New York Times, Friday, March 7, 2014

I am fighting a battle with Will Shortz that I fear I will never win.

My goal is to put an Easter Egg in a NY Times crossword puzzle. So, for example, in my 9/8/11 effort with Pete Muller, the 72-word fill included the mini-theme KESEY, WOLFE and MERRY PRANKSTERS. Hidden and wrapping around the corners were ELECTRIC, KOOL-AID, ACID and TEST.

Will ran it on a Thursday and circled those letters.

On 2/18/12, I had a puzzle with a long row of diagonal squares. The letters above the squares spelled UPSTAIRS, and those below spelled DOWNSTAIRS. Will added a note in the Notepad: "This puzzle has two bonus answers in appropriate places. Can you find them?"

In today's puzzle, my original clues for 15- 39- and 43-Across were [TV show the last episode of which aired 6/23/99 5/23/10 9/23/11] (I liked the fact that the dates progressed forward in time this way). Will put a little extra in the clues. Sigh.

The reason I can never win this, I have realized, is that Will always gets the last word! And he actually does what is probably the right thing, catering to his broad audience instead of the handful of folks who would discover my Easter Egg.

A lesser man would give up. But not I! My only question is whether I should continue to *tell* Will when I put an Easter Egg in a puzzle. If I do, he'll spoil the surprise. If I don't, he'll be annoyed when he finds out. I'm caught on the horns of a dilemma.

But a word of warning. If you ever see a Friday or Saturday puzzle of mine that appears to have no theme, look again. There's never any telling when I'll manage to slip one by.

As you're reading this, I will be having a drink with Matt, one of the most fun people to hang out with at the ACPT. He and I share a lot of interests including xws, bridge (yes, the old person card game), and programming, among other hobbies. Reading his Notes made me laugh and also go back to his older puzzles to see if I hadn't missed an Easter Egg (a surprise bonus inside a puzzle, not overtly called out, that only astute solvers will pick up) he cleverly slipped by.

Before getting to the puzzle, another story about Matt. He wrote me about one puzzle to see if I understood it, and I was honestly baffled. I stared at it for the longest time before finally admitting defeat. Check it out and see if you agree with Matt or Will on the clue for 36A. Now that I understand it, I side with Matt. The fact that I couldn't figure it out on my own probably means Will was right, though.

Ah, the puzzle, a extremely tough workout for me, especially the northern hemisphere. Matt works in some great marquee fill, my favorites being GARAGE DOOR, HAZMAT SUIT, and the incredibly difficult to spell SCHADENFREUDE (note: I spelled this wrong even after I double-checked it; thanks David Barnhouse!). What is the latter, you ask? It's that feeling you get of guiltily giggling behind your hands when a bird poops on the head of your enemy (not that I've ever done that — neither the giggling nor the pooping). Ah, those wacky Germans.

The north was so difficult for me, starting with SCHADENFREUDE appropriately enough (no giggling, please). I didn't know what MENE was, so I jammed MANE in, misspelling it SCHADENFRAUDE. Rats! And then the cluing in the NE corner was so opaque that it took a good guess on DEATH to break things open. I might have preferred at least one easier clue up there — [Furnishing in many tearoom] is a really nice clue for TATAMI, but surrounded by so many other vague clues, that area played like a hard Saturday more than a Friday for me. If you had trouble too, take solace that tomorrow's puzzle came much easier to me; perhaps the same will be true for you.

I didn't really get what THE NANNY / LOST / ALL MY CHILDREN meant, or why it was funny as a statement, so I was really glad to read Matt's Note. On previous puzzles, I've tended to agree with Will more than Matt (in the interests of catering to a larger number of solvers), but on this one, I think I like Matt's subtle tongue-in-cheekery better. Sorry Will!