I'm proud to be a newly inducted member of the American Crossword Critics Association. The application process was brutal and the interview grueling, but I'm told I can expect my official certificate and t-shirt in the mail any day now. Founding members Amy and Rex recently announced their First Annual ACCA Awards and their choices were thoughtful, insightful and delightfully controversial, giving us all something to argue about for a few days. They also write daily blog entries where they act as not just informers, but also critics. What's the point? Constructors are so poorly paid that surely picking on them is out of line, right? This post argues that criticism is not only useful, it's essential. Many of the points here emerged from private electronic conversations I've had with A & R.
I start with the assertion that crosswords are Serious Art. "Art" implies that some are better than others (there's an art to it) and that this qualitative judgment is subjective. Intelligent, well-meaning experts can disagree, and in fact if it's any kind of vibrant art at all, it would be odd indeed if they didn't. So far so good, but "serious" implies that this is an art form that's important. Crosswords, like music, can and should be enjoyable without any kind of analysis going on but similarly they both open themselves up to deeper enjoyment when one appreciates something like the unusual orchestration in the third movement, or the style and grace of an especially tricky fill. This recent pangram from John Farmer with its symmetric corner placement of J, Z, Q, and X is an elegant example.
If you accept my premise, the question becomes how have crosswords avoided a tradition of formal criticism for so long? A & R argue that they've been doing that for some time now and they have, but the ACCA Awards push it to a new level by forcing ordering decisions. Once the announcement comes out, there are winners and there are losers.
Who are they (or I for that matter) to stand in judgment? There may be much more qualified critics who deserve to be heard. Indeed, others may well emerge. The same Darwinian pressure applies to critics as well as constructors and the Pauline Kael of crosswords may still be hiding elsewhere, but this is where ACCA starts.
In my theatre background I've worked both as a critic and as a director. The relationship between the two sides is often strained. Artists aren't understood by the heartless observers. Their efforts are unappreciated. "Those who can't do, critique." But each side needs the other. When criticism is bad, it at least sparks discussion. When it's good it has the potential to help shape the art form.
The Wednesday puzzle by Barry C. Silk had "a lot of pizzazz" which means, of course ZEES, and there were a lot of them in this meta crossword — a puzzle about puzzles. My answers are here.