Um, aren't they? My earlier post, Goodbye to Law Reviews, has generated a bunch of comments, and Ethan Lieb has posted some of his own thoughts at Prawfsblawg. Some of the comments seem to assume that books generally don't constitute "real" scholarship, an assertion likely to come as a unpleasant surprise to the thousands of academics, in all fields, who do most of their serious writing in the form of books. I agree that blogging and op-eds are not "scholarship" as such, though this does not mean that they have no scholarly value at all: they can be useful fora for asking questions and raising ideas in a preliminary way. But if there is some inherent value in longer articles (leave aside the specific obnoxiousness of the law review genre)-- and at times there surely is, as some ideas and issues are too complex to discuss well in briefer formats-- then surely books are even better? Ethan argues that books by legal scholars will tend to be "something just shy of real scholarship." Do others agree?