New York Times, Friday, March 24, 2017

JOHN: Michael and I go way back to 1994, when I married his sister's best friend. Our families still spend a few holidays together. During those get-togethers, we shared a common interest in word games, good books, and beautiful hikes. We've pushed each other along in crossword construction. Even though we have moved about as far apart as two people can get in the continental US, we bump crossword ideas off of one another via text almost daily. We have managed to hike occasionally, too!

We decided to collaborate on themeless puzzles about a year ago. We are having better luck than we might have expected, but it helps that we have abandoned a lot of partial and complete grids. If we don't both agree that a grid is coming together cleanly, we trash it and move on.

It's impossible to remember which of us is responsible for which parts of this particular puzz—

MICHAEL: Let me stop you there. This collaboration started when you texted me to ask if a particular portmanteau word you were including in your grid was used widely enough to be crossword-worthy. I confirmed that it was: I had featured it in the puzzle I was constructing at the time. Rather than battle it out for the debut, we joined forces and collaborated from the grid you had started. The only entries from your initial grid that survived our edits were your central entry and 15- and 17-Across. Ironically enough we never managed to incorporate the portmanteau that had united us.

Mike mentioned to me that he and John had gotten three (or more now?) themelesses accepted, with a focused strategy: 1.) go up to 70 or 72 words, 2.) use a fairly standard themeless layout, 3.) focus hard on those four corners, packing in as many great entries as possible, and 4.) allow some gluey bits, just as long as it doesn't get to be noticeable. It's a strategy that's paid off well for them.

This one was almost exactly what I was expecting, given Mike's description. Love that ASTERISKS / CLIP ON TIE / RELAY RACE trio (ASTERISKS got elevated with a great clue referring to "qualifications" — modifiers, not resume points!). A bit of USS and ISSA (hard to ask solvers to know every congressperson) holding everything together, but oh so worth it.

I wasn't as hot on the opposite corner since CRINOLINE didn't mean much to me. I felt like it represented untapped potential for that precious slot — although I'd bet lovers of Jane Eyre and 19^th-century Britain would disagree.

Give what Mike told me, HEY BATTER BATTER was a nice surprise. Great feature entry right across the plate.

It can be tough to work in a grid-spanning central entry into a themeless, since its start and end reduces flexibility, constraining the triple-stacks it intersects. So I can understand why they decided to put that black square between STY and ICERS, to facilitate better filling. It'd be great to get another set of triple-stacks in those two corners, but it's much better to get just two great answers like LEVIATHAN and EYESTRAIN rather than try to strain your grid.

I was on the verge of feeling like AIS (partial), ICERS (is that a real profession?), and the aforementioned were too much, but they kept the glue spread out pretty well.

And with bonuses such as FBOMB and the amusing TWERK TWERP pairing, I quite enjoyed this 72-worder.

Sometimes themeless constructors (including myself) stretch too much, aiming for much more technically difficult 68- or 66-worders, but we'd do well to think about what these guys' approach brings to the solving experience. Looking forward to their next collaborations!