Bananas go to law school, too!


An Open Letter to Joseph W. Glannon

First of all, if you aren't a law student, this might not make so much sense. But, as background, Mr. Glannon is the author an assortment of highly recommended study guides for Civil Procedure and Torts.

Dear Joseph "W." Glannon,

Thank you for your omnipresent series of books to help me in my preparation for Civil Procedure and Torts. Especially Civil Procedure. I mean, seriously, without you I wouldn't know Rule 12(b)(2) from a hole in the wall. You're great! Ten points!

But just one thing.

You're so snarky! I know you think you're probably being funny. I'm sure you're a real classy guy, a guy who likes to joke and drink martinis and light cigars with hundred dollar bills because every law student in the nation buys your books. But after slaving away at a hypo from one of your books, talking about the possible joinder rules and "what about diversity jurisdiction?" and all sorts of possibilities which inevitably result in the answer "The court will have the balance the interests of the plaintiff against the interests of the defendent" which is SO CLEARLY not the answer you were looking for --- after all that, you sass us up by writing the first line of your answer as "This is an easy one!" or "Obviously, the jury should find Acme liable for her full damages."

Seriously. If it was so obvious, would it even be necessary to have it waste space in your leather-bound book? If it was so easy, why must you rub it in and instead allow us to bask in our hypothetical glory. But no, you don't let us off easy but insist on some sass. Sass makes the world go round? NO. Sass does NOT make the world go round. Sass makes the study group go sad. Or at least have a long laugh. And then quietly, alone, after study group, we go home and are sad. But either way, no good.

And even if we DID get the answer right, why trounce on our happiness with your golden boot of reality? Said golden boot will kick and stomp us IN DUE TIME (i.e. the final). But now? In April? Not necessary. Blissful ignorance, that's how I like to roll.

So this much I ask of you, dear sir: in your next edition, cut out the sass. I still like your corny jokes and clever names like "Quarles" who keeps suing the city. That's nice, that's cute, that makes me feel better about myself. But using words like "certainly" "obviously" and "clearly" just remind us of some of the people in our section we love to hate. And if there's anything you DON'T want to reach for, it's any analogy to those types.

Thank you for your time,
Anna Banana