New York Times, Thursday, October 2, 2014

A while back, while trying to come up with rebus themes involving the words "square" or "box," etc, I stumbled onto Einstein's famous equation, E = mc², and realized that I could cleverly use the "equals" and "squared" parts of the equation to make an 'E' in one direction make an 'mc' all in one square in another. Never mind the fact that in Einstein's equation only the c is squared; the important part for me was that the language that you would use to describe the puzzle is the same language you would use to describe the equation: "E equals m c squared."

Conveniently, the puzzles four theme answers all had 'E's in them, allowing this puzzle to be a simple dedication to Einstein on one level, while being a rebus-like puzzle on another. In order to be fully consistent though, I had to make sure there were no other 'E's anywhere else in the puzzle. In general, I think restrictions like this are capable of leading to nice, out-of-the-box answers, though some fill can strain because of it. (33 and 40 Across are a good example of this dichotomy.) Anyway, that's the story. I hope you enjoy it!

Did you notice in this puzzle that the constructor completely avoided the letter E outside of the theme answers? That's very elegant. E really does equal MC squared here, and nothing else.

So many layers on this clever puzzle. I have a feeling many people will be at the point I was at, irritated at the "inaccuracy" of seeing E equal mc, not mc², so I'm going to break it down even more than in David's comments. I must have thought about this for a full day, wondering how the NYT could possibly allow such scientific and mathematical error. Heresy! Why not at least make the other side of the rebus MCC to represent the C squared? It finally dawned on me that mc² is read as "mc squared" — the letters MC are "squared" into a single rebus cell. It adds another level to the already cunning idea of E equaling MC in a two-way rebus. EINSTEIN-level genius with wordplay.

Very neat how David incorporated the special squares within some of the theme answers. Yet another nice touch. What would have made it Puzzle of the Year quality for me was some rationale built in to explain why there were six special squares. Not absolutely necessary, but man oh man that would have been the icing on the icing already on the cake. If the number six were somehow integral to the theory of general relativity...

I love it when a puzzle makes me think more about what could be done. How cool would it be to have some sort of physical representation of the bizarre effects that occur when one approaches the speed of light? Hmm...

One small nit I'll pick is that I found it slightly odd that half the special squares worked one way, and half were flipped. On one hand it made it more challenging to uncover them, but it felt to me like having them all work identically would have been more elegant. Personal preference.

A final note, on vocabulary. As much as I like current slang or fun terms, entries like PLUTARCH never go out of style, in my eyes. A timeless entry, appropriate for the educated tone of the New York Times, and especially appropriate for a puzzle with this EINSTEIN-ian theme. I doubt I'll ever gripe about seeing PLUTARCH, whereas I can't say the same thing about the latest "celebrity" who may be fun for small niches of people to see, but who may not have long-term staying power.