Asher B.

This puzzle had more white squares than a Hall and Oates reunion concert.

I didn't like this puzzle very much. I found the theme clunky. It did not aid my solving nor make me grin so much as delay my solving and make me frown. don't always solve in some linear across fashion, so getting an answer like "POMELO" didn't make sense even knowing that something was up with the "ME." I thought I was meant to imagine the "ME" sliding down and out of the word. I now get that word is meant as a recipient of the ME from above, but I didn't know that at the time. Having written some notes in this space in the past, I feel it necessary to provide responses to questions I strongly suspect will be forthcoming. FAQ: Q. If you didn't like it, why are you writing in? A. A philosophical question. Why does anyone write in? I suppose to seek community and validation. It is not my view that the only sentiments worth sharing in this life are support and glee. Q. Would you like me to explain the puzzle, because obviously you didn't really get it? A. I didn't say I didn't get it, but if you need to explain it, you do you. Q. Are you just a hateful grump? A. No. Q. Do you ever like any of the puzzles? A. Yes. Q. Isn't this little FAQ of yours a straw-man argument, positing that there are those who object to your not liking the puzzle when in fact no one cares? A. Very much not. Every single time I've written in to this column, I have received multiple responses effectively asking all of the above. Q. Why don't you ever write in saying positive things? A. I do.

I've been eating cheese for 60 years and, trending veganward as I am, I miss it. But I have never knowingly eaten tilsit. I was all ready to therefore declare it an obscure cheese and today's puzzle accordingly null and void -- but! I checked with The Source s to whether a cheese belongs in the popular conversation: The Monty Python "Cheese Shop" sketch. I was humbled to learn that among the 43 cheeses named, tilsit is second. Second! That makes it both real, and a silver medalist of sorts. What an ill morning for my pride. Cheez.

..... anddddd..... I'm done!!! A mere eleven hours later. Phew. Sweat pours from my brow, my typing fingers shake, I'm dehydrated and weak, I've neglected my friends and loved ones, I'm a pale shadow of the man I was when long ago I began solving this puzzle. It woulda gone faster but for some stupid reason I didn't memorize who was Grand Duke of Luxembourg until 2025 and now my regret is keen. I'm so weak right now. Send good wishes and a saline drip. PS. I think the term might be "deserted island," not "desert island." Meaning when one asks "What ten albums would you take with you ..." they mean to live on a deserted island, devoid of others; not on an arid one. But I quibble precisely because I just learned this tidbit a year ago myself. Back when ol' Henri was still Duke. The correct answer, by the way: Sgt. Pepper, Pet Sounds, Quadrophenia, Dark Side of the Moon, Blue, Zep 1, Legend, Astral Weeks, Rumours, CSN debut album.

That was the hardest thing I have ever accomplished on a Tuesday.

I hated it. I accept that other people liked it. Opinions differ. I won't try to talk you out of yours if you offer the same courtesy. I already know that Thursdays often feature the rebus gimmick. Would that it were not so. When I learn that E stands for I or vice versa or some other who-cares gimmick, I am left annoyed, not entertained. There is no a-ha! feeling for me. It's more a feeling of everyone else knows something I don't; yet when I do find out, I don't feel rewarded, I feel annoyed. A crossword is a word puzzle that I find entertaining. It's a fun game. I don't wish to play another hidden game at the same time. When I am playing tennis, if you offer me a chance to play chess at the same time, it's not more fun. It's annoying and distracting. Now, in my view, some gimmicks such as a clever Sunday idea can be quite fun. The difference is that they offer some kind of logic as to why they exist. Put another way, a joke has to have two meanings, not one. A good Sunday puzzle has three, a third way of combining what is said. A rebus like this is just a hassle. There's no clever reason for the gimmick. Violating the rules of crosswords should be done for a purpose. Why are we spelling "Diet" in two ways? I don't know. Why? By the way I'm having a nice day and would appreciate not being ad hominem attacked as a grump. Maybe, just maybe, I have an opinion worth considering. I appreciate the editors taking this into consideration.

That was the fastest I've ever solved a Saturday puzzle. I know that my personal accomplishments are incredibly important to you, so I won't go on at length about the wildly clever strategies I employed in solving the puzzle. I know that you can't afford delay as you rush off to inform your friends and pets about the miracle that has been visited upon you all on this day. I do understand that you'll want to laud and praise me at great length, so I am leaving room for comments below. But please note that I cannot respond personally to every comment. I receive a great deal of correspondence and while yours has great merit, someone else will get the job. You know how that goes.

At the nexus of 41 we find "Forest" and "fire," bringing to mind the terror in Los Angeles. I imagine that many solvers are like me, using the crossword in part as a place to get away from the world's harsh realities. Certainly the editors steer away from controversy and calamity, and that seems right to me. But the real world is real, and will make itself known. Let us note its unintended appearance here, turn a kind thought toward others in need, and perhaps send some aid, and finish solving the puzzles. All the puzzles.

I wanted to say that woks are more for stir frying than deep frying in my neck of the woods, but I started asking myself since when do woods have necks and soon enough I was constructing a puzzle myself, entirely in my mind, a Sunday, 21x21, with a complete theme and many many clever moments and was about to mentally submit it, until I reached the very last square and couldn't make it wok.

I spent 10% of my solving time on the main part of the puzzle, and 90% trying to spell "babaghannouuouszh," which, as it turns out, is not the correct spelling.

One of my all-time favorite puzzles. Is it possible that I have, now and again, been that person who pencils in a few halfway right answers in an in-flight magazine, and then loses interest in order to gaze longingly at the snack cart? No. I've never done that, not at at all. You're thinking of someone else.

It's not that the gimmick is too hard. It's that it doesn't match my expectations. A basketball defender does not expect the player with the ball to shove them out of bounds as hard as possible, even though that would gain advantage and is quite legal in sumo. The gimmick was too hard relative to expectations. It's a Wednesday. I'm in pajamas. Gimme some idea that something fishy is going on. Usually there's an across supporting hint.

I did not solve in a particularly impressive time. In fact I didn't know most of the answers because I am functionally illiterate, and I quickly got irritable and sleepy. However, I don't like admitting any weakness so I instead promoted my worth by posting nonexistent accomplishments and extravagant bragging online. Then I hosted a UFC fight on my lawn, which I'm told went well, but I fell asleep. I think I might or might not have signed an agreement with some people in the Middle East about something at some point but I don't know what it was about.

I do almost nothing but watch NBA basketball. No one ever describes a point guard (or anyone else) using a hop step. Here are some terms I'd choose for a point guard's crafty maneuver before that, although admittedly many are not seven letters: CROSSOVER, STEPBACK, BEHINDTHEBACKPASS, EUROSTEP, EURO, GOINGTHROUGHTHEFIVEHOLE, PASSFAKE, WRONGFOOT (verb), BOUNCEPASS, HESI, and I'll think of some more once I've recovered from my fainting at this terrible clue.

Dear Will Shortz: Dude. Dude, can I just have a puzzle that doesn't require me looking up addenda and holding the grid up to the mirror and getting out a cryptography manual? A Sunday puzzle with clues and responses and a gentle little clever gimmick? Today's puzzle is an absolute brick wall to me, and I've been solving the NYT for 40 years. Eugene T. Maleska would have never perpetrated such torture, I can tell ya that. The phrase that appears in the composer's bio is quite telling. It says, "Good puzzlemakers are always pushing boundaries." Wait. Why? What's wrong with the old boundaries? I think that editors of puzzles get bored and so do super sleuths, but they are not the only audience here. Sure, I've always enjoyed a gimmick, but not if that gimmick is too much work. After all, it's already a challenge to find out what the answers are. That's what I enjoy doing when I sit down in the morning sun with my morning tea and my radish-tofu smoothie. I know that some solvers enjoyed today's puzzle, and can anticipate that they land on the other side of the innovation question. To them I say "EXEUTI MII FROY LATA GHERKIN." They'll figure it out. Dude, for the rest of us, can you just give us puzzles we can spend our mornings on, not our souls?

Fans of my solving -- and they are legion -- will be delighted to learn that I finished this puzzle faster than I have ever finished any Thursday puzzle. I'm down to a record fourteen seconds personal best for Thursdays. Obviously the Monday times are quicker, six seconds is my PB; but there were some hitches today with the rebi and all. I think that it's time to start an admiration society of me. I wouldn't be the one to suggest it, I'm too modest for that, but I'm putting it out there in case someone with organizational skills and nothing but time on their hands wants to take up the challenge. It isn't easy. You'll have to manage the many thousands who want access to interviews or just time spent with me. Be strong. It puts me in a reflective mood: for a long time I wasn't really sure what the purpose of the internet is, at least for me -- or what the purpose of a comment section in general or this NYT crossword comment section might be. Now I know that the point of the whole thing is for others to boost my fragile ego on flimsy grounds, with no evidence to support my dubious claims. That's right, isn't it? Have I misunderstood?

I didn't get the gag until well after finishing the puzzle. I didn't like the gag. I didn't want the gag. I am not a fan of the gag. It's -- what's going on here? Some letters are missing? Some sort of all caps type situation? Some mysterious evasiveness, such that I'm supposed to guess, based only on "EAVOR" that I'm supposed to write "ENDLESSSTRUGGLE." Yeah, right. The odds of anyone guessing that without at least 9 down crosses are low. I have previously in this column had occasion to note that I don't like this kind of puzzle, the sort that in my view prioritizes a laborious gimmick over the commonplace and no doubt plebian approach of **just making a bunch of words that cross and clues about those words.** When I have so said, I have been met with explanations as to why I'm in the wrong, explanations of the puzzle, accusations of being an enemy of fun, and one or two up-thumbses. I can't wait to find out what today brings. Hit it.

Well, that's 44 hours I'll never get back.

It is simply the case that some of us like crossword puzzles where the idea is to find the words that meet the definitions; and some also like some gimmick that sacrifices the integrity of the noble grid for the benefit of some wordplay or pun. I like to think of myself as in the latter group, but the gimmicks have to be both clever and reasonably understandable from the clues. In my view there is simply no reason for me to think that "steal a kiss" means "the referenced words have an X that shouldn't be there but put it there anyway." It's not as though there is some existing cultural reference point. To steal a kiss is indeed a thing, and an X as a signoff kiss is indeed a thing, but putting the two together is like saying that dogs have fleas and schoolchildren like to flee after school, so ... I don't know, maybe the dogs should scratch the kids. I am therefore with heavy heart tendering my resignation from all crossword solving with the New York Times. Having given this decision a great deal of thought, it is final and I will not yield to any coercion or inducement. That is my final word, a personal ban on doing the crossword for the entire rest of the day. I'll see y'all tomorrow. XOXO

Very ... impressive Carefully ... constructed Crossword ... puzzle That ... took Me ... an hour

Impressive. If you told me to make a 15x15 puzzle that includes THATTRACKS, NEZPERCE, STREETTACO, THESEUS, BUCKETLIST, INHOTWATER, and BABYBOOMER, I'd say that with that level of optimism in my skills, you're about eight speeds shy of a ten-speed.

"Braina?" "Losaes?" Another crossword that drifts too far for my taste into the realm of "the gimmick is more important than the puzzle's integrity." I get the gag. It's not that compelling a gag, but it's fine --- IF the resulting words mean anything. I cast my gaze upon my completed puzzle and ask "What are these absurdities and how did we all get here?" It's a tragedy from which I may not recover,and it only seems to be a trend that is growing. I weep for the children, for tomorrow and tomorrow's solvers may face grids with no meaningful words at all, yet a really solid gimmick. This will lead to the breakdown of civil society and the erosion of table manners. Can we not just eliminate some of these overly gimmicky newfd puzzles? Now you're thinking "An error was made, surely 'newfd' is not a word." Ah, but you're forgetting the gimmick. See how it feels??? Ha.

I EASILY got 6-down "One of the Three Stooges." 3 letters. I am happy to offer assistance in solving this one for anyone who wishes to request it, as it does call upon a knowledge base in which I am quite confident. I didn't really get any of the other answers in the crossword, but this one I effin' NAILED so just reach out. I got you, fam. I did start the puzzle confident I was gonna rip it up, lots of feral energy, but the clues were so hard I just ended up an uncertain razorback.

The NYT crossword has jumped the shark. I always liked that expression. It derives from a moment late in the run of the "Happy Days" TV series. Out of ideas, the writers have The Fonz go water-skiing, in his leather jacket. A shark shows up, and he jumps it. If you look up the definition of "crossword" you'll not find what we saw today. Letters that don't exist in the white squares but are somehow to be imagined as existing in the black squares is not a crossword. Now, some may say I'm a fuddy-duddy, a crossword conservative who brooks no changes from the norm. Kinda? I think the art of a *good* novel crossword is in providing a twist that makes sense in some interesting and compelling way. A great successful example was the puzzle that had "Ship of Theseus" as an answer, then various alterations answer by answer and eventually, "Ship of Theseus" as the last in the series. Strictly speaking, one should not see the same answer twice. But it made sense and illustrated the thought experiment. Knowing some bits about the thought experiment, one could solve the puzzle. There isn't anything about "dark energy" that logically leads to "put letters into the dark squares." It's gotten to the point where constructors and the editors approving the puzzle are effectively saying "if you have a theme answer that has a term like 'dark,' 'missing,' 'gone,' 'double' etc. you can justify anything in the grid." Feh. I really like my morning crossword. Bring it back, for I am sad.

OK. I solved the whole puzzle. I read the article. I read some of the comments. I have only the vaguest idea of what this was all about. However, the sun is shining and my dog needs a walk. Hoping for future crosswords that aren't so clever that I am forced to conclude that I'm not.

I don't understand how the response to "A resident of Muscat" is "Romania." Or "Crooner Mel" leads to "Stormed." That makes no sense at all. Not only do the answers make no sense, they aren't even in the right part of speech. I know, I know, it has something to do with the "offsides" gimmick. But what it has to do, I can't figure out. And here's the kicker: it's not worth the effort to find out. My critique is not solely or specifically of this puzzle . It's the NYT and its constructors moving in the past decade to prioritizing the gimmick over the integrity of the puzzle. It's fantastic if there's a clever gimmick. I love that. But when the finished puzzle looks like nonsense and I -- a 40 year solver -- have to read the comments section to find out what tedious logic led to this illogic, I think we've lost the plot. I like NYT puzzles. I like playful clues and themes. But contorting the whole puzzle into some forced gimmick that gives no satisfaction once solved is counterproductive. I'm supposed to feel good, satisfied, a bit proud of myself when completing the grid. Instead, on days like today, I feel disinterested and annoyed, as is no doubt evident in my tone. I get that. I love starting off the day with the NYT crossword puzzle. So please -- just provide crossword puzzles worthy of the name, and not some peculiar idiosyncratic logic that just makes it less fun.

I don't think the knee has anything to do with what Beckham bends. The point of the expression, as used in the film and in soccer in general, is that given the right force and at the right angle, a soccer ball will bend in its trajectory during flight. Good players can take advantage of this to curl the ball around defenders and into the net. So "Bend it like Beckham" means "Kick it in a curve."

I rise in heartfelt praise of the little word. Let us all hail and laud the three or four letter easy answer in any grid. Today's example was three letters, Japanese drama, and that one I know. For oh! On so many a morning I'll encounter some lengthy thematic answer with wordplay and/or trickery I haven't decoded, and then another and another; and just when I'm about to despair and give up crosswords for a career in restoring Victrola hand-cranked record-players, I will move elsewhere in the puzzle to find those gettable answers, often deliberately quite easy, to balance the puzzle difficulty, and all order will be restored to my universe. The sun will emerge from behind clouds, cats will stop chasing dogs, up will again be down; and I will find a beacon of hope that if I fill in enough "ENO" and "UMA" answers, I will soon enough be ready for a renewed attack on the hard stuff. Thank you, you overlooked and undersung fill. You are the tempeh in my la la. Praise! All join me in praising the undersung "GRE" and "ATE" answers, humble and pure in their intentions and noble in their service. Praise and hail!

What do we hope to gain by writing some words about the daily crossword? For me, it's sometimes an impulse to provide feedback on aspects of puzzles that I find objectionable, in the no doubt vain hope that someone at NYT will listen; or that at least someone else will say "yes, I share that objection." Whenever I have posted such a critique, I face now-predictable responses: "if you don't like it, you're incompetent." "You are too gloomy." "Only positive comments are welcome." "You don't *get* it." "You are in the minority and therefore not worth hearing from." Disheartening. Like being in a family, saying that you don't like the meatloaf, and being told that don't have the wit to understand meatloaf, so go live somewhere else. (The dish, not the musical artist) Today, I am hoping for better. Any respondents: please consider that disagreeing with my position does not mean I deserve a lecture in the history of crosswords or the nature of Thursdays. My objection is, once again, that the NYT has moved in the past decade to gimmicks that cost too much in terms of puzzle integrity. A completed puzzle with "WTVEWEHERE" "WLESERKS" looks utterly absurd, as though the emperor is wearing no clothing and we're not allowed to say so -- because this is all justified by the "laugh lines" key. It just isn't, for me. There are lines, I'm supposed to substitute "ha"when I see one. Got it. It's still absurd. The integrity of the crossword is being sacrificed to an unfunny gimmick.

Look I made a hat???? I get that someone out there or perhaps many someones know the reference, and many more once learning of it find it somehow instructive or inspirational. I find it one of the all time great let downs. I didn't exactly labor my utmost to solve this puzzle, but I was hoping for some sort of payoff I could relate to. You made a hat. How tedious. Now, I know the online world. If you say something you find true and express your positive regard for it, you get love back. But if you express something true and express a negative view of it, you get ad hominem attacks and calumny. I am resigned to this fate, fire away.

Choose ONE of the following response. Mark your response clearly on the answer sheet. 1. The crossword puzzle today was _________ A. Clever B. Something I solved without help C. Something I needed help with. D. Not clever even after learning its purpose E. A waste of time. I. A and B II. A, B, and E III. A, C, and a circled letter of some sort IV A, B, C, D, and E. V. Ambient music pioneer Brian

I suppose I'm the only one who, when clued "Like leatherette" four letters, instantly puts in "warm." Or maybe I'm not. If you know, you know.

Oh I could not disagree more with 9D ""Not many sounds in life, and I include all urban and all rural sounds, exceed in interest a knock at the door" I detest knocks at the door. I am not a misanthrope, I just don't want solicitors for some cause that I don't support trying to persuade me that my mortal soul is on the line if I don't take a brochure; and I don't want my actual friends to just drop by in this era of a quick prior text to establish a visit. For the causes I do support, I don't prefer someone at the door to remind me. (Having myself gone door to door for causes, I'm aware that would-be donors don't like any approach: "don't call me! But also, don't write me. And don't knock on my door!" I am not quite hoist on my own petard, because I make my list of causes and affirmatively seek them out rather than needing to be asked.) This has given rise to a gentle controversy in my own household. I will often simply ignore a knock at the door. Even if the people on the other side can see that I am in the house. I don't bother looking up if I don't feel like talking to the visitors. Leave me alone, I'm doing the crossword puzzle. Members of my household say that I am being rude to not answer the door. I reply in kind that it's my house, and I have a right not to answer the door or acknowledge the banging. Weigh in if you like.

I have no idea when bad jokes became dad jokes but i ever so mildly resent it. Speaking as a father, I am just as unfunny or funny or punny or unpunny as anyone else. Indeed, if there is an age group that can be relied on to be painfully unfunny, it's children, with their repetitions of jokes and laughing at one's own joke or messing up the punch line. We love them for it, we get it, but let's not put fathers out there as some sort of class of people incapable of funniosity. Where are the mothers in all this? Delivering rock solid material that gets no one groaning? What this gets me thinking about, actually and away from the world's least furious rant, is a related rant: I ask you to consider whether the generalizations about age groups, generations, regions, etc. to be a gateway drug toward worse biases. How long can a brain spend time saying trite stuff like "Gex X is so foolish," "Moms have no sense of fashion" or "Portland is full of weirdos" before being open to generalizations about identity, about gender, about ethnicity, religion, etc? I'm persuadable. Convince me that the lesser generalizations don't for some people open a pathway to worse.

Oh, Pluto, how they have defamed thee, for lo these four decades, or so. It just ain't right. Pluto has provided us all so much, whether educational material in the form of colorful classroom posters, or entertainment, or simply a sense of satisfaction and completion to generations upon generations of children and adults -- without asking a thing of us in return. The unceremonious dumping of Pluto is one of the most inconsiderate and dare I say it callous acts I have witnessed since ... well, some of the stuff I did in college that does not merit discussion in this space. The revised rules for planets that exclude Pluto ask questions like whether the body orbits the sun, or whatever, sciency-sounding hoo-ha; but fail to ask the most important question: has the astronomical body served us faithfully in its role as planet? To that question, Pluto can stand as proud as any Jupiter. Perhaps more, for to be the last of the list, the tiny timid sphere that served (/serves) as outpost to all of humanity's horizon is a noble and heroic effort that should be rewarded, not punished. We should not be delisting Pluto, we should be sending cookies, and an apology note, smeared with tears.

I don't accept “--” as a crossword clue. It means different things in different puzzles. I know it's a convention: the dash tells us that the answer is clued somewhere else. But that's an unnecessarily vague way to communicate* something that could easily be made explicit. There's nothing difficult about splitting GENDER REVEAL into two entries and cluing each separately, even with the tedious “With 21-Across…” My objection is logical: “--” doesn't actually tell us anything. We're simply expected to pretend it does, and that everyone knows what it means. *A thought I had earlier, in private, that you have to guess.

I've been trying my hand at puzzle construction for some time now. I have to admit that Ms. Ziegler is faring better than I, for now. However, I'm a much better dancer.

There is a convention in crossword solving that has long irked me and today you have the pleasure of learning of my irk. I'm speaking of a clue such as: -- What's heard exactly twice in a lifetime? -- This is outright cheating. Any educated adult, nay, teen, knows that "lifetime" or "a lifetime" ought to be in quotes. The idea that I am meant to look for letters of the alphabet rather than things heard in an actual lifetime is simply a bridge too far to carry, to mix a metaphor for all who wish to buy a bridge. Of course, it would be rather easy to solve if the clue were: -- What's heard exactly twice in "A lifetime." What to do? 1. Live with my irk. I am no fan of this solution. 2. Change the convention. Big fan. 3. Don't clue "LONGI" lest you risk my wrath.

Either that was the hardest Monday I've ever solved, or my wits have dulled to the point where even a pencil sharpener would not avail me. Possibly both. P.S. I don't drink coffee. I think it's gross. Any clue requiring that I know the shape of a coffee bean discriminates against abstainers like me. I assure the puzzle composer, the editors, and the New York Times that my lawsuit is being filed even as we speak. The subpoenas may take a while to arrive, I'm having a very slow Monday...

This was my all time best solve time for a Saturday. By several minutes. It is the case that everyone reading this is jumping for joy. Please, please calm down. I still want to further improve my time. I mean, I don't want to dampen the celebrations, I suppose. But I guess I'll say keep them to only a few hours and then return to some modicum of decorum as I face the next hurdle. Your worship is appreciated, though. It does not go unnoticed.

As a Jew, I have always felt a bit odd about having a rye named after me. I don't take severe umbrage, it's not that big a deal, but it's a cultural oddity that is on the outskirts of offense -- or maybe not. What say you? It's more like "Eastern European Rye imported more by Ashkenazi Jews in the early part of the 20th Century,, but certainly not exclusively by that group," which I think would be a great way to list it on the deli menu. If you ever dunk an Oreo in anything, you and I are through. Just eat the thing. It doesn't get dunked. I will accept separating it into sections or licking off the white part, but heaven help you if you start dunking. In milk or anything else. We aren't animals.

My enjoyment of this puzzle was entirely tempo Rary.

Never heard of a shower beer, but I have heard of alcoholism. If you need to take your beer into the shower, it appears that something has gone quite wrong.

Oh. I thought the plural of "spouse" would obviously be "spice."

I imagine this may have been said, if so I apologize, please don't make me scroll an additional 12 minutes: Wouldn't Moriarty have taught "maths" rather than "math?" I admit I haven't read Sherlock Holmes lately. I find mysteries tedious. Except this one. What did he teach, when spelt in the original?