My Photo

Become a Fan

Current NYT Crossword


Previous NYT Crossword


Syndicated Crossword


My Recent Tweets

Who's here now?

« What is Will Shortz thinking? | Main | My Favorite Books of 2013 »

12/04/2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Greg

Excellent article, and I agree with most of it. Even so, I greatly enjoy Amy's and Rex's entertaining blogs (and the comments), even though they're typically a bit more dyspeptic about perfectly fine puzzles than I would be.

All I can say to maybe console constructors who feel oppressed by blogger negativity is: getting a puzzle accepted by Will Shortz is like having a manuscript accepted by Maxwell Perkins. Will is the best and revolutionized this pastime (hobby? sport?). And many of us hoi polloi solvers are just grateful for our daily fixes, imperfect as they may be to the superstar solvers.

Chris Popp

It's interesting to read so much impassioned writing about crosswords. Clearly, we all do love the puzzles, even if we have myriad perspectives and opinions on them.

I'd like to point out a couple of things I like about the Crossword Fiend site that are not strictly critical. One is that it has exposed me to many puzzle outlets of which I was not previously aware. These run from the Saturday Stumper to the Post Puzzler to the Chronicle of Higher Education, from BEQ to Matt Gaffney's weekly contest to Pete Muller's monthly music metapuzzle. A year and a half ago, I only solved the New York Times puzzles. I still love the Times puzzles, but now I'm aware of so many other options as well.

The other benefit of Crossword Fiend is the user-generated aggregate star ratings. I generally find that if solvers have rated a puzzle 3.75 stars or above, it's really interesting and worth a solve. There are times I don't love a highly-rated puzzle, and there have been puzzles I've loved that didn't earn a high rating. But it's a mostly-reliable system that I appreciate, and it's quite independent of the reviewers' comments.

As I said at the start, it's amazing how much we all care about the puzzles. I think the dialogue is great as long as it's not mean-spirited, and as long as it's intended to create the best experiences for constructors, editors, reviewers, and solvers alike.

Joe Solver

Having tried some old NYT puzzles I think it may be the case that many of those decrying their fall object to the removal of too much esoterica and inclusion of too much pop culture. The Times has lost it's lofty standards.

Rex is the only blogger who can be harsh, and while he may rankle constructors he can be quite engaging and instructive to solvers. His negativity also casts a different light being he's a constructor himself.

As to comment sections, crossword blogs are saintly in relation to almost all others. You also have to realize that almost all negative comments mean-spirited and nasty in nature are borne out of being unable to complete a puzzle. Remember, solvers want to solve and failing to so do doesn't always go down well. Please take this to heart constructors as I have been guilty of this myself.

Jacqueline Hamilton aka JaxInL.A.

As a puzzle fan who enjoyed my hobby in solitude for years, I owe a debt of gratitude to Jim & Jeff, Rex, Amy, and all the others who have created and continue to provide a space where we who enjoy this somewhat arcane pastime can congregate, comment and build community. I have come to know the personalities of a wide range of reviewers and take that in stride when reading their comments, much as I do with movie critics. I have also come to value the input of many regular commenters on those sites.

Having said that, I'm probably more in the fan category that Jim describes. I just like doing the NYT puzzle. But I would never have reached the level of (mostly) Saturday completion without Rex Parker and the community of folks who comment in Rexworld regularly. In fact, I'm grateful to the anonymous poster in Rexworld who sent me here so I could be dazzled by the erudite, passionate yet measured and reasonable discussion here from folks I consider a bit like rock stars.

Though Jim didn't focus on them, ACME mentioned the issue of vitriol from anonymice. This seems a larger Internet problem, and Warren Olney on KCRW (public radio) ran an excellent program on how some of the content providers are handling this issue. In general, though, even the meanest anonymous crossword comment does not rise to the level of ad hominem attack discussed in this piece. We are a peaceable bunch, mostly.
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp131128online_comments_free

John Farmer

Hi, Jim. That was a thoughtful and provocative post, and likewise for the many comments. A couple of things going on here, it seems: one, about the blogs; the other, about the NYT.

First point, I should say I'm not a big fan of the blog format. It's pretty much all we have now, and it is what it is, but I find it limited in ways. We have about three or four voices that dominate the discussion about crosswords each day. Anyone is free to chime in with a comment, of course, but that's not quite the same thing. I'm not knocking the bloggers for how it works (and I've had a blog myself). I give the bloggers a lot of credit for their efforts in writing posts every day and building a community. A lot of work and little or no pay. Kudos to them! But I'm still a fan of the old open forum format. In a very democratic way, everyone had an equal say. It wasn't perfect, but it did result in a much different conversation.

One other point about the main bloggers today: Deb (at NYT central), Amy (and team), Jeff (who somehow got in the club with more than three letters in his name), and P. Rex (i.e., Pseudonosaurus Rex). I find it hard to say much about them as a group. Each is very different, to my eyes, in approach, tone, etc.

Once upon a time I used to read just about anything that was written about crosswords on the web every day. Not so anymore. There's a lot more written these days, for one thing, and I am busy and just don't have the time. But I also cut back because it was detracting from the very reason I was doing crosswords in the first place: my own enjoyment. I don't mind reading the pluses and minuses of a particular puzzle -- probably not how I would do it though I suppose it goes with the territory. But there's a certain sourness that infects some blog posts and when I see that I wish the writer had just taken the day off. I have little patience for rants, insults, a variety of dismissive comments, and grand proclamations about what puzzles should be as if the future of civilization lies in the balance. Maybe that's what the readers like, but I can't help but think it's a big turn-off to the wider community of solvers who continue to do the puzzles because they like the darned things.

So do the critiques of puzzles on the blogs help make crosswords better? In some ways, over time, I think they do. The daily give-and-take about fill, theme construction, and many other aspects of crosswords probably does help bend the curve a bit toward more consistent and cleaner puzzles. But I also think a lot of what's said on blogs works against puzzles. An environment that punishes those who fail to measure up to a blog writer's personal and at times arbitrary standards is not an environment that engenders the best from puzzle makers. It can have a chilling effect, as Matt Ginsberg describes. Creativity works best when it's safe to take chances. But if fear of failure enters the mind, the constructor is more likely to pull some punches, go for the safe instead of the daring choice. Over time, what you get are puzzles that may be more technically proficient, but also less adventurous.

There's a reason why "don't read the reviews" is a mantra for some writers, musicians, movie-makers, and others. I know crossword constructors who follow that advice, and at times I have myself. Over the years I've been treated fair enough, with a few exceptions, but the longer I'm at it, the less I learn directly from others. When I'm done with a puzzle, I already have a good sense of its strengths and weaknesses, and sometimes the best reaction to see is no reaction at all -- no complaints about a flaw I couldn't fix or a very tough section that I worked hard to get right.

It's not that feedback can't be helpful, but there is also a lot of noise. Some comments just leave me scratching my head. One example: someone once wrote that he enjoyed solving one of my puzzles, but thinking about it afterward, he realized that he wasn't really wowed by it. It was a good but not an outstanding puzzle, in his mind, not something of the first rank. So in the end, he was disappointed. What do you do with someone like that, who can talk himself from enjoyment to disappointment in a matter of minutes? He doesn't even trust what he likes. For him and others like him, there will always be a more perfect puzzle in his own imagination, and the puzzle on the page will almost never measure up. Another type of comment that gets me is when my opinion is dismissed because I'm a constructor. I'm told there are puzzles out there that only constructors can like. I may like a puzzle for things that apparently are not important to the "pure solver." Let's put aside the fact that I've been solving puzzles for years longer than I've been making them. By what convoluted logic does a person who makes puzzles have a less valid opinion than others? Are Bob Dylan's opinions about music automatically suspect? Should we not listen to Martin Scorsese when he talks about movies? Not to compare myself or other constructors to those greats, but you get the point. And does it ever dawn on people that every single puzzle they solve has been made by someone with a "constructor's point of view"? Whatever it is that means.

Now I have little time left to get to thoughts about the NYT and the competition. In brief: There have been lots of changes in the puzzle biz the past five to ten years. Online distribution, top name constructors going independent, more venues. It is a lot more competitive than the old days when the NYT was heads and shoulders above anything else. But to compare the Times and the indies is to compare apples and oranges. The Times runs seven or eight puzzles a week; indie venues, usually one or two each. The Times relies on freelancers, including newcomers; the indies, often big names who have many years of making puzzles. The indies are edgier, more topical, and get in pop culture you won't find in the Times. They're aimed for a narrow audience (like the blogs, btw) rather than the broad audience of the Times and other papers. Are there differences between the Times and the indies. Yep. Is one better than the other? On any given day, probably, and on average, it depends what you're looking for. Are puzzles getting better all around? You bet. Does the Times do an excellent job serving its audience? I certainly think so.

The comments to this entry are closed.