Old and New Perspectives on Problems of Legal Scholarship

At Prawfsblawg, Paul Horwitz criticizes the overuse of exaggerated novelty claims in articles' abstracts and introductions.  Pointing to articles by Mark Tushnet and Judge Richard Posner, Horwitz notes that many articles often make similar argumentative moves, that authors may be pressured to publish by their departments, and that editors are susceptible to novelty claims because they want to feel relevant.

Meanwhile, via the Zombie Law blog (of all places), I learned about this excellent essay by Fred Roddell.  Though it was published in 1936, I found that much of Roddell's criticism remains relevant to legal scholarship today.  Some of Roddell's more memorable remarks include how to find humor in law review articles:

Occasionally, very occasionally, a bit of heavy humor does get into print. But it must be the sort of humor that tends to produce, at best, a cracked smile rather than a guffaw. And most law review writers, trying to produce a cracked smile, come out with one of those pedantic wheezes that get an uncomfortably forced response when professors use them in a classroom. The best way to get a laugh out of a law review is to take a couple of drinks and then read an article, any article, aloud. That can be really funny.

The strange implications of requiring numerous footnotes:

[Probative footnotes] also show the suspicious twist of the legal mind. The idea seems to be that a man can not be trusted to make a straight statement unless he takes his readers by the paw and leads them to chapter and verse. Every legal writer is presumed to be a liar until he proves himself otherwise with a flock of footnotes.

And, notably, authors' fear of making bold statements:

[I]t is in the law reviews that a pennyworth of content is most frequently concealed beneath a pound of so-called style. The average law review writer is peculiarly able to say nothing with an air of great importance. When I used to read law reviews, I used constantly to be reminded of an elephant trying to swat a fly.
. . .
Long sentences, awkward constructions, and fuzzy-wuzzy words that seem to apologize for daring to venture an opinion are part of the price the law reviews pay for their precious dignity. And circumlocution does not make for strong writing.  I grant that a rapier in capable hands can be just as effective as a 'bludgeon. But the average law review writer, scorning the common bludgeon and reaching into his style for a rapier, finds himself trying to wield a barn door.

I think that Roddell's points are as relevant to today's legal scholarship as the points Horwitz, Tushnet, and Posner make.  I think that this is especially interesting with respect to Roddell's last point about the fear of making strong claims.  While the bulk of most legal articles fits Roddell's characterization, the consistent exception to this rule is the abstract and introduction.  In my experience, many articles consist of a deafening fanfare that gives way to mumbling and rambling.