“In reading any of Shakespeare’s dramas whatever, I was, from the very first, instantly convinced that he was lacking in the most important, if not the only, means of portraying characters: individuality of language, i.e., the style of speech of every person being natural to his character. This is absent from Shakespeare. All his characters speak, not their own, but always one and the same Shakespearian, pretentious, and unnatural language, in which not only they could not speak, but in which no living man ever has spoken or does speak.” Tolstoy, A critical Essay on Shakespeare (Trans. V. Tchertkoff and I. F. M.), ¶53.
Yet Tolstoy’s analysis of that unnatural language bereft of individuality could be easily applied to the pretense-mills masquerading as Law Schools at Harvard, Yale, and many others: book-smart, limp-minded regurgitation-bots, competing to be honored as the moment’s branch which validates most novelly the rootless trunk which prunes the branches.
Just a glance at the circus of articulate clowns rambling square pegs into round holes showcases enough of the trim, tidy, glib, gaudy charade to know that the process is about anything but the training of intelligent, informed, involved individuals with good priorities.
In these mires, it is indeed the blind leading the blind—yet also that they have blinded themselves, by acid-baths in seeming over being, to the point of being patently ridiculous.
For example, the Ames Moot Court Competition of 2016 at Harvard Law School, linked below. While watching, notice the faces of the worn out “future leaders”—those presenting, but especially those in the audience—each of which seems to silently scream: “What if this is as good as life gets?”