Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Law Review Lara Recommends Apostasy:
A reader asks Law Review Lara -- well, no reader has actually asked
Lara this, but she thinks they should, since she's run across this
sentiment in the past:
I'm an editor on a law review, and I know the Bluebook says (Rule
5.1) that "[q]uotations of fifty or more words should be" set as
block quotes, while "[q]uotations of forty-nine or fewer words
should be" set as normal quotes. Yet a professor I'm working with
insists on having some 55-word quotations be set as normal quotes,
and some 45-word quotations be set as block quotes. And when I
suggest that if he wants something not to be a block quote, he
should edit out several words, he just growls. What should I do?
The answer, Lara says, is to change religions. Naturally, if one
belongs to a religious denomination that relies on literal adherence
to Holy Writ, and if that Holy Writ is the Bluebook, then one must
obey God's will. Or if Congress were to enact the Bluebook as law, and
punish violations as felonies, then good law-abiding editors should
follow the law.
But for those who belong to more mainstream religions -- to which Lara
suggests you convert -- the Bluebook is just what a bunch of editors
on several law journals have made up in order to make writers',
editors', and readers' lives easier. It often offers wise counsel.
Sometimes, following it is necessary for academic honesty (for
instance, when the Bluebook requires that writers note alterations in
quotations, and readers expect that such alterations are indeed
noted). Sometimes, it helps readers find the cited sources. Sometimes,
it helps avoid ugly inconsistencies, for instance if a writer uses one
citation format and then a few footnotes later uses a different
citation format for a similar source. Still, it's not The Law, human
or divine.
In particular, the 50-word rule is obviously a helpful guideline that
reflects a sensible general propositions: Long quotes tend to be more
readable as block quotes, and short quotes tend to be more readable as
non-block quotes. Still, the point of the rule is readability, not
following the rule for its own sake.
When following the rule makes the article less readable -- for
instance, when setting a 55-word quote as a block quote unduly
emphasizes it (especially compared to other equally important but
shorter neighboring quotes), or when setting a 45-word quote as a
block quote would provide helpful emphasis -- ignore the rule. No-one
will punish you with damnation or prison. No reader will count the
words and be shocked by your transgression.
In fact, the insistence on this particular rule is the classic example
of the Apotheosis of the Bluebook. It's hard to come up with a better
case of what law review editors, with the best of intentions and a
good deal of unnecessary effort, sometimes do wrong. (Here's a rival
candidate: Lara once wrote an article in which she mentioned the First
Amendment, and an editor added a footnote attached to the text "the
First Amendment" -- the footnote said "U.S. Const. amend. I.")
Lara should stress that there are doubtless many examples of what law
review authors do wrong, and of what law review editors do right. For
instance, law review editors often find errors in the author's use of
sources, thus sparing the author embarrassment and preventing readers
from being misled. Editors also often catch many errors in
proofreading (including proofreading for Bluebook style in the many
cases where the Bluebook does offer good advice). And they often
provide many helpful editing suggestions that make articles clearer
and more readable.
But these valuable tasks are only made harder by the Cult of the
Bluebook. Lose that religion, dear reader, Lara urges.
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
