When We’ll Recommend a Play, but Not Name It

A case-by-case basis makes some sense in an old-fashioned sort of way. When it's a new band calling itself the The Bleepity-Bleeps making an appearance in a non-first-tier venue, maybe the Times' shrinking violet readers can be spared having to read words that regularly appear on graffiti on walls worldwide (and which are regularly heard on public transport, sidewalks, playgrounds and in school corridors). But when it is an artist of the calibre and renown of Ms Parks, this reeks of journalistic cowardice and poor reporting. The play in question is a monumental work by a monumental artist. The Times has embarrassed itself.

It's the title of a play by one of the most important contemporary playwrights of the last 25 years, running at a major regional theatre, and acted by a blue-ribbon cast that has been well-received. The oddly coy approach to printing the title - shying away from a word that has been in common parlance for centuries feels out of touch with reality. Part of Ms. Parks' point is to force (or invite) theatre audiences to confront a world where that word and others just like it are commonplace (you know, like the world we ALL live in). I love the Times and read it daily. But, this prudish behavior is just feels antediluvian.

I think the NYTimes, in this instance, is being ridiculously snooty. An author can name a work whatever, and you should feel obliged to print the title. It's 2017 not 1417. Ridiculous. And I totally disagree with Philip B. Corbett.

Get over yourself, New York Times. The phrase is a standard part of colloquial speech and no longer shocking to anyone who has been awake during the last three decades. We have few sources of real journalism left in the world, and NYT is one of them. But maintaining professional standards does not have to mean being Victorian and out of touch.

I only came to this via this morning's print (old-fashioned me). Seems that when I Googled the name of the theatre, I had managed to decode the title from the clues. How hard is it?

Fear of offending readers by reporting facts (the true name of the play)? That's the opposite of the standard of reporting we look for from the New York Times. Even without having seen it, I can tell that the actual title is relevant, since the play (and its title) address attitudes around sex, and call back to The Scarlet Letter. I exhort you to live up to our expectations of the NYT as one of our sources of impeccably vetted information, no matter how uncomfortable it may make some people feel. This is a no-brainer.

Ah, the old grey lady seems to have had a hissy fit.The title of the play is the title. Seems silly not to publish it. As noted, you published the really gross rants by Scaramucci, altho' they certainly made it clear that he was not going to be adding to the propriety of the oval office . .

No, don't use obscene language gratuitously. However, in this case, it's the name of the play. Use it. Not using it actually draws more attention than if you did use it.

Hooray for the Times in its defense of standards. The title they dare not name has nothing to do with the play that I saw. Anymore than the play has much to do with the Hawthorne story. The title was a juvenile stunt to attract attention on spurious grounds. This old Army expression, in my experience, has no discernible relation to the action on stage. My sixth-grade granddaughter can read the review and she doesn't need to have the title explained to her quite yet.

If it is important to a quote or a title then the Times should publish "obscene" words. In this case referring to the title once then from then on as "the play" would be perfect. I support the Times style editors on not using some language gratuitously, but there does come a time where reports like this one cease to factually report on the world. The obfuscation in this case denies the intent of the playwright. It bowdlerizes the work and misrepresents the intent of those being covered. It refuses to intelligently engage the world for trite reasons. The Times writers should not use those words as a representation of the NYTimes. But the words of others should be reported as is, to do otherwise is the route to fake news.

I still don't know what the play is named, guys.

There's precedent for this. Why not use blank spaces and asterisks and just get over yourself. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/theater/reviews/the-with-the-hat-by-st...

My partner and I wrote a play titled TITICACA LLAMA and a major theater in this country refused to read it because they thought Titicaca was a dirty word. That kind of ignorance, when one can type any word into Google search and find out what it means, is offensive to any artist. I am sure Ms. Lori Parks wants the title used in the review and the fact that it wasn't is amazingly unproductive. There are a long list of hateful words that actually are painful to hear because they are meant to reflect hate and prejudice. The word in the title of this play is not one of them.

Like chickens clucking, The play's name you are ducking. Lest your readers' fine senses, Do take offences, The true name you are bucking.

Most films--even PG-13--use the word. So does cable. Books. Comedians. Singers. Plays. Politicians (never Hillary, I am certain). "...thoughtful and civil." Another subterfuge by Times' editor to sound lofty and yet say absolutely nothing. You will never attract Millennials with obfuscations and head-burrowing. I defy you to find readers who would be shocked--shocked--at seeing the word. Just look at your Sunday fashion ads--now those are gasp-worthy. The truly archaic century New York Times--"All the News that's Fit to Print" in 1900.

Yes, you should have. This is not the first time you have censored the title of a play that included that word. On Broadway in 2011, Chris Rock starred in the successful "The M---- with the Hat." About 20 years ago, Mark Ravenhill's "Shopping and ----" ran at the New York Theatre Workshop starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman. In his review, Ben Brantley spent the first two paragraphs discussing the word without including it. The word is frequently used on stage and I would have used it in my comment had I not feared that would join the company of these important playwrights. It is time for the Times to join the modern age.

NYT: "What do you think? Should we have included the name of the play?" ME: My answer is crude, so I shall only type “A.”

Yes, you should have said it. Coy doesn't become you NYT, you're better than that. And why were you worried? It's not like it sneaked into the cookery section or some jaded art critic finally lost it. It's the title, not your fault. Save your asterisks for the politicians.

My jaw dropped when I saw NYT print Trump's "grab them by the pussy" quote. Ms. Parks' play, having much more literary value than anything the President may say, certainly deserves the same respect.

There is nothing the slightest bit "shocking" about the title of the play, only the Times' persistent Victorian squeamishness.

yes yes you should have. you could always have given first few letters of offensive word followed by***** for the rest you just made a complicated and confusing mess, certainly you did not communicate

I'm old enough to remember the early days of the Gay Liberation Movement when The New York Times (often described back then as "The Grey Lady") couldn't -- or wouldn't -- adjust its editorial guidelines to use the word "gay" instead of "homosexual." The newspaper's failure to use the full title of Suzan-Lori Parks's play displays much more than editorial cowardice. It insults the artist's copyright. If your newspaper truly wants to live up to its credo of "All the news that's fit to print" then you really need to grow some spine. Or at least, in the words of Dolly Gallagher Levi, "rejoin the human race." George Heymont https://myculturallandscape.blogspot.com/2007/11/about-author.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-heymont

Yes, you should have used the name.

This also brings back memories of when “The Mother With the Hat” prompted online chatter comments like “It makes it sound like the perfect gift for Mother’s Day.” As a "great plays with tough titles" flashback, I dug out my Mother’s Day musical tribute to The Mother With the Hat. (I think it's G-rated) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_gG1vJGOFk

Oh, please! J-st use an abbreviated f-rm of the w-rd. P-oblem s-lved.

Yes, you should name the play. The title is integral to the play's themes and Parks' intent. The word "whore", arguably as offensive and vulgar a word as the one in question, is tossed around easily enough in the review, as it should be because it informs the reader's understanding of the material. The title word should be treated the same way. There's no need to be so precious about language, especially when reviewing the work of a writer who uses language as powerfully and inventively as Ms. Parks does.

I'm with the Times. The play's title is lazy and less than illuminating. The play itself might be fine, and Mr. Brantley seems to have given it its due. But the Times isn't obligated to print whatever vulgarity falls from anyone's lips. There's nothing sacred about a title, especially one that settles for vulgarity rather than helping us see why it actually might have been called for. That's known as context. Scaramucci was close to power; so we needed to read his exact words in order to calibrate how the moral compass at the White House was operating -- or failing to operate. The Times' moral compass may not be perfect (skirting use of the word "torture" was not their finest journalistic hour), but it's surely as sturdy as Ms. Parks'. No apology is necessary for not printing her singular failure of imagination.

I like that the Times usually abstains from printing coarse vulgarities. It serves as a sort of safe place for me ; the coarsening of our culture seems ever present and overwhelming at times ( epitomized by you know who ). It's like a little vacation for my mind , a getaway to a cleaner, less polluted environment.

This is hardly the area for coyness. Name the delay! Everybody knows the word, even kids, and if they don't know it yes, they will.

While I applaud the decision of the NY TImes to maintain a certain journalistic tone, I do not see the problem with stating clearly the name of the play. It does not have to be repeated throughout the article, but for the sake of pertinent information, the play's correct title should be used. This does not mean that I want to read the offending adjective peppered throughout the piece. The Times is not Rolling Stone. The Times has upheld a certain level writing style, and is often looked at as an arbiter of journalistic style. I see no need for the Times to bow to pressure from critics who have become acclimated to rude and crude speech from radio, TV, rap music and certain Presidents.

The only thing worse than not naming the play is drawing attention to the review with a click-baiting headline.

What I don't understand is why the NYT couldn't print the implied name, i.e., using the first letter F, followed by symbols, ending with "ing". This would alleviate the problem of deciding whether or not to use the full title, as well as make both the reader searching for the review able to find it and to understand a bit about the play by "getting" the title the playwright chose.

What you're REALLY asking the reader to do, Mr. Corbett, is to use our imagination. I like it in theory, but it's not your job. My view is that it's not for you to decide what is obscene; let us do that. To think that a significant number of arts section readers will be offended by a commonly used expletive in a review - especially when it's the title - is just silly. Moreover, if you really can't bring yourself to use it in full, at least call it the "f word" so we're not making words up that are completely off base. Keep in mind that right now you're a newspaper that makes your own paying customers go to another news source to see what you're too uncomfortable to tell us. I would argue that as the newspaper of record, playing childish word games with your readers is far more obscene to me than any swear word I've ever heard. It is time to abandon this ridiculousness.

Yes. Otherwise, it isn't informing the reader of anything. Would you rave about food at a restuarant and not name the place. Either give name or pull review, imo.

I think this is ridiculous. OF COURSE you should have included the name of the play. It's the name of the play. It was the playwright's choice and, presumably, she crafted that particular title because it has meaning to the work. It is integral to the experience. Additionally, the fact that you chose to review the work (glowingly) and then not give your readers the key piece of information -- what is the play? -- makes the editorial decision smack of politically correct censorship.

For the most part, London papers don't censor their reviews. It's rather insulting that the NYT decides what words I am allowed to see and not see. The same with late night network television which uses those annoying bleeps and mouth pixilation so people watching a 1 AM interview with an author won't be horrified by a "naughty" word. Those Puritans sure did a xxxx of a job on this country.

Michelle L. Dozois asks at the end of her response whether we, as readers, think the NYTimes should have published the full title of Suzan-Lori Parks's play. The answer, as demonstrated by the comments to Ben Brantley's review, which I am personally echoing here, is a resounding "yes." Standards editor Philip B. Corbett explains the justifiably high bar for publishing obscenities: maintaining civil discourse is crucial to preserving the NYTimes's well-deserved reputation as one of our nation's leading papers. But he then goes on to dismiss artists who utilize obscenities "for their own purposes." Parks is a Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright who has consciously chosen this title not just to be sensationalist, but to highlight the act(s) that lead Hester to be branded with an "A." Censoring the title perpetuates the censuring of sexually active women that is critiqued by the play. I'm even more distressed by the double standard of labeling the obscenity-laden rant of Scaramucci as "newsworthy" and publishing the same obscenity there that was censored for a major work of American drama. Scaramucci's rant was obviously of great interest to many people, precisely because it was not in "a tone that's thoughtful and civil." One of these is a sensationalist example from the politics desk, the other the thoughtfully-chosen title of a play by one of our nation's leading playwrights. The Times's priorities clear, but, to my mind, upside down.

Yes. Name the play. The world and your readership will survive.

Of course, the Times should have named the play. It was the subject of the entire article. The frequency of the "this is our policy" argument (even when, as noted here, the Times discards such policy when it feels appropriate in doing so) is getting pretty maddening.

It actually draws more attention to an "obscenity" when you make it an issue--and the sensibilities that the Times is catering to are now archaic. Join the modern age, don't make these things issues. We readers are in the 21st Century. Maybe if the Times emerged from the 19th Century, it wouldn't have declining readership.

Corbett contradicts himself. If The Times believes that their readers "are naive or exceptionally delicate," then why indeed is there a "highbar for flat-out obscenities." How can there be an occasional "high-bar"? The Scaramucci excuse is arbitrary. The Times should, as they say, get over itself.

My opinion: Time to update the NYT style manual. Not sure what other major newspapers do, but I expect the NYT to be ahead of the curve. Can't see that Mr. Corbett's explanation moves you forward. It's the name of the play and not using it seems disrespectful and juvenile. We can take it.

Yes. A good review merits accurate description, rather than proscrpition. Words may be offensive because they disparage specific groups of people (in which case they are weapons used to shame) or because of the "register" -- Would the word "fornicating" have been published if it had been used in the play title.

Just because a theatrical production, rock band, apparel company, or eatery feels the need to employ profanity in a desperate attempt to draw unnecessary attention to itself -- aka least-common-denominator 21st-century 'marketing' -- we, the readers of The New York Times, are not obligated to be subjected to it. To quote Cole Porter (who himself was sophisticated enough to eschew blatant vulgarities), "Good authors too who once knew better words / Now only use four-letter words / Writing prose..."

Of course you should include the name of the play! The Playwright has intentionally chosen this word as the title of their work and wants whatever reaction she gets as a result. It tells us something about what to expect when going to see the play. If one of your readers doesn't want to see it due to the title, then they don't have to go, and they can certainly turn the page, or scroll the page as it may be, if they don't want to look at the title for too long in your paper. I find it more problematic that Anthony Scaramucci's tirade was given more time in your paper when really we could all assume what he was saying by the tone of his voice. Do we really need to hear an angry, blustering man in the White House insulting those around him? We hear it everyday... that's not news.

Yes. I want to know the name of the play.

It seems that, at a minimum, you could use the first letter plus Shift+8 (or other symbols) to replace the offending letters. Isn't this the approach many squeamish theater managers use on marquees?

Yes, you should certainly have included it and should reconsider this policy moving forward. Leaving aside the fact readers can certainly handle this language, and that there is surely a technical solution for warning them about it should you deem that necessary, it is disrespectful to the artist not to name their art. We should read the language when Scaramucci uses it (a choice I agree with on the part of the Times), but not when it is deployed for artistic purposes, and by as vital and well-respected an artistic voice as Suzan-Lori Parks, no less? That seems counterproductive, to say the least. "Obligated" to repeat it? Surely that's an awfully puritanical viewpoint, not to mention one that only mystifies the word further. Please rethink this policy of, at best, silly hand-wringing, and at worst, dismissing and undermining artistic expression.

There is a need for the full title to appear, as it is an essential component of Parks' gestalt for this particular work. It conveys the sense of urgency, exhaustion, and resignation that appears about the situation. If you are trying to protect innocent (or evangelical) eyes and ears, the paper can always use the asterisk substitution for key letters, but still, in this day and age, why give this word so much more power than it has. It's just a word, used more times a day than many others, whose only claim to fame is that it was probably the ONLY word NOT uttered at some point during the past political campaign. Its' offensiveness has become a learned behavior, allowing pearl clutchers a few more excuses to criticize those parts of society with which they disagree. There are plenty of other words that we think of as fine, yet "Rocket Man" and the like are much more dangerous.

The f word, whose use is ubiquitous these days has almost lost its meaning. It appears in movies, on cable show, serious or comic and is seen and heard by by people in all walks of life and from an early age onward. If the New Yorker , which I think is a well regarded magazine and probably has a readership that overlaps with the NYTimes uses it I have problem accepting Mr. Levy's argument.

Thanks for the mention and link to my earlier comment from last week! And I was definitely being sympathetic to the choices that have to be made. I suspect readers who agree with editorial decisions tend not to bother to write in, and might not even think of it as an issue to cause comment, where people who disagree probably felt strongly enough (even if they read the article in the print edition) to get online and try to change things for the future.

You don't name the play, but yet in Tuesday's crossword puzzle, one of the answers (3-Down) was DOGMEAT. That's much more upsetting to me than an F-bomb.

I saw the play, unfortunately. It is apart of the scarlet letter series. I don't think the name has to be published. People have the ability to open another tab and check it out for themselves. I will have to read your review. I found the idea of someone breaking into song after a brutal rape to be pretty preposterous and that wasn't the only "huh" moment that happened. Great cast. Weak material.

I agree with the paper. The Times is still a general circulation periodical. What may be appropriate for a niche publication is not necessarily appropriate here. I would suggest the paper was even permissive with exact quotes from Mr. Scaramucci. It was not the specific words, but the fact of them, that was the story. This is why God made asterisks. They still work.

Anyone who needed the name spelled out probably shouldn't be seeing the play anyway. Still, the humorous "[crude Anglo-Saxon gerund describing intercourse]-A" Would have made the point wittily.

If The Times is going to review a play it ought to have the courtesy to mention the title. In this case, the (slightly) shocking title was almost a part of the play itself. At the very least it communicated something about how the author wanted the audience to feel before the play even started. If there was any worry that the word might be off-putting to the reader, there are technological solutions that would be applicable to the online version. The title might appear when the reader clicked a link, or moved the mouse over a "language alert" box. On the plus side, this whole dirty word brouhaha might have gotten people curious about the play who might have otherwise just glossed over it.