I don't mean to nitpick, Tom, but is this really your plan?

Note: I’m not interested in hosting discussions about the merits of or difficulties with breastfeeding in this space, so I reserve the right to freeze or delete comments that do so. I’d prefer that you insult neither me nor my mom. The law I’m going to be talking about starts with a legislative finding that “breast is best,” so the fact of that finding is relevant, but that’s it.

Laws, like television shows, require interpretation. This is why John Roberts was dangerously misleading in his confirmation hearings for Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court when he described a judge’s job as “calling balls and strikes.” A judge is often simultaneously setting the boundaries of the strike zone and defining the lines the runners need to follow. Also the shape of the bat and the distance from the mound. Well, I hope you get the point.

( Your body is a battleground; so are your laws )

Ok, apparently I'm in a mood to post bits of my reading. Here is the stupidest thing I've read in a law review in a while:

The Harry Potter series of books, for example, are works of pure fancy. These books certainly deal with issues of human nature-- addressing subjects like the struggle between good and evil, self-awareness, and coming of age--but they are set in a parallel universe. They make no explicit attempt to address important social or political topics, and as such they should be free from subsequent use [for purposes of fair use analysis].

Such is the case with many works of fantasy, as well as most works of genre fiction. Genre fiction (horror, mystery, romance) is typically about the plot of the story or about the main character's experience within the setting developed in the story. These works deal with human nature but generally lack social commentary. Romance novels, for example, deal with love, lust, romance, and human relationships. These works, however, are largely divorced from the issues and problems of the real world.

Hi, author? Most contemporary literary theory and several entire genres would like to talk to you out back.  Romance in particular is curious about your experience of the real world.  Well, "curious" is one way to put it.

Dear XXXX Law Review:

I will pay you a hundred dollars for every person who knows enough to read my article but nonetheless requires an explanation of what Grokster and Napster are. Really. Still, you've worn me down. I'll add footnotes for both.

Also, the reason you liked this article so much was that it didn't read like all the others you get. Thus, your attempt to flatten the language so that it reads more like a law review article is a mistake. I'll give you the elimination of all the contractions; I'll even give you most of the extra "that"s and "which"s. But understand that, while I am not a beautiful and unique snowflake, I can be a more engaging writer than you're allowing me to be.

And in conclusion: You are preventing me from writing fanfiction. Well, you and the three other deadlines for actual work, but I blame you anyway.

Yours sincerely,
Rivka

Trying to submit my latest piece to the law reviews, I came across this gem: "The Georgia Law Review prides itself on the timely publication of inciteful legal scholarship and commentary."

Although I'm happy to incite, I'm even more amused to have this great example of how slips of the keyboard are not limited to fanfic.

I read an article today that included a reference to another law review article which argued that it's good that Superman is the intellectual property of a single corporation motivated to keep his image pristine, because otherwise there would be a lot of pornography featuring Superman.

...

I like my ivory tower better. Mine is much better stocked with porn.

I have deep theoretical thoughts about the broader issue -- what I call the J. Geils "My Angel Is a Centerfold" problem of people who suffer when their beloved icons are reworked without their consent, and how that should count when we're assessing how much freedom later authors should have to rework characters and situations -- which I will try to write up on my aca-blog. I think of such people as "utility monsters" in the Nozickian sense, because they gain utility by denying it to others (or, they are hurt by other people getting things those others want) -- but perhaps I am being unfair. (Short definition of utility monsters here.)

At least I was able to suggest some sources for the primary article's very casual discussion of Batman, which made the point that corporate ownership hardly ensures preservation of a single original vision of a character. Will Brooker's excellent Batman Unmasked, of course, and Geoff Klock's How to Read Superhero Comics and Why, which I'm enjoying reading, though so far its argument does not seem to justify the title.