Too many annoyingly obscure clues. No fun at all.
@DQ I was mainly annoyed that "uh oh" is two words, not one. I initially figured it must be "oops".
@DQ You may not have had any fun, personally I enjoyed it very much and I'm sure many others did too. It makes me sad that this is the top-rated comment. Those of us who relish a really tough puzzle don't come here every week and complain when yet another Saturday succumbs in less than 20 minutes. Please let us have our fun today; I'm sure normal service will resume again next week!
If you're going to go all foreign plural with THALAMI (unfortunately, Caitlin beat me to the joke I was going to make about it sounding like a deli meat), you might as well get "Fathers, in Hebrew" right. ABBA is father, but fathers is AVOT. ABBAS is a Palestinian politician. I'm aware that English regularizes plurals; in fact, I tell this to people all the time (i.e. paninis). But the clue was "Fathers, in Hebrew", not in English, and ABBA has not become a typical word in the English lexicon yet. Its only use is in religious contexts, as a title, most often for God. I held my nose when I entered it. Might as well been "Swedish quartet and namesakes".
@Steve L, I count myself lucky that I don't know these details so well that I get frustrated by slight/perceived imperfections.
@Steve L Right, "abbas" is not plural for fathers in Hebrew. That was really silly. It would be more or less "avim" or "ahvim" transliterated. Par for the course for this annoying puzzle.
I think “Worrisome word from a barber” should have been “words”
@Terry in VT I think you should check a few dictionaries. It's written as one hyphenated word in all the ones I've looked at. UH-OH! !!!! !!!!
@Terry in VT - Word! A word to the wise. You should probably have a word with the editing team, and hopefully they will take you at your word. And now, a word from our sponsor….
I'm never on Sam's wavelength in his puzzles. I manage to finish them, but I don't enjoy the process. I've been trying to figure out why. I think it has something to do with his particular kind of vagueness--useful in clueing, of course, especially on a Saturday. GAH, to me, doesn't work for [Smacks forehead]; GAH carries a connotation of horror and panic (unlike the more apt-for-the-clue DOH). ALL THAT has a more negative connotation than "Legit," in my experience (as in "He thinks he's all that"), and glances are what one typically steals, rather than PEEKs. Perhaps that's it: Sam's clues tend to strip words of their connotations and common usages, so I don't get that rush of pleasure from "Oh! I never thought of that word that way!" Instead, the answers often feel just shy of correct to me--arguably correct, perhaps, but I don't look for arguments first thing in the morning on a Saturday.
@David Reiffel GAH!!! Totally agree! The obscure clues that could be any number of answers make the solve less satisfying IMHO.
@Lake life, IMHO that’s what makes a Saturday a Saturday! … (hoping the emus agree)
@David Reiffel I also totally agree. And I am happy to see most of my other complaints mirrored in theses comments. However, I am still glad that the occasional truly difficult puzzle appears. Even (especially?) if it’s a bit cheat-y in its clues. Of course this is probably only true because I am enough of a fanatic that I don’t care how long it takes, I will finish the puzzle.
That was hard. That was really hard. I was a little surprised when I managed to finish it. That is all.
Hmmm, many answers required specific knowledge, despite the column insisting they were mostly clever clues.
@Wayne C The self-congratulatory tone of the constructor’s note was just the icing on the cake.
After going well past my average time with only a handful of squares entered, I resorted to looking at the key to help me crack this nut. It’s never a good sign when you look at the answers and go, “What? Huh? Ok, I guess.” Great job on the Saturday-est puzzle I’ve seen in quite a while. Punishing. Obscure. Demoralizing. I’m going to bed now.
Good morning, all! I always pop by the comments section on my own puzzles, because the discourse is invaluable. Normally I'm just a lurker, but today I figure I'd chime in with just couple thoughts: 1) My personal constructor style is to give you one heckuva Saturday workout, knowing that at times it'll be polarizing. So of course your mileage may vary! If this one wasn't your cup of tea, no worries, and no need to hold back; just hope you'll enjoy tomorrow's offering, or next Saturday's, whichever ... the editor in me wants something for everyone. 2) Regarding the constructor notes, the goal here certainly wasn't to come off with excessive self-praise. It's a privilege to both create and edit puzzles for The Times, and feel like I owe it to y'all to peel back the curtain more: My thought process behind the construction, but also some of the hallmarks our team seeks in (what we hope are) good, enjoyable puzzles. I hope this clarifies things better! Forever grateful for the compliments, and also the incisive feedback. All love, Sam
@Sam Ezersky Hardest puzzle in a long time but SOOO satisfying to solve. Just the kind of puzzle I need to keep my aging brain clicking. Thank you!
@Sam Ezersky seeing your name on the puzzle always leaves me shaking in my boots a little bit, if I’m being honest — but I am so grateful to know that my puzzle solving ability and agility hasn’t peaked, and I’ve still got a ways to go! Thanks for keeping it challenging and for all that you do.
@Sam Ezersky - all well and good but you and the editor still have to explain how “uh oh” is one word. And, “gah”? Seriously? Did you slap your head and say “d’oh” when creating this clue?
Hardest Saturday since . . . well, it’s been a while. Like Liz B, I was surprised to finish. I think most of the difficulty lay in the thorny cluing. But the three entries that ended with “I” all threw me, for different reasons: THALAMI, WHY SHOULD I and POLI SCI. Need a DOG NAP after this one. OLE, Sam!
Now that’s a Saturday puzzle. When I saw it was by Sam Ezersky, I knew it would be. Persistence, patience, flexible thinking about misdirection, and (of course) working the crosses did the trick. Thanks, Sam.
Worrisome words from a barber ... . . Hi, I'm Sweeney Todd.
@ad absurdum Second try Have a little priest.... <a href="https://youtu.be/5aQ_uEEMPqE?si=RLT8_3XnN85QD_4q" target="_blank">https://youtu.be/5aQ_uEEMPqE?si=RLT8_3XnN85QD_4q</a> Begone emus, before you end up in a meat pie.
The "don't say anything negative" squad is out in force again today. Look, friends: sometimes a body just needs to vent. Let people blow off a little steam about a tricky puzzle, and stop being so ironically critical of their criticisms. (I suspect at least several of the folks carping about the negativity of commenters here would rally to defend Deb Amlen's far-from-complimentary words about Joe Marquez's grid in this week's Thursday Wordplay column. Coarse invective obviously excluded, it's okay not to like a thing, and to say so when the thing in question is broadcast to a wide public and thus fair game for public praise or censure.)
@John Deal Of course it's OK to not like a puzzle, and many times the complaints are legitimate (there was one today about a Hebrew word). However, when a complaint is categorically incorrect, or based on ignorance (like calling CIS a vulgar word) or hyperbole ("this is garbage", "the worst puzzle ever!") without any reason to back it up, you should expect some clap back. We are discussing a puzzle here, and there should be some back and forth. :) BTW, I read quite a few complimentary things in Thursday's column about that puzzle, but I also agree that comparing it to a Sunday crossword was a little unfair.
@Janine Agreed. I’m not saying you shouldn’t say anything negative, just let’s have a little civility and fairness about it. I don’t think that’s asking too much of what should be a thoughtful, intelligent community.
For a guy that leaves relatively normal words out of the spelling bee, he sure puts a lot of nonsense in a crossword.
The plural of fathers in Hebrew is AVOT, not ABBAS. Also, UH OH is two words, not one.
In over 40 years of doing the NYT crossword, I think this is the worst puzzle I have ever seen. I commented to my wife that Will Shortz should be ashamed of this mess. Now I see that he is MIA which explains why this garbage has seen the light of day.
@Richard Irell A few thoughts: First, I wish this community would stick to constructive criticism and not blanket nastiness. Lots of reasons you might not like a puzzle but calling it “garbage” is uncalled for. Second, FYI, puzzles are accepted months and months in advance so I have little doubt Will Shortz approved this puzzle. Occasional tweaks on clues at the last minute, yes, but the grid itself, unlikely. And Sam the constructor is also an editor so I doubt there would have been much different if Will were here. Third, Sam’s contributed lots of puzzles and this is his style, like it or not. Exasperating, stretchy, sometimes obscure but in my opinion usually entertaining and thought-provoking. Don’t agree? Sure, say why in a polite thoughtful manner and move on.
@Richard Irell I thought it was hard but mostly fair (only bothered by ABBAS as a Hebrew speaker). At the first pass I had almost nothing, but it did all come together in the end. It's definitely on the harder end but no matter what, some puzzle will be on the harder end and that's what keeps it fun.
By now I have learned that the more I enjoy solving a puzzle, the more reading comments here will be a nasty experience. On first pass, I got “audio books” with such instant pleasure, and saw our old friend “Alta” (the ban on board sports is so useful for constructors), followed by “Angel Falls.” But those three were all I had from acrosses. For downs, even fewer: just “pho” and “tuo”. It seems that many people think that a sea of blanks after a first pass is a sign of a bad puzzle. It is, for me, the sign of a good one, a true challenge. Steadily, I filled in the lower left, upper right, then after a longer wrestle, lower right and upper left. Like many, I was not happy with “abbas” as clued, but it was clear that was what should be there. Never heard of Trace Adkins or Geno Smith, but they were both more than fairly crossed and clued. Saturday NYT puzzles are celebrated for the challenge. It was great to have one up to that standard after weeks and weeks of just plopping obvious letters into obvious answers. Thanks, Sam!
@David Connell I couldn’t agree more. A Saturday should be a SATURDAY. Sam never makes it easy, and I’m here for it!
@David Connell There is challenge, and there is ridiculous cluing and random trivia in an effort to appeal to 'everyone'. If we wrote puzzles in a similar spirit, I imagine the resultts would be just as tortured and offputting. But we don't have editors or experience, at least I don't. That's why, in my view, this is a fail and I expect more from the NY Times. Every year there are a few clunkers and I guess that is to be expected. But when I think about it, I never felt that way before, only in the last few years. Though I love steak, I have never heard of an 'ambassador cut' or knew or even care that Beale Street has a music festival. I was able to guess Beale, but I derive no satisfaction or interest from doing so. I got lira—Turkey bacon? how lame— and damask ('I have seen roses damasked, red and white, / but no such roses do i see in her cheeks'). Doesn't mean I think the latter should show up in a puzzle. I always remember the scene from the Will Shortz movie about crosswords in which one of the constructors looks up a word in the dictionary to make sure it is legit. If he doesn't know the word, why should anyone else? That is just a bad puzzle. Today's seems like a perfect example of such construction.
Ugh! My 800 day streak will not be broken but this is a puzzle that I wish I could have never had to deal with. Sam seems to think that made up phrases clued cryptically is “clever wordplay” but nah, it’s just a bother. Stick to Spelling bee, where incidentally thalami would never be allowed, since “esoteric” medical terminology is almost never included.
@Jane This is Sam’s 55th NYT crossword puzzle. His first was in 2012. As Caitlin notes in her article, he is well-respected by people who solve crossword puzzles with much greater facility than any, or at least the vast majority, of us in this forum, as exemplified by the annual ACPT’s use of his puzzles. You might not like this puzzle, but telling Sam to stick to the Spelling Bee ignores the fact that he’s been constructing Xword puzzles long before your streak started and that many solvers, including me, eagerly look forward to his puzzles, even if THALAMI almost threw me into the Mississippi.
@Puzzlemucker oh sorry i didn’t acknowledge that I have been doing the puzzle and appreciating the great work of the brilliant Sam E. for well over the 800 days of steady completion of the crossword. Streaks previously broken by backpacking trips and backcountry service work. You guys really are some fans and I appreciate how much you love some Ezersky. But don’t try to make it sound like I don’t understand the fandom.
I thought the puzzle was tough but fair. My only quibble is that UH OH is 2 words (or at least, not an actual word, maybe an utterance?) So I was stuck on OOPS for far too long. Super satisfying to start with almost no gimmes and watch it all fall slowly into place.
@Jones As I just said to Terry in VT, the dictionaries list UH-OH as one hyphenated word. And the fact that it's in all the dictionaries is proof that it is a word.
The usual self-indulgent obscurity from this constructor. Not too fun.
With all due respect to the entire NYT Games Crew, if this puzzle didn't have Sam Ezersky's name it would have never made it into the paper without further edits. Not complaining just making an observation.
An anagram for former NFL QB Brock Osweiler is Bolero Wickers.
This one was a no go for me. I finally had to download the pdf of the answer key to figure it out. When it's this difficult it's just no fun.
Yesterday I wrote, "It may just be me, but I've found most of the recent Friday puzzles much trickier than their Saturday sequels. I'll be curious to see if the pattern holds tomorrow; this one was a good, chewy workout." Little did I know! Got the solve, but at double my average time, and only after a decent amount of brute-forcing. I can't say I had a lot of fun with this one; I'm up for a challenge, especially on Saturday, but a lot of the clues here felt opaque rather than teasingly witty.
That is not how you say fathers in hebrew.. as a hebrew speaker that was harder to solve than if I hadn't known the language. In hebrew words don't end with s.
Very hard but worth it. However, I doubt that the Hebrew for Fathers is ABBAS . I suspect Sam is combining a Hebrew singular with an English plural ending. Not quite kosher.
I understand why a lot of other commenters are complaining but this puzzle, in my opinion, was fantastic. Very hard (~15 mins over my average) but totally solvable. I haven't had an excruciatingly fun experience with a puzzle in what feels like 2 years. These hard puzzles are what the Times Saturdays should be.
That was humbling. It was a personal triumph to push through to the end, hanging on to every toehold for dear life. Fair and brilliant. But, definitely humbling.
@JBW amen! Team of 4 here at Caltech, barely scraped by
@Dylan King Thanks for that. Now I feel better.
So many mean and sour comments. It’s just a puzzle! This one had some good smiles in it—and so what if I cheated in spots and learned a thing or two I didn’t know before (that I may or may not remember for next time, lol).
Oh dang, this was hard. Still, I am quite proud of myself for filling most of it on my own: it took about 10 lookups - mostly for the proper names, and also for the meaning of lassitude - and autocheck, which helped me with alphabet runs in several places, and two or three guesses, but I prevailed (in a way, at least). After 9 months of solving these puzzles I am beginning to be able to tackle most of the hard ones, and it feels pretty good 🙂. I am sure veteran solvers enjoyed the hell out of this, and I hope one day I will be able to do puzzles like today's without any help. I'm slowly getting there. The only clue I was sort of disappointed with was 'Trace of music' - it ended up being just another proper name clue, and of the worst kind, with the capital letter obfuscated. If you know the name, you will appreciate how witty the clue was. If you don't, you just feel misled. Misdirecting trivia clues are my least favorite in NYT puzzles. Misdirecting clues about words are great, but about trivia, not so much.
@Andrzej Trace ADKINS is a country singer, and since that's the genre I listen to the most, I put it in rather quickly. I'm sure it gave even Americans who don't listen to the genre trouble. Here's one of my favorite Trace ADKINS songs; listen carefully to the lyrics: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IORz6eS2qt0" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IORz6eS2qt0</a>
@Andrzej This veteran solver didn't enjoy one moment of this puzzle. But I don't look things up, so when the going gets tough, I get going.
@Andrzej I am so impressed you finished with few look ups given the amount of what I consider obscure American trivia. I found the puzzle a slog. Many of the clues once I saw answer just made me scratch my head. Dognap? Hoping for a fun Sunday. Enjoy your posts, always look out for them.
To the sycophants who bristle at any criticism of a puzzle: This puzzle was an excellent example of wanton Googling by the constructor and lack of editing by the Times. (and I again urge the editors to not have constructors include an answer key on initial submission -- that would eliminate puzzles like this from the start).
@Super8ing "Sycophants" is the perfect term to describe these enablers. If everyone keeps kissing up by posting reviews based on the writer's fame instead of the quality of their puzzles then they will keep publishing garbage like this.
@Super8ing And im trying to figure out what words you think had "wanton googling". Out of curiosity, I looked through the list a couple of times to see if I could find a place where the NYT was egregious in its data set. At best I found 3 which were so out there (for me) which I had never heard of....And 2 out of 3 werent close to being a Natick...they kinda crossed common enough phrases or words. The one which I could see truly being "impossible" here was the cross between Abbas and Bai....Two foreign words...and one with a questionable plural. But the flip side of that location is that Abba is pretty common word in Hebrew....Lots of solvers know similar words in spanish, and french, and german, so why not hebrew?And Bai was from a pretty popular movie even if I havent seen it. So Im trying to understand where the line is between "teacher, this test is too hard because I dont know the answer" and the NYT actually going off into the wilderness when pulling in less common words.
@Super8ing, I agree with you about the “only say nice things about puzzles” rule. You don’t have to like every puzzle, and commenters should be able to express where they think a puzzle falls short. But I *do* believe in the “avoid ad hominem attacks” rule. This puzzle was too hard for you. That’s fine — you are allowed to say so. But I doubt that Sam constructed this by “wanton Googling” or that the other editors gave it a pass because of its constructor. (As an aside, this is a peculiar puzzle to chalk up to “wanton Googljng” because whatever you might think of it, it was *not* chock-full of random trivia or names — indeed, I would say just the opposite! This was much more a case of tricky cluing and misdirects than obscure facts.) Just because you didn’t know the answers and couldn’t figure then out from the crosses doesn’t means others didn’t or couldn’t. For my part, while I never find myself entirely on Sam’s wavelength, I found this puzzle satisfyingly challenging and crunchy, and finished it in my average Saturday time without lookups.
Yes!! A Saturday puzzle. Not a spicy Friday. Not a crunchy themeless. A Saturday!!! Who else does these day after day, week after week, year after year, hoping for one of these? Haven’t read comments, but guessing a bunch of Worst ever. That’s two words, not one. Not a real plural. Too clever by half. And a bunch of *yes*!! I feel like Sam gave us old veteran solver’s a little gift today. YMMV. But I’m writing him a thank-you note. Later. Because a crossword puzzle just exhausted me. Happy day!
@CCNY And I’ll never Ever Ever Stop begging for editable comments. I’ll never get it, But I’ll never shut up about it, either. …
Sam Ezersky and I do not inhabit the same wheelhouse. Our brains do not work the same or have the same associations. He includes words I consider dubious at best and the words he neglects are indicative of a young man who thinks what he doesn't know isn't worth knowing. I know I shouldn't get offended over puzzles but I detect an arrogance in him that I don't get from Will Shortz, who manages to be more playful, more elegant. and more inclusive. When I miss one of Shortz's clues it's actually fun to see how I failed and the twisted way his mind works, while it feels like Ezersky is smugly laughing at me for not being cool enough to get it. Weirdly his attitude is reminiscent of Eugene Maleska's. who was famously off-putting for his obscure vocabulary and assumption of an elitist body of knowledge. Like Maleska, Ezersky seems more interested in asserting his authority - I'm the editor and you're not, deal with it - than in genuinely wanting to play with us the way Shortz manages to convey. I know that Ezersky wouldn't have his job at the paper if Shortz didn't have faith in him, but I wish Sam would learn not just the technical ropes from his mentor but his sense of humanity.
JDJ, You do understand Sam is the puzzle constructor here, not the editor? And the editors often change the clues? Joel is credited as the editor. Given the lead time on puzzles, Will may well have had a hand in the clueing. Also, "Sam" puzzles have been appearing here for years under Will's editorship.
@JDJ “Detecting arrogance” is an unsubstantiated allegation, hey? Your personal reaction to the crossword does not actually prove the constructor’s “arrogance,” does it? Maybe cite the “arrogance” and “ smugness,” to be fair.
I’ve done every puzzle for years. Sometimes I need to look things up, sometimes I need to check the puzzle, every once in awhile I have to look at the column. But I always finish. And I never complain. And I’m always glad I made the effort. Today, after seven or eight passes through, I had maybe four or five answers filled in and there wasn’t even much I could look up, and I could just tell there was not going to be fun to be had. So I gave up. And I’m not sorry.
@Melissa Give the puzzle a day and go back to it. Often clues that made no sense at all will click and you'll see the answers. I have had puzzles with maybe four or five fills that I was hopelessly stuck on, and when i looked at the puzzle again from a fresh point of view I was able to break the ice and by some miracle I was able to finish it. Wait a day.
If patchwork means a mess, then agreed.
I am VERY tired of dealing with Sam Ezersky's far out idiolect, both in the Spelling Bee and now here. He does not know many perfectly normal words, and apparently thinks all sorts of arcana probably peculiar to certain NY circles are common. If this is what the crossword is degenerating to, I just won't bother.
@mporter an easy solution, since you're so tired of Mr. Ezersky's puzzles, is just... stop. It's simple enough to see whether he was the creator of any given puzzle, and you needn't complete it (or even attempt it) if he was. I'd love some explication on "certain NY circles," though. It definitely sounds like you're implying something, and I would be very interested to know what it is.
Not crazy about this one. Too many not-quite-right clues. Completed without help, but irritated rather than satisfied.
@Sarah It was a hard puzzle to be sure. (Took me much longer than usual to complete!) But my view is that the "not-quite-right" clues are deliberately meant to misdirect, requiring one to reread them and rethink what they could mean. The ambiguities of language come to the fore, which I find to be a good thing.
@Sarah I'll give you ABBAS. I commented on that one right out of the box last night. However... In my experience, in most cases "not quite right" really means "not quite understood". (I didn't find any other clue to be "not quite right." If you'd elaborate, I'd explain why they're fine.)
What. A. Beast. Just a tremendous puzzle, a true Saturday benchmark. Can't begrudge Sam on how much this blew out my average because it was so darn good. Inspired my first post ever, and I'm running a 700+ streak. Marvelous.
@Withnail With a 700+ streak, it’s not likely that one puzzle is going to change your average by much. Today’s puzzle took me more than twice as long as most Saturdays. I have a screenshot of my stats from the beginning of February, and my Saturday average is now one second longer than it was then.
This was a true Saturday puzzle. I never once got on a roll but persisted bit by bit till I got it. When the jingle played it felt so good, like I'd stopped whacking my thumb with a hammer.
I have been swamped this week and didn’t do the Thursday puzzle until yesterday, and yesterday’s until today, so was too late to really weigh in on Thursday’s column. Still, I’m deeply interested in the perpetual debate in these comments about what’s fair game in terms of criticism, and because that issue was sparked by Thursday’s Wordplay column but also comes up again today (as it does with any difficult puzzle that people complain about when they can’t finish it), it still feels salient. So, on the theory of “better late than never,” here goes: First, kudos to @Deb Amlen for being willing to buck the convention that the column must only say nice things about the puzzle. I thought it was enormously refreshing to read her piece. To me, it modeled constructive criticism: she acknowledged that she was expressing her own opinion (rather than an objective Truth about the puzzle’s quality) and she explained why she thought it fell short. The fact that there was so much blowback, to me, was more a function of how rare such gentle criticism is (and therefore how “out of character” it was) rather than being justified by what she actually wrote. In particular, calling it a “diatribe” as some did was ridiculous. Second: While I wanted to share my view, I could have saved space by just writing: What @Tito said (in yesterday’s comment section). Thanks to @Deb and the whole Wordplay crew for providing and maintaining this space and for stimulating discussion every day.
This was the hardest puzzle I’ve done in a long time. I like a good challenge and want my Saturdays to be difficult, but there’s a fine line between challenging and miserable. For me this puzzle went over that line. My issue wasn’t so much the difficulty but the lack of fun. The cluing was at times too obscure, misleading in unfair ways, and simply dull. There was no “aha” moment or sense of satisfaction at the end to make up for the slog. I appreciate Sam’s desire to provide good mental workout. But at the end of the day, even the most of us want to have fun.
Random thoughts: • Sam’s name atop a Saturday evokes an inward “Eek!”, immediately countered by excitement, knowing that there will be beauty, wit, and care saturating the puzzle. • I know there will be sweet ahas and a few awe-jaw-drops. I know the puzzle will be uber-scoured, that the cluing will be fair and often brilliant. • Looking at the grid afterward, only a few no-knows, and yet it was chip, chip, chip, from beginning to end, due to devilish cluing. Much time spent waiting for my brain to make the right connection, and fist pumps when it did. Footholds were precious. • OMG, the freshness! That SW stack is all NYT answer debuts. That NE stack has one debut and two answers that have only appeared once in the NYT puzzle. Five debuts elsewhere in the puzzle and many, many hardly-used answers to boot. This puzzle pops! • Lovely answers all over: WHY SHOULD I, SAFETY NET, ANGEL FALLS, STOLE A PEEK, KISSY, ELOCUTE, BE GENTLE, TORPOR, LET IT GO. • Deep bow at [Take, as a pointer] for DOGNAP. Another classic Sam Saturday. They come about a couple of times a year, and they are a solving day like no other. Crossword holidays, to me. Thank you for your talent, and for making this, Sam!
@Lewis I agree. I always look forward to a Saturday challenge.,
That’s the hardest Saturday in months. I think I got all the way down to 46A ALTA before I found a gimme. (There are four ski resorts outside in the Cottonwood Canyons outside Salt Lake City. In January, we went to all except ALTA because my husband’s snowboard is not welcome there.) DAMASK should have been a gimme, but I needed a few letters before I remembered it. ReverseATM (it’s a thing, really!) held me up for a long while. I know of ANGEL FALLS but it took a lot of crosses to get that one. Like Puzzlemucker, I had trouble with all three answers ending in i. Thanks for the challenge, Mr. Ezersky.
My head knew Legit wouldn't be THESH*T, but my heart wanted it to be.
@John I was tempted to use half of your answer for 15A. 😊
My streak is over 1000 days of completing the NYT crossword. I managed to complete this utter slog, but it was probably the most difficult of that 1000. And not a fun challenge. Trivia trivia trivia everywhere. I can’t imagine a casual solver getting anywhere close to solving this.
@Paul Rickter So happy for you. Whatever! emu food
To label a puzzle as garbage because you can't work it is childish. If others can do it and you can't, the failure is yours and you should accept that. Try harder next time before pouting and pushing it away, like a kid in a highchair.
@dutchiris when the 'answer' for "Troy setting, for short" isn't actually short -- to give just one example of the too-clever-by-half clues in this puzzle -- it's garbage, in my book. you don't like my book? don't read it.
@dutchiris My thoughts exactly! I was stumped, until I wasn’t. And that’s why it was so satisfying.
Take, as a pointer may be the cleverest clue I’ve ever seen. I thought this puzzle would defeat me, but I just kept hacking away. Lots od delightful wordplay here. And luckily I’m a Seahawks fan.
Finished, but found it incredibly annoying.
What a gloomy slog. Not a fun way to spend a rainy afternoon.
Sorry, but the answer to 45 down, "Fathers, in Hebrew," is just not correct. Fathers, in Hebrew, is AVOT--or even AVOTH. But there is no Hebrew word that forms a plural by adding an S at the end.
@Super8ing and B - Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! It needed to be said! Whenever I try, my comment is removed. I assume it is because I can't help coming off as too argumentative.
I’m very pleased to have gotten this one with no look ups and without any pesky message at the end. But it was no walk in the park and I had to fight it all the way, building mostly from the bottom up. Three times I came close to calling it a night and hoping some sleep would allow my brain to sort it out. But some stubborn persistence paid off, albeit, in a well above average time. I had never heard the word bacon used as a synonym for money so Turkey bacon confused me. I loved AUDIOBOOKS for speaking volumes, and finally grasping that was the tipping point that unlocked the top of the puzzle for me. I feel well and truly challenged.
@Marshall Walthew "bring home the bacon"
@markm Right. Somehow that common expression eluded my aged brain. Wasn’t the first time something obvious escaped me. Won’t be the last.