Short Titles Are Apparently in Fashion,
at least if the titles of forthcoming articles in the October issue of the Stanford Law Review are any guide:
Mandatory Rules by Scott DodsonIf those articles had only been titled Rules, Emergencies, Medians, and End, respectively, they probably would have been in Harvard. (Full disclosure: my new draft article Untitled will be submitted to law reviews in March.)
Holmes on Emergencies by Adrian Vermeule
Super Medians by Lee Epstein & Tonja Jacobi
The End of Privacy by Jed Rubenfeld
Mandatory Rules: The Decline of The Use Of Long Titles At the Stanford Law Review - And How They Can Rise Again!
I purposely gave my dissertation a title with no colon. (Perhaps the only think strikingly original in the work.) But catchy titles are controversial: Cambridge U P has resorted to a sort of inversion. Desriptive title copmes first, then catchy title, if any.
Weird.
I propose an artitle with an interrobang as its title.
New this season from Big State U Press--The Colon: Its Employment in the Titles of Academic Publications with an Assessment of the 'Over-usage Controversy'
I truly wish this one had gone out to bookstores and journals without a subtitle. It would have been so much better that way:
Title
by
Name
What do you think? Kinda catchy.
The Two-Part Law Review Title: It Should Be Abolished
or something like that!
"The impact of the new Chief Justice's commitment to minimalism and the consequences of heavily-trafficked law professor blogs on the titles of law review article: should we blame the new Roberts Court or the Volokh Conspiracy for the demise of the colon and the annoying new necessity to read the abstract in order to be able to pretend you have read an article."
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.