Do law review authors really care about changing the law?

The author below is discussing two law review articles (written as an assistant prof), one in Harvard Law Review, one in Yale. The Harvard Law Review, as you may remember, published a note about how the Patent Office granted 97% of incoming applications, pure fantasy.

Does the intent of a law review author control whether the law review article will change the law?

from isthatlegal, concerning legal writing:

About a decade later, I still think I was onto something in both pieces (especially in the inconsistent verdicts piece), but despite their highbrow pedigrees, the articles have had about as noticeable an impact on the law as liposuction on a sumo wrestler. And that is probably as it should be, because I really didn't care a wink about whether the law should change. The problems I was addressing in both pieces were just intellectual puzzles for me. That's why they look a bit empty to me in retrospect.