Comments on: Tales of a Law Professor Lateral Nothing

By: Scott Moss

Scott Moss — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:44:59 +0000

Notwithstanding the snipes by the above bravely anonymous commenters, there is a serious debate about the propriety of narrative in legal scholarship. It’s entirely legit for Paul to say (I’m paraphrasing), “this is an example of how, for some kinds of writing about some legal topics, narrative is entirely appropriate.” Think of it in the reverse: For Paul to write about what he learned about the lateral market in a NON-narrative way would be forced and artificial.

And to the third commenter: You might want to stick with comic books if you think “deconstructing” is too big a word, or “deconstructing the arbitrary processes of the legal academic hiring market” means he’s writing about “high-flown theory.” I suppose Paul could have said, “The first-person narrative is good for pointing out problems in professor hiring” — but I don’t think he’s really required to dumb it down to your personal reading level.

By: Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:53:08 +0000

“…the narrative voice is an important, and perhaps underutilized, tool in deconstructing the arbitrary processes of the legal academic hiring market…”

A joke, right? A micro-version of the Sokal hoax? Law professors have always loved to dress up their prosaic opinions in the clothes of high-flown theory, but this is ridiculous.

By: prawfessorus

prawfessorus — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:37:20 +0000

I agree with the comment above. Moreover, your blog posts didn’t strike me as the case of “legal academic writing.” Presenting your essay as such doesn’t do any good to academic writing, and hardly attracts readership to the essay. I’d just present the piece for what it is (summary of one man’s experience on the market plus some general gossip) without grander claims. Not every paper has to use words “narrative” and “deconstruction.”

By: 2005

2005 — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:56:32 +0000

Here’s my visceral reaction to the abstract.

It tells me that you’re more interested in getting a first-person narrative into the law reviews than passing on useful information about the lateral hiring market.

The latter point is the only reason why I’d read the article. The “Second…” paragraph says to me “don’t waste your time.”