New York Times, Saturday, July 3, 2021

MASS GENERAL, fantastic marquee entry! It's rare that I encounter a phrase that I haven't already added to our word list, and even rarer for that entry to be this evocative. Not only is MASS GENERAL one of the oldest and most prestigious teaching hospitals in the country, but it reminds me of all the time I spent listening to Click and Clack and their Boston accents. Makes me want to spend time in "Our Fair City."

HAM OPERATOR is another great one, an entry we haven't seen in the NYT since 1997. It's ripe for all sorts of clever clues and even wordplay themes. Maybe it could even tie in with CREATURE FEATURE somehow. I stay away from horror movies, but I might be enticed by a flick about an evil pig surgeon.

Neat Down entries tying into that triplet of feature entries, too. BEACH HUT brings up images of "Gilligan's Island," and ALLEY CAT is solid.

PASTICHE is a great way to conclude the puzzle. Editors usually prize multi-word entries for their color, but I'd take PASTICHE any day over GIVE A TRY. Turns out my idea of its definition — a general mixture of ideas — was a bit wrong. Fine, totally wrong!

Speaking of wrong, I finished with an error, crossing MARINT with FINA COURT. Will Shortz pushes back hard on initialisms that aren't known by "virtually everyone" (his words; think CIA, FBI), because if you don't already know it, no etymology will help you understand it. FISA stands for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I didn't know LITT, either, but at least COUR? was easier to disambiguate. Couldn't be anything but COURT.

Finally, a standout clue, [Trace evidence?]. The question mark had me on high alert, but maybe I've been watching too many detective series. "Lupin" is fantastic if you haven't seen it, and the title font even looks like it might have been STENCILed!

Did you like seeing ROY COHN in the grid?

There are different schools of thought about what entries are suitable for crosswords, ranging from "include nothing that makes me sad or might trigger anyone anywhere" to "anything in the newspaper itself is fair game." I tend toward the latter, but I understand the former.

Crosswords have been criticized for including words that might be used as an insult in other contexts, under-representing various groups, etc., but controversial names seem to be especially tricky. There's an implication that grid inclusion implies endorsement. If you saw your own name in an NYT crossword, you'd feel honored. I get that.

Crosswords would look much different if they completely eschewed the despicable and the evil. MAO and IDI are grid staples. IVANKA is a great combination of letters that will attract ambitious constructors. WAGNER and PICASSO and JFK and MLK are more famous for their work than for their moral failings.

As we learn more about the rich and famous, our opinion evolves. GIULIANI used to be an American Hero. Now he's a national embarrassment. WOODY ALLEN used to be an admired filmmaker. Now he's too toxic to include in a puzzle.

For the record, I loved seeing Roy Cohn today, in the same way I enjoy seeing BILLY THE KID. That doesn't mean I don't have my own triggers. ENOLA has been clued over 200 times in reference to that infamous B-29 bomber. Whatever you think of the military strategy behind the decision to bomb Japanese civilians, 70,000 deaths is a tragedy. Would JACK THE RIPPER be better because it was longer ago and fewer people died? Is that worse or not as bad as a lawyer who corrupted American democracy? Those are crazy calculations to try to make.

[Added note] Reader Mike Knobler makes this astute observation: "For some of us, seeing a name or an organization or an institution in the puzzle isn't offensive if the bad thing the person or organization or institution did or does is addressed in the clue. ROY COHN clued as a McCarthyite is much less offensive than, say, Henry Kissinger clued as a diplomat or the NRA clued as an advocacy group."

That makes sense to me. even though It doesn't completely solve the problem of you and I disagreeing on who is despicable and who is heroic.