Update, 4/14/15 @ 4:30 pm ET: If you’re clicking over from one of Rex Parker’s links and visiting Devil Cross for the first time…..welcome! I normally write puzzles instead of blog posts. You can access them by clicking on the links in the Archives sidebar, or in reverse chronological order by clicking on the links at the bottom of each post.
***NOTE: This post contains spoilers about the New York Times puzzle of Tuesday, April 14.***
Today’s New York Times puzzle by Bruce Haight sets an unusual crossword record of sorts: fewest number of different letters in a single New York Times grid (EIGHT, to be exact). The only letters that appear in the puzzle are A, E, G, H, I, R, S, and T. It’s an enormously difficult constraint to place on a puzzle given the limited number of available words that can fit together with only those eight letters, and as Wordplay blogger Deb Amlen notes, the theme produced “significant sacrifices in the fill.” Yet in the same post, Deb continues:
“Does that mean that the puzzle should not have seen the light of day, as some people may feel? I don’t know. Here’s the thing about creativity: In order to come up with new ideas, people have to be given the room to push the envelope, no matter where it takes them. Shutting someone down just because they tried something that forces a bunch of celebrity name plurals and words like RAREE is not good for the long game of crossword puzzle construction, in my opinion.”
She acknowledges that it’s critical to maintain high standards, but then asks:
“… is it possible that those who criticize every word in every puzzle are doing so because they have just fallen into a habit? And what does that do for constructors who might have a new idea for a puzzle, but are afraid to try it for fear of being criticized just because the idea is still embryonic?”
While I am not a daily crossword blogger like Deb or Rex Parker or Amy Reynaldo or Jeff Chen — and I believe it’s fair to assume that Deb is referring primarily to them when she talks about people who “criticize every word in every puzzle” — I am nonetheless someone who is just as keenly interested in the creativity and artistry of puzzles. Though I respect Deb a lot as one of those bloggers and appreciate very much that she has helped spread the word about some of my own puzzle projects, I felt compelled to respond to her points in greater detail.
First, I don’t think anyone would disagree that creativity means allowing people to think outside of the box and push the boundaries from time to time. New ideas require trying new things. But the question isn’t simply whether “pushing the envelope” (as vague a concept in puzzles as in all art) should be allowed; it’s about what purpose it serves. What’s the payoff, basically? Most importantly, is the final product enjoyable for the solver?
That last question is inherently difficult to answer since it’s impossible to account for everyone’s differences in taste, but that doesn’t mean one can’t identify problems in a puzzle’s execution. In Bruce’s puzzle, the gimmick asks solvers to see that it is possible to fill a grid with only eight different letters of the alphabet. For many solvers, that may be enough — it’s no easy feat, after all. At the same time, it’s not unreasonable to critique the fact that the same grid required many, many compromises to pull it off, with answers like HIES, TASTER, SIEG, SIGHER, SETHS, AGRI-, RAREE, SSGTS., TITI, ERIS, ATRA, STETS, TERA-, AST, SETI, RAES, IRREG., REES, HAIG, TARSI, GIRTHS, ATHS., TRISTE, ASTR., and ERTE. A couple of these in a grid might be okay; any regular crossword solver understands that there may be a few trade-offs to get an ambitious theme to work. But take them all together, and that’s a lot of trade-offs to swallow. For me, the trade-offs weren’t worth it.
Given the many compromises in the fill, it is fair to question whether a puzzle could be more enjoyable if it didn’t labor under such heavy theme constraints. Deb asks if people criticize poor fill like the aforementioned just out of habit, but there’s a simple reason that Rex Parker and Amy Reynaldo in particular critique filler words like RAREE and SIGHER: because those words are not in common use and they believe that crosswords would be better off without them. However habitual it may be for them to harp on poor fill, that doesn’t invalidate their complaints; RAREE and SIGHER and the like aren’t stellar words to use in any puzzle. Too many of those types of words in a single puzzle, and you’ll likely hear about it.
That brings me to Deb’s other question: what about those harsh critiques from puzzle blogs? How much does the possibility of a tough review because of some less-than-ideal words limit a constructor’s creativity or willingness to take risks with a potentially ambitious and clever theme? I don’t know, and I don’t want to presume to know how other constructors feel about that. As someone who cut his teeth in crossword construction by reading Rex Parker and Diary of a Crossword Fiend for years, I can say that their critiques have helped me immensely in understanding what makes a puzzle better, but obviously, that’s not everyone’s experience. Still, I’m not sure that Deb’s question represents the most useful hypothetical. Of course Rex and Amy and others play a key role in shaping opinion of a puzzle’s merits, but it’s the constructors who create the puzzles in the first place and the editors who publish them — they are ultimately responsible for the creative choices in puzzles. If an influential blog helps constructors steer clear of poor fill, then I don’t see the downside. Better fill is better, right?
(I’ll concede that getting a tough critique on something you’ve worked hard on isn’t fun — I’ve gotten them, too, and it’s fair to note that Rex’s review today is pretty scathing. But if a constructor enjoys making puzzles enough, they’ll keep making them anyway, regardless of what crossword bloggers might say about them.)
I would also submit: let’s not conflate “creativity” with willingness to take risks with subpar fill. A constructor can have many creative ideas and still prioritize smoothness of fill over a theme that may be proving unwieldy. If something isn’t working, the constructor can try starting over with the same idea, or try a new idea entirely. Besides, if a puzzlemaker decides that a certain crossword theme is proving unfeasible because the fill becomes too compromised, is that necessarily a bad thing? It gives a constructor the opportunity to assess their own work frankly. Look at this Greek letter-themed rebus grid here:
SACA, A BANE, ALALA, UPL, SHI, SIR SLAM (?!), THE TALE, DEATH SPIRAL TRAPS (?!!)….. it’s dreadful, right? You bet it is. I know it’s dreadful because I made it. I built it more than six years ago. It was the first full 15×15 crossword grid I ever completed. I never submitted it anywhere, but I still keep it around to laugh at it and remind myself that I’ve come a long way since then. Nowadays, I approach crossword construction with a lot more confidence. I developed that confidence not despite having much greater concern for fill, but because of it.
When asked about what makes a successful crossword, Trip Payne once said the following:
“My #1 rule has always been: It’s All About The Fill. Of course you want a great theme and clever clues, but the second you resort to weak entries, you’ve lost my interest. A lot of people are willing to’justify’ weak entries because they’re ‘necessary’ to pull off a wide-open grid or an ambitious theme; I don’t agree with that. With enough work, and perhaps a willingness to pull back a little from the original concept, you can pretty much always avoid poor fill.
Look at Patrick Berry: his themes are great, and you’d have to inspect his puzzles with a microscope to find a weak entry anywhere. That’s not magic — he just has high standards and a willingness to put in the work to make his puzzles as good as they can be.”
That captures my own sentiments well. It’s for good reason that many crossword constructors (and, I would guess, far more crossword-solving enthusiasts) hold Patrick’s work in high esteem: they’re clever and smooth, with hardly any compromises in the fill at all. In terms of early-week puzzles, I’d put Lynn Lempel‘s work in the same category: smooth, smart, and well-executed. Yes, you want a theme to deliver a satisfying a-ha moment, as Trip says, but when it comes at the expense of fill (which comprises most of the puzzle anyhow), then the puzzle suffers.
I’m in agreement with Deb that people should encourage puzzle constructors to think outside of the box and try out new ideas to see where they lead. So here’s what I’d recommend to constructors: don’t be afraid to experiment with themes, but don’t be afraid to start a puzzle over from scratch if the fill isn’t cooperating either. In the end, constructors don’t need to choose between holding the fill to high standards and maintaining a creative puzzle — making a puzzle as smooth as it can be is creative.
It’s All About the Fill: A Response to @NYTimesWordplay. http://t.co/mloxfv0lPg #crosswords @rexparker @Amy_Rey
I understand the criticisms of the ugly fill, and I share the idea that they’re things to avoid. I have no problem with the idea that lots of people I respect hate puzzles like this, and some of them sometimes express this hate with an intensity commensurate with things that _really_ matter. That’s their right, and occasionally these remarks and the responses to them can be somewhat amusing.
But I have a few reactions to this post and to the long-running debate of which it’s a part (next comment):
1) Rex said in a comment that anybody who liked today’s puzzle is _stupid_ (emphasis mine). I really have no appreciation for expression of personal aesthetic values that portray them as absolute truths. Constructors build these things for our amusement, for very low pay, and our cost per puzzle is tiny. It’s one thing to express a strongly negative reaction, but it’s another to show utter contempt and disdain for the effort.
2) Will S. has made it clear that he doesn’t let the ugly stuff get in the way of the other features that provide fun. He caters to a community far larger than the elite solvers, constructors, bloggers, and commenters that we all see. So it may be tempting to see validation in the narrow community, and to believe that one’s preferences are absolute objective facts. But they’re not. (I’m not even saying that “ugly fill” isn’t widely seen as ugly, but I bet the vast majority of solvers are happy enough to fill in the grid and move on to the next word. It’s not an objective truth that ugly fill invalidates the whole grid.)
3) Puzzles like this, as well as “fill-compromised” quad stacks, provide different experiences, in terms of how you solve by developing connections from one word to the next. If I only saw puzzles that had the attributes I’ve decided I like best, then I’d miss out on other ideas and experiences.
4) ” If an influential blog helps constructors steer clear of poor fill, then I don’t see the downside. Better fill is better, right?” Sure. Better fill _is_ better. If there were a way to build an 8-letter puzzle with unimpeachable fill, I almost certainly would prefer it to this one (hypothetically, of course). But such a puzzle apparently does not exist: I can’t tell you that I’d prefer to see a puzzle exactly like one of the Tuesdays’ of recent months, say, and see new idea like this one deferred indefinitely, than to see an idea that shows something I haven’t seen before, even if it’s not immaculate.
@===Dan: The comment calling people who liked the puzzle “stupid” was from Rex Porker, not Rex Parker. It’s a “funny” doppelganger username that someone uses to mock the blog’s author.
Oops, apologies to Rex. Doesn’t really change what I’m trying to say.
Dan, in response to each of your items:
#1: As a constructor, I’m well aware of the low pay in crosswords (by the same token, crossword bloggers typically earn even less). But we’re not talking about someone building a puzzle privately for a school project — the New York Times represents the big leagues for puzzles. If a person is going to get his or her work published in a major outlet like the NYT, they have to expect to get their work scrutinized, even harshly so.
#2: However large the solving community outside of crossword blogs may be, the fact remains that puzzles become better with better fill. It makes it easier for newer solvers to understand and, I’d argue, makes it easier for everyone to appreciate a clever clue. Plus, if newer solvers get inundated with fill answers that aren’t in use in many places except in crosswords like SIGHER, RAREE, etc (and they represent close to one-third of this puzzle, by my count)…..is that fun for them? Ugly fill may not invalidate the whole grid, but it’s not a stretch to say that better fill makes the solving experience *significantly* better for everyone, not just elite solvers and bloggers. Have you ever heard someone say of Patrick Berry’s puzzles, “You know, I wish there were more things like RAREE and SIGHER in here”?
#3: Crosswords are remarkably adaptable. Just imagine how many mathematical possibilities there are for filling a puzzle — it’s practically infinite. There’s no reason to think that solvers can get a wide variety of puzzles that appeal to different tastes AND have smooth fill at the same time, at least smoother than one such as today’s grid.
#4: To me, the solution should not be to lower one’s standards of fill because a theme may be technically difficult to pull off cleanly. Again, a few compromises here and there is to be expected, but this puzzle has way more than just a few.
Thanks, Evan
You and others have the right to judge puzzles by your own standards, and to hold fast to them, and to express those views strongly and unambiguously. We agree that the pay is low for (most) bloggers and for constructors. We agree that puzzles are better when they have cleaner fill, less “crosswordese,” and fewer ugly entries. My comments are not directed specifically to what you said here, but as a “contribution” to the ongoing discussion of which today’s blog entry is a part.
Somehow I’m reminded (in the abstract) of the famous saying that policies in academia are so vicious because the stakes are so low. It seems to me that there is a lot of taking of sides in this discussion, and it seems to me that lots of people may be identifying strongly with the positions they are taking. (That’s just a personal impression I’ve picked up over the recent years.)
So just a few more things here:
1) I wouldn’t mind if the critics were to say “I didn’t like this one at all. The theme and the few snappy entries could not justify all that ugly fill.” But the impression I get is that some critics see a puzzle they don’t like as a travesty to all that’s beautiful and holy, and the editor’s decision betrays tone-deafness and other kinds of incompetence. I think it does matter that people are offering the products of significant effort just to provide some amusement for a fairly small community. There are nice ways to express a negative opinion, and letting the constructor know that the effort was an atrocity isn’t one of them. Of course, you have every right to express that opinion as you see fit. I don’t enjoy reading those reviews, and I think those reviews say as much about the reviewer as they do about the puzzle. That’s _my_ view of that kind of work, and I’m sure you appreciate my right to share it. I’ve read lots of views taking the “side” you take, and they haven’t made me like them any more.
2) If you can keep all the good things about a grid and improve the fill, that would be an unambiguously good thing. I think I made that view clear earlier. But that’s not always an option. You (apparently) would rather see a completely different good puzzle with good fill than a puzzle like today’s. Here’s where I think reasonable people can disagree: the constructor indicated that he reworked the puzzle already, and Will thought that the neat idea behind it made the puzzle worthwhile. Now it’s no longer a question of good fill being better than bad fill. It’s a question of whether an idea can justify a puzzle that doesn’t meet your standards for fill. That hypothetical question about Patrick Berry’s puzzles is entirely beside the point. Nobody has argued that weak fill is a virtue. And I agree, at the margin at least, that the “silent majority” would benefit from improved fill. But I’m not convinced that these unrepresented solvers would care more about improved fill than they would appreciate an idea like today’s.
3) Certainly, there (mathematically) are many possibilities for building a grid. Since you agree that sometimes it is necessary that compromises be made to execute an idea, then it’s a matter of degree, and a matter of how much you value the theme’s idea. Reasonable people can disagree. Will has a large number of puzzles to choose from, and he chose this puzzle because he liked the idea. The fact that the number of permutations of words and letters makes it likely that there’s a better puzzle out there is really a moot question. Will chose from his submissions. Today’s puzzle had something that the other ones didn’t.
4) Your standards are fine. Hold onto them. You should like the puzzles you like, and express your views about those you don’t. But I’m just saying that the criticisms of puzzles like this seem harsh, and they are presented as if the values and tastes leading to these expressions are objective facts, but I think they’re not. They’re just preferences.
Fair enough. Speaking for myself, I always try to aim my critiques towards the puzzles themselves, rather than at the constructor or editor on a personal level. I’d also say that it’s a given that these are my opinions, and as such shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that anyone who disagrees has the facts all wrong. That said, I base these opinions on years of constructing and analyzing puzzles, and as someone who has tried to make puzzles a career passion, it’s something I take seriously (just like those in academia compete over seemingly small stakes — also something I’m familiar with, having worked in academia for a couple of years now).
But it’s all good. Thanks for the feedback.
Did NOT like this puzzle (and I used 13 letters to craft that response). http://t.co/Afq7kfy5fX @devilcrosswords @rexparker
Well put, Evan.
“Weak” fill is based on your definition of “weak.” It’s a constantly moving target that is ill-defined and based on subjective criteria. You apparently love “Game of Thrones,” a show that you couldn’t pay me to watch, so your numerous G.O.T. clues/entries in your puzzles frustrate me to no end. I’d consider them “weak” in the sense that I wouldn’t put them in my puzzles. I’m sure you and others tire of hockey-related stuff in my puzzles. As Dan said, it boils down to personal preference, which I think is a tenuous basis for such a prescriptive essay.
To use Patrick Berry’s standards is a little unfair, too. I mean, I admire the guy and think he’s the bee’s knees and all, but bashing a puzzle because it fails the Berry test is like criticizing a hockey player because he’s not Wayne Gretzky. Patrick Berry is who he is because he’s literally the best in the business. The same can be said for Trip, who I have to respectfully disagree when he says it’s “all” about the fill. In a themeless puzzle, I’d tend to agree. But in a themed puzzle, I’m fine with a couple of “weak” entries, however you’d like to define them; a puzzle isn’t ruined for me when an ELHI or an ASTA shows up. Brendan’s AVCX puzzle last week got really high ratings on Crossword Fiend and it had perhaps the worst piece of fill I’ve ever seen: ASSEGAI, and the tongue-in-cheek “gimme” clue only made it more cringe-worthy, in my opinion. I didn’t love the puzzle like others did, but I certainly liked it and it wasn’t ruined by ASSEGAI.
That said, the puzzle in question is based on a thin concept and wasn’t executed well either, so I understand the negativity. I just get frustrated by this discussion that arises every now and then; I can see both sides’ points, and I doubt a true consensus will ever be met, largely because “weakness” is in the eye of the beholder.
Yes, fair points. We actually agree that a few weak entries won’t sink a puzzle; I’m okay with the occasional ASTA or SSGT., so long as a puzzle isn’t drowning in entries like that (I mean, I counted 20+ of them in Tuesday’s puzzle, and I doubt we’d disagree much on which ones they were). Some weak entries are worse than others, though not everyone will agree on the degree, i.e. I’d probably take a short prefix over a partial phrase, where others would avoid the prefix altogether — again, there’s no accounting for everyone’s personal taste. The difference, though, is that if I throw in the occasional Game of Thrones or a video game reference that you or others don’t know, I’ll still make sure that it’s fully gettable and crossed with common words and phrases, without having to resort to multiple crosswordese-kinda-entries surrounding it just to fit it in. Same thing with your puzzles — I don’t get the sense that you’re forcing in obscure hockey stuff just for the sake of it.
On your second point: it would probably be unfair to blame new constructors for not having completely sparkling grids — they’re still learning the ropes. However, I disagree with the notion that it’s unfair to measure a puzzle’s fill against a gold standard like Patrick Berry. The analogy with Gretzky doesn’t make much sense to me because a hockey player with less physical speed or strength or skill handling a puck can train all he wants, can get better, but just won’t ever reach the same skill level of Gretzky (I would think a better comparison to the Gretzky example would be if, say, someone were to blame me for not being able to solve a crossword as fast as Dan Feyer — I can solve as many puzzles as I can, but honestly, I will never reach Dan’s speed; I’m just not wired that way). Anyway, where it comes strictly to fill (and not themes, since that’s a different beast), Patrick Berry is not doing anything that any constructor couldn’t also do — he just puts in the time and effort to make sure his fill is squeaky clean. The same is true for Lynn Lempel and her early-week puzzles. Obviously a puzzle can still be good, even great, with a few not-so-great fill entries. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that a Berry- or a Lempel-quality fill is something constructors should be striving for in their own grids.
If you really meant that “what constitutes too much weak fill is a moving target…” I’m right with you. Just because something is “subjective” doesn’t mean there is no predominant consensus on what is better or worse. A partial is not as preferred as a stand alone word or phrase. Adding an S or ED to make a word work is less elegant than not adding an S or ED. ERN/ERNE/EEL/ENO/ONO/LEO/OLAF/V/YMA Sumac may be needed at times but a puzzle is better without them. “Weak fill” is pretty well understood and I don’t think its definition changes much amongst the regular bloggers. Where a puzzle crosses over from “acceptable in service a greater good” and “the fill wrecked it” is harder to reach agreement on. For me, yesterday’s Beatles puzzle was well worth the compromises. Today’s puzzle not so much. With more challenging concepts the reaction to the fill is often related to whether or not a solver “got it.” Personally, I want puzzles that are puzzling, so I tend to be less bothered with themed puzzles or puzzles that twist. But if a constructor wants to show off (low word count/8 letters only/pangram/etc.) I expect more care with the fill.
As for GOT v Hockey clues, that is where a good editor comes in. In a setting like the NYT or LAT, where there are many different constructors being published, that kind of thing gives the constructor a certain voice. But for an independent site that voice can limit your audience. I stopped bothering with one independent puzzle, for instance, when I did three in a row with constructor referenced clues. Once was cute. Twice was too cute.
Thanks for sharing your preferences. I disagree with some of them – for instance, for an easy puzzle, I would prefer using an easy-to-infer partial over an obscure standalone word or name, if those were my only two options. And I wouldn’t bat an eye to use over half of the examples you listed. Context matters a lot. But I very much agree that the issue of “how much is too much” is really the most important factor in this discussion.
Personally, I’m alright with several of the short entries you listed (I don’t see what’s wrong with EEL, for instance), and adding an -S or an -ED as long as it would still be a natural plural or past tense verb that you’d say in common speech. But I’m with you and Andrew that “how much is too much” is a good way of framing the problem.
Risking the flogging of a dead horse here…
The issue with Eel is the same as the issue with Ono or Yma, the presence of the word in puzzles far outpaces the use of the word in the wild. I’ve learned all sorts of “interesting” facts about eels (and Oreos and Opie and the Yser and the Oise) from doing puzzles.
As someone who happily uses the toeholds of plurals and past tenses on challenging puzzles, the “problem” with them is that they are the alphabetic equivalent of a cheater square. One or four, fine. ESSES crossing SSTS? Ugh.
I’ve solved lots of puzzles during my life and the two types of entries I’ve been consistently disappointed with are Roman numerals and directional headings. Just hate their basic randomness, and the clues hardly ever help me get them, just narrow them down. I know there are only so many possibilities for each, but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t bring down the solving experience when I encounter them.
I think I could make an argument for most other types of entries being fine, as long as constructors don’t fill their grids with partials and abbreviations and prefixes. I don’t think anyone likes puzzles like that.
As, I’m pretty sure, the coiner of the phrase “Random Roman Numeral” on Rex’s site, no disagreement here. As evidence of the impact of Michael, I note far fewer RRNs appearing in published puzzles. The RCD does appear far less than it used to as well. At least it seems so to me.
On a side note – I’m still hoping the term “outhouse” takes off for a puzzle not in one’s “wheelhouse.” Oh Vanity!
I actually think the term “outhouse” has far wider contextual applications than just puzzles. It could easily become the opposite of “wheelhouse”!
RT @ehk009: It’s All About The Fill: A Response to Deb Amlen | Devil Cross http://t.co/0GeVGFsaUY A perfect rant for today’s @NYT crossword…
Thank you for your commitment to accuracy. Appreciated.
Sorry, I was trying to “Reply” to Chris Feldmann and apparently failed.
You succeeded in the long run.
This was an unusual case of someone trying to accomplish a feat of construction rather than anything else. Should Shortz have published it is the question. Being a Tuesday I have no problem that he did as it’s quite an impressive although Andy’s reply in Amy’s blog is a marvel itself.
Strike “an” before “impressive” and hope you get an edit button soon.