JAYZ interpreted as people whose full names are bookended by J and Z. My first reaction: shouldn't JAYZ hint toward people whose ...
read moreJAYZ interpreted as people whose full names are bookended by J and Z. My first reaction: shouldn't JAYZ hint toward people whose initials are J Z?
Second: but Jeff, why should that be? Just because so many crosswords use this initialism convention doesn't mean it's the gospel truth.
Third: yeah, but it makes more sense that way. People call me JC. Plenty of folks shorten to initials. BJ. JD. AJ. THAT'S THE WAY IT IS.
Fourth: JC stands for "just criticize" then? ANNOYING!
It's a little odd to have two letters played upon as bookends, but I ultimately enjoyed the novelty. Just as with a Peter Gordon puzzle that used two letters in a non-initialism way, this one pushed the envelope of what's possible. I like pushing.
I don't like early-week grids that can trip up newer solvers, though. JENNIFER LOPEZ and JOAN BAEZ — every NYT solver ought to at least have heard of them. JON LOVITZ ain't no Adam Sandler or Mike Myers, but I'll give him a pass because he was so annoyingly hilarious back in his SNL heyday.
JC CHASEZ? Oof. I learned his name through a crossword, but it was a late-week crossword, and I remember thinking, if this is the kind of thing I'm expected to know to solve a Saturday puzzle, it ain't gonna happen. To throw JC CHASEZ at newer solvers — years after his heyday — isn't fair play.
Nor is crossing REMO / AMANAS. Perhaps educated solvers should have heard at least one of these, but I'd be sympathetic for newbs putting in SAN RENO, SAN REVO, etc.
All in all, I appreciated the different take on two-letter revealers, and to do it with rare letters is admirable. Those Js and Zs sure made for a tough gridwork challenge, though, leading to compromises in the early-week solving experience.