New York Times, Thursday, April 16, 2015

JOE: This puzzle concept came to me when I noticed that the two main theme entries were equal length: constructors lo-o-ove when that happens! The literal interpretation of them virtually begged running them in opposite directions. To build up the theme further, I decided to run the corresponding background fill the same direction. Next, the theme suggested that I might enlist a collaborator, so I called upon Pete. From there, I would fill one half of the puzzle, flip it around, and ask Pete to fill the other half. So that was the basic logistics.

When I construct, I think about fairness to the solver. I guessed there would be solvers who would be very unhappy about the trick in the lower half of the puzzle, so I addressed this in two ways. First, I included the helper entry BACKWARD in the top half of the puzzle ... preparing the solver ahead of time. Second, I made sure that the theme was completely absent from the down fill so that solvers could opt out in that way. That was the least I could offer.

By the way, the other "helper" entry DRAWKCAB was more of a joke than anything else ... not much of any help to the solver I suspect. But it was fun to claim that — technically — the same word appears twice in the puzzle!

PETE: Yes, this one was definitely Joe's idea. When he asked me to go along for the ride, I was more than happy to.

Beyond what Joe said, I'll just add a couple of things. Did you notice the necessary palindromes (ESSE/MOM/ATTA) through the horizontal midline of the puzzle, and BOB vertically intersecting MOM? My clue for BOB was "Go up and down", which I thought was appropriate given the circumstances.

Second, did you notice PETER in the top half of the puzzle and JOE in the bottom? Of course you did.

Great revealer, YOU GO YOUR WAY … ENIM OG LLI DNA. Er, AND ILL GO MINE. We've seen plenty of BACKWARD-style puzzles, enough that I cringe at the thought of having to fix up all the answers so that our database of entries is kept clean, but I can't remember a revealer I've liked so much. Spot on.

Nice touch on ESSE and MOM and ATTA across the center too. Perfect for symmetry, as the center row could arguably be included in either the top or the bottom half. Best to make those entries so they could fit with either.

And what an impressively clean construction. This sort of stunt puzzle can be awfully tough — without autofill as a tool to tell you if a section can be theoretically filled or not, the construction requires more of a letter-by-letter approach. I was surprised that I couldn't find much of anything to point out as glue.

Perhaps some may grouse at LBOS, especially crossing OBIE, but I think it's not only fair game but desirable. LBOS (leveraged buyouts) aren't as huge today as during the late 20^th century buyout boom, but I find it to be important enough that educated solvers really ought to know it.

I often suggest to constructors that less is more. Many of them can't get their head around that idea. Why not put as much themage in as possible, right? I appreciate Joe's thoughtful approach toward fairness, but I felt like BACKWARD gave away the game too early and easily. I would have given this the Puzzle of the Week based on the awesome revealer alone, but the double BACKWARD took away from the a-ha moment for me.

Still, a very impressive construction on a tough set of constraints; clean as a whistle.