wisdom, clarity and value. And I found Chapter 24 to be the single best moment of the book. Justice Sotomayor indulges in a fair bit of self-deprecation, which is welcome in a book where she has to explain how she achieved such magnificent heights. She is also extremely funny at times.
In Chapter 24 she describes her life after her divorce from her high-school sweetheart, moving to Carroll Gardens and getting advice from friends on dating, with which she did not have much experience. She writes about her prospects of giving birth to a child and her life as a diabetic. She writes about adoption. She writes about her circle of friends and how they have kept her from feeling alone.
She also writes about smoking:
"I had been a smoker since high school, burning through three and a half packs a day for much of my life. I made my first serious attempt at quitting in my final year of law school: every time I felt the urge, I ran around the block, often with Kevin and Star chugging alongside in solidarity. Going cold turkey during exams may sound like a needlessly brutal rigor, but in retrospect it seems less perversely self-punishing than lighting up again two years later when Kevin and I split. There would be further attempts, using various methods, including hypnosis, but nothing worked for good until I saw little Kiley holding a pencil between two fingers, blowing imaginary smoke rings. The guilt of endangering the health of a loved one is by far the best motivation I've discovered." (284)
She also writes about Puerto Rico's strange situation as an American territory, but not a State. I do not know if Puerto Rico will ever become a State, but if it does, I think Sotomayor will be considered an important figure in bringing the issue back to the forefront. However, her feelings on the matter are somewhat masked:
"Again and again, the conversation returned to the island's political status. Did we want to remain a commonwealth, with some self-rule and a preferential trade relationship with the mainland? Half the class believed that was no better than being a colony of the United States, living as second-class citizens. But if we should aspire to statehood, the full rights of citizenship would come at the price of the full obligations, including a tax burden that, arguably, might have crippled our economy at the time. Some proposed, with passionate conviction, that full independence was the only way to preserve our culture and the proper dignity of self-determination. The economic repercussions of each position were as inscrutably complex as they were critical to the arguments. And for those who are eager to discern my present views on the status question, I can only advise you not to give too much weight to whatever ideas vied for prominence in a young student's mind." (152)
All I can say is that this book really made me appreciate Sotomayor and the contributions she continues to make to our country. If I ever get the chance to meet her, I will ask her for a hug. I would imagine she gives amazing hugs.
Here is a clip that perhaps better encapsulates what is so great about her: her willingness to be a public figure and to serve as a role model par excellence:
Labels:
Bar Exam,
BLS,
Flying Houses,
Justice Sotomayor,
My Beloved World,
Supreme Court,
Yale
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



