Monday, March 26, 2007

Overheard in Law Review

As my group is working on our technical galley (checking the cites in the footnotes) in the law review office, another publication editor walks into the room:

Other Editor: "[Tim] ([my publication editor]), I have a question for your group. [Cue some boring ass-shit about how to site an id. in reference to a bunch of statutes, and a couple responses.] O.K. thanks, that helps. How is your article going?"

Tim: "Eh, you know, it pretty much sucks."

Group: Laughs and nods in agreement.

Other Editor: "How many footnotes do you have?"

Tim: "Oh, about 350."

Other Editor: "Yeah that sucks, we have 305. It fucking sucks."

Group: Nods in agreement.

Me: [after a couple beats] "Oh, so tell me what you really think of my comment."

[Awkward silence]

[Still silent. I should mention, that no one gets my sense of humor. I deliver everything in a nice monotone, and have an extremely dry sense of humor, so people who do not know me (which is virtually everyone) do not know when I am making a joke (actually no one ever knows when I make a funny).]

Other Editor (who is in charge of editing my comment): "Oh, well, [backpedaling] I mean its good, its just . . . umm . . .

Me: "I was just kidding."

I should not have let him off so easy. It would be nice if one could get a straight answer sometime. I am tired of this "It Depends" bullshit. (for instance, if I was not in the room, my comment would royally suck, but when I am there, it is alright).

No comments: