Ah, The Bluebook. A stupid book with a stupid name. It’s roundly criticized, and rightly so. The only purpose of citation ought to be utility; The Bluebook tries to elevate it to mysticism, utility be damned in favor of fanatical devotion. Written by (mostly) ignorant youngsters who haven’t yet written a damn thing worth reading, and enforced by other (mostly) slightly-less-spoiled ignorant youngsters who haven’t yet written a damn thing worth reading, it ought to break the laws of physics that it’s still in print, let alone followed by anyone writing something worth reading. But so it goes. (And yes, I was once one of those youngsters but, in my slight defense, I thought the entire process a trave-sham-ockery then as well.)
It is good, then, to see this post by Will Baude taking it to task. Taking it to task… somewhat. He has much greater respect for Bluebook arcana than do I. But he does take it to task, and since his is a relatively mighty voice in legal academia, I welcome it.
“The most problematic development,” says Baude, “is … [that] more and more law journal editors … treat the Bluebook as if it were not a style guide but a straitjacket.” That’s absolutely right, and he proceeds to rightly castigate the newly absurd rules regarding mandatory parentheticals. They are indeed “incoherent” and “cumbersome,” and, well, just plain vanilla stupid. But, you know, when you haven’t yet written anything worth reading, yet you have been initiated into this false priesthood of blue devotees, these things will happen.
So, mostly I’m just here to trumpet Baude’s post, because that post might just do some good in the world. I will note, however, that he is not consistent in the “straitjacket” terminology; at times, including as a subtitle to his post and in its closing line, he uses a gentler form: “Editors should treat the Bluebook as a style guide, not a statute, and authors should not acquiesce when they try.”
Alas, were it treated only as a statute, we’d be far better off! Statutes of course fall before conflicting constitutions, in our country both state and federal. And they fall to overarching norms like criminal law’s doctrine of necessity. The rules of The Bluebook, by contrast, are increasingly being enforced as if they were the gods’ triumphal decrees, subject to no non-deific overrides. (The blue deities do meet every five years to, you know, change it up.)
I will end with my “bluebooking” pet peeve, which is the overarching tendency to massive over-citation. As an author in a law review, I cannot assert anything based upon my 25 years of teaching and writing. It might be the most obvious aspect of our criminal law, but my assertion cannot stand. However, if law review editors can find one previous law review article published anywhere and written by anyone, well, we are good to go. See Whoever-the-F-We-Found, Asserting Stuff Without Cause, 1 SomePlace L. & Poetry Rev. 435, 489 (1942). It matters not that said person themselves provided no meaningful basis for the assertion. It matters not that said person was a law student when they wrote. It’s simply “problem solved.” And don’t even get me started on the tendency to require citation on introductory sentences for which later, specific sentences will be amply supported.
Sigh… so it goes.
Leave a Reply