No puzzles published by me this month, and I already wrote about my experience at ACPT last entry, so, since I'm the star of Crossworld in my own head, as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing of great interest to report this month. But pretending for a moment that I'm not a self-centered narcissist, I'll still write about a few things.
Kudos Where Kudos Are Due
- The New Yorker has expanded its roster of constructors and moved to a five-day-a-week format (up from three), including a themed Friday puzzle. This is good news -- the more puzzles the merrier -- although it means I'll have to make even more room in my already stretched allotment of puzzling time, or I'll have to set some puzzles aside and lie to myself about doing them later, until the backlog gets so big that I just trash everything and start from a clean slate. That's currently how I manage my podcasts, and it's a decent system. If only I could tap a button to increase my solving speed to 1.5-time.
- Speaking of increased solving speed, I heard that Paolo Pasco solved an NYT Monday puzzle in under one minute. That. Is. In. Sane. The last time I heard a solving feat that impressive was when somebody (I think Andy Kravis) posted that they did the entire week of NYT puzzles in under 22 minutes, which would be close to a record time for me just on the Sunday puzzle. Paolo is so fast it seems like only a matter of time before he wins an ACPT. But, you never know; the faster you go, the more likely you are to make errors, which is what dropped him to the B-board this year. It's like being a quarterback, you can rack up the yards and the touchdowns, but if you don't also avoid turnovers and sacks, you probably won't be the best of the best. And I really should move on to a new subject now, before I start comparing individual crossword solvers to NFL quarterbacks and lose the few readers I have.
- And speaking of the Friday themed New Yorker puzzle, Andrew Ries had a nice one yesterday. It's a clever tweak on a standard crossword theme type -- a "wish I had thought of that" puzzle for sure. I also loved seeing TOTAL BS (which I struggled to parse at first -- TOTAL B'S? What does that mean?) and SAVAGE LOVE in the grid. Growing up in the Seattle-area, I cut my gay-culture teeth reading Dan Savage back when his column had a name I will link to but won't write and when reading about such things felt transgressive. I was born in 1977 making me solidly Gen-X but young enough to pal around with millennials, and one of the biggest differences between the two generations is the acceptance of gayness into everyday life. The progress that's been made along these lines is remarkable and, if I may get a bit sanctimonious, often not properly acknowledged even by people as old as their mid-30s today.
- I thought this puzzle by Matthew Stock was wonderful. The fill is just normal-really-good NYT-themeless fill, but the cluing really sings. So many gems -- "They've got their own problems" for MATH TESTS; "They might smell fishy" for CAT TREATS; "They can have you going the wrong way" for HEAD FAKES -- but the true stroke of genius is "Joe carter?" for COFFEE URN. It's kinda a niche stroke of genius, but a stroke of genius nevertheless. The only baseball clue I've seen that rivals it was in a puzzle a few years ago when Trea Turner played for Washington, and TREA was clued as "Nat Turner".
- Two other puzzles I really liked are this and this Fireball meta (especially the former). I was able to solve both of them, and I've noticed my enjoyment of metas is directly correlated to whether or not I'm able to solve them.
- The LA Times has a new crossword editor! Longtime assistant editor Patti Varol has moved into the lead spot, and Christina Iverson is the new assistant editor. The LAT puts out a really good puzzle, especially their Saturday themeless, and I certainly don't expect things to change now. Congrats to Patti and Christina!
Wayward Word Watch
Let's check in on one of my favorite topics to discuss: entries some solvers didn't like.
The big one this month is CAR BOMB, which appeared in Sam Ezersky's 4/24 NYT Sunday puzzle with the clue "Irish ___, popular St. Patrick's Day cocktail". Unbeknownst to me at the time of my solve, this is a controversial drink name, as noted in the review at both Crossword Fiend and Rex Parker. I think the objection here is mainly due to the clue, in which case, yeah, okay, I'd probably change the clue, if only to avoid getting hassled. You gotta pick your battles.* However, I don't think it was some sort of grievous error by the NYT editorial team to clue it as they did because the drink's name is in fact "Irish CAR BOMB" -- that's what most Americans call it, without even thinking anything of it. So then it becomes a debate about whether crossword puzzles should reflect culture as it is, including the bad parts, or some curated version of culture in which uncomfortable subjects are not allowed. Reasonable people can (and do) disagree about this, but I very much prefer the former.
*Wait, is it offensive to use that phrase in this context?
Also, it's unclear to me how offensive the drink name really is. Wikipedia says it's "considered offensive by most Irish and British people, with many bartenders refusing to serve it," but the evidence for this claim is incredibly thin. If you actually read the cited sources you don't find anything more damning than a handful of anecdotes that some Irish people don't like it -- and even this is balanced out by other Irish people saying they don't mind it. It's almost always this way. So often when I hear something is offensive to people of a certain identity, I find it to be true and not true and everything in between. There are people of that identity who are offended by it; there are people of that identity who aren't offended by it; there are people of that identity offended by the notion they should be offended by it; and there are people (most people?) of that identity who shrug their shoulders and get on with their lives. No matter what opinion you hold on these types of issues, somebody you're supposed to "listen to" has cause to tell you you're wrong.
One quote from an article I want to requote:
“I don’t think the name offends people anymore,” Ford said. “The British and the Irish have a long tradition of using humor and satire to deal with serious issues. Putting some satire to the name of a drink would be a coping mechanism rather than something that is offensive.”
Yes! This speaks to me. In a different article, somebody says calling it an Irish CAR BOMB is like calling a drink a "Flaming Twin Towers," and I thought to myself I'd ordered a Flaming Twin Towers. It'd be two flaming Dr. Peppers served side-by-side in highball snifters, and then after you drink them, you smash the glasses, and Mark Ruffalo questions how they shattered so quickly.
Gallows humor -- some people need it.
Moving on... another crossword entry that generated some negative feedback recently is RETARD, which appeared in a WSJ grid (3/29) by Lucy Howard, edited by Mike Shenk. The clue was "Slow down," as in The chemicals in the fire extinguisher will help RETARD the spread of flames. So, this is a different word, pronounced differently, used in a different context from the middle-school insult of the same spelling. In fact, when I see RETARD used as a verb, its pejorative cousin usually doesn't even enter my head. The verb is just a normal word I associate with chemistry.
And so, it probably goes without saying that I have no problem with RETARD being in a crossword grid. And it also probably goes without saying, given that this word has the same letters in the same order as an ableist slur, that some people feel differently from me. You can read the comments of such folks in the linked article above, or you can search Twitter.com where I saw a few indignant tweets asking how in 2022 could a crossword grid contain such a word? that were cosigned by some people in Crossworld whom I like and whose opinions I respect.
To be clear, I have no problem with somebody saying they don't like RETARD (or any other entry) and wouldn't put it in a grid. I take issue with people saying nobody should be allowed to put it in a grid. It strikes me as a very self-important way to look at something: I'm bothered by this, therefore it should be off-limits for everybody.
Actually, it's kinda interesting, on the same day RETARD ran in the WSJ, the aforementioned Paolo Pasco made his debut in the New Yorker, and a commenter (again linked above) criticized it for having too many "unfair" proper nouns to which Paolo replied:
sorry to hear that! just send me a list of all the things you, personally, know and i’ll make sure this mistake never happens again
This is a brilliant retort, as it succinctly and humorously illustrates the absurdity of a solver expecting a crossword puzzle meant for a broad audience to cater to their personal knowledge base. And yet this is basically what people want when they demand a word like RETARD be stricken from puzzles because they, personally, don't like it. I'd suggest we respond to such demands by also asking for a list, but the person might not get the joke, and they'd actually give us a list, and then we wouldn't be able to use entries like ABC and OREO, and then where would we be?
There is no way for constructors and editors to respect the sensibilities of every person, or every type of person, or every group of people in their entire solving audience, unless this audience is smaller than, like, five people. The only way to ensure that nothing will be in a grid that you find unpleasant is to hire your own personal crossword constructor, in which case, I'm available. I'll make a puzzle that's nothing but sunshine and lollipops and Marianne Williamson quotes, for the right price. Actually, I'd probably make that puzzle for free. It sounds like a kinda interesting project, and I'm generous with my services that way.
Contrarian Corner: The Teaser
I started writing a whole other section here, in which I post things bloggers or commenters or other constructors say about crosswords with which I disagree, and then I state that I disagree with them and explain why. But it got to be too long, as it morphed into other broader crossword topics, so I cut it with the idea that I'll finish it and post it later, perhaps over several entries. But I'll at least give you a little taste of what I had going on.
- The Old-Guard Canard -- The fallacious (in my opinion) notion that there's an Old-Guard of straight, male, white crossword gatekeepers, who aren't interested in and often actively discourage or disallow crossword content that doesn't appeal to a stereotypical older, straight, white, male solver.
- The regressive practice of some crossword bloggers and commenters of perpetuating stereotypes as a means of measuring equality.
- How gay do you have to be to qualify for an NYT Diverse Crossword Constructor Fellowship? Do you have to be, like, full-on gay, or can you just be kinda bicurious? And aren't LGBTQ folks already pretty well-represented among crossword constructors? If not, then my read on certain people is way off the mark.
That's all I got for you. Until next time...
No comments:
Post a Comment