Simeon Seigel author page

Adding letters to the front of words isn't inherently theme-worthy because it's so common in English. For it to be fodder for a puzzle, there wants to be as much surprise as possible: the parts should all change meaning entirely, so a solver doesn't see it coming too quickly.

It's also more surprising when the "borrowed" letters are meaningless on their own (eg. INDIG from "SHINDIG") or unrelated to their context (eg. TRAPS from "STRAPS"). I found that if either part is too short or too long, the result tends to feel less transformed and thus less fun, but adding five letters to an unrelated six- or seven-letter word yielded the most unexpected results. I found fewer strong candidates for this theme than anticipated and fit what I could on the grid. And luckily, TAKEFIVE presented itself as a handy reveal to help explain what's going on.

The original wording for the "TAKE FIVE" reveal was a bit sneakier, aiming to delay the "a-ha" by an extra second or two: "... or how to solve each starred clue, from what's left of it". The editors proposed the more straightforward version to calibrate the difficulty level just-so.

It happens that 8/3 is my birthday, so I'll use this space to say "Hi, Mom!" and thanks all for solving! Seeing this puzzle in print today (originally submitted April 2022) is a nice present. Hope you enjoy it.

This is one of those puzzles where the editors were able to see it from the solvers' perspective in a way that I hadn't considered. I'll explain. My initial idea was to clue the compound answer phrases (HORSE.TRAINERS, TRAVEL.AGENCY, HITCHING.POST, and BALLET.SLIPPER). For example, 47-Across [Give a hand] would be (P)ITCHIN, and 49-Across [With 47-Across, Frontier parking spot?] would be (P)ITCHIN+G(H)OST, seemingly a very wrong answer. [Forming a union, perhaps…] would have hinted at "EXCHANGING RINGS": (P)ITCHIN+G(H)OST would equal (H)ITCHIN+G(P)OST, after the "ringed" (P) and (H) get swapped in the solver's mind. And "forming a union" would also hint at combining/reparsing the two halves to yield HITCHING POST.

Confused yet? Ya, that's what the editors thought you might say! They noted that the "correct" answer for the compound phrases would not be what's entered on the grid, which can be frustrating for solvers. But they argued that seeing the compound answers emerge during the solve –especially with the revealer in the middle of the grid instead of at the more traditional bottom right — would be plenty fun and surprising. I appreciated the time they put into discussing the tiniest details of the puzzle's mechanics. Hope you all enjoy it!

Tons of compound words can be "flipped" to make a new unrelated term. HANG.OVER flipping to become OVER.HANG, say. The components --HANG and OVER — are unchanged, so it's not super interesting. I went looking for terms where the space between the components has to shift for the flip to work, so that one of the components is brand new to the equation. Adding an /s/ turned out to be the most reliable, consistent approach: TOOL.BARS flips to BAR.STOOL, and I liked how "stool" just shows up unexpectedly.

I was surprised at how few good candidates I could find with this property. Some from the discard pile included: HOT.POTS, HOT.BLOODS, WAY.SIDES, PACE.MAKERS, and WING.CHAIRS. Sometimes an extra /s/ suffix is needed to make a grid work; too many can feel like extra fluff in lieu of meatier vocabulary.

For this puzzle I liked how the added /s/ is the key to the gimmick. My original submittal greyed one side of each compound answer, as an option to make it easier to see the "sides". The editors went with no greyed squares; a bit harder, but hopefully fun and not frustrating.

There are dozens of terms composed of 4+4+4 common, unrelated components (FEAT+HERB+RAIN, say). But I could only find a handful of good 4+4+4+4 candidates where the compound answer is also crossword-worthy. This theme begged to have four themers (4x4x4... "ALL FOURS"), so there were just enough to make it work.

The original submittal included COVE+RING+MATE+RIAL ("covering material") and the editors wisely asked me to keep digging. GOOD+SAND+CHAT+TELS, HOTS+TONE+MASS+AGES, and THUR+GOOD+MARS+HALL were all flawed contenders. Thankfully, Branford Marsalis showed up to save the day.

My penultimate submittal eliminated the Star Wars reference at 68A: I had second thoughts about a long proper noun with no inferable spelling. But the editors asked that I keep it in, saying "... yeah, it might be a polarizing entry — but its inclusion will also be many solvers' favorite thing in the fill..." I found that interesting. Puzzles try to entertain a wide variety of solvers… but the editors know they won't succeed for all of them at once, with every clue or answer. Still, hopefully all solvers find enough goodies in each puzzle to keep it fun!

When I started toying with this idea ("zipper words," which can split into two common words of equal length, neatly interspersed), the 6+6 ALTERNATIONS was the only viable 12-letter candidate I could find in the universe of 12-letter phrases**. The fact that its dictionary definition is "repetitions of two things in turn" seemed like a miracle with no purpose but to inspire a crossword with precisely this theme!

(** Not strictly true. I also found UPRUNS + NOOSES = UNPOROUSNESS. Yuck + yuck = yuck!)

The editors introduced two key changes, presumably to yield a smoother or more enjoyable solving experience for more solvers: they re-clued MERGELEFT as an early, explicit hint to the theme (I had originally clued it straight, then referred back to it at the end of the puzzle, within the PARESDOWN clue), and they introduced the " — " clues (in lieu of straight clues in those slots). I'd be interested to know how solvers felt: was the early hint too much, too soon? Did you find the " — " clues frustrating?

I found this puzzle unusually challenging — but also unusually satisfying — to construct. Hope you can say the same about solving it!

Looking at a friend's paper solution to some dastardly puzz with blots of inky cross-outs made me think:

1. there's so much ink that it looks like they've added blockers, and
2. there's gotta be a way to use that in a theme!

Filling in a row of black squares could be like "redacting," perhaps? The rest flowed from there: things that get "blacked out" could be private information... of the options, SSN, PIN, and DOB worked best. I was lucky to find a strong set of spanning themers with these three initialisms buried symmetrically inside.

The grid I originally submitted had white squares where the "personal info" would go, only 28 blockers, very un-Thursday like. But there was a huge catch: solvers on apps can't use a pen to "black out" anything! So, I was pleasantly surprised when the editing team accepted it... although I had no idea how they'd publish it.

Part of me hoped they'd come up with some coding trick, and use it to demonstrate a new feature of their app. Alas, it was not to be. The very patient Joel Fagliano pointed out that aside from the app problem, in my version the numbering scheme would give away the gimmick: a few numbered squares without black squares immediately above them would call attention to themselves. I think the [---] clues in the published version also call attention to themselves, but I agree it's the best way to publish this theme for app-solvers. Many thanks to the editors for making it work!

Very happy to be making my NYT debut.

I'm an architect living with my wife and daughter (and these days, my son on leave from college) in Brooklyn, NY. I initially got into this mess a few years ago when my then 2nd-grader took an interest in word puzzles; turns out brainstorming themes and gimmicks is great with kids who haven't yet learned to think inside the box. Major thanks to my good friend Rich Proulx (a great xword constructor and a real mensch) who has been a reliable sounding board for just about every puzzle I've worked on since then.

This puzzle came from thinking of ways to use grid art (evocative arrangements of black squares) as an integral part of the solve. Limiting the set to 15-letter phrases with the string /AND/ but not the word "AND" yields plenty of colorful options… but combinations of four such which can intersect each other are scant, which makes for a tighter theme. (Having /AND/ straddle two words would have been my first choice --like TASMANIAN DEVILS, say-- but, alas, that was one constraint too many.) Providing enough white space around the plus-signs to make them "pop" was another special challenge, but combining that with a minimal reveal ("AND") left room for some extra 8x slots, which helps in a grid which appears, at least at first, to have no long themers.

As a newb, I was sad to see some of my favorite clues edited out ([Joint holder] for SINEW; [Not a firm order?] for SOFTBOIL; etc.), but also glad they were able to keep a bunch. I'm starting to appreciate the editors' need to distribute sneakier clues in just the right places for a smoother solve, especially on a tricksy theme.