So I’m beginning to get a handle of what’s been bugging me lately. Would love to get your feedback. I think we are entering an era with very “technical” constructors. By that I mean, constructors who come up with a clever, difficult theme, that may require some software to engineer and that would be hard to construct otherwise. No doubt they do it well. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to that, or even AI to an extent. But somehow, it seems, that’s all it is. I look at this puzzle today and I come away with a bunch of words but no real sense of this constructor’s personality, interests, or wit. Look, I use software to construct my puzzles, no doubt. But at some point I might say, yeah, this works, but it’s not me, and I start again. And I agonize over all my clues to reflect my own humor and preferences, whether the editors use them or not, and at least the theme reflects my unique personality whether you appreciate it or not. I look at today’s puzzle and while I acknowledge its technical prowess it just doesn’t inspire me. Maybe it’s because I view constructing as more of an art than a puzzle. Ok enough from me, am I being unreasonable, obtuse, or catty, or is this resonating with others? What do you think? if I’m off-base I’d love to hear that too.
@SP I think you're onto something. Fluff forward, soul second.
@SP I would agree with you (though in my mere mortal solver point of view) that xword construction is indeed an art form. When we get that special feeling of reveling in a puzzle, it even elicits words normally reserved for art appreciation, e.g. "bravo(a)" and "masterpiece." My personal experience h It's not just the elegance and skill of the construction, or the genius of the conceit. It is, as you say, a unique fingerprint they have and that comes through – the way they clue, the fill they choose. I *know* when it's a Sam Ezersky puzzle (and not just because it challenges me to no end.) Even the Spelling Bee tells me who Sam E. is (someone who likes sushi but not "elote"; someone who lives in NYC where "inanition" is not seen in the population.) :-) The same holds true for xword puzzles. We may not know Robyn Weintraub, but we intrinsically know *a* Robyn Weintraub. The same goes for ACME, Christina Iverson, Raphael Musa, KAC, Erik Agard, and on and on. Who they are shows through in their unique talent for cooking up something that's from their personal secret recipe notebook. So yes, I get what you're saying, and I can only hope that we can continue being served these very unique dishes borne of a labor of love, each with unique spices of — as you aptly say — a constructor's personality, interests, and wit.
@SP -- It's also the era of the "video game" kids and the "social media nonsense" kids. The sports trivia was annoying, but at least mainstream; the online crapola and juvenilia is no fun at all.
@SP I think there's a desire on the editors' and constructors' parts to serve up new themes and creative ideas that haven't been seen before. Software allows this, fortunately or unfortunately. It does feel synthetic more than it feels new and fresh, I agree with you.
@SP I think you just hit on what was bothering me about this puzzle. It’s not a bad puzzle, in some (albeit confusing) ways it’s a clever puzzle, but it’s lacking charm. Maybe I just have AI paranoia, but it feels very programmed. And while AI can produce pieces that resemble art, they’re really just art… shuffled.
@SP I'm saying this in a good nature because I know you can handle a little constructive feedback. I would like to know what you're saying in this comment, but I really have a hard time reading your comments in general because of very long blocks of text without paragraphs. It's probably just a me thing and I have some sort of weird dysfunction, believe me I have a lot of them! It's just that I feel bad because I do like knowing what you have to say, especially since you have a constructor's viewpoint, but most of the time I just literally can't. And unlike the general population, when I say literally, I mean it. Literally! Har! You're a doctor, diagnose me!! 😏
@SP As I was driving to work I realized that art and "wow" cannot be expected from a computer. Not yet anyway. But in the end, whether the grid is built by humans, AI or a team of monkeys pounding randomly on typewriters, doesn't the responsibility for at least flair, if not art or wow, reside with the editors? This puzzle seems to me to have had neither. It was simply (complexly) clever.
@SP I'm an almost-a-year newbie and I finished this puzzle with a few lookups. I liked it. I learned what a RIFFLESHUFFLE is--never heard of it. It made me think of the movie "21" which is set in Las Vegas and has a lot of interesting card stuff in it. Then there was also SHORTCON which reminded me of another favorite movie which I won't name--because it might scare some sensitive types. Then there was ALCAPONE along the same lines, including also DYED for 49A [Blond, but not really], the "five-finger discount" of STOLE, and DIDTIME. You can add in buying a CASE of beer here. There was lots of nostalgia with billing and COOing and Jay LENO reviving an old TV show. Then lots of movie stuff, including Spielberg's EGOT, STARDOM, MISCAST, MESCAL. Even the drama of SETPOINT might be included here. By the way, you might find some great videos online about 33A the [Wild European rabbit in Australia, e.g.] that has become a PEST. Here's one--<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjaYp8kel-s" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjaYp8kel-s</a> Go for it!
@SP IMO, if you take the human element out of crossword constructions, sporting events and other endeavors, they may be technically closer to perceived "perfection," but most of the fun has been sucked out of the experience. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to ever return to pre software days.
SP, you probably have a point, that AI and puzzle-making software have taken some of the personality out of puzzles, but there are too many factors for me to endorse your conclusions, including the well documented lengthy editing process at the Times and our own subjectivity as puzzle connoisseurs, and more abstractly, the puzzle constructors' own goals and aesthetics -- to begin with, do all constructors see their productions as works of art? I also tend to eschew formulations that posit one's self as an exemplar in contrast to all that is wrong in others' works. That's a slippery slope. It reminds me of my dear friends here in town who consider themselves wine connoisseurs. Winemakers and wine drinkers also have the same debate: can wines show the personalities of their vintners, can they demonstrate terroir, can they rise above the utilitarian demands of the masses that a wine be tasty, appeal to one's particular palate and be a cromulent accompaniment to one's repast? Can wine be art? It's pretty subjective. I've heard many such conversations about that, and can easily substitute puzzles for wines without skipping a beat. Just like in a good wine store, you can pick up a real deal for $8-15 that's a fine alternative to those 95-pt wines you see in the locked cases for $300. It could be that my palate is in need of refinement, but I'm happy solving day-to-day, with the occasional delight in something really special.
@SP I hear what you're saying, but don't feel the same. I do the puzzle every day, except Mondays and Tuesdays, and have never taken note of the constructor's name. Often in the comments someone will say "I love a Mary Smith puzzle, she my favorite constructor", and I see how some people are "into this" at a level I don't share. I'm not saying they're wrong, we're just here for different things. I do the puzzle, read the comments, and forget about it until the next puzzle.
@SP and @sotto-voce You both hit the nail on the head (see # of Recco's)....and as a Proof, I submit any of the puzzles (now in the past, but I assume still in the Archives) of Charles M. Deber-- crown jewels! And what became of Klahn? (Shane! Come back, Shane!)
@SP " more of an art than a puzzle" As is life itself.
Can't put my finger on why, but I found it not particularly enjoyable. Clever, but not fun.
@VN Exactly my thought, but put more succinctly.
@VN Really? I billed and cooed the whole while.
Inflation is hitting the crossword community hard, we’re having to reuse answers in the same puzzle.
@Logan I don't think it's the same word. The first answer is shuffled, just like the other two, but happens to form another new word (like the other two) that looks exactly the same. Is it really then the same answer? I am astonished.
@Logan I consider it a fun exception to the rule, the constructor poking fun at himself as a slacker, slacking off by using the same entry twice.
@Logan the two theme entries aside that you're referencing, what got me was two NFL answers and two related clues with telepathy/mindreading. I actually had ESP for the first telepathy clue, realized it was wrong, but then to my surprise it fit a few clues down... I thought I had to have erred at some point with all four of those examples, but instead it all worked, which threw me for a loop.
A+ for construction but C- for fun. Just not enough wordplay and too much trivia for my taste.
The top section of the puzzle with its obscene amount of trivia is simply not doable for me.
<a href="https://imgur.com/a/lGu5SQJ" target="_blank">https://imgur.com/a/lGu5SQJ</a>
@Andrzej Totally understandable!! I couldn't get anything going up there, so I stopped and moves to the bottom half. That gave me enough to eventually get some very tenuous footholds. I was about to give up when NOOR popped into my brain and helped me finish the last little section. I was extremely close to just giving it all up.
@Andrzej I did think of you, suspecting you would not know Booker T and the MGS. Enjoy some Green Onions. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G73zz3LwmKo" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G73zz3LwmKo</a>
Same answer same clue????? smdh
@josh locy I found that strange as well.
@josh locy Odd choice. Clever that the two words are the same after the shuffle; but would have at least used two different clues, myself.
@josh locy Maybe the constructor was GOOFingOFF too much to think of a new clue and answer... Har! I think it was meant to be a bit meta. Pezhead above wrote that it only takes eight RIFFLESHUFFLES to bring the deck back to it's original configuration. I know there aren't eight shuffles in the puzzle, but may still be a nod to that.
@josh locy Yeah, I thought it was an unwritten law of crossword construction to not repeat the same answer- Threw me off for a bit..
@josh locy Yeah, very odd. The other “decks” had different clues, different answers. This one: same clue, same answer. It seems like a mistake, but someone would have caught that. There’s something going on here that I just don’t understand.
@josh locy, I thought it was just to show that even after the shuffle, the word comes out the same. Pretty clever to find a word like that. So using the same clue is icing on the cake.
@josh locy these are the jokes
For folks struggling with the clever theme today. Imagine a deck of "cards" with just eight cards. Let's just use a typographical symbol to represent each card in the deck, say ! @ # $ % ^ & * The riffle shuffling in this puzzle refers to a very specific method of shuffling (called "out-shuffling") the eight-card deck. To complete such a riffle shuffle, the deck is first cut into two groups of four, and then these two groups are recombined by *perfectly interleaving the cards*. Here's a model: ! @ # $ % ^ & * <--- original deck, from top to bottom, say ! @ # $ % ^ & * <--- Now cut into two halves. ! % @ ^ # & $ * <--- After interleaving; riffle is done. Now imagine a deck of cards using letters as symbols. Then C O N S O L E S C O N S O L E S C O O L N E S S So, with one perfect riffle shuffle, CONSOLES becomes COOLNESS. And STONEPIT becomes SETPOINT. And GOOFOFFS ... stays GOOFOFFS, which is why it appear both before and after. Hope this helps. Based on the comments, a lot of folks seem clueless about the theme. And the NSA folks have largely outed themselves by being demonstrably non-clueless. ;-)
@Xword Junkie Wouldn't your explanation have been clearer if you made the letters into number rather than arbitrary marks? So, [1 2 3 4 / 5 6 7 8] becomes [1 5 2 6 3 7 4 8].
@Xword Junkie I got the shuffling theme, but your illustration addressed my issue with GOOFOFFS. Thanks!
@Xword Junkie It's worth adding that the shaded (and not shaded) squares *might* make a "real " word--[Swindles]+[Cries in a Bullring]--they don't need to; their point is to distinguish the two halves of the deck. Right, Mr. Raskin?
@Xword Junkie Thank you for this. I finished the puzzle but I didn’t realize all the letters of each word pair were the same. I only noticed that the first four letters matched and were distributed differently. I now have a greater appreciation of this puzzle.
"Poker night's off? But I thought it was a done deal!" ("Well, suit yourself.")
I’m oddly a bit dissatisfied with this puzzle, for an unclear reason that is probably unfair to the constructor. I mean, it’s a clever idea that is well executed overall, and a decent grid that was hard to fill—several reasonably long stacks. Yeah a few gluey/Naticky areas that ordinarily wouldn’t bother me much for a difficult theme. I thought the challenge was appropriate for a Wednesday, or even a little tough which is a positive for me. And I would have used a separate clue for the duplicate entry, but again, not a big deal. I guess what is bugging me is it’s missing a little bit of a fun factor, and it just seems like the constructor had to jump through a lot of hoops to convey the theme which seemed a bit forced. So again, I hate to sound negative over a puzzle that was actually clever and well constructed. Just sometimes that’s not enough to translate to full enjoyment, probably more my problem. Has anyone noticed that we seem to missing more constructor notes than usual lately? Wonder why that is. I miss them, especially for a puzzle like this where I really would like to hear more about the genesis of the theme and the constructor’s thought process and how they came up with the entries.
@SP If the letters had been JKQA, or even ONE etc, it would have been a better puzzle. It’s a lot to ask people to pretend that the alphabet is a deck of cards.
1A--I don't know this, move on 1D--I don't know this, move on 15A--I don't know this, move on 2D--too vague, move on 3D--too vague, move on 4D--finally a song I know! But who sang it? I can hear the lead singer's voice in my head!* Not the Cure, the Kinks won't fit . . . 20A--theme entry, move on 23A--Ani DiFranco, you're only three letters long, but I love you!!! *really wished 27D had worked out to OCASIK
@Bill Are you describing my performance in the crossword today, because right now I’m looking around for the camera over my shoulder.
@Bill Yes, but when I got to [Bill's partner], I immediately thought of you! And your husband, of course. :) ANI DeFranco was a first foothold for me, too. Phew!
A theme that (only?) a mathematician or a card mechanic could love. I'm guessing that GOOFOFFS is the *only* word in English that works here, i.e., is invariant under a perfect out-shuffle of 8 letters. The second, third and fifth letters in the word must be the same, and similarly for the fourth, sixth and seventh letters. Given the constraints imposed by the theme, the fill was pretty darned good. A perfect out-shuffle of 8 letters is a permutation of order three. That is, three of these shuffles in succession returns the original word: CONSOLES --> COOLNESS --> CNOEOSLS --> CONSOLES. Is there a starting word such that *each* word produced by such shuffling is a valid word in English? (Other than GOOFOFFS ;-) ) Really liked this one ... but I'm a mathematician.
@Xword Junkie Thank you for providing a cogent and concise explanation of the puzzle's utilization of a perfect riffle shuffle! Now I understand that it doesn't matter that STON isn't a word.
@Xword Junkie GOOD ODDS would work, and even fits the card game theme.
Themers were fine. Six-way Naticks were not. Too cute by half. Pretty much hated it.
@Kevin Hated it for the opposite reason. Didn't see any Naticks but themers were boringly easy. Maybe there's a reason for goofoffs to be here twice but I don't care.
I was entirely meh'd over by this grid. Which makes me sad of late when I contemplate the labor pains its passage must have caused. So I thank Mr. Raksin for his effort and the 14? 16? minutes we spent together.
@Matt I don't think the labor pains were all that laborious. I smell a lot of AI employed in the creation of this puzzle. Just my two cents'.
What I liked most about this puzzle was conquering a grid with so many no-knows. Even after solving puzzles for numerous years, being able to fill in so many didn’t-have-a-clue answers feels kinda like a miracle. So, victory was sweet. One of my no-knows, BTW, was “popcorn tofu”, and I eat a lot of tofu! I also liked the theme, based on a language quirk, as I love language quirks. That brought the good kind of “Huh!” Plus, it was clever to relate the quirk to shuffling cards. I did have a big and panicky “This has to be right, but why? But why?” moment with the two GOOF-OFFs. That was memorable. (I finally got my answer after reading the constructor’s notes, which I posted earlier.) BTW, it’s funny how an answer can have great meaning to one solver while being hum-drum to practically everyone else. FUSE struck a potent note with me, who recently underwent spine surgery. All in all, a lovely basket of riddle-cracking and quirk for me. Thank you for this, Jonathan!
I realized circa 2014 that when you number its letters 1-7 from left to right, GOOF OFF's odd letters spell GOOF and its even letters spelled OFF. Glad to see this knowledge getting around.
@Stefan Amazing! I'm honestly impressed. (Did this realization come to you by doodling the words GOOF OFF during a boring class?)
@Stefan In a somewhat similar vein, the lyrics for "Amazing Grace" match up perfectly with the theme song for "Gilligan's Island."
Not a big fan of having the exact same answer (GOOFOFFS) appear twice in the same puzzle, unless there's a good reason for it.
@Craig I thought it was clever to use a word that ends up being the same after a RIFFLE SHUFFLE. That was a good reason, in my opinion.
@Craig I think it's the *only* eight-letter word in all of English that remains unchanged under a perfect riffle shuffle (out-shuffle). I fear that the theme today went way over a lot of heads.
@Craig Which there was.
FYI -- The constructor's notes, as posted on XwordInfo: "It's nice to be back with another crossword in the Times! "The three sets of (nonreversible, with one special exception noted below) "shuffle partners" appearing in today's puzzle are quite rare. So rare, in fact, that I was unable to find any other examples of greater than six letters across many thousands of candidates in my personal word list. This included searches for partners with an odd number of letters and for partners in which the first letter in the "shuffled deck" came from the "bottom half". "This overall rarity, in my opinion, makes it even neater that one of the only three starting word hits (GOOFOFFS) shuffles back into itself!"
@Lewis thank you for sharing this explainer. Now that I understand the theme, I like the irony of the self-descriptive GOOFOFFS, as clearly the composer did anything but. I admire how deeply these people think about words and word relationships.
@Lewis Thanks for sharing this. It would have helped me appreciate the puzzle more.
So y’all know that feeling you get when you think you nailed it but just can’t see your mistake. I’ve gotten over the notion that I must spend mindless time searching. Today I had one letter off and I just didn’t want to spend the time. I hit the help button corrected my mistake took the blue star instead of the gold one and peacefully went on my way. WOW, WHAT A RELIEF. I still feel good about myself!
I saw the two clues for slackers early on, before completely understanding the shuffle. I was eager to see which two words for slacker you could get by shuffling one into the other - thought that was an element of the theme. Trust a GOOF OFF to find a way that only uses one word!! That’s actually perfect.
I've read these comments and I find myself amazed and appalled at the number of folks that didn't get or--worse-- can't take a joke. Lighten up, is my advice.
@Charles Peterson One of the most saddening things is these comment sections. You'd think word game enthusiasts would be more lighthearted, but I guess not!
@Charles Peterson Just wondering what joke you are specifically referring to? I think most posters here have a tremendous sense of humor. Perhaps, just perhaps, some posters think they are being funny but aren’t.
Today I learned BILL and COO. Today I will forget BILL and... and... what was it again🤔
@Down_Home In all likelihood, it's only over 100 years old as an expression..... Y'all are bound to have doves in Flyover Territory.
[Incognito agent introducing himself] "BLOND, BUT NOT REALLY BLOND." Live and Let Dye Tomorrow Never Dyes Dye Another Day
@ad absurdum BLONDie Dye Young Stay Pretty
@ad absurdum Heh heh. Just want to let you know, when a certain Wednesday puzzle gets published in the not so distant future, remember that it was submitted before this date and that I didn’t steal anything from you. Just sayin’.
About 20 years ago I bought a 1973 MGB. Fun little thing. My vanity license plate (in Ontario) was BOOKER T. Those who got the joke would honk and wave.
Got me with NFC. I had NFL and have never heard of OSSO BUCO. I don't speak Italian or eat veal. Finally googled "osso bulo" which I now know isn't a thing. I thought maybe GOOF OFF was the source of my error because surely the NYT crossword editor wouldn't allow a duplicate clue AND answer. Wrong again. Made this a lame solve and unsatisfying puzzle.
@MFSTEVE Same! That BUCO - NFC cross denied me my happy music until I too googled OSSO BULO and discovered it isn't a thing lol. Very annoying!
@MFSTEVE Osso buco is not the only dish predicated on obtaining bone marrow.
8D, 9D, 10D all crossing 8D made for a crossing of 4 answers that I didn't know. That was a personal Natick nightmare.
what a horrid slog of a puzzle filled with trivia instead of the fair balance of wordplay to give your solver a fighting chance -- even the revealer was trivia
@Calypso clock it
I should have GOOFed OFF and just taken a nap instead.
@Heidi My friend, napping is never a wrong choice!! It's even better than the hip hip-hurumba! And you know that not many things are better than that!!
@Heidi I found this one very helpful for napping, being easily bored and all
I think Andrzej said it best: "obscene amount of trivia." Movies, music, names, names, names, bands, sports clues. I can't believe that I managed to pull this off without having to look anything up. I don't time myself and didn't even have any mistakes that needed correcting, but the time I spent was more than many Friday or Saturday puzzles. I live in Las Vegas, have gone to the casinos, though just for the slots, but I have never heard of riffling shuffling, but after reading the comments, it seems many have. Also, I grew up in a family that regularly played cards, and I guess we did riffle shuffle, but I had no idea there was a term for that. When I finished, there was no feeling of accomplishment. The only feeling was that I just should have quit midway.
@Times Rita Huge respect for doing this! It was utterly impossible for me.
Since I wanted to be Honey West when I was 8 years old, any puzzle with an OCELOT in it is okay by me. When I saw the clues for the theme entries I knew I was going to have to rely on using the Downs to solve the puzzle. And when I saw there was a lot of trivia, I knew there would be a lot of complaints. Overall, I found solving somewhat more challenging than other Wednesdays, but I thought it fun. Note to those mentioning the rule against using the same word answer in a puzzle twice. It is sometimes allowed in the service of a theme.
@Vaer Thanks for explaining some clues yesterday!
@Vaer OCELOT makes me picture Salvador Dali. <a href="https://ocelott.tumblr.com/post/23622276936/salvador-dali-and-his-ocelot-babou" target="_blank">https://ocelott.tumblr.com/post/23622276936/salvador-dali-and-his-ocelot-babou</a>
@Elbridge Gerry I did not want to grow up to be Salvador Dali. :)
I solved it, but have no *)&^% idea what was going on.
Solved my 7th Wednesday in a row! I am starting to actually enjoy Wednesdays. They are challenging enough to take a bit of thought and educated guesses, but not so hard that I can’t solve them without helps. Hopefully, next Wednesday won’t be impossible now!
@Cherry Good for you. I remember these streaky and specific pleasures when I first alit upon these shores.
@Cherry That's great! You are well on your way. I used to only do up to Wednesday. Eventually the siren call of Thursday and beyond will beckon, and you'll start to get those, too.
Since @Factboy hasn't posted it yet, here's something I think all magicians know: Exactly eight perfect riffle shuffles will bring a deck back to its original configuration. Ain't math wunnerful?
@Pezhead First, yes, math is absolution wunnerful. Second, at one time I would have declared it flatly impossible for any human to perfect riffle shuffle a deck eight times in a row. However, having seen breathtaking tricks by Ricky Jay, I'm not so sure.
@Pezhead (… so long as you repeat the one of two possible perfect riffle shuffles that keeps the first and last cards in place. If you repeat the other perfect riffle shuffle, it will take 52 shuffles to recover the original card order.)
@Pezhead I think it's 52 times. Every ideal riffle shuffle puts one card between any two cards so eight won't do the trick - pun intended.
Oops, sorry for the repeat. I didn't notice Steve Kass' answer.
I am duly unimpressed by this three-car pileup of largely stale gimmickery.
Another puzzle this week where I didn't understand the theme until I read the article. It was annoying, not enjoyable.
I had no idea what I’ve been doing all these years is called a RIFFLESHUFFLE, which I am quite good at, since you asked. I cannot wait to work this into conversation the next time we play cards. I anticipate that it will be met with the same kind of speechless awe as when I slip ZARF into my order at Starbucks.
It took me a minute to “get” why the same clue was repeated twice. (The trick is that the riffle shuffle results in the same word post-shuffle!)
@dana Maybe a little tongue in cheek humor there as the constructor “goofed off” while coming up with another word
Let Ella & Duke explain 69D for you: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDMlRxnHdhc&list=RDdDMlRxnHdhc&start_radio=1" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDMlRxnHdhc&list=RDdDMlRxnHdhc&start_radio=1</a>
I never got the theme but solved without hints. I wasn't familiar with the casino term so the theme was lost on me.
A grind that brought no pleasure at all to the solver. Riffle shuffle as the reveal? Come on.
@AM Please speak (or post) for yourself, not for “the solver”. I found the theme immensely satisfying … perhaps in part because I actually understood it.
I don’t have anything to say other than thanks, and I had a great time with this puzzle.
I did it as a themeless. I sort of got the joke when I was done. Probably too clever by half . Not one of my favorites
If you live in Las Vegas or have a gaming addiction, the theme presumably makes sense. If not, ugh.
@K I’ve never been to Las Vegas and I don’t gamble, but I got it just fine. Rummy, Uno, Go Fish, cribbage?
@K I live in Las Vegas, have gone to the casinos, though just for the slots, but I have never heard of riffling shuffling. And I grew up in a family that often played card games. Theme made no sense to me.
@K Come on. You don't have to be a gambler to have shuffled a deck of cards!
SUCH MUCH TRIVIA !!! Haven‘t worked on a puzzle with this much trivia in a while … not enjoyable for me unfortunately :( even though the theme was witty
I see I’m not alone in thinking ‘Huh?’ This felt really strained; having an answer repeated without (to me) a good explanation/reveal jarred. The huge amount of trivia tripped me up as well. Impossible for us aliens to guess at. As for 1A, when I finally managed to fill it in, with a great deal of help from Wordplay and the comments, I was still no wiser. I’m not a fan of the actor, therefore rarely watch anything with him in it. What is about the character that made it 1A? So, not a favourite, but I repeat ad nauseam that I’m always in awe of anyone who can construct even a basic crossword, let alone one good enough to be published.
@Helen Wright In the books, Jack Reacher is 6'4" (193cm) and built like a heavyweight boxer. Tom Cruise is about a foot shorter and not nearly as stacked.
@Helen Wright Don't feel too "alien"-ated. I'm from the USA (NYC to be exact) and I didn't get it either.
Well, I found the theme fascinating to look back at after the solve. I thought the wonder of goofoff shuffling back to itself and so allowing it twice in the puzzle a fun aha moment and worth the price of admission. I did have trouble with northeast and had to look up T Booker and the MGs and Noor ( yet again although I think I have her tucked in the brain for next time.).
Did not fully grasp what was going on at first. But, no slacker me! and I plowed ahead and caught on at the end. Now I'm off to Buffalo.
More like a Thursday puzzle...
@Jeff P. Exactly what I’m thinking. If this is a Wednesday, Thursday will be a whopper, hope so! This was not in any of my wheelhouses, very difficult but I finished it.
I loved this. The slacker's double-up on GOOFOFFS was the highlight--a laugh-out-loud "aha" moment.
I loved this puzzle! Clever and challenging, and GOOFOFF shuffling to itself was such a cool detail!