New York Times, Thursday, November 1, 2018

I've always wanted to make a Schrödinger puzzle. The old CLINTON/BOB DOLE puzzle was just so amazing. What I really want to make is a puzzle with two completely different solutions, but I think I need to be a better clue writer to do that. And to have more time on my hands!

As far as this puzzle goes, I often tell people (truthfully) that when my puzzles come out in The Times, I can't do them. That's especially true today; Will changed the vast majority of my clues. I'm confident that he thinks all of his modifications are better; I certainly think some of them are. We've discussed this briefly, and he seemed to think that my clues were just too weird. So now I'm trying to figure out if he's right. I had originally clued 60-A, for example, as "What Mrs. Ed would be" and had clued 61-A as "Tiller operator's drink, supposedly." Both of those clues require larger mental leaps than the clues that were eventually used. What do people think?

I will confess that I thought the gimmick here was localized enough that the puzzle itself would be pretty easy, which is why I tried to make the clues a bit harder than usual. But maybe I overdid it, or got it wrong, or what have you. Dr.Fill gets this puzzle right basically immediately (it doesn't get the Schrödinger element, of course, just filling in one of the two possible letters), and gives Will's clues a difficulty score of 54. It gets it right with my clues as well, but has to rework the answer twice to figure it out (which it does automatically); my clues get a difficulty score of 72.03. So my clues are harder, but that doesn't mean that they are either better or fair. Like I said, I'd be interested in comments from solvers.

My clues or Will's, though, I hope everyone found the puzzle fun.

Some of my favorite puzzles are those that take two different theme types and combine them in an interesting way. I thought Matt did well to start with two-part phrases, where the halves differ by one letter (in the same spot) — Patrick Berry did something in the same vein a few years ago, as did Patrick Merrell. PITTER PATTER entered into the grid as P(I/A)TTER is pretty fun already. But adding a Schrödinger element in the down direction? Very fun!

It's sort of a rebus meets a Schrödinger meets … a repeated word theme? Not sure exactly how to describe it, but it was creative.

I was especially delighted by the AS GOOD / AS GOLD find. I've seen similar theme concepts using PITTER PATTER, JELLY BELLY, and GALILEO GALILEI, but there's something golden about the AS GOOD / AS GOLD find. It was so interesting I had to stop during my solve to admire it.

I also liked how accurate most of the Schrödinger clues were for both options. [Sticky stuff] as GLOP or GOOP = perfect. Same goes for [Scratch, say] to describe FLAW / CLAW. I thought that one was particularly brilliant since it works so well for either option — but in very different ways. FLAW as a noun, CLAW as a verb.

And this former MBA loved the MICRO / MACRO find! How have I never thought of that before?

On the downside, BLOT felt much more apt for an ink stain than a BLOB. And although LET ON / LET IN worked well both ways, it wasn't as interesting to me, as a change of preposition isn't going to win any awards.

ADDED NOTE: Astute reader Luke Vaughn points out that although it's "just" a preposition change, look at how cleverly both fit the clue. LET ON, as in admitted a truth, and LET IN, as in admitted into a party. I stand corrected!

Overall, such an enjoyable experience to uncover those themers. This is a well-made puzzle with great bonuses like DOGGEREL and APTITUDE.

ADDED NOTE: I forgot to mention, Matt is (among many other things) an author! I enjoyed Factor Man, a thriller about a tech guru's world-changing invention.