How to criticize, from a critic
Film critic A.O. Scott on how to be more constructive in your criticisms.
A. O. Scott joined The New York Times as a film critic in January 2000, and was named a chief critic in 2004. Previously, Mr. Scott had been the lead Sunday book reviewer for Newsday and a frequent contributor to Slate, The New York Review of Books, and many other publications.
Mr. Scott was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in Criticism in 2010, the same year he served as co-host (with Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune) on the last season of "At the Movies," the syndicated film-reviewing program started by Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel.
A frequent presence on radio and television, Mr. Scott is Distinguished Professor of Film Criticism at Wesleyan University and the author of Better Living Through Criticism (2016, Penguin Press).
A.O. SCOTT: There was one pull quote I saw. I won't say what critic wrote it but I remember like seeing it was an adverb adjective combination, which is especially dangerous and like not to be messed with. A movie described as fiercely hypnotic. And I remember thinking like what the hell does that mean? First of all, those don't seem to go together. How can you be fiercely hypnotized? Also, if you're hypnotized doesn't it mean you're asleep? I mean is that good? Or if your fiercely hypnotized are you somehow in a state of intense sleep? So I thought what could that possibly be? The worst adjective of them all though, the one that is the most overused and the one I did work at a publication where the editor would always ban it and would always just kind of get on the phone and say I'm sorry we can't print the word compelling because that is just like maybe one of the emptiest words in the language. Like who does it compel? Compel to do what? It just kind of is this empty placeholder for something. This was a compelling book. What did it compel you to do? I don't know, it could have compelled you to stop reading it.
Adjectives can be your friend and there is an old fashioned approach I think that comes out of Hemingway and some school writing teachers will tell you cut out all the additives and the adverbs. Make it simple. Make it clean. I don't necessarily believe in that. And if you write criticism for a newspaper your editors will really want some adjectives, especially if you have a review that starting on the front page let's say of a section. This is a print thing so some of you younger people might not follow it, but then jumps to a later page, the editors will very often want an adjective before the jump that will just sum up what you think. So can you just say like in this marvelous new film or in this disappointing, something. In a way to excuse any reader who's in a hurry or has a short attention span from reading all the way to the end. And I've often fought back against that for just that reason. If you want to know what I think you have to read the whole thing.
Adjectives can be very useful and can be a way of evoking qualities that you want to convey. Part of what you're doing when you're criticizing, when you're writing criticism, is describing. So you want to find the right descriptors. On the other hand there is a kind of emptiness to certain kinds of critical adjectives that you have to be careful of and that can kind of get you into a little bit of trouble that are just empty, so mesmerizing, stunning, exhilarating, thrilling, all of these things that are kind of really describing your own reaction or your own response to this as if they were qualities of the thing itself. You were excited. You were thrilled. You were stunned. You were mesmerized, the person writing, but you're kind of making a little bit of a leap when you're pretending that that's an inherent quality of what you're writing about.
And I have to say in all honesty I've had a little bit of an adjective crisis myself since publishing this book because I write in it against adjectives I try to be very stingy as a critic with the sort of empty inflated adjective. But I've read some reviews of my own book and I wish that there were more of them. I was like could you have just stuck like a brilliant in there? Something we can put in the ads to sell more copies? So I'm a total hypocrite in that regard.
- Criticism is about more than likes and dislikes.
- NY Times film critic A.O. Scott warns against the "emptiness" of certain adjectives when it comes to giving constructive and meaningful criticism.
- Pulling from nearly two decades of experience, Scott's book shows why criticism matters and how we are all critics.
- How to Get the Best Advice at Work - Thrive Global ›
- Jacqueline Woodson: How Writers Can Seek Useful and ... ›
We each have a way of moving to music that is so unique a computer can use it to identify us.
- The way we dance to music is so signature to an individual that a computer can now identify us by our unique dancing "fingerprint" with over 90 percent accuracy.
- The AI had a harder time identifying dancers who were trying to dance to metal and jazz music.
- Researchers say they are interested in what the results of this study reveal about human response to music, rather than potential surveillance uses.
Or, how I learned to stop worrying and love my tsundoku.
- Many readers buy books with every intention of reading them only to let them linger on the shelf.
- Statistician Nassim Nicholas Taleb believes surrounding ourselves with unread books enriches our lives as they remind us of all we don't know.
- The Japanese call this practice tsundoku, and it may provide lasting benefits.
Is it ethical to use a dead man's sperm to become pregnant?
- Many parts of the world are suffering from a shortage of sperm donors due to the high bar for acceptance and varying laws regarding donor anonymity.
- A recent article suggested that, as a solution, we should consider allowing men to opt-in to posthumous sperm donation, much like men and women do for organ donation.
- It's technically feasible, but how would we navigate the complex ethical and legal issues surrounding such a proposal?
Can, and should, dead men procreate? Yes and yes, says a recent article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
The UK is facing a sperm donor crisis. According to the article, UK sperm banks only take on a few hundred new donors per year, forcing them to import thousands of sperm samples from the U.S. and Denmark, which dominate the global market for sperm donations due to their high supply.
These countries have a high supply of sperm primarily because of laws and regulations protecting the donor's anonymity — in the UK, for instance, babies born from sperm donations are permitted to contact their biological father after they turn 18, an emotional confrontation that dissuades many from donating. In fact, in a 2016 study based in the U.S., 29 percent of current donors said they would have refused to donate if they could not be anonymous.
How can we increase the supply of sperm donors while simultaneously shielding donors from a potentially life-upending confrontation and providing children with the right to know their own ancestry? Allow for post-mortem sperm donations. Men could opt-in to become sperm donors after their death, just like they do as organ donors. So long as they were collected no longer than 48 hours after death, sperm could be collected via surgery or electrical stimulation of the prostate and be frozen for later use.
"If it is morally acceptable that individuals can donate their tissues to relieve the suffering of others in 'life-enhancing transplants' for diseases," wrote the article authors, "we see no reason this cannot be extended to other forms of suffering like infertility."
A legal and ethical quandary?
As it turns out, this idea isn't all that new. The first posthumous sperm retrieval occurred in 1980 after a 30-year-old man suffered a fatal brain injury in a car accident. His family requested that his sperm be preserved, which was done through surgery soon after he had been declared dead.
There have been numerous postmortem sperm retrievals since then, but they've always existed in a legal grey area. For instance, in 1997, a UK man named Stephen Blood caught meningitis, collapsed into a coma, and died soon after. His wife, Diane Blood, had requested that doctors extract two samples of semen from Mr. Blood.
However, the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority had forbidden Mrs. Blood from using those samples to become pregnant, as Mr. Blood had passed away prior to giving written consent to the procedure. In the UK posthumous sperm donation is illegal without written consent. After an appeal, Mrs. Blood was permitted to seek fertility treatment outside of the UK and later gave birth to a son.
Other countries, such as France, Germany, and Taiwan, have a full ban on posthumous fertilization. At the same time, countries like the U.S. and Belgium have no legislation on the subject whatsoever. Given the complex legal, ethical, and medical nature of posthumous fertilization, this range of legislative response is not unexpected. For example, is it ethical to collect sperm from an individual who never wanted to procreate in a country where the young population is dwindling and sperm donors are in short supply? Such is the case in many parts of the UK Is it reasonable to collect sperm from donors who have died and who are, by extension, more likely to be older and with less healthy sperm? Is the offspring of a deceased sperm donor considered to be the donor's legal heir?
These and other issues muddy the waters for countries when crafting policies around posthumous sperm donation. However, the authors of the recent Journal of Medical Ethics article argue that allowing for this procedure is at the very least ethically permissible and likely beneficial for society at large.
"The ability to reproduce matters to people and donated sperm enables many people to fulfill their reproductive desires," write the authors. "It is both feasible and morally permissible for men to volunteer their sperm to be donated to strangers after death in order to ensure sufficient quantities of sperm with desired qualities."