The art of crosswords evolves slowly. In perusing all the NYT puzzles since 1996 for my xwordinfo.com project it's become clear that the quality of the puzzles has improved over time but their essential nature has barely budged. What's the next great innovation for crosswords? I have a suggestion.
Editors improve puzzledom by encouraging innovation and by constantly pushing to raise the quality bar, but the basic mechanics of how puzzles are authored, edited, and published hasn't changed much. Advances in processing power and Artificial Intelligence will make computer assistance more valuable over time, but that's still an incremental change. The larger factor is that constructors have become more skilled and their access to reference material has become significantly faster and more convenient. Let's take advantage of that.
The New York Sun has an annual tradition of publishing a puzzle which includes the titles of all the films nominated for Best Picture. Amazingly, they do this quickly enough that those puzzles are published in the next morning's paper. That's impressive. I'm sure it's difficult but they prove it's possible. I want this every day.
Here's a chance for some publication to truly distinguish itself. Global Internet access means that I'm not tied to the puzzle that happens to be delivered to my doorstep. I can do whichever one or ones I want. This frictionless competition means providers have to give consumers new reasons to choose them. Topicality could be their edge. Give me Instant Crosswords.
Here are some examples. Up until a week ago nobody had ever heard of Jérôme Kerviel and then all of a sudden he was in every newspaper around the world. Next month he'll be forgotten. Wouldn't it have been fun to open the paper the day after the news broke, turn to the puzzle page, and see the clue "French banker who misplaced 7.1 billion dollars?" Other clues might be "Winner of last night's primary" or "Microsoft takeover target" or "727 crash site."
I see two basic objections and I want to address them both.
Objection 1: It's too hard to do on a regular basis
I don't care if it's hard. It's possible and it's worth figuring out. You have to rethink the process of how puzzles are created.
The current process is a very safe and very slow. Constructors submit puzzles. Editors reject most. Even the accepted ones often get returned to the authors for re-grooving. Then there is extensive editing where many of the clues and even some of the answers are tweaked for quality, style, or difficulty. Then the puzzles sit in a queue waiting for their publication date which could be weeks or months out.
Instant Crosswords requires a completely different model. Constructors would be hired for specific dates and be under the gun to create on demand that afternoon. Editors would have to rely on the skills of a specific constructor rather than a finished puzzle. There would be a mad scramble to do all the fact-checking. But remember, the Sun proves it's possible.
It's important to note, by the way, that the impression of topicality can be created with some sleight of hand that makes the magic seem more difficult than it is. To start with, much news is predictable. "Apollo 11 lands on moon" was a headline that was guessable months in advance. Some possibilities are very constrained. The number of teams who could win the Super Bowl this year is low.
Objection 2: The quality of the puzzles would suffer
This might seem an even more serious objection but let me try to sway you with a musical analogy. Puzzles now, especially at the NYT, are carefully crafted works of art. They're Mozart quartets, following a comfortable and successful sonata-allegro form structure that, with the caring byplay between author and editor, results in beautiful music.
Instant Crosswords would be more like jazz. They fit a looser structure. The art happens in real time and relies on inspired improvisation rather than thoughtful re-editing. The point is, great art arises from the jazz tradition too. It requires different skills. The old ways of thinking about music won't work anymore. It's riskier but the results can be unexpected beauty that comes from the immediate pressure of requiring solutions now.
Yes, minor mistakes and even factual errors will happen. Maybe there will be a crossword equivalent of the famous 1948 Chicago Daily Tribune headline that declared "Dewey Defeats Truman" but the end result will be something new and wonderful, something that couldn't happen without the improv jazz spirit.
I'm not proposing that we dump classical crosswords. I'm not saying change can happen overnight. Maybe some brave publication will try it once a week or once a month. It will take awhile for authors and editors to learn the new skills, for publishers to evaluate the business case, and yes for solvers to learn to swing to the new beat. But give us a chance. I bet it will be fun for artists and for audiences.
I've posted my solution to the Saturday Feb 2 puzzle by Natan Last.
