There’s been a lot of talk in the US cryptic community—at least in the corner that I frequent—about what the second cancellation of the New Yorker‘s well-regarded weekly 8×10 cryptic means. That puzzle wasn’t the only one to take a hit on that site, as it also downgraded two weekly puzzles from full-sized 15×15 American crosswords to smaller minis, but without any insight into the overall numbers for these puzzles (or, I guess more importantly in a world of infinite growth, the desired numbers for these puzzles), it’s hard to make inferences about whether audiences are or aren’t turning up.
The question I’ve been asking is how we, as a community of solvers, streamers, and constructors (sometimes all three), can go about helping to get newer solvers involved, whether that’s transitioning from straight crosswords or jumping straight into the deep end of cryptics. (I once recommended Puns & Anagrams in the New York Times as a way of loosening up for the cryptic way of thinking without needing to learn all those meddlesome rules—the Spades to the Hearts of crosswords and the Bridge of cryptics, if you will, but the Times stopped distributing those digitally, even though they still commission and physically print them.) Great ambassadors like Steve Mossberg (who has made his editorial skills available at a number of charity packs and venues, the AVCX included) and joeadultman (who leads a friendly Discord and Twitch)—among many others!—have provided Quiptic and mini 101 packs, and the weekly Browser, a great source for cryptics, once ran a series of smaller-sized Sevens for intro solvers.
I’m curious, then, to see how the AVCX’s recent foray into minis (their first pack of three, which includes Supakorn Pupeerasupong, Matt Monitto, and myself) works out. Does a 5×7 mini seem more approachable (in the same sense as the increasingly popular 5×5 to 10×10 American midis) to audiences, such that they’ll take a shot? I follow a bunch of cryptic setters over on Crosshare (where I also post a weekly 6×6), and the weekly roundup generally highlights minis over full-size puzzles on the site, suggesting that they’re indeed more popular.
I think minis are also greatly helpful to constructors, particularly newer ones who are still figuring out not just their own voice, but the requirements of the few venues they might submit to, because you can get a puzzle out faster and, consequently, get precious feedback more regularly about what is and isn’t working to your targeted audience. I’ve been vocal about using my mini almost experimentally—i.e., to try out potential new indicators or stretchy definitions. But it has to go both ways; World of Games magazine seemingly lamented a lack of trust in newer, “indie” constructors, and while I obviously disagree, I understand that it’s important that there are regular, consistently edited sources for users to find their footing, and that there’s a way to encourage them to keep at it, whether that’s through helpful hints and annotations or a step-by-step blog, vlog, or stream that walks through each parse.
TL;DR: We need more mini cryptics in the world, not less. That seems like the best way to encourage and grow both audiences and setters. I applaud those editors and venues who are helping newer setters to make their debuts, and while I don’t criticize The New Yorker for choosing to recycle rather than publish new ones (hey, at least their stuff is still digitally available), maybe it’s up to the community to make a regular, easier 8×10 of their own.
The Crossword Scholar 