Writes Rex Parker, in today's blog post about the NYT crossword. (Answers for today's puzzle revealed at the link.)
I'd always assumed all the clues were edited into the style of the NYT, so it's interesting to me to see that the constructors — the original constructors — are thought of as having a "cluing voice" — something that is valued and can be threatened. There is a lot of room to be dull or clever or cute or weird in the clues, so, as a daily solver of the puzzle, I get what it means to say "cluing voice." And of course, I know how much "voice" means to a writer and how aggravating it is to suffer the intrusions of an editor who's bent on imposing a uniform institutional voice. That's why I write a blog and not law review articles.
Posts
18 comments:
rewritten by in-house staff
I think he means ChatGPT.
Have you been playing the other NYTimes games, like Wordle?
They have a new one that is figuring out the 4 sets of words from 16 word tiles. It's interesting.
https://www.nytimes.com/games/connections
NYT crossword constructors have appeared from time to time in Rex's comment section describing the extent to which their clues have been edited. That editing goes well beyond the imposition of NYT style.
I wonder at what point in the process does the constructor give up the right to veto changes to his or her puzzle. When the puzzle is submitted? When the puzzle is accepted? When the puzzle is published?
Speaking of the NYT and "cluing voice." It's not just the crossword there but pretty much everything that not just clues in but forfends their loyal readers from anything remotely offensive to Democrat ears.
If the word is "evil" and the clue writer provides "good intentions' roots" but the NYTimes editor changes the clue to "Republicans" will any of the Times readers complain, or even notice a change of voice?
If you are actually interested in puzzles and the idea of a "cluing voice", I can heartily recommend the YouTube channel "Cracking the Cryptic" where daily they solve amazingly complex (generally Sudoku-based) puzzles, always credit the people that make the puzzles, and not infrequently discuss the creator's style and how this puzzle reminds them of others that were done by the same creator. It never occurred to me that the NYT might be altering the work of the puzzle authors -- that's quite disheartening.
I always thought the real trick of crosswords is in making the words interlock to fit the board. It never occurred to me that there might be some literary value in the clues. And even a term for it!
"Have you been playing the other NYTimes games, like Wordle?"
Yes. I always play. Got today's in 3 and yesterday's in 2.
"They have a new one that is figuring out the 4 sets of words from 16 word tiles. It's interesting."
Yeah, just played that for the second time. Got "Perfect!"
"If the word is "evil" and the clue writer provides "good intentions' roots" but the NYTimes editor changes the clue to "Republicans" will any of the Times readers complain, or even notice a change of voice?"
The crossword is very noncontroversial. Politics is kept out. So is anything upsetting.
Not clueing?
Sometimes the NYT crossword is just a game. I think that's why it's on the "games" page.
I have had a crossword of mine accepted for publication in the NYT, but it was over 12 years ago. In any case, IIRC, I did not receive any notification about any specific changes-- either to my fill or my clues --before publication. When it was published, there were some slight changes to fill and to clues. There are a couple of reasons why they may change these that have nothing to do with a "cluing voice":
1. Fill or Clue used recently - If a fill answer has been used lately, and the submitted clue is the same or extremely similar to the recent clue, they may change it. Believe it or not, there are people who remember clues used two months ago, and they point it out if things are getting overused. It was more than a year between the time I received word my puzzle had been accepted and its date of publication, so there was no way I could have avoided submitting similar clues/fill. Changes like that help keep some variety going.
2. Correction to daily level - The NYT tries to have a consistent level of difficulty in its puzzles based upon day of the week. In general, Monday puzzles tend to be the easiest, with the difficulty increasing for the week. When I submitted my puzzle, I was trying for a Wednesday-level. It was published, I believe, on a Tuesday. So that meant a couple of my clues had to be, well not exactly simplified, but modified, to the Tuesday level. Will Shortz has a much better feel for that than I do, so while I was frustrated with some of those changes, it was better than not being published.
3. Overuse of an idea - While use of puns, misdirection, and the like is sometimes used (particularly for theme answers), overuse of that in a single puzzle will lead to changes in clues/fill. This is to avoid a single puzzle from being too wearisome for a typical solver.
4. It's an art, not a science - Sometimes one clue just fells better than another one. I gotta defer to the guy with the experience.
Since I've only had one NYT publication (a few elsewhere) I didn't really have a "cluing voice" yet. I've submitted a couple others since then, but none of those were accepted,
Personally, I think he and his staff do a pretty good job in keeping things neutral. Setters (puzzle constructors) have to realize that we're playing in someone else's sandbox. If a setter feels abused by that, well, there are a couple other places to try for publication, or especially now, self-publication online.
Michael Fitzgerald, I deleted your comment because it attributed something to Parker that had nothing to do with Parker. Take care to get your facts straight when you are making accusations.
Thanks, rosebud.
" It never occurred to me that the NYT might be altering the work of the puzzle authors -- that's quite disheartening."
All the news that's fit to revoice.
This is yet another good reason for me to play Sudoku instead of crosswords, especially from the NYT. Plus it deprives the malodorous NYT of my views or patronage FWIW.
Thank you, Althouse, for that correction. Although it was a NYT crossword puzzle, Jeremy Newton was the perpetrator, not Parker. Mot only that, but I was wrong, it was Hanukkah.
Post a Comment