Rather candid Will Shortz commentary
Mar. 11th, 2005 04:32 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tahnanJust as there are signs of the End Times of the World, I think there must be signs of the End Times of the Times. Or at least its puzzle editor. I respect Will Shortz greatly; I can only barely fathom the profound effect he has had on the world of crosswords, indeed of puzzles in general. But when I see what he allows to run in the New York Times Crossword, well, I worry that perhaps he's lost interest in the job.
The puzzle for Saturday, February 26th...well, it wasn't just that the grid contained entries like NACHO CHIP (somewhat dubious in the singular), ULE (the suffix), ISH (the suffix), RMN (the "former White House initials"), along with all sorts of abbreviations (TBSP, SPFS, ACS). It wasn't just that there were somewhat unfathomable clues such as "I know not why I ___ sad": Shak. for AM SO, itself a dubious entry, or "No you're not" retort for YES I AM, rather than, say, the Melissa Etheridge album or the Radiohead song, or Tout's antithesis for RIEN--antithesis? For a simple opposite? Sheesh.
No, the tipping point was the clue "Who ____?" (four letters). It's not just the ambiguity, that the answer could be KNEW, or IS IT, or the like. It's not just the fill-in-the-blank nature of it; not great, but, well, you know, sure, "Who knew?" and "Who is it?" are common enough things to say that I could see that working. It's the fact that the answer was ISN'T. Like, you know: "Who isn't?" Perhaps it's a common saying on Planet Jim Page, but here on Earth, not so much.
It's hard to say whether 12 years is a long time to edit the crossword. Margaret Farrar, the first editor, held the position for 27 years; Will Weng for only nine years, but his tenure ended with his death, not retirement; Eugene Maleska, editor for 16 years, also served until his death. Maybe 12 years isn't very long, and maybe it is. But it seems to me that, while even Homer nods, Will's been nodding a little too much lately.
The puzzle for Saturday, February 26th...well, it wasn't just that the grid contained entries like NACHO CHIP (somewhat dubious in the singular), ULE (the suffix), ISH (the suffix), RMN (the "former White House initials"), along with all sorts of abbreviations (TBSP, SPFS, ACS). It wasn't just that there were somewhat unfathomable clues such as "I know not why I ___ sad": Shak. for AM SO, itself a dubious entry, or "No you're not" retort for YES I AM, rather than, say, the Melissa Etheridge album or the Radiohead song, or Tout's antithesis for RIEN--antithesis? For a simple opposite? Sheesh.
No, the tipping point was the clue "Who ____?" (four letters). It's not just the ambiguity, that the answer could be KNEW, or IS IT, or the like. It's not just the fill-in-the-blank nature of it; not great, but, well, you know, sure, "Who knew?" and "Who is it?" are common enough things to say that I could see that working. It's the fact that the answer was ISN'T. Like, you know: "Who isn't?" Perhaps it's a common saying on Planet Jim Page, but here on Earth, not so much.
It's hard to say whether 12 years is a long time to edit the crossword. Margaret Farrar, the first editor, held the position for 27 years; Will Weng for only nine years, but his tenure ended with his death, not retirement; Eugene Maleska, editor for 16 years, also served until his death. Maybe 12 years isn't very long, and maybe it is. But it seems to me that, while even Homer nods, Will's been nodding a little too much lately.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-11 06:20 pm (UTC)