17 comments on “New Yorker article”

  1. Very interesting article, showing the (unconscious?) male bias towards our hobby. I hadn’t realised the American term for compiler seems to be constructor.

  2. My sense of crossword demographics derives exclusively from the Guardian and FT on 15^2.
    I wonder whether there is a difference between quantitative and qualitative contributions to the field. I say that because of my anecdotal experience:

    1. I once tried to list my 3 favourite setters; I had to expand to 6, because I couldn’t decide. The 6 were (in no particular order) Brendan, Arachne/RosaKlebb, Philistine/Goliath, Matilda, Nutmeg (alas) and Orlando – 3 women, 3 men.

    2. I enjoy the 15^2 comments almost as much as the puzzles. Among my favourite regular commenters are (in no particular order) Roz, Eileen, PostMark, Dr. WhatsOn, sheffield hatter,
    Julie in Australia, paddymelon, wellbeck, muffin, grantinfreo, etc. I’m guessing for some of them, but I make that 5 women and 5 men.

    So, qualitatively, I don’t feel that I experience significant gender bias in my enjoyment of this delightful hobby. Quantitatively, especially with respect to the number of setters it is, as the article notes, a different story.

  3. I think the male bias in crosswordland is undeniable. And even though, as the article says, Will Shortz has made conscious efforts to correct it, the fact remains that even in the New York Times, the majority of the puzzles are authored by white men.

    And it matters. Because men write most of the crosswords, most of the cultural references are catered to male tastes, which discourages women from entry, which perpetuates the cycle. That can’t be good.

    And change is good for everyone. Ever since the NYT diversified, I’ve found myself needing to know things like rappers, sushi ingredients, and nail polish brands–things that I, a white male, am maybe less familiar with–which means I’m learning!

    [P.S.: if you don’t know of Shortz, you should–he’s an icon in our shared hobby over here. He’s made the NYT crossword the gold standard here; before that he was the editor of Games Magazine, making that publication the best puzzle magazine on the planet (it’s a pale shadow of its former glory now, 30 years after he left, but still great).]

  4. [If you’re going to try the NYT: Monday and Tuesday are easy. Wednesday is moderate. Thursday is also moderate, but always has a gimmick. Friday and Saturday are tough. Sunday is approximately Thursday-level difficulty, maybe or maybe not with the gimmick, but twice the size (21×21 rather than 15×15). Sunday through Thursday always have a theme (with the Thursday gimmick usually supplying the theme). To me, as an experienced crossworder, Wednesday is the sweet spot if you’re new to US crosswords but still want something chewy.]

  5. Worth remembering that the article is largely about the American style – the British side has precious few laurels to rest on either, but the story would be marginally different. And Mr Penney does GAMES a slight injustice – the crosswords at least have a decent representation of female contributors, which may be a result of the magazine having a female editor.
    I’m currently working through a book that crops up frequently in this area: 100 Audacious Puzzles by women and nonbinary creators (Amazon link is pretty dreadful: https://www.amazon.com/Inkubator-Crosswords-Audacious-Nonbinary-Creators/dp/1524871125/ref=sr_1_1?crid=X94MW6RLFTB4&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.TQV1oyllJ8PaeckO39sA7QuUjyqCDcUa-zDTZl71uUnGjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.adMwByNhV_cJb1z2ckBPJUT1-LpVapg4WF1JOnUdrWM&dib_tag=se&keywords=inkubator+crosswords&qid=1708381709&sprefix=inkubator%2Caps%2C326&sr=8-1)
    It might even be in your local bookshop – it made it to New Zealand.

  6. I am glad so many of you enjoyed the article. For years I did the NYT daily puzzles and timed myself, but I finally tired of them and then discovered the Guardian cryptics. That’s all I do now. Speaking of bias, I remember than when Shortz took over, “movie star” was usually Gable or Harlow. They were dead even then. Now far too much in the NYT Games I do is too contemporary for me.

  7. I’m with cellomaniac, so used to women contributing in this space, setters included, that I hadn’t thought about gender imbalance. Then again, that’s probably due to its being so generally all-pervasive that one is habituated to it.

  8. I must admit, when I first started doing British cryptics, I thought of men in in a club, talking cricket, reminiscing about the war. And then there was some raunchy humour which I’m not particularly fond of, but I acknowledge others are. That’s probably also a kind of British humour that was/is popular.

    Two of my favourite setters are Arachne and our dearly remembered Nutmeg. From what I know of them they are/were highly competent in academia and no doubt were well up to the technical skills required in setting. There’s something about their crosswords that invites you in, and I don’t feel it’s a contest of wills. But I don’t want to generalise. There are male setters who do that and I enjoy them too.

    I’m familiar with the women who led the computer generation mentioned in this article. What’s interesting is that many of the crack solvers, regardless of gender, are people with scientific and technological expertise. So I don’t think there’s necessarily a relationship with female setters/female solvers or tech savvy setters/tech savvy solvers.

    What may be a leveller is computer-generated grids and gridfills, and I don’t mean AI. There seems to be a number of recurring clues these days.

    It would be interesting to see what difference a female cryptic crossword editor would make in this era, as there was many years ago in the US dailies, and there was a longterm female Everyman/woman from memory.

  10. The article also brings up the issue of what counts as “general knowledge” – with many of the examples rejected by editors as too obscure having to do with Black and Latino US institutions and expressions. And should lead to thoughts about what counts as GK among UK newspaper crosswords.

  11. Hello all

    Today’s FT made reference to Liberace. Whilst I don’t mind going to brush up my knowledge on, say, the classics or literature, I don’t think I’m much the richer now that I have had to go and research who he was. I’m also at a loss often to horticultural references or biblical names. I didn’t grow up within an Abrahamic religion so I find those a tad unfair. Just my tuppence worth…

    Sachin

  12. There was a great statistical analysis by moaljodad on the comments page a couple of weeks back on how very few women setters get the Prize crossword slot this even after spending their due in Quiptic. Hoping to see more Matiladas and Arachnes and Nutmegs in the near future.

  13. Manoj, you won’t see any more Nutmegs at all, as she sadly passed away last year. She was probably my absolute favourite setter, and reading about how she got into setting motivated me to see if I could do it seriously, as more than just an occasional bit of fun.

    There are so many layers to this issue, and the danger is that a focus on one either ignores or gives the impression of ignoring others. But I think it’s important that every crossword is a sort of game between setter and solvers. The solvers won’t enjoy it and may not even come back if they find it too obscure, something that all editors must have in mind. So the solving community plays a part, and if it’s overwhelmingly 60+ white males (say), that will be (at least to an extent) self-perpetuating. Puzzles will be broadly pitched to those people’s idea of what GK is normal, and what wordplay is considered reasonable. There may also be an element of bias in which groups are most likely to complain, and in what manner – most people who comment on crosswords are regular solvers, so the feedback may be as skewed as the audience.

    We’re all nice people, and we all want to share our hobby, but lots of little things (you could possibly say micro-aggressions) can add up. Even basic GK or common slang can get comments from outside the UK either observing or complaining that it was unknown to the poster. And there’s always much discussion whenever a new device or synonym is introduced – is it too obscure? Is it fair? But there’s plenty of crossword lore that’s utterly obscure outside a cryptic, and which I (not speaking for anyone else) only know from solving puzzles before, including all sorts of military abbreviations, A = are, Peter = safe, Jo = beloved, etc.

    The point is that we accept and often revel in obscurity, because it makes the experience richer, but always hesitate over new obscurities, because that takes it outside our personal sphere of knowledge, which everyone (to some extent) considers the norm. So modern terms, especially those not yet in any dictionary, let alone Chambers, are always likely to take a long time to work their way in.

    Maybe the end result is just that crosswords will become ever more fragmented, as different publications adopt different standards on matters like this. There are lots of really interesting setters out there, so I hope there’s room for all in a rich tapestry of styles.

  14. Thanks to all who have commented and highlighted the article’s thoughts. I gave up partway through when I thought it was more an autobiography than about crosswording — and not even cryptic crosswording — and that it would go on and on. Lots of I, me and my.

    Solvers solve. Setters set. If I don’t like something I can learn from it and move on to the next one. Thanks to the entire tapestry of setters who entertain me free of charge, whoever you are.

  16. It’s news to me that the USA produces any significant number of cryptic crosswords.

    If the article is about non-cryptic crosswords (I can’t read it as it’s behind a paywall), it’s like talking about Star Wars to a Trekkie.

  17. Mister Sting @16: the article is primarily about American-style crosswords, but yes–the US does produce a small but growing number of cryptics. The aforementioned GAMES Magazine typically runs four of them per issue (two plain 15x15s and two “variety cryptics”, barred and with an added gimmick). The New Yorker, where this article appeared, runs a cryptic every issue, as does Harper’s. The Atlantic used to have one too. But these are monthlies or weeklies, not dailies, so yes, there are fewer. But not none!

    And the principle still applies: most American crossword constructors publish both types of puzzles, so it’s the same old-boys club.

Comments are closed.