I think the answer is yes.

James R. Elkins asks:

My question is this: Is there a way to make use of the imagined spaces in which we read-read as students of law, read novels for pleasure-and perceived chasm between pleasure and work? Is there a middle ground of reading, a strategy for reading, that would allow a student of law to think about reading law cases as literature and reading novels as if they might be of central importance in the way one becomes a lawyer? Is there a way to read law for pleasure and novels as instructive vocational texts? If so, we may find in “lawyers and literature,” that we’ll need to redefine pleasure and purpose; we redefine what it means to be a reader of law and of literature.

Are lawyers and artists completely different and atagonistic?

Wendy Duong of the University of Denver Sturm School has written an article entitled “Law Law is Law and Art is Art and Shall the Two Ever Meet? Law and Literature: the Comparative Creative Processes.”

It’s a fascinating article and well worth dowloading and reading, but here I’d like to take issue with one of her principle points.  As she puts it in the abstract to her article:

The two disciplines, Law and Art, remain divergent and incompatible in three core aspects: (i) the mental process of creation and the utilization of facilities, (ii) the work product or output, and (iii) the raison d’etre of law versus art. The Article points out that the mental process and utilization of facilities inherent in law has little to offer the creation of art, and the two creative processes are antagonistic to each other. In fact, the rationality and logic properties of law the objective of rendering certainty to uncertain future outcomes so as to achieve and maintain order — will interfere with, and can even destroy, the creation of art.

I will confess that I would not generally consider the product of legal practice “art” and it would be a stretch to fit even certain extraordinary legal products art –  Perhaps the Declaration of Independence? The Constitution? Certain influential legal opinions?)

But does law “render certainty to uncertain future outcomes”?  I passionately believe that an enormous part of the law does not do that at all, that what in fact it does is the kind of activity Ms. Duong attributes to art.

Life is infinite.  Each case courts decide are intended first, of course, to resolve the specific cases they are resolving.  But to the extent they render opinions, they are only contingently trying to address the future, and they know those contingent efforts are subject to irrelevance under new circumstances.

Moreover, life is constantly changing, and the law has to grow out of the material conditions it is always striving to govern.  In doing so, it is constantly striving to envision the future material conditions the law might apply to and to anticipate those conditions in making law.  Lawmakers then do not decide with a certainty what law they want to impose from above on the future; they collaboratively work out the best approach to whatever they can envision, knowing all the while that the law may well have to change in the future.

The practice of law too is the constant telling of stories — stories to persuade, stories to inspire, stories to justify visions of the future.  In doing so they are as constrained as artists in the “realities” available to them.  Lawyers are artists.  They may have to make decisions, but that doesn’t mean that in getting to those decision-making points they are not as creatively engaged as artists.

Finally, if lawyers aren’t engaging in the same mental facilities as artists, I don’t have a clue what mental processes artist and lawyers engage in.  I suspect if those ways of thinking are entirely divorced from one another, the lawyers aren’t practicing law well and the artists are not producing good art.

And if artists’ visions are irrelevant entirely from decisions people make in life (You must change your life.), what is it?

Someone must have traduced Maher A. . . .

Scott Finet, in one of the most frequently cited law review articles ever published — Franz Kafka’s The Trial as Symbol in Judicial Opinions — wrote in 1988 of literature in law. Specifically, he discussed the ways judges use references to The Trial, concluding that in writing opinions they used the novel’s depiction of Joseph K.’s encounter with an utterly arbitrary and incomprehensible legal system to illustrate their own system’s rationality and fairness:

This article will show how judges make references to The Trial in published decisions as a symbol of their commitment to the shared value of rational choice. Their references to The Trial seem to be an effort to resolve, on a symbolic level, the contradictions between the ideology of an orderly, rational legal decision making process and the sometimes incongruent workings of that process. This is not to say that the decision making process is or is not always predictable and based on rational choice, but that judicial decision makers, in an effort to legitimize themselves and the process, attempt to convince those affected by their decisions that the process is predictable and based on the shared value of rational choice.

Thus, Finet described one way judges frequently use The Trial – to discuss someone who is faced with the need to find the reason for his predicament. For example, a criminal defendant might be seeking the reasons for his prosecution, something Joseph K. was never able to discover:

In the cases that refer to The Trial one often encounters the supplicant who seeks information and resolution to his or her quest just as Joseph K. did in The Trial. The role of the information seeker can be played by the plaintiff or the defendant. Judges cite The Trial to demonstrate that they, unlike the illegitimate court in The Trial, are committed to the shared value of rational choice and that they will provide a resolution to the supplicant’s search.

Finet article is now over 20 years old.  I wonder what he’d make of the predicament faced by Guantanamo detainees, some of whom, we’re told, are too dangerous to release but can never be prosecuted because no U.S. court will allow the admission of evidence obtained by torture.   Even more to the point, perhaps, is the case of Canadian Maher Arar, arrested by U.S. officials on a stopover in New York, sent (via “rendition”) to Syria, and tortured there for a year before it was realized he was an innocent Canadian. And last year a U.S. court established that Mr. Arar could not sue in U.S. courts to establish that U.S. officials “acted illegally by removing him to Syria so that Syrian authorities could interrogate him under torture.” The Trial is not so much a contrast here; Mr. Arar found himself in New York’s Kennedy airport in a situation much like Joseph K. did at the very beginning of Kafka’s novel:

Someone must have traduced Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning.

Sorry, but your political enemies can use your copyrighted works (as long as their use is fair use).

Many people believe that an artist’s rights in her work include the right to prevent the use of the work on behalf of causes and beliefs she does not believe in. That may be true in Europe; it is not true in the U.S., provided that the use the artist is trying to deny does not exploit the markets created by the original work. In other words, politicians with whom singers disagree may well have the right to use excerpts from those singers’ songs. And the producers of movies that advance views with which the singers take strong exception may not have any worry as long as they are using the songs they are using aren’t being used merely to attract an audience to the movie by use of the song.

Times Higher Education explains the difference between European and Anglo-American law:

The later European view of copyright regarded a published work as the author’s offspring as much as his property, endowing him with inalienable moral as well as tradeable commercial rights. The Anglo-American tradition in copyright, which is based firmly in the notion of property and income, resisted this concept.

Thus, in June, a federal court in New York City denied Yoko Ono’s request for an injunction against further showing and distribution of the movie Expelled, which, as I have previously written, criticizes evolution, promotes the teaching of intelligent design, and, in the process, uses 15 seconds of John Lennon’s song “Imagine.”

As I wrote when Ono’s lawsuit was first filed, If the filmmakers had tried merely “to capitalize on the film as soundtrack material that would be attractive to an audience would likely not be fair use, but, if, as seems likely, the song is quoted to criticize its atheism, that use would likely constitute fair use, regardless of whether Ono finds the users’ message objectionable.” The court, apparently, thought similar things (citations and footnotes omitted; hyperlink added):

Defendants’ use is transformative because the movie incorporates an excerpt of Imagine for purposes of criticism and commentary. The filmmakers selected two lines of the song that they believe envision a world without religion: “Nothing to kill or die for/ And no religion too.” (“Imagine” lyrics) As one of the producers of “Expelled” explains, the filmmakers paired these lyrics and the accompanying music to a sequence of images that “provide a layered criticism and commentary of the song.” The Cold War-era images of marching soldiers, followed by the image of Stalin, express the filmmakers’ view that the song’s secular utopian vision “cannot be maintained without realization in a politicized form” and that the form it will ultimately take is dictatorship. The movie thus uses the excerpt of “Imagine” to criticize what the filmmakers see as the naïveté of John Lennon’s views. The excerpt’s location within the movie supports defendants’ assertions. It appears immediately after several scenes of speakers criticizing the role of religion in public life. In his voiceover, Ben Stein then connects these sentiments to the song by stating that they are merely “a page out of John Lennon’s songbook.” In defendants’ view, “Imagine” is a secular anthem caught in a loop of history recycling the same arguments from years past through to the present. We remind our audience that the ideas they just heard expressed from modern interviews and clips that religion is bad are not and have been tried before with disastrous results.”  The filmmakers “purposefully positioned the clip . . . between interviews of those who suggest that the world would be better off without religion and an interview suggesting that religion’s commitment to transcendental values place limits on human behavior. . . . mak[ing] the point that societies that permit Darwinism to trump all other authorities, including religion, pose a greater threat to human values than religious belief.”

Defendants’ use of “Imagine” is similar to the use at issue in a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in which fair use was found, Blanch v. Koons. There, the visual artist Jeff Koons copied photographer Andrea Blanch’s photograph from a fashion magazine without permission and incorporated a portion of it into one of his paintings.  . . . As in Blanch, defendants here use a portion of “Imagine” as “fodder” for social commentary, altering it to further their distinct purpose. Just as Koons placed a portion of Blanch’s photograph against a new background, defendants here play the excerpt of the song over carefully selected archival footage that implicitly comments on the song’s lyrics. They also pair the excerpt of the song with the views of contemporary defenders of the theory of evolution and juxtapose it with an interview regarding the importance of transcendental values in public life. Plaintiffs contend that defendants’ use of “Imagine” is not transformative because defendants did not alter the song, but simply “cut and paste[d]” it into “Expelled.” As the foregoing discussion illustrates, however, this argument draws the transformative use inquiry too narrowly. To be transformative, it is not necessary that defendants alter the music or lyrics of the song. Indeed, defendants assert that the recognizability of “Imagine” is important to their use of it.  Defendants’ use is nonetheless transformative because they put the song to a different purpose, selected an excerpt containing the ideas they wished to critique, paired the music and lyrics with images that contrast with the song’s utopian expression, and placed the excerpt in the context of a debate regarding the role of religion in public life. Plaintiffs also contend that defendants’ use of “Imagine” is not transformative because it was unnecessary to use it in order to further the purposes defendants have articulated.

Determining whether a use is transformative, however, does not require courts to to decide whether it was strictly necessary that it be used. In Blanch, although certainly Koons did not need to use Blanch’s copyrighted photo, as opposed to some other image of a woman’s feet, in his painting, the Second Circuit did not suggest that this lack of necessity weighed against a finding of fair use. Similarly, in Bill Graham Archives, the Second Circuit found a transformative use in the defendants’ unauthorized inclusion of several of the plaintiff’s images-principally concert photos-in a coffee-table book about the musical group the Grateful Dead.  Although the defendants manifestly could have proceeded without the plaintiff’s , which constituted only a small part of the book, this posed no obstacle to a finding of fair use.

As I said, I think the use of “Imagine” by the filmmakers without permission is legitimate fair use. Nonetheless, Lennon, and “Imagine” in particular, are being misrepresented. Lennon’s song imagines a world unpolluted by religious sectarianism, not exactly a radical view in light of the issues of the day. But that’s not a view many can find tolerable, even in the U.S. of 2008, and they’ll resort to misrepresentation to support their intolerance.  One day after the decision against Ono, the Wall Street Journal ran a story with the headline The Case Against John Lennon.  The quote that highlights the column?

Nothing to live or die for — what a nightmare.

Mike Thomas points out that the line is “Nothing to kill or die for” and asks:

What is going on here? Why is the WSJ promoting a column with such a provacative title and using a misquote to mislead readers into a negative reaction against John Lennon? The column itself is a mess. It is poorly written, jumbled and fails to adequately explain how John Lennon or his song “Imagine” has anything to do with what the column appears to be about. Here is the pertinent section that mentions Lennon:

“Mr. Sharansky has a new book, titled Defending Identity. It would be equally accurate to call it The Case Against John Lennon. Or, more specifically, the case against ‘Imagine,’ Lennon’s anthem to a world with ‘no countries . . . nothing to kill or die for/And no religion too.’ For Mr. Sharansky, a nine-year resident of the Perm 35 prison camp, that’s a vision that smacks too much of the professed beliefs of the ex-Beatle’s near namesake, Vladimir Ilyich.’

What the hell? Does he think he’s being clever or something? Lennon sounds like Lenin. Get it? So obviously they must be related or they must think alike or something right? Nevermind that “Lenin” was actually an alias for Vladimir Illich Ulyanov, while the surname Lennon dates back hundreds of years to old Ireland.

No, they sound alike so there must be a connection. Right? Kind of like how Obama sounds like Osama so they must be related too. Yeah. That’s the level of reasoning that the column sinks to.

Absolutely pathetic.

And of course he never goes back and explains how V.I. Lenin’s brutal and dictatorial ways have any similarity or correlation to Lennon’s ode to world peace. But fortunately for the cretins who run the WSJ editorial pages, John Lennon is dead and can’t defend his classic work against their asinine columnist’s offhanded smear.

Here’s Ken Miller, a biologist from my alma mater speaking at Case Western Reserve University, from which I am currently on leave, speaking on intellligent design, evolution, and religion:

If you can’t say it clearly, you aren’t thinking it clearly.

At Language Log, Geoffrey K. Pullum makes a crucial point in criticizing Sarah Palin’s inchoherence:

I think being so utterly unable to explain what one wants to say is truly and reasonably regarded as a defect in one’s qualifications for office – partly because being so inept at talking in a controlled and sensible way strongly suggests that there was no sensible thought back there, and partly because even if there were sensible thoughts back there somewhere, a leader needs to be more skilled at articulating them.

I suppose I’d qualify Mr. Pullum’s statement in one way — where there’s incoherence, there rarely are sensible thoughts, even allowing for the ungrammatical nature of a lot of spoken language,

In short, if you cannot write or speak your thoughts coherently, you don’t have coherent thoughts. Think about it. How often have you heard a lecture, thought how much brilliance was there, and then gone home to write down notes embodying that brilliance, only to find out that there are gaps and fallacies filling spaces that must be filled if the brilliance is to persist?

If you can’t say it, you don’t know it. On this point, Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink has been widely misinterpreted (and was perhaps intended) as a brief in favor of gut feeling over analysis. I think, given the compelling examples he writes about, that Gladwell’s thesis would better be stated as follows: the gut feelings of people well trained and experienced in a field are often better than analysis. There is a huge difference between the gut feelings of hockey moms untrained in tax or foreign policy and hockey moms trained in tax and foreign policy when it comes to opining on tax and foreign policy. Richard Posner’s review of Blink explains (emphasis and hyperlink added) my point well:

As Exhibit A for the superiority of intuitive to articulate thinking, Gladwell offers the case of a purported ancient Greek statue that was offered to the Getty Museum for $10 million. Months of careful study by a geologist (to determine the age of the statue) and by the museum’s lawyers (to trace the statue’s provenance) convinced the museum that it was genuine. But when historians of ancient art looked at it, they experienced an “intuitive revulsion,” and indeed it was eventually proved to be a fake.

The example is actually a bad one for Gladwell’s point, though it is a good illustration of the weakness of this book, which is a series of loosely connected anecdotes, rich in “human interest” particulars but poor in analysis. . . .

But back to the case of the Greek statue. It illustrates not the difference between intuitive thinking and articulate thinking, but different articulate methods of determining the authenticity of a work of art. One method is to trace the chain of title, ideally back to the artist himself (impossible in this case); another is to perform chemical tests on the material of the work; and a third is to compare the appearance of the work to that of works of art known to be authentic. The fact that the first two methods happened to take longer in the particular case of the Getty statue is happenstance. Had the seller produced a bill of sale from Phidias to Cleopatra, or the chemist noticed that the statue was made out of plastic rather than marble, the fake would have been detected in the blink of an eye. Conversely, had the statue looked more like authentic statues of its type, the art historians might have had to conduct a painstakingly detailed comparison of each feature of the work with the corresponding features of authentic works. Thus the speed with which the historians spotted this particular fake is irrelevant to Gladwell’s thesis. Practice may not make perfect, but it enables an experienced person to arrive at conclusions more quickly than a neophyte. The expert’s snap judgment is the result of a deliberative process made unconscious through habituation.