Since my last post, a short followup to my post before that about potentially problematic vocabulary in crossword puzzles, I received a longish post in my comments section (second link) from fellow constructor Evan K. It prompted me to write this followup to the followup, which will probably be my last post on this topic for a while, although -- who knows? -- maybe something else will arise.
Evan's entire comment is worth reading, but I want to focus specifically on something called the "no bummers" principle. Here's the relevant quote:
Many pushing for restrictions on crossword entries espouse some version of a principle they call "no bummers," which in its applied form infantalizes while patronizing the emotional capabilities of the solving audience.
The way I interpret "no bummers" is that it is basically a woke breakfast test. I've not seen an editor reference it as a guideline exactly, but Universal Crossword comes fairly close, asking constructors to not included entries that "could make solvers of any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and/or ability level feel uncomfortable." They also list a handful of "commonly-seen" words they are "phasing out," LEER, OGLE, OD, etc., with no specific reason why.
I don't like the "no bummers" policy for reasons stated below. Before I get into that, however, I want to state explicitly that I don't expect nor desire all editors and constructors to adopt my preferred guidelines. (I'm a big tent guy.) There are two distinct dynamics in play, and I don't want to blur them together:
- There has recently been an influx of new voices to Crossworld. Constructors and solvers from previously underrepresented groups are getting involved in crossword puzzles through a variety of venues -- individual constructor sites (e.g., Rosswords), pop-up indies (e.g., The Inkubator), mainstream venues under new leadership (e.g., Universal and USA Today), and the evolution of old-guard crosswords to be more inclusive (e.g., New York Times).
- There has recently been a decentralized push among some in Crossworld to drastically limit acceptable grid vocabulary and impose censorial rules to crossword puzzles as a whole. This mirrors what is going on in other areas of culture. In Crossworld, it includes calling out or otherwise being highly critical of constructors/editors who don't wish to adhere to these new rule or don't even know them (Evan gives some examples in his comments; I've seen it and experienced it myself); propagating word lists (which every constructor now needs and aren't always freely available) that have "no bummers" entries effectively deleted (given a zero score); evaluating puzzles based largely on how much the fill aligns (or doesn't align) with the ideology of the evaluator; calling for Will Shortz to be replaced by an editor with more censorial guidelines (admittedly, this last point was prompted almost completely by one post; I have seen this sentiment express by other folks, however).
I am wholeheartedly in favor of movement 1. I am wholeheartedly not in favor of movement 2. I think "no bummers" is a bummer of a policy for the reasons given below.
It can be patronizing to a broad solving audience
I agree with Evan's comments above for reasons I lay out in my original post. People understand context and it can be condescending to behave as if they don't.
It can be exclusionary
One seemingly weird thing is how many people fall into both camps 1 and 2 above, when these two things are kinda antithetical by nature. Solver comfort can be used as a reason to be exclusionary. Consider the entry WHITE PRIVILEGE, which was in a New York Times crossword by Natan Last in 2017. In his commentary of the puzzle, Jeff Chen at XWordInfo said of the entry:
... although I think it's an important concept more people ought to learn about, I wonder if some solvers will feel like the puzzle is trying to shame them. I wonder how I'd feel if I were white.
I'm white and have no problem with the entry (nor the concept), but surely there are a lot of white people who do. It makes them feel uncomfortable, which, I assume, is part of the point of putting it in the grid in the first place. It's a great entry. But if we apply, say, the Universal Crossword criterion of not making people of a certain racial group feel uncomfortable, it should be excluded.
It's unevenly applied, politically/ideologically
But I don't think that that's the spirit in which such guidelines are meant to be interpreted. It would probably be deemed okay to make white people feel uncomfortable (at least the type of white person who would balk at seeing WHITE PRIVILEGE in a crossword) because they are not an underprivileged group or something to that effect.
But then what to make of Ilhan OMAR? She's appeared in puzzles dozens of times (including Universal, multiple times) since making her second round of controversial comments, despite there being plenty of other OMARs out there. Regardless of how you feel about the Minnesota congresswoman, I don't think there is any doubt she has made a whole lot of Jews feel uncomfortable. Shouldn't this disqualify her from grids or outrage the "no bummers" crowd? I mean, what's more likely to offend members of an historically oppressed ethnic group, allusions to antisemitic tropes or the word OGLE?
One thing that drives me crazy is when people, usually people on the left, frame things in terms of identity when it is clearly more about ideology. In the case of OMAR, it's apparently okay to make some Jews feel uncomfortable -- presumably just not those who are on the "correct side" of things ideologically speaking.
And, to be clear, I think Ilhan OMAR should be in crossword grids. Retweets are not endorsements. She's a prominent member of the zeitgeist, which, in my opinion, is a better heuristic to apply than trying to assess whether or not she might offend the wrong subgroup of a subgroup of solvers of a certain identity.
It's too arbitrary
All decisions are necessarily arbitrary to some degree. You frequently have to draw a line somewhere even when there is no obvious spot to do so. But if you look at the newer entries that constructors and editors are now avoiding, there doesn't appear to be any line at all. It's seemingly a hodgepodge of terms I've seen people complain about online. I mean, the Universal spec sheet cites "OGLE, LEER, TASE, OD, gun references, and bra sizes" as objectionable -- what do those things even have in common?
And why are bra sizes bad? If you asked me beforehand, I would have thought the progressively evolved take is that bra sizes specifically should be included. Once, a female constructor complained to me that editors always change her clue for PMS from one referencing premenstrual syndrome to one referencing prime ministers. Her point was that PMS is a normal part of the lives of many women, and so it's a pro-woman position to see it reflected in crossword puzzles as such. It makes sense to me, and I would have thought bra sizes would follow similar logic. I still don't get why they don't.
It's anti freedom of expression
As a constructor, I'm always looking for opportunities to put entries in my grids that reflect my personality or push the envelop in someway. The point is not always to make people feel comfortable. I've heard people argue that crossword puzzles are art. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but they are a form of expression, and I think they are better when constructors have more freedom to fill them as they see fit.
Until next time...
[Note: Universal Crossword has changed its submission guidelines since I originally posted this entry. For example, they no longer mention bra sizes among the fill they are phasing out.]
