New York Times, Saturday, June 27, 2015

Usually, when I start with a formation of black squares, it's not particularly close to what I end up with. But this is an exception. I usually like to start with stacks of 8, 9, or 10 and intersect them with stacks of 5 or 6, because that's what usually works. Whenever you intersect stacks of 7 or more with other stacks of 7 or more, that's when it gets challenging.

Did you find yourself solving five mini-puzzles instead of one puzzle? I hope not too much. This puzzle is a bit compartmentalized — there are only two ways into each corner. So I tried to make enough entries at the entry points into the corners so that (a) solvers wouldn't get stuck from entering a corner by two unfamiliar entries, and (b) the entries would be recognizable from the letters in the middle. That is, if you were working from the middle out, or from one corner to the middle then into another corner, you wouldn't (I hope) get shut out of a corner due to unfamiliarity.

A constructor's personality, it's said, comes through in their grids. One may surmise that, with two video game references, one of which being a seed entry, I am a big gamer — but I've never owned a video game console. Nor have I or would I ever use BARQ'S or anything like it. However, I did include 60-Across (PGA TOUR) and 1-Down (PAR FIVE) and did clue 4-Down (FOOTE) with two of my favorite things in mind.

By the by, for 52-Across... my original clue ("One starting a movement?") would definitely be better served for my website than for the Times. I appreciate that Will wanted to keep the clue at least a little palatable and — pun intended — didn't want to push it.

Eye-catching grid, something so clock-like to it. Tim stuffed so many Scrabbly letters into the center mini-puzzle — a J, a Q, and three Xs, done with polish and finesse. And with such sparkly answers — SICK JOKE, AMEX CARD, HOT WAX, and RAGE QUIT — I can't remember when I've enjoyed a tiny subsection quite this much.

It is just one of five areas in the grid, however (sorry, Tim!). The layout chops up the square into pieces, making my solve go like a countdown from five to one.

Hey, maybe it is a clock mini-theme!

With each of the four corners featuring intersecting triple-stacked 7s in wide-open areas, it's a wonder that Tim got all of these sections to fall. After deploying so many of your blocks on the middle — with stellar results — you gotta pay the piper at some point. Surprisingly, Tim gets the lower right cleanly, with just ENTHUSE, which seems odd to me without a final D. Pretty impressive!

Ending up with answers like SLEEKED and DESTINE though, is not ideal. Neither of these words are 100% bogus, but on the bogosity scale, they strike me as above average.

Mike Shenk once said that the constructor's task is to devise a puzzle that challenges the solver, and provides a test that he/she can ultimately win. I felt like the top left corner was a game rigged against me. I loved the PAR FIVE clue (an "ace" is slang for a hole-in-one) and should have gotten ARIOSOS quicker. But I don't know that I would have ever gotten the RICO ACT / FOOTE crossing. I'm sure others will feel differently, but that soured my solving experience, as I struggled with that tiny intersection for 20 minutes and then realized that it was a waste of time, as I would never have solved it.

Being a constructor is a tough game. Should NYT readers know RICO ACT or FOOTE ... or both? Judging by Tim's reaction to FOOTE, maybe I really ought to have known that. And the RICO ACT does seem like an important piece of legislation. But with four basically random letters in RICO, it'd have been so much more satisfying for me if each had been crossed with non-esoteric names. (Who's to say what's "esoteric," though!)