New York Times, Saturday, January 26, 2019

When my last puzzle was published, I went onto the comments section of the Wordplay blog as I'm sure many new constructors do. I was pleasantly surprised at the positive responses from people — despite a few minor nitpicks, most people loved it!

However, there was one woman who seemed to hate my puzzle with a fiery passion. She insulted me directly, saying she had been doing the NYT puzzle for 60 or so years and was disgusted by what it had turned out to be. She slammed my use of "you know it or you don't" clues, implying I wasn't "man" enough to include clues based solely on wordplay alone. My response to her is, I'm sorry my puzzle made you feel that way. I genuinely am. Despite all that, I'm still proud of it.

I believe that the New York Times Crossword exists as a reflection of the English language — of how people speak in this day and age. I'm sorry if you wish there were more "scholarly" clues and words, with only dictionary definitions, but people in real life use slang and they talk about movies, and they use brand names. The crossword is a reflection of the world as it is. And it's always used clues that you either know or you don't! I don't know the names of obscure Czech composers or minor characters from "Leave it to Beaver." But I'm happy to find things I don't know and learn them! So you don't have to do my puzzle today, because yes, there's another video game reference in it. There are plenty of old puzzle compilation books from decades past that are still good. But if you're willing to give this puzzle a try, maybe you'll learn something about the things in my world!

I am very proud of today's puzzle. It's seemingly become a good-luck charm of mine to include a video game clue (like the classic 32-Across — how can you not say it in his voice?). I'm also proud of the pun clues sprinkled throughout, and the inclusion of what I think is the funniest food (31-Across. I don't know why). I made the grid, and the first thing my program suggested was that center circle in its entirety. I was astounded at how easy it was, and I just went from there.

Pretty grid — love those interlocking arms. They do violate one gridding rule of thumb, that placing a black square anywhere in the grid should not separate one region from the rest of the puzzle. But both RAMS HOME and MONSTER MASH connect subsections through that choke point, so I don't mind so much. It'd have been great to get a more open solving flow, but sometimes an aesthetic impact is worth it.

Grant brings up good points — the question of "what is good fill" is always on constructors' minds. I used to prize entries like IT'S A ME, MARIO, but these days, I shy away from them. Yes, they're fantastic for Mario Bros. lovers (me included!). But they're potentially duds — even liabilities — for solvers of a different generation.

I'm much more a fan of GENIE OF THE LAMP and BUNDT CAKE. One could argue that certain people might never have read "Aladdin," or seen a mouth-watering BUNDT CAKE. I think they're more relatable to a greater percentage of the solving population than IT'S A ME, MARIO, though.

Tough decisions. Do you target the broadest audience possible, at the expense of some snazzy grid entries? Or do you go niche and make a puzzle that sticks in the mind of a smaller segment of people, while potentially pissing off others?

Overall, solid gridwork that's made easier with the grid sectioning (being able to focus on one locale at a time makes a constructor's life much easier). WORLD BEATERS and DEMOCRATICALLY didn't do much for me, but there was also only a bit of BE IT, AHL, ON UP, etc.

Given that Grant started off with IT'S A ME MARIO, I'd almost have preferred him trying to work in more of his style of marquee entries, even if it meant using more crossword glue. Go big or go home!