New York Times, Saturday, September 24, 2022

Jim here, sitting in for Jeff Chen, who is reading aloud to his kids.

It's been over three years since we've heard from Canadian constructor Martin Ashwood-Smith, and I'm pleased to see his byline again. Martin is mostly known for what is sometimes derisively called "stunt puzzles" but this one is a standard Saturday, complete with some great clues like "inheritance powder" for ARSENIC.

What is a stunt puzzle? Click on Martin's author page and you'll see many grid-spanning stacks and lots of open white space. This puzzle isn't a pangram, but pangram authors also get called out for the same sin: "making a puzzle that's fun for the constructor instead of for the audience."

This is clearly a grave moral failing. The sentiment that constructors should repress their own selfish desires to create crosswords that appeal to the masses is so obviously true, it's not worth questioning.

And so, I question it.

No other art form comes with this expectation. Can you imagine a painter or sculptor or opera composer being told that rather than do what pleases them, they should only innovate within comfortable standard forms? Fiction writers, for example, get the opposite advice. "Don't copy the formats or styles of others. Do what delights you. Let your authentic voice shine through. That's the only way to find both joy in your work and success."

I asked a few people why crosswords might be so different from other art forms, and the most interesting answer I got was that people don't consider crosswords art. To them, it's a service, like Internet or electricity. That hadn't occurred to me. But if crosswords aren't art, why not?

I'm often reminded that crossword commentators are not representative of casual solvers, but it's not just the critics who feel strongly about this. Joe Krozel, another ground-breaking innovator, was regularly both praised and pilloried for his creativity, including in online comments.

Crosswords are different, somehow. People take them very seriously, with rigid expectations.