The Year So Far

I live in New York City and so, I suppose it would be a given that, as a crossword afficionado, I would attempt each day's New York Times puzzle -- and, indeed, I've been solving and attempting to solve these for many years. I say 'attempting' because the toughest of them are for me still too tough to completely crack. And I go back a bit: I remember when Margaret Farrar was the Times puzzle editor, then Will Weng, then Eugene Maleska.

I enjoy the daily challenge -- and appreciate the various difficulty levels, from easy Mondays to tear-your-hair-out Saturdays -- and certainly consider the Times puzzles in the top echelon of word puzzledom. As a solver, I'd say I'm very middle-of-the-road: Monday- through Wednesday-level puzzles are usually solvable on my daily commute to work; Thursdays are tougher, Fridays I often get only partially solved, and I usually look on Saturdays as the ultimate challenge: can I maybe fill in an entry or two?

Sundays are my favorites: not only do their difficulty levels usually match my solving capabilities, but often their size allows the constructor to engage in some involved, clever, witty wordplay which can even reveal multiple levels of play/meaning. Those that accomplish this are, in my book, genuine works of literature in which constructor and solver bring their separate sensibilities to the table for a multi-layered conversation.

The only problem with this is that the hopeful solver (me) tends to expect/want too much. So it has been, alas, with the first 4 NYTimes puzzles of the year.

New Year's Day, I opened the Thursday paper expecting a New Year's Day theme. Wrong. Still, there were a couple of Presidents in it (G. Washington, JFK), it had its witty moments (I particularly liked "some kind of nut" probably because I got the answer at first thought), and I managed to solve it in all its Thursday-ness. It's just that ... well ... I wanted a ball to drop, or something. ;)

On Friday I was happy to remember Kofi Annan's name (it took a while) and to fill in a few other entries. Saturday I was off to a party, so my usual Saturday struggle with the Times puzzle (which, as I noted, I generally do just to see if I can manage an entry or two) lasted just long enough to convince me that, no, there was no way I was going to solve this one. I do think Saturdays are best solved with friends and a connection to Google.

Which brings us to the Times Sunday magazine puzzle, one I have come to expect much from. I want witty wordplay! I crave iconoclastic rule-busting! Give me a clever quotable quip! Delight my eyes with pictographic grids! Ahhhhhhhh ... no. Today's theme was a simple one: When in Rome was the title, and the gimmick, which revealed itself quickly, was to use numerals as the Romans knew them. I was happy to complete the puzzle, which certainly had its witty moments. But.

I wanted more.

Alas, the Acrostic -- the second, alternate, puzzle on the page -- while it beckoned, did not assuage my disappointment. Not the Acrostic's fault: it is likely a clever one. But Acrostics are far from my strong suit ... indeed, they defeat me every time, and this was no exception. Of course, I might have made it a New Year's Resolution to gain some Acrostic skills through diligent attention to same. But that's so much work. I prefer to play.