Many people find it difficult to hear the law. Especially, the literary followers tend to hate the law. It seems that law and literature seem to be the opposite sciences even though they are the same humanities.
I've been working in the law for a long time, so I've been thinking deeply about the law, though not as much as literature. And how do you relate to literature? Rather, it was a long-standing theme how to make arrangements within myself. Is it really an enemy, an ally, a top or a bottom?
Law is, at last, memorization and theory. When a problem arises, start by quoting the text, establishing the norm, applying it, and drawing conclusions. The case law also has this configuration.
Actually, novels are basically the same. The hero raises a problem and tries to solve it with a certain standard (a sense of justice and a sense of mission).
In other words, the law and the story have a similar structure. The difference is that there are no metaphors or metaphors, and there is not always a conclusion, but the law must conclude any difficult question apart from reconciliation. And because literature is also a work, even if it doesn't always come to a conclusion, we must create an end that the reader is convinced of.
The other day, literature was the highest in humanities, but in fact, law and literature are neither enemies nor allies, and I think they are close to identical twins in humanities. Furthermore, he is one of his brothers, including philosophy. Literature may be the eldest son, as the relationship between philosophy and literature will be dealt with later.
So literature and law were just one theme I wanted to explore, but at first glance these seemingly bad brothers, but in fact I think they could be the best brothers to complement each other.
A person who wants to study literature learns the law, and I feel that there is a meaning and merit of a lawyer doing literature.
Those who have been fascinated by literature have written a little before, but they are a little bit stiff in reality. That's why they try to fight with fiction.
But it's because of this and the waist that they want to learn the law. The law is a very scary thing and, depending on how it is used, can be a weapon that can kill people easily. At the same time it can be a shield to protect yourself.
So just having the law as a shield, not a contradiction, a bearish literary profession feels able to cut deeper and more strongly into reality.
And the work that emerges proves that it is in no way useless to reality.
On the other hand, a good lawyer may want to do literature because he may be a hobby. In fact, there are few novelists who write by lawyers. Of course, suspense and court material are different, but I would like you to enter pure literature and children's literature as fiction. I have met many lawyers, and I feel that many people do not have the play of steering wheels.
It feels like a new approach to cases that leak from legal solutions.
The above is not a reckless or outrageous thing, and it seems that it is one of the old themes, given that there is abroad in law and literature.
More than that, I think it is necessary for revitalizing literature. There are doctors and literature (in a broad sense), Chekhov, Junichi Watanabe, and Osamu Tezuka. However, it is very unfortunate that there are no writer or novelist with legal qualifications.
A novelist and a lawyer feels like a new era can be created.
Because I hate blood, Nakamura could never become a doctor.