New York Times, Friday, May 26, 2017

When I opened my Crossword folder to review the history of this puzzle, I was surprised to find just one lonely little file in the folder. Most of my puzzles go through many variations, with file names that include "rev.", "v.6" or other indications that I've gone back to the drawing board multiple times.

Even with puzzles that fall into place relatively quickly, I still often pull out my least favorite 50% or so, redo those sections, and then compare the two versions side by side; the better version gets clued and submitted. Apparently, this one was a keeper from the get-go. I hope you agree.

Happy Memorial Day Weekend!

Robyn has a knack for packing vivid, colorful answers into her themelesses. Today, she used a grid featuring 14 long slots, and she managed to convert almost all of them into sizzling material like CATS PAJAMAS, ATOMIC CLOCK, RIDE SHOTGUN. Along with MOOD MUSIC / FINE PRINT, FUN FACTS, I'd say NOT TOO BAD at all. Felt like there was great material everywhere I looked.

I so badly wanted to give this one the POW! — so much sizzling fill! — but my stupid constructor's brain held me back. As with some of her other puzzles, there was too much segmentation in this grid, the diagonal of black squares splitting up the puzzle, with just two entries connecting the halves: TIMESTAMP and SOLDIER ON.

The segmentation makes construction easier, as you can work on one half of the puzzle independently of the other. But it makes for a choppy solve that can feel unfair if the solver gets stuck in one half or the other.

Sometimes wonder if my standards for short fill have gotten too strict. After I see about five dabs of crossword glue in a themeless, my constructor's brain sends up a yellow flag. So ACS, JCT (junction?), ACCTS in just the starting corner was already nearing too much for me. Throw in some ENGS, STA, STD, ONT / DEO, and it took away from my enjoyment.

And the clue for CATS PAJAMAS … as much as I love the entry itself, [Living end] didn't make sense to me. (Probably generational?) I wish there had been clever cluing rather than the oblique approach, as the clue sapped my enjoyment of the entry.

But overall, a lot of great material and an entertaining solve. I wonder if this is a Stephen King situation: some critics say that his earlier work, though rougher, was more entertaining than his recent work, which follows "the rules" of writing too tightly?

Stupid constructor's brain.