E.Spat brings us this gem of a rant on legal textbooks.
Dear Mueller and Kirkpatrick,
Your evidence book SUCKS. What's the point of having a problem on every other page if you never give any indication of what the answers are? I am reading your book because I DON'T KNOW ABOUT EVIDENCE. And would you cut it out with the notes that consist entirely of questions? "The court was right, wasn't it, in saying this wasn't hearsay? It would be odd, wouldn't it, if they had decided the other way? It's true, isn't it, that the statement was under oath?" Just TELL US SOMETHING.
Your book makes me want to tear my hair out. No, it makes me want to jump off the nearest bridge, shaking my fist at the sky and yelling, "Damn you, Mueller and Kirkpatrick!" It would be melodramatic, wouldn't it, if I did that?
Having used Meuller last semester, I can empathize... and I've ranted about this in the past too.
Many legal textbooks are 1,000 pages of cases, often with very little additional insight and questionable originality under Feist. They cost close to $100 and probably weigh 5 pounds. It especially pisses me off when you have a separate textbook and casebook.
In the past, I just downloaded PDFs for any of the cases to my tablet. The only challenge is when they tell you to turn to page x - but then, my copy is searchable so I can easily find what I need. Three of my four classes this past semester didn't have textbooks, partially because there are no textbooks yet covering the cases we read.
The other was actually pretty good. It wasn't just a list of cases - it added additional value by analyzing issues and answering questions instead of just raising them.
I mean, really, legal casebooks are worthless and unnecessary. Why does the legal profession love paper so much?