Nat K

I imagine that Pixar fans will love this one. I am not a Pixar fan, and I didn’t love it. YMMV. For me it was like a random minefield of rebuses — when it seemed the natural answer wouldn’t fit, I had to take a stab at guessing what might be a plausible title for an animated film. Is LUCA a Pixar film? I didn’t know but I guess it is. Could SCAR be one — oh, whoops, CARS? If the themers had been clever on their own, then perhaps it would have been fine. But instead they felt like simple. vehicles for the Pixar films. HULU CATALOG? OSCAR STATUE? Meh. I’m sure this would be an all-time great crossword for, say, a Pixar retrospective. But for the NYXT it felt very … niche. Having said all that, I thought the cluing was lots of fun. Looking forward to the next one by Avery — perhaps with a more universally appealing theme.

Will ARHAT keep reappearing in the puzzle until we are all enlightened enough to get it without lookups?

This puzzle was all of my one-time favorites.

Having made my way through most of the comments, I just want to say: Just because a puzzle is challenging doesn’t mean it was good. And just because someone says they didn’t like the puzzle doesn’t mean it was too hard for them. I completed it, without lookups, in a tad over forty minutes (double my Saturday average). I did not like it, for reasons I spent 1450 characters explaining in another post. I am glad that other solvers enjoyed this one — if everyone had disliked it as intensely as I did, we would really have to wonder about the editors! But please please *please* do not say that the only people criticizing the puzzle are those who found it too hard, or suggest that anyone that didn’t like it simply wasn’t up to the challenge.

This puzzle is the crossword equivalent of conceptual art: I can step back and appreciate it as an intellectually impressive construction, but as an actual crossword it was so forced as to be unenjoyable. I solved the puzzle without lookups, but basically did so under protest. So many problems: — JAGUAR XKES may be beloved by sports car aficionados, but that’s well outside common knowledge. I deduced it from the crosses but it felt forced. — MMMDCV wasn’t obscure, but it sure was artificial. The feat of a pangram in the themers looks less impressive when you get the V and X from these sorts of gimmicks. — VOLT is not a measure of power. A DITCH is not a tunnel. This isn’t a matter of “a clue is not a definition” — they are simply wrong, justified only by the requirements of the theme. —“Gummi Bears” is a trademarked name for a particular brand of candy; “gummy bears” is the generic term in wide use. So if the answer is GUMMI then “Bears” needs to be capitalized in the clue. There’s no way around it. — Understanding 18D, 24A and 77A relied on knowing what movies a B-list actress starred in 15 years ago, being familiar with a 30th-century classical music satire, and knowing that a country singer popular 50 years ago adopted his last name for the stage. Again, I managed to solve the puzzle. I know it’s called a “crossword” for a reason. But when 7 of 13 themers rely on esoterica or outright gimmicks, that’s a sign to me that the puzzle is too clever by half.

Honestly the only reason I suffered through this one — and I did get it, without lookups, although in double my Saturday average — was to earn the right to say the following: IMHO, this was a terrible puzzle. I like to be challenged. This was just aggravating. As Byron writes, he gave us the terms to describe it: MEDIOCRE. IT STINKS. It landed with a THUD. Start with the NW corner. If BAD THING is not green paint, I don’t know what is. One of the worst entries in memory. BIG UPSET is almost as bad. The clue for 17A would have been brilliant for HORSES. But DOGIES is completely and needlessly obscure. I gather from Google (after the fact) that it must refer to a 1934 song. 1934!! Are you kidding me? UPTRENDS? Not. A. Thing. Do I care who created Python? No. Finally: a PINT is not a “Cup alternative.” It is two cups. I understand that clues are not definitions, but this one is simply and plainly wrong, because it refers to measurements — which by definition are not “alternatives” for each other. Even if you stretched and said that PINT was standing in for a glass of beer, it doesn’t make sense. You don’t have a “cup” of beer, or of wine or any other alternative to beer. NEED I SAY MORE? I have avoided the chorus of people criticizing Joel Fagliano. But this puzzle is making me rethink that stance. If this puzzle isn’t a case of poor editing, I’d hate to see what is.

I admit that at one point I was getting a bit grumpy about some of the gluey fill: SLIER (yes I know it’s technically correct but then so is MERER and APTER), IRAIL, HIVED, TEENER, …. But then it dawned on me that the theme attractions were in different parts of the country. THEN I realized that the revealer could go four ways. And to top it all off, the attractions were located in their respective quadrants. At that point, all grumpiness melted away. A four way Schrödinger? Wow. Just — wow. If you can pull that off, can do whatever the hell you want in the rest of the puzzle as far as I’m concerned. Nice one Simeon. Thanks for the mindbending.

Most of this puzzle was wonderful, but that southwest corner was ALOP.

Loved, loved, loved this one. Hardest Saturday in a while for me, and that’s exactly why it was so much fun. To solvers complaining the clues were too vague, the words were too long, there were too many obscure proper nouns — *please* see this as the type of Saturday puzzle you aspire to solve someday, rather than criticizing the constructor. Or if you don’t want this level of challenge — which is fine! — just leave the Saturdays for those of us who like a challenge and are up to it, and stick to the earlier days of the week. Thanks Byron and thanks Will. More like this, please!

As someone who has devoted my career to solving climate change (how’s that going by the way? :/), I have a gentle correction to Nathan’s clue for 56A. I feel a bit bad about this especially since Nathan cited it as one of his favorites but in the interest of precision … The OZONE HOLE, the environmental problem addressed by the Montreal Protocol, is *not* a climate issue. The ozone layer, a region of the stratosphere, absorbs almost all of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation — thus protecting life on the surface (including us). In the 1970s, scientists discovered that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) — manmade chemicals used in refrigeration, cooling, aerosols, and other applications — were depleting the ozone layer (atmospheric circulation and polar temperatures means that ozone depletion is concentrated over the poles, leading to a “hole” over the Antarctic where the lowest ozone levels have been recorded). The 1987 Montreal Protocol instituted a phaseout of CFCs (and, subsequently, other ozone-depleting chemicals) that has led to a dramatic reduction in ozone-depleting substances, leading scientists to project that the ozone layer will slowly recover to 1980 levels over the next several decades. All of that is a triumph of science and international diplomacy. However, it is distinct from climate change. (cont’d on next post…)

Tamale, and tamale, and tamale Creeps in this pedantic place from day to day, Past the last syllable of “tamal”; And all our quesadillas have enticed diners The way to salsa breath. Out, out brief condiment! A tamale is but a steaming shadow, a poor imitation That struts and frets its hour upon the plate And then is tasted no more. It is a dish Backformed by boorish Yanquis, full of pork and corn meal Signifying nothing.

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.

I actually haven’t done today’s puzzle yet — I’m still getting caught up after a busy week at work (I run a climate and energy NGO based in DC, so … yeah, there’s that.) Instead, I came to comment on yesterday’s comments — specifically the thread in which @Andrzej tries, with only limited success, to educate us on the finer points of linguistics (specifically the way declension changes the meaning of a word, such as “prius” to PRIORI.) I just have to say: I *loved* that thread. That sort of thread is why I read this comment section. I loved Andrzej’s erudition, I loved the fierce response and debate his post elicited from other linguaphiles, I loved the bemused curiosity of those who didn’t quite get what Andrzej was arguing but gamely cheered him on anyway, and above all I loved Andrzej’s persistence and determination to make the argument (not for the first time). Thanks to Andrzej for his dedication, perhaps Sisyphean, to making us all slightly more erudite. And to this comment section for providing that kind of respite from everything else going on (which as noted I engage head on in my day job!)

Tough one for me, and never quite on the constructor’s wavelength, but I am not complaining. I would rather have to work for the gold star than breeze through and be left wanting more. Thanks Blake for the workout.

TIL, evidently along with many other solvers, that BestsellerS and BANNEDBOOKS have the same number of letters. It occurs to me that that is the sort of trivial fact that cruciverbalists find fascinating and significant and that would be utterly lost on anyone else. (“Um … so?” “But don’t you see — two distinct terms so different in meaning but with the same number of letters!!!!” [*backs away slowly*]) Anyway — really liked this puzzle. In an ideal world I could have done with fewer names, but the sparkling long entries more than made up for them, and the two crossings that I suppose are, technically, Naticks (ADLER/RIDE and BADU/JEAN) were easy enough to suss out — for me at least. And while I was suspicious of RAWR, sure enough it seems that it’s one of those things kids say — or text — these days. At least that’s what Google tells me. Thanks Hemant for a nice Friday.

Just a great Saturday. Some of the cleverest cluing I can recall, along with some wonderful long entries. Caitlin nailed it when she wrote “Many entries in this grid aren’t notably difficult, but their clues have a subtle enough twist to look impermeable — until you tilt your angle of thought just a smidgen.” This felt like it might never come together until it did — in what turned out to be under my average time. Thanks so much to Barbara and Lewis!

Agree with the vibe that this was the easiest Ezersky in memory. I was all set to come in kvetching about how [Chilliness] is not remotely a synonym for APLOMB. I read through the comments, mystified that nobody else had pointed this out. And then — happily BEFORE I hit “post,” unlike what Deb relates in her column — the penny dropped …. Another good reminder than 99% of the time, it’s you making the mistake not the editing team :). Meanwhile about those Tuesday NFL games — I thought at first it might be a Christmas-day thing but in fact it’s even rarer than that: at least according to Google (forgive the massive energy use for the AI lookup here) Tuesday games in recent decades have all been last-minute reschedulings because of COVID (in 2020 and 2021) or snowstorms (2010). Thanks to Will and the whole team for giving us this daily source of challenge and amusement!

Having just been to the Met’s blockbuster show “Divine Egypt” twice in the last month (I live across the park, lucky me :)) I might as well try to share some of that esoteric knowledge here. Cow horns were most closely associated with the goddess Hathor,m; over time (and we are talking about millennia so there’s lots of time!) depictions of ISIS also took on cow horns, in line with the general syncretic practice of Egyptian religious iconography. Of course, the clue is not wrong per se; indeed the reference to cow horns can be read as the hint that we are looking for an ancient Egyptian deity. And the answer to “Egyptian goddess, four letters” is always going to be ISIS. I didn’t spend a lot of time trying to use a rebus to fit “Hathor” in there. Now, this being the NYXW comments there is probably a world-class Egyptologist among us who will either correct me or add much more erudition …

Fun puzzle. I’m in the UPSy camp — never heard or seen UPSA-daisy. But since the word is essentially just a nonsensical transcription of a spoken interjection, it seems churlish to CARP about the precise spelling — and while it made me doubt my UPSA/SHARING IS CARING for a minute, once I said “upsa-daisy” out loud to myself I realized it was fine. Liked the themers a lot. As a hasbeen rower who spent much of my college years in an eight, I appreciated 17A. And 49A earned a chuckle and still makes me smile. Thanks Chloe and Alissa for a fun Wednesday.

A relatively smooth and fast Saturday like this one always triggers an avalanche of posts saying how, back in the day, crosswords were a real challenge and how have been dumbed down, etc., etc. The evidence trotted out is almost always of the form “it used to take me X minutes but these days it only takes me X/2 minutes!” The obvious alternative explanation is that solving crosswords is a learned skill, and that we can improve with practice. Like others I often go back to the archives, especially on a day like today when I am still itching for a challenge. If I look back on my Saturday times (at least over the 220 or so Saturday puzzles for which I have data) I don’t see an inverse relationship between the publication date and my solving time (which is what the “puzzles were so much harder in the good old days” crowd is suggesting). Rather I see an inverse relationship between when *I* solved it and the solving time (which is consistent with the “practice makes perfect” hypothesis). (Now, I am only going back to 2019. It may well be that in some bygone era decades ago, when giants walked the earth, puzzles were a minefield of highbrow literary references and obscure geographical trivia — but even if so that doesn’t sound all that fun!) I also find my take a much more appealing explanation. Isn’t it not only more plausible but also more hopeful to think we are all getting better at this rather than that the editors are just dumbing things down?

Hey all, Be sure to check out @Deb Amlen’s great piece in The Morning (the daily online news-of-the-day column of the NYT) on the communities in this and other Gameplay forums. Given that The Morning and the NYXT/Wordplay are two of my favorite sections of the Times it’s nice to have them come together like this! And thanks @Deb for the great column — here’s hoping that it inspires a new influx of solvers (and commenters)!

What do you call a cross between a kealoa and a Natick? That’s what HOPIN/BINET felt like to me — I had HOP oN instead, which fits nearly as well, and BoNET sounded perfectly reasonable. Other than that minor nit, which is on me as much as the puzzle, this was a beauty. As the father of two now college-age daughters I love the collaboration (and am super-impressed by Grace, who — judging by the constructor notes — is already a sophisticated constructor as a sophomore in high school!) That middle stack was lovely — as Sam wrote, a great combo of old (“Rocky Horror”) and new (MANDALORIAN) pop culture references, with some great crosses. Thanks to the Warrington duo for a sparkling and smooth Saturday, and looking forward to more!

Terrific puzzle — smooth fill, fun theme, delightful construction (the MALLET hitting the MOLE brought a smile on its own), clever cluing (particularly the brilliant [What’s the matter?] for MOLECULES). The only problem is that as a print solver on Sundays I have serious FOMO for what sounds like a fun graphic at the end! Thanks Nathan for a lovely Sunday.

This was a great example for me of how idiosyncratic knowledge can make a puzzle that might otherwise have been hard go quickly. Seiji OZAWA is likely obscure to many, but I grew up in the Boston suburbs as the son of BSO fans during his heyday, so that was a personal gimme. That Z plus the clue led to WARM FUZZIES right away. I work on climate policy, and the main outcome of the 2014 UN climate talks in Lima, Peru involved the Non-state Actor Zone for Climate Action — a classic backronym. So with that second Z in FUZZIES, NAZCA_____ was easy enough. A Cobb salad is one of my go-to lunch items, so with AC in place I knew the ingredient we were munching on was some sort of BACON. The U above redirected me from naB to RUB, and it became clear that 31A was ____ROASTED. With most of the central stack in place, I could work out from there — and a puzzle that at first looked daunting ended up being done in well under my average time. Not that I’m complaining! Thanks Garrett and Andrew for another sparkling collaboration.

So much fun with this one — lovely grid, sparkling fill. Thanks Shaun.

I have to say, I am not a huge fan of super-niche nonsense terms like PADIDDLE. I’m not saying that should be out of bounds. I got it through the crosses, although since I wasn’t really up on the term JORTS either, having both was a bit of a headache. But there are better and worse puzzles. And IMHO, puzzles that rely on that sort of you’ve-either-heard-it-or-you-haven’t term are simply not as fun for those of us who never heard the term, and therefore not as sparkling overall, as those that tap into broader vocabulary and knowledge. But that’s just me. Otherwise a fun puzzle.

I actually tried to post a comment that expressed annoyance at the editors but tried to balance some of the hate directed at the puzzle. But the app won’t let me submit the comment. So how’s this: I’ll just post the annoyance part. Do better, NYT. This was a clever and ambitious construction that was poorly edited.

I could quibble with a few things: Venus is definitely a GOD (also a GODDESS), it’s always “LES MIz,” not “LES MIS,” and nobody ever uses the plural ETHERS in regular language. But it’s a lovely spring/summer Friday afternoon, and there were some great clues and entries in here (particularly liked LETTER OPENERS and SERENADED) so I’ll lay down my minor gripes. Thanks Aidan for a fun puzzle and congrats on the debut.

Really disliked this one (although I solved without lookups). Chock full with proper names that I don’t care about, indeterminate foreign words, etc. DAVIES crossing WATUSI and COTTA (which could equally well have been COTTO) crossing HIYA (not a word)? Give me a break. Even for the glue (of which there was plenty!) the cluing was subpar. An ALP is a [Challenge for a skier]? In what sense other than it’s a mountain? What else would one ski on? I’ve skied in the Alps and there are plenty of easy trails to choose from. How did that clue make it past the editors? It’s not even cute: it’s just wrong. A sparkling theme would have made up for the decidedly mediocre fill. But the execution was poor. ARTHUR ASHE is indeed a male, yes. But that hardly seems his defining characteristic. Similarly, one can serve GAZPACHO as a first course, but that’s true of many many foods. I understand that a clue is not a definition. But these are really terrible clues IMO. It was basically a thematic equivalent of green paint. The other themers were better (I admit that I cracked a smile at SERGIO) but not enough to make up for the stinkers. I have enjoyed being perplexed by David’s enigmatic homage to Wallace Stevens. Let’s hope he goes back to that soon.

Such a fun Saturday — the rare combination of crunchy and smooth. I got NAPA right away and felt all the cleverer for it. My comeuppance came with CLINKED, which had me kvetching about the constructors misrepresenting the sound of a flute until it finally dawned on me. (What is the sound of a forehead slap?) And while the whole puzzle was wonderful, something about that NW corner strikes me as particularly harmonious. Perhaps that is because that hour before sunset is among my favorite times of the day, and such an evocative phrase. I am lucky enough to have a view of the northern part of Central Park, and, to my mind, there is nothing so lovely (at least in urban settings) as seeing the pink glow of Fifth Avenue across the park during the GOLDEN HOUR of a June evening. Thanks Rebecca and Rafa for a terrific puzzle.

Just coming in to add another bit of positivity to the comments. While this may not be a contender for my own personal POY list, it was a nice Saturday challenge that came in just under my average. Sure, there was a smattering of proper names (FELIX, TIG, WIM) although none of them really that obscure. The most obscure trivia IMO was “ETONIC,” which —let’s just come out and say it — was not the high point of the puzzle. (A brand of golf apparel? Really???) But even that misstep was more than made up by the fun BARBIECORE, BLUE MARLIN, FISH EYES (who knew?), LEANING TOWER, I CANT EVEN and I NEED A RIDE. Like I said — fun Saturday. Thanks Barbara and Matthew, and congrats Barbara on the cycle.

GAH! You found this tough, too? I HEAR YA. My THALAMI hurt after that one — or at least some of the neighboring neurons. This one was a fun challenge even though it felt like Sam was tempting us to abandon it and do other things — like taking a GONDOLA to go skiing (not snowboarding!) in ALTA*, or traveling to OMSK or DAMAScus or ANGEL FALLS, or just to NYSTATE. Maybe I will watch some GENO SMITH football instead or just listen to some AUDIOBOOKS. BE GENTLE? Not Sam’s way. At one point I almost STOLE A PEEK at Google. WHY SHOULD I keep going? Because that’s what Saturday NXTs are for. When I got the gold star I was surprised to find that I had done it (without lookups as always) in just about my average Saturday time. Thanks Sam for some fun mental gymnastics on this very rainy Saturday.

Wow. More themelesses from Dena, please! If we can’t have a Robyn Weintraub every Friday, this would be a close second. Still fast despite that epic Maggie Simpson headfake— but fast in a good, “that was so much fun I can’t believe it’s already over” way rather than a “wish they ran a Friday puzzle” way. I predict lots of solvers saying it was fast — but very few complaining about it. Thanks again.

Coming in late to add a bit of love for this puzzle. Loved the theme — one of those great instances where I went from “what the —-?” to “hmmm…” to “AHA!” to “now THAT helps me get the next one.” Definitely in Simeon’s wheelhouse for this one as I raced through it in half my Thursday average and nearly a PB. Thanks Simeon and the editors for a fun puzzle!

Such a fun and crunchy puzzle — somehow managed to get through it in near average time, but I had to earn every second of it! Perfect Friday: made me sweat a bit (in a good way), without threatening to swallow a good chunk of the morning (something I can only afford on Saturday). More like this please!

So much fun on a Saturday. Just the right combination of challenging and smooth. MERCY BUCKETS for this one, John!

Hmmm. A bit of a mixed bag for me. Never quite felt on John’s wavelength, but that’s neither here nor there. I also like a Sunday that really flows, and somehow the grid construction of this one prevented that — the corners felt unusually (for a Sunday) cut off from the rest of the grid. Again, maybe just me. Really liked learning about HEAD CANON and fascinated to go down the rabbit hole of the BASQUE language, so those were two nice additions to my knowledge. I do have a bit of a bit to pick with SETS AT EASE. I don’t think it works, because “AT EASE” is not a noun — so it can’t be possessed. Sorry, but it really doesn’t work. It is an adjectival phrase. And it was material, because once I had “SETS…” I saw the possibility of “…ATEASE” but resisted it on the basis that it didn’t fit the pattern. I think this may be what @johnezra and others are getting at too — but I don’t think the problem is that “SETS AT EASE” is too close in meaning to the clue, I think the problem is that “SET’S AT EASE” simply does not work grammatically in the way that the other themers do. So I think the editors missed a trick on that one. Ah well. It’s just a puzzle and I still had fun and even learned something. YMMV.

I’ve been trying to submit a play by play magnum opus, but the emus seem to be having none of it and are doing the emu- equivalent of trying to stare at me until I stop talking. So I will try to keep it short: This was a great Saturday puzzle, challenging but fair. One of those puzzles when the answers that frustrated me along the way (DOORKEEPER, BOOKONCD, SQUIRCLE, SQUEE) turn out, in retrospect, to be completely reasonable. Just because a word or phrase is unfamiliar (DOORKEEPER), unexpected (BOOKONCD), or even patently annoying in a twee-millennial-blogger sort of way (SQUEE) doesn’t mean it’s not fair game for a constructor. Thanks Rich for the master class.

To be honest, this puzzle didn’t do it for me. The themers were solid — it took me nearly the whole puzzle to figure out the trick, and once I did I got a nice chuckle (especially from NUMBER OF THE BEAST and AN OFFER YOU CAN’T REFUSE). But the rest of the fill felt like a slog rather than lively and sparkling. I got through it fine, although it came in dribs and drabs rather than flowing smoothly. I don’t have specific criticisms — it was just a vibe, so I will chalk it up to being on a different wavelength than the constructor. (Robin W is at the opposite end of that spectrum!) YMMV.

Solved it despite a comically dumb brain fog moment: Even after getting the trick fairly early on with INA(PPP)URCHASE and IMT(OOO)LDFORTHIS… (didn’t get the NOW until later) I still somehow convinced myself 65A was doubLELETTERSCORE. Even more egregiously, I resisted putting C(NNN)EWS… in 84A despite the gimme clue because it had 3 Ns in the square. Finally I realized that it had to be TRIPLE…, and went back and counted the P’s and O’s … D’oh. I’ll blame Daylight Savings Time even though that obviously has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Thanks Enrique and Matthew for an entertaining Sunday.

Traveling and late to the party, but for the record: This was a GREAT themeless. Hard for a Friday. Yes, that NW corner was a bear. I had to put the puzzle down and come back to it which I rarely do. But when I did come back to it I finished it, without any lookups, even with PHYLLIS WHEATLEY crossing SHILOH and LIV TYLER and OPIE. (Actually the thing that held me up the most was my not-so-Eureka moment when I “saw” that 4D was sidelInEREPORTS and confidently filled it in. But I digress…) As to the complaints about vague clues: As @Steve L and others have said: The vagueness of the clues is THE WHOLE POINT. That is literally one of the features of a NYT Friday or Saturday crossword, and what makes it a “puzzle” for many of us. You don’t have to enjoy vague clues. But you also don’t have to do crosswords on Friday. The one think you shouldn’t do is to try a Friday puzzle and then complain that the clues are too vague! Thanks, David, for a fitting challenge. And given your notes, you’ll be glad to know that today’s puzzle was my entertainment for part of a plane ride …