Good to see crosswords being considered worthy of an editorial – hopefully, it will encourage more to join in the hobby we all find so fascinating. I think we are lucky, in the Guardian and in fifteensquared, to have contributions from women and men alike. It is truly a hobby equally accessible to all.
…and also the wonderful spectrum of solvers’ occupations and interests, there’s nearly always someone available with specialist knowledge in any given area.
It’s just a pity, that despite the readiness of crossword fans to complain, that The Guardian has still not got round to re-enabling its “online-only” Genius puzzles to be solved online (you have to download a pdf). When the series was first launched, it was indeed possible to solve them online.
In the early 1940s, IBM’s president, Thomas J. Watson, reputedly said: “I think there is a world market for about five computers.”
The article under discussion says that the New York Times declared in 1929: “The cross-word puzzle, it seems, has gone the way of all fads.”
How delightfully, both these and many other predictions have gone wrong!
The last line of the article is a good punchline.
I refuse to do anything online so my grumble is that the quiptic and Genius are not in the paper, it would be minimal costs to print them. Someone told me they do it this way so that they can harvest data from peolpe.
The Guardian article was good, though I was puzzled by one comment underneath that claimed “the fifteensquared club” complained that Rufus was too difficult. Not something I’ve ever seen here!
Interesting editorial. I have never attempted the Guardian cryptic so cannot comment on that.
A pet hate of mine is political comment ( bias) included in the clues or solutions to crosswords. I can read the Daily Mail or Guardian to get that bias if I wish and I like my crosswords to be neutral from that point of view.
I am a rare contributor to the comments section after a blog. I am struck by the fact that just like 50% of us are worse than average drivers ( Mea culpa), 50% of crosswords ( or crossword setters) also fall into this category. You would never realise that from the blogs or comments.
One of many things that puts me off commenting is the pomposity of some; the “10 minutes pre-brekker” brigade. In my opinion the ‘Times for the Times’ comments are the highest quality of those I read and as William @2 says, often very educational to read expert thoughts. Take a bow Guy du Sable.
Finally, Larry @1, cryptic crosswords accessible to all? I think not. The average reading age in the UK is 9 years. That is the average. All of us are engaged in an elite activity whether you like it or not.
About the only things good about the article were that (a) it’s about crosswords, and (b) it appeared, as it sort of goes nowhere. At least it manages to sort of mention the lamentable fact that women are woefully under-represented in Gridsville. And that Carly Simon has a new album out.
Hooper @10: you think that 225’s pre-breakfast, 10-minute speed-solvers are pompous, whilst TfTT’s often sub-ten speed-solvers make ‘comments of the highest quality’? I would like to hear more from you on what you see as the differences between these ‘brigades’.
I hope that more young people will start solving cryptic crosswords. I have no idea what the percentages are of old vs young but my impression is that it is mainly older people maybe aged 50+ who solve cryptics?
paul b@11 the singer mentioned was Carly Rae Jepsen not Carly Simon…
Roz@6, I would prefer the Quiptic and Genius in the paper, too, but have resigned myself to doing them on line anyway.
But then so many people like to get things “for free” on line, but to quote (I forget who) “If you’re not paying for the product, than you are the product”.
I read the paper and do the crosswords online, but subscribe, so I am a cheapskate rather than an absolute freeloader. Good to have even this rather bland article, but I was surprised to see such hostility to the “fifteensquared brigade (whoever that may be) in one or two of the btl comments! We don’t all belong to the “bah, did that before my coffee was cool” squad – of which there are just as many in the Guardian threads as here.
The trouble is that although the crossword isn’t just for “men like Inspector Morse”, so many of the clues assume that that’s who the solver is: a person of my generation (the Who’s generation) a film, theatre and music buff, knowledgeable about sport, cars, Shakespeare and the classics, with some knowledge of public school and Oxbridge slang and ethos even if he never set foot in either. That’s why Arachne’s subtle undermining of sexist assumptions about the gender of pilots, surgeons, drivers etc. are so welcome (and I’m as guilty as anyone of making them).
[gladys@17 I don’t think that makes you a cheapskate 😉 I subscribe to the combined version in the vague hope that my newsagent gets some sort of worthwhile profit from it. ]
James@18 I agree that this is mostly a bland rehash of various aspects of crossword history.
Leader columns are always unattributed, The Guardian has a small number of leader writers, we never know who writes what for any topic.
Paulb@12. I may have expressed myself unclearly. The TfTT’s comments can include the pompous but, in my opinion, tend to contain some of the most thoughtful and often self-deprecating of commentary. It was invidious to mention one name, perhaps, as there are a number who add value to my understanding of the crossword. Adding value is what I look for from the blog and the comments. And, because I don’t feel that I generally have anything of note to say which would add value I tend not to comment.
I’m another who couldn’t quite see the point of the article. It meandered rather, didn’t it.
Regarding TFTT, as a regular Times solver who delights in reading that blog, as well as this one, and others, I note that any word that slows the speed-freaks down is frowned upon, huffed and puffed about, and generally abused. This usually means anything outside the general framework of Janet and John, e.g. anything mythological, literary (that is, beyond Janet and John), or scientific unless it is an orbit or a black hole. The ‘anagrams of obscure words’ ranting I can agree with however, as that would be something deliberate on the part of the setters to provoke and enrage people.
Good to see crosswords being considered worthy of an editorial – hopefully, it will encourage more to join in the hobby we all find so fascinating. I think we are lucky, in the Guardian and in fifteensquared, to have contributions from women and men alike. It is truly a hobby equally accessible to all.
…and also the wonderful spectrum of solvers’ occupations and interests, there’s nearly always someone available with specialist knowledge in any given area.
It’s just a pity, that despite the readiness of crossword fans to complain, that The Guardian has still not got round to re-enabling its “online-only” Genius puzzles to be solved online (you have to download a pdf). When the series was first launched, it was indeed possible to solve them online.
In the early 1940s, IBM’s president, Thomas J. Watson, reputedly said: “I think there is a world market for about five computers.”
The article under discussion says that the New York Times declared in 1929: “The cross-word puzzle, it seems, has gone the way of all fads.”
How delightfully, both these and many other predictions have gone wrong!
The last line of the article is a good punchline.
It is good to see this appearing, but I have to agree with bridgesong@3.
At the same time as this editorial is published, the entry page for the Genius reads:
Deadline for entries is 23:59 BST on Saturday 2 September….
The deadline for entering this month’s competition has now passed.
I refuse to do anything online so my grumble is that the quiptic and Genius are not in the paper, it would be minimal costs to print them. Someone told me they do it this way so that they can harvest data from peolpe.
Roz@6. Since you can do the crosswords online without logging in, how do they collect your data?
Crispy @7 they can probably at least find cookies other websites you have used have placed in your browser and use them to target adverts.
The Guardian article was good, though I was puzzled by one comment underneath that claimed “the fifteensquared club” complained that Rufus was too difficult. Not something I’ve ever seen here!
Interesting editorial. I have never attempted the Guardian cryptic so cannot comment on that.
A pet hate of mine is political comment ( bias) included in the clues or solutions to crosswords. I can read the Daily Mail or Guardian to get that bias if I wish and I like my crosswords to be neutral from that point of view.
I am a rare contributor to the comments section after a blog. I am struck by the fact that just like 50% of us are worse than average drivers ( Mea culpa), 50% of crosswords ( or crossword setters) also fall into this category. You would never realise that from the blogs or comments.
One of many things that puts me off commenting is the pomposity of some; the “10 minutes pre-brekker” brigade. In my opinion the ‘Times for the Times’ comments are the highest quality of those I read and as William @2 says, often very educational to read expert thoughts. Take a bow Guy du Sable.
Finally, Larry @1, cryptic crosswords accessible to all? I think not. The average reading age in the UK is 9 years. That is the average. All of us are engaged in an elite activity whether you like it or not.
About the only things good about the article were that (a) it’s about crosswords, and (b) it appeared, as it sort of goes nowhere. At least it manages to sort of mention the lamentable fact that women are woefully under-represented in Gridsville. And that Carly Simon has a new album out.
Hooper @10: you think that 225’s pre-breakfast, 10-minute speed-solvers are pompous, whilst TfTT’s often sub-ten speed-solvers make ‘comments of the highest quality’? I would like to hear more from you on what you see as the differences between these ‘brigades’.
RavenRider@8. The only adverts I’ve ever had from The Guardian are those begging me to subscribe. They only come up when I visit their website.
Paulb @12, Hooper @10. Though it can be irritating to read all the “wasn’t that easy” comments, I do find they let me know whether it’s just me.
I hope that more young people will start solving cryptic crosswords. I have no idea what the percentages are of old vs young but my impression is that it is mainly older people maybe aged 50+ who solve cryptics?
paul b@11 the singer mentioned was Carly Rae Jepsen not Carly Simon…
Roz@6, I would prefer the Quiptic and Genius in the paper, too, but have resigned myself to doing them on line anyway.
But then so many people like to get things “for free” on line, but to quote (I forget who) “If you’re not paying for the product, than you are the product”.
I read the paper and do the crosswords online, but subscribe, so I am a cheapskate rather than an absolute freeloader. Good to have even this rather bland article, but I was surprised to see such hostility to the “fifteensquared brigade (whoever that may be) in one or two of the btl comments! We don’t all belong to the “bah, did that before my coffee was cool” squad – of which there are just as many in the Guardian threads as here.
The trouble is that although the crossword isn’t just for “men like Inspector Morse”, so many of the clues assume that that’s who the solver is: a person of my generation (the Who’s generation) a film, theatre and music buff, knowledgeable about sport, cars, Shakespeare and the classics, with some knowledge of public school and Oxbridge slang and ethos even if he never set foot in either. That’s why Arachne’s subtle undermining of sexist assumptions about the gender of pilots, surgeons, drivers etc. are so welcome (and I’m as guilty as anyone of making them).
Is this AI generated? It’s bland, rehashed and unattributed.
[gladys@17 I don’t think that makes you a cheapskate 😉 I subscribe to the combined version in the vague hope that my newsagent gets some sort of worthwhile profit from it. ]
James@18 I agree that this is mostly a bland rehash of various aspects of crossword history.
Leader columns are always unattributed, The Guardian has a small number of leader writers, we never know who writes what for any topic.
Paulb@12. I may have expressed myself unclearly. The TfTT’s comments can include the pompous but, in my opinion, tend to contain some of the most thoughtful and often self-deprecating of commentary. It was invidious to mention one name, perhaps, as there are a number who add value to my understanding of the crossword. Adding value is what I look for from the blog and the comments. And, because I don’t feel that I generally have anything of note to say which would add value I tend not to comment.
I’m another who couldn’t quite see the point of the article. It meandered rather, didn’t it.
Regarding TFTT, as a regular Times solver who delights in reading that blog, as well as this one, and others, I note that any word that slows the speed-freaks down is frowned upon, huffed and puffed about, and generally abused. This usually means anything outside the general framework of Janet and John, e.g. anything mythological, literary (that is, beyond Janet and John), or scientific unless it is an orbit or a black hole. The ‘anagrams of obscure words’ ranting I can agree with however, as that would be something deliberate on the part of the setters to provoke and enrage people.
See you at the championships? I don’t think so.