First things first. I LOVE this site. There are aspects which are still a little baffling -- the scoring system in particular -- though I personally find the new scoring scheme (implemented since the huge batch of new puzzles were uploaded in September) to be a distinct improvement on the old one. Even if it has lowered my overall scores quite a bit. I also greatly appreciate the new puzzles which, I think, represent a conscious effort to improve the sourcing of the puzzle quotes. But since I've been stuck at home for roughly ten months now, this site has been a life-saver. Or possibly a slightly unhealthy addiction; 7500 puzzles over ten months is a hefty chunk of time.
That said, some puzzles are more fun to solve than others. Unfortunately, my personality type is such that I stick with each puzzle until it is solved, and I try not to use the hints. This perhaps makes me unduly resentful of puzzles which I found, in some way, just unsuitable, or tedious. For example, twice in as many days I have had the experience of solving a puzzle where the quote was from Cormac McCarthy's "Blood Meridian". On the second one, a previous solver had left a plaintive note to the effect that the quote was hard to solve because it didn't really make a whole lot of sense. To put a positive gloss on it, McCarthy's style is just so idiosyncratic that any excerpt from his work is likely to be essentially unguessable to a person who uses words in a more conventional manner. My own comment was far less tactful:
"What a pretentious git Cormac McCarthy is. This is a perfect example of his self-indulgent bloviation -- words strung together in undisciplined heaving masses, the overdependence on adjectives, the absence of any kind of sense -- all to what end? To further his reputation -- look at me, I'm the great Cormac McCarthy, I'm not required to make sense, and no editor will dare to correct me?
I agree with the previous comment that this kind of writing, which thumbs its nose at making sense, in service of being high-falutin' is inherently unsuited for acrostic puzzles.
A few other repeat offenders come to mind: the Annies Proulx and Dillard, for instance."
Well, this is perhaps stated a little too vehemently, and my opinion is just that -- one person's opinion. But I would be very interested to hear what other people think about this. To sum up my objection: some "literary" authors' styles are simply so idiosyncratic in their use of language that it renders much of their prose unsuited for use in acrostic puzzles (the solution of which, after all, is dependent on being able to apply intelligent guesswork and have that guesswork be rewarded). To what extent do other users agree with this opinion?
In a future comment I will vent my frustration at the rampant obsession with the interplay of light sources and bodies of water that seems to dominate the longer quotes. Or the whole trees/autumn/color trope, take your pick.
But I have certainly whined enough for one post.
That said, some puzzles are more fun to solve than others. Unfortunately, my personality type is such that I stick with each puzzle until it is solved, and I try not to use the hints. This perhaps makes me unduly resentful of puzzles which I found, in some way, just unsuitable, or tedious. For example, twice in as many days I have had the experience of solving a puzzle where the quote was from Cormac McCarthy's "Blood Meridian". On the second one, a previous solver had left a plaintive note to the effect that the quote was hard to solve because it didn't really make a whole lot of sense. To put a positive gloss on it, McCarthy's style is just so idiosyncratic that any excerpt from his work is likely to be essentially unguessable to a person who uses words in a more conventional manner. My own comment was far less tactful:
"What a pretentious git Cormac McCarthy is. This is a perfect example of his self-indulgent bloviation -- words strung together in undisciplined heaving masses, the overdependence on adjectives, the absence of any kind of sense -- all to what end? To further his reputation -- look at me, I'm the great Cormac McCarthy, I'm not required to make sense, and no editor will dare to correct me?
I agree with the previous comment that this kind of writing, which thumbs its nose at making sense, in service of being high-falutin' is inherently unsuited for acrostic puzzles.
A few other repeat offenders come to mind: the Annies Proulx and Dillard, for instance."
Well, this is perhaps stated a little too vehemently, and my opinion is just that -- one person's opinion. But I would be very interested to hear what other people think about this. To sum up my objection: some "literary" authors' styles are simply so idiosyncratic in their use of language that it renders much of their prose unsuited for use in acrostic puzzles (the solution of which, after all, is dependent on being able to apply intelligent guesswork and have that guesswork be rewarded). To what extent do other users agree with this opinion?
In a future comment I will vent my frustration at the rampant obsession with the interplay of light sources and bodies of water that seems to dominate the longer quotes. Or the whole trees/autumn/color trope, take your pick.
But I have certainly whined enough for one post.
Comment