It's been a very entertaining and educating year since we switched to LA Times on March 21, 2010. A quick catch-up with editor Rich Norris for the latest status regarding our current puzzle.
Are you now comfortable with the difficulty graduation level of our puzzles? Several regulars on our blog have given up on Saturdays due to its continued inaccessibility.
Are you now comfortable with the difficulty graduation level of our puzzles? Several regulars on our blog have given up on Saturdays due to its continued inaccessibility.
This sounds almost like two questions, which I'll answer separately.
Overall difficulty: yes, I am comfortable with the current levels.
Saturday: Saturday puzzles are admittedly harder than they were during the summer/fall "easing" period, but they aren't as hard as they used to be before then. There's really no way to make them both challenging enough for more-skilled solvers and yet accessible to those used to Wayne Williams' level of difficulty. To me, it doesn't seem fair to clue the entire week at such a basic level. The higher-level solvers are entitled to one or two puzzles a week that challenge them.
How is your editing style in the past year different from your LAT/TMS Daily consolidation days?
Except for that "easing" period I mentioned above, not at all.
How many more Dan Naddor puzzles are left in your pipeline? And what was it like to work with Dan?
How many more Dan Naddor puzzles are left in your pipeline? And what was it like to work with Dan?
I don't have a current count, but there are enough to last the year and then some. I think I've already said all there is for me to say about working with Dan. To sum up: his penchant for constantly stretching limits tried my patience once in a while, but on the whole, he was an editor's dream. Not a day goes by that I don't think about him. And miss him.
Many of us missed Scott Atkinson's rotational turn in his recent TURNSTILE puzzle, and I certainly would not have noticed the counterclockwise one letter at a time rotation in Don Gagliardo's SHOE BOX puzzles if not for his Interview. How do you feel as an editor when solvers simply miss such woven intricacy?
Many of us missed Scott Atkinson's rotational turn in his recent TURNSTILE puzzle, and I certainly would not have noticed the counterclockwise one letter at a time rotation in Don Gagliardo's SHOE BOX puzzles if not for his Interview. How do you feel as an editor when solvers simply miss such woven intricacy?
I knew that the SHOE BOX puzzle would cause some confusion--because Tribune wouldn't allow me to use circles in puzzles at that time. Explaining such themes in prose is a challenge. I took a chance, and I feel it was a success because most solvers spotted it. "Turnstile" had circles, though. I thought that was enough theme help. It's not clear to me why so many of your readers didn't grasp the gimmick. It might simply be a lack of experience with this kind of puzzle. You can expect more circled themes in the future. Maybe that will help. ;-)
We've learned from the constructors that some of the entertaining clues are actually your creation. Where do you normally get your inspiration for cluing? What kind of newspapers/magazines/books/websites do you read every day?
My inspiration for cluing comes from years of experience, a pretty broad grasp of the English language, and my wife Kim, who's about as clever a wordsmith as I've ever met. I read the LA Times every day. Monthly, I subscribe to Consumer Reports and AARP the Magazine. I do loads of reading online: other newspapers, sports Web sites (I'm a sports nut), and whatever other sites my work happens to take me to.
