Titles

No tables yet. I will still keep track of the statistics though on my own computer. It was also pointed out to me that describing entries as "sub-par" or "above par" doesn't tell the whole story, as obviously some bad entries are worse than others. I agree; I'll have more to say about this in a future post.

Comments for the individual puzzles coming tomorrow. For now, the topic of the week:


I like titles. I generally put a fair amount of thought into them, including the title of this blog, which I'm sure just gets cleverer every time you see it. There are a number of distinct benefits a title can provide for a puzzle or a venue of puzzles.

1. Having a title for a puzzle indicates to the solver that there, in fact, is a theme. I was interviewed for the college paper a few years back, and I remember having to explain the concept of a theme to the interviewer. However, the puzzles in our college's paper were unthemed, so that's not necessarily a salient example. Still, I seem to recall stories of NYT solvers who were unaware of the existence of a theme except on Sundays. Of course, there are other ways of indicating a theme--shaded squares in the grid, asterisks by certain clues, etc., but a) these devices can only be used for certain types of themes and b) having a title can still enhance a theme even with these other cues. It may be the case that the movie "Wordplay" has informed the public well enough about themes that this is no longer an issue; I'm not sure.

2. Some themes need a title to "make sense". There was a puzzle in the Sun by Patrick Berry with the entries ROMAINE IDEA, ROGAINE WEIGHT, ROTINI BOPPERS, and ROTATOR TOTS--taking phrases, adding "roh" phonetically to the beginning, and recluing. At first blush this seems a rather arbitrary transformation, but the title "Front Rows" gives the idea a reason to exist. I think Wednesday's NYT puzzle, for example, could have benefited from a title..."Taking A Right" or something. The clue for the explanatory entry RTS attempted to make the transformation seem natural, but it just came off as awkward to me (the right tackles are "caught" in these entries, which I suppose represent defensive lines, or something? Um, OK.) In fact, if the puzzle had a title, an explanatory entry wouldn't be needed at all, and the fill in that corner could probably be improved.

2a. Along the same lines as point 2, having a title can free up room in the grid for more theme entries. Monday's NYT, for example, had FOUR-H CLUBS as a final explanatory theme entry; if it were the title, then that slot could be filled with a fourth 4-H entry. (Perhaps, in this case, HIGH CHURCH would then probably be HIGH CHURCHES instead, because I can't off the top of my head think of another 10-letter 4-Her. But the theme entries come before the grid anyway, so it wouldn't have been extra work.)

This example also illustrates a potential con of having titles--they may make the theme too obvious. (I'm pretty good at sussing out themes from titles though, IMO. In a recentish Simon and Schuster volume, there was a puzzle by Harvey Estes with the title "Some More Butter?", and the Samson-penned caption below it proclaimed "Here's one title that we know won't give away the theme!" I correctly guessed the theme. Anyone care to take a stab at it?)

Anyway, if I saw the title "Four-H Clubs", I'd be pretty sure that the theme entries were all phrases with 4 Hs; however, in this case at least and in fact in most cases, after I solved the first theme entry I was pretty sure what the theme would be anyway, so the aha moment wasn't delayed for very long anyway. Besides, even if one knows the nature of the theme, there is still interest in seeing what phrases have that many H's, or what jokes can result from adding RT to words, or whatever. And if a solver truly can't do without that delayed moment of insight, they can always ask someone to cut out the titles of their puzzles (or do it themselves, averting their eyes) before they solve them. So this potential con isn't much of a con at all.

Of course, while theoretically the ability for a puzzle to have a title is certainly a preferable one, actual titles themselves can be pretty bad. I'll have more to say about what makes a good or a bad title later, but for now I'll just say that I can really do without titles that just say "See 57-Across", with the clue for 57-Across being {Title of this puzzle}. There's always a better approach, trust me.