Stanley Newman author page

While I have the greatest respect for Stan, both as an editor and a person, I don't completely agree with his puzzle philosophy. Specifically, I don't think crosswords have to avoid all difficult words. A crossword consists of two parts, apart from any theme — the grid and the clues. In my opinion the challenge can come from either part. Completing an interesting difficult answer can be just as rewarding to the solver as solving an interesting difficult clue.

By an "interesting difficult" answer I don't mean an insect genus or a 50-mile-long river in Russia. I mean something that's stimulating, amusing and/or useful to know. Honest people can disagree about what words meet this criterion. But presumably someone who likes crosswords also likes learning words and exploring the richness of the English language. This means that crosswords don't need to be limited to the 10,000-20,000 most common words — which can get overused besides.

Another problem with Stan's philosophy is that it can lead to blandness of vocabulary and overcaution in themes. I don't judge a puzzle by its worst entries. I judge it by its overall effect. An ambitious theme may require compromises. A great entry or combination of entries may require compromises. I think average solvers judge a puzzle on its balance. I do, too.

So I admire Stan's "fussiness" and attention to using only common vocabulary. I'm happy to publish crosswords of this sort. I just don't think every crossword has to be like this.