wickershee
Minneapolis
6
Comments
-0.508
Avg Sentiment
0
Positive
3
Neutral
3
Negative
Minneapolis
Not sure I've ever read a more labored explanation for a puzzle's circled letters than this
David Mitchell is not American - he's English
For me, it was a well-above average solve time (but fully on my own, I might add - no clues). HOWEVER (which I'd put in bold if I could), it was also not a Tuesday-level crossword. I can say that because the Times itself has done a very decent job of explaining, sometimes at great length, how the puzzles proceed in levels of difficulty throughout the week, and - if you've ever bothered to notice - you probably solve each day of the week in approximately the same time (give or take a couple minutes). THAT is how I know it wasn't a typical Tuesday. Yes, the editors can do whatever the hell they want, of course - but that doesn't mean this puzzle isn't out of order
@Barry Ancona Did you really just provide a link to the definition of labored? That's rather insulting, especially since I used it correctly. And no, I did not find it "unsatisfying" (and it's currently taking a Herculean effort not to provide a link to its definition) - I'm perfectly satisfied that the explanation describes the constructor's intent. It's that it's too clever by half & required a rather exhausting paragraph to reveal the wordplay
Not sure this is the correct forum, but this happened again: I solved in a little over seven minutes, but the "official" solve time listed is 4:57. I notice this occurring every so often, but I haven't cone up with an explanation. Thoughts? Thanks in advance
@Anne Congratulations. However, this was not a Tuesday-level puzzle - as several hundred others here attest. If I were the only one complaining, sure - but I'm only one in a chorus of many
All 6 comments loaded