In (Partial) Defense of the Michigan Books Issue, and of Book Reviews Generally

Stephen  Griffin has an interesting post at Balkinization lamenting what he calls "the sad decline of the Michigan Law Review's books issue."  He argues that the review has recently ignored significant works in constitutional law and theory, while disdaining the con law-related books the editors have chosen to review recently.  The comments, especially those by Kevin Jon Heller (pointing out that he pitched a review to Michigan, and asking whether Griffin has actually tried to review any of the books he mentions) and Sandy Levinson (arguing that all law reviews are displaying a sad decline in the number of book reviews they run) are especially interesting.

I think Sandy is right.  With some exceptions, law reviews are not paying enough attention to the "front of the book" and "back of the book matter" -- essays, book reviews, occasional pieces of various kinds -- that don't fit the main article format but are nonetheless often the most engaging, instructive, and readable pieces in the book.  In particular, book reviews not only perform the service of discussing and critiquing important book-length contributions to the law; they are also far more sharp and genuine expressions of the views of the reviewing author, and are superior in some sense to mainline law review articles in that space constraints force the author not to use the kitchen-sink approach (reviewing the entire history of the literature in the area, etc.) that so often bloats journal articles.  Law review editors really ought to think about how the whole book looks and reads, and make room for shorter pieces and more innovative and unconventional projects, most certainly including book reviews.  Too many journals don't even have a book review editor at all.  (Incidentally, while we're talking about the back of the book, I think Columbia deserves praise for having and using essay editors in a fashion that has distinctly improved the overall product.)

But we can't simply lay the blame at the feet of the editors, as Stephen seems to do.  I'm the incoming faculty advisor to my school's law review, and I've encouraged them to run more book reviews and think generally about the shape of the book.  Have other faculty advisors done the same?  And as Kevin notes, Michigan actually, and commendably, does accept short-form proposals for reviews.  So perhaps the problem lies with faculty members who are not fulfilling their scholarly duty to engage important books in their fields by proposing and writing book reviews.  The fault, dear Stephen, lies not in our stars. . . . I should also note that I proposed and published a review in last year's Books Issue of Kenji Yoshino's Covering.  Maybe they didn't call the section in which they placed it "constitutional law and theory," but that's surely what the book involves.

One last point: Although I hope journals will run more book reviews, they should do it right.  Those few journals that do habitually run reviews usually rely on soliciting pieces from prominent authors.  Not only does this limit the potential number of reviewing authors to folks who are already part of the same elite conversation, but it gives rise to all kinds of self-dealing problems.  A friend informed me, reasonably reliably, about a recent set of reviews in a prominent journal that were motivated variously by some students' desires to meet and flatter particular professors and, in one case, to get to know a particular judge in hopes of landing a clerkship.  (Other anecdotal information, omitting specific names, is welcome from commenters with knowledge of such behavior.)  We could do with much, much less of that kind of thing.  Journals should not only accept submitted reviews, but should also allow and encourage more short-length proposals by would-be reviewers rather than wait for the full review. 

I admit that this is a self-serving recommendation, since I'm about to pitch some law reviews on a joint review of recent/forthcoming books on judging by Jefferson Powell and Richard Posner.  (And yes, I'm more than happy to hear from editors out there who might be interested in running my review.)  But it's good advice nonetheless.