Building a great crossword is a balancing act.
Your grid entries need to be interesting, yet accessible. You need to navigate long crossings and tight corners without resorting to too many abbreviations, too much crosswordese, or creating the dreaded Natick, a crossing of two obscure entries. Some solvers don’t like partial phrases, others don’t like proper names or brand names.
Your cluing has to be clever but not impenetrable. How much wordplay is too much? How many fill-in-the-blank clues before your clue section resembles your grid? The cluing must be fresh and vibrant yet timeless and not too of-its-era to make the cut for reprint and collection later.
No matter how you clue it, older solvers may decry newer names, slang, terminology, or pop culture references, while younger solvers will bemoan not just older references they consider passe, but long-established crossword-friendly words they quickly tire of seeing.
And that’s all without considering the difficulty in creating engaging, interesting themes or gimmicks for the puzzle.
Man, it’s amazing crosswords get made at all.
[Image courtesy of Mike Peters and The Comic Strips.]
That question of fresh entries and cluing vs. older/more familiar fare is a curious one. It raises further questions.
For instance, how much can you talk about what’s going on in the world?
By referring to unpleasant topics, however topical, will you alienate solvers who use the crossword as an escape? Or do you risk the puzzle feeling too sanitized and safe by NOT acknowledging the circumstances of the world at the time of the puzzle’s publication?
There are arguments for both sides. I mean, who wants to see ADOLF in a grid? (But then again, it’s not like IDI AMIN has a hard time finding his way into grid fill.)
Margaret Farrar believed that crosswords should avoid “death, disease, war and taxes.” Purposely avoiding unpleasant fill and cluing is informally known as the “Sunday Morning Breakfast Test.” (Our friends at Penny Press know plenty about this, as they shy away from unpleasant entries with diligence.)
But on the flip side, to ignore the unpleasantness of the world potentially ignores the people that unpleasantness affects.
As we continue to push for greater representation in crosswords in both editorial staff and constructors, you cannot deny that including the experiences of women, people of color, and members of the LGBTQIA+ community somewhat necessitates facing those unpleasant aspects of our history and our society.
To exclude them is to exclude potentially thought-provoking and important fill and cluing. (One could easily argue that the vast majority of our own Eyes Open crosswords would not pass the Sunday Morning Breakfast Test.)
[Image courtesy of Charmy’s Army.]
Not everyone greets adding new cultural fill with open arms, of course. A few years ago, an LA Times crossword solver complained to us (on our holiday gift guide post, of all places) about “ignorant ghetto language” in the crossword. He referred specifically to innocuous entries like “sup,” “did,” and “street cred.”
Thankfully, he is an outlier.
But on the topic of excluding words from crosswords, when Will Shortz was asked about it, he had an interesting response:
If a word or term is used in the columns of The Times, or in cultured society in general, I think it’s probably O.K. for a crossword, even if it’s touchy or slightly unpleasant. I strive to have crosswords reflect real life as much as possible. … I don’t believe in banning words, except for the very worst. And I’d be happy to abolish the term ‘breakfast test’ completely.
I think this is a topic I’m going to ask crossword solvers about more often. I’d be curious to see where they stand on crossword content and topicality.
I suspect opinions will vary, but I also suspect that most solvers welcome new fill, new entries, and new references in clues. Every crossword is an opportunity to learn and expand one’s knowledge, and add to the mental lexicon of crossword knowledge we each build as we solve.
So where do you stand, fellow puzzlers? Do you prefer your crosswords as an escape or as a puzzly reflection of the world around us? Let us know in the comments section below! We’d love to hear from you.
Have you checked out our special summer deals yet? You can find them on the Home Screen for Daily POP Crosswords and Daily POP Word Search! Check them out!
Thanks for visiting PuzzleNation Blog today! Be sure to sign up for our newsletter to stay up-to-date on everything PuzzleNation!
This is such an important question, and your analysis here is spot on. As a newbie editor, I’ve definitely run into the issue of older solvers disliking contemporary references and younger solvers disliking older references. I’ve also wrestled with the question of entries/clues that some folks might find off-putting. For example, I had the entry RONA in a recent grid. The question was, clue it as gossip columnist Barrett, or nickname for COVID? I ended up going for the latter, because the contemporary usage gives me enough crossword glee that I’m willing to risk giving some solvers a bit of an ick moment. ~Lisa~
Thank you for your input! I was viewing things as a fan and a constructor, so I can only imagine the complications of being an editor as well!
I suspect in a year or two — assuming things with the virus have settled — we might see RONA and other COVID references slipping into the crossword lexicon more. Those are very helpful letter combinations. =)