I made yesterday’s New York Times puzzle! It’s been nearly two years since my last time, and as I put it in my constructor’s note for Wordplay, I consider it harder to get a puzzle published in NYT than it is to get into Harvard nowadays. Hopefully it won’t be another two years before the next time, but I have no accepted puzzles in the hopper there, so it wouldn’t shock me if it is. Anyway, I hope you liked yesterday’s easy puzzle; now here’s something harder!
Author: Stella
Themeless #149
Sometimes the seed for a puzzle is a bane of my existence. That’s the case today.
Decrypting the Cryptic #17: Question Marks

I haven’t made a Decrypting the Cryptic post in a couple of years, but I’ve been doing enough question-mark clues on Instagram that I think it’s worth talking about them a bit, and how question marks in cryptics are the same and different from question marks in standard American crosswords.
If you’ve gotten to, say, Wednesday-level difficulty solving standard American puzzles with the New York Times or Los Angeles Times, you’ll have seen question-mark clues before. An example is [Focuses on the road?], which was used in a NYT mini puzzle in 2024. The question mark is there to indicate that you should not take the clue literally. The answer is FORD, because you’d probably read the clue literally to mean “pays attention, presumably while driving,” whereas the answer refers to the Focus, a car produced by Ford.
In cryptics, as in standard American crosswords, question marks are also there to indicate something not quite literal is going on. A major difference, though, is that because cryptic clues have two parts — a definition and wordplay, given in some order — the question mark in a cryptic clue most likely applies to either the definition or the wordplay, not the entire clue.
Here’s an example in which a question mark indicates that the wordplay isn’t literal: [Action star of “The Little Mermaid,” for example? (6)] The answer is SEAGAL: The definition is “action star,” of which Steven SEAGAL is a literal example. Split SEAGAL into two parts and you get SEA GAL, which you could say is defined by [The Little Mermaid, for example] (ignoring the quotation marks). But it’s a bit of a punny stretch, so I put the question mark there.
And here’s an example where I used a question mark to indicate that the definition isn’t literal: [People at first hurt a cagy, heartless drug dealer? (8)] for PHARMACY. The wordplay here is a little complicated, so let’s focus on the definition, which is [drug dealer?] Does a pharmacy deal in drugs, as in legal prescription and nonprescription medications? Sure. Is that usually what one thinks of when one sees the phrase “drug dealer”? No, so I added the question mark to give solvers a little help.
One thing that’ll help you use question marks to solve: In a well-constructed cryptic clue, the question mark should be adjacent to the portion of the clue that it applies to. So if you have a clue with the definition first, then the wordplay, and the definition is punny but the question mark is at the end, that’s not a well-constructed clue; an editor would ask the constructor to revise the clue so that the question mark and the non-literal clue material are adjacent.
Hope this is helpful! Do you have a question about cryptics that baffles you that you’d like me to answer (or at least talk about, if I don’t have the answers)? Comment on this post! You can also read older Decrypting the Cryptic posts, although you should know that I wrote most of them five years ago, when I was a way less experienced constructor. Which means the older clues, at least the ones I came up with myself, aren’t always perfect. One of these days I’ll get around to updating, if enough folks are interested!
Themeless #148
I made this one a while ago, but wanted to put some space between it and another themeless so you all don’t think this is suddenly a [SUBJECT MATTER REDACTED] puzzle blog.
Themeless #147
This one might not be as hard as usual — I made it, thought the grid was clean enough for NYT, submitted, and got noped. I think it’s a good puzzle, but of course NYT has a lot to choose from these days. Oh well!
Themeless #146
You may be able to tell what my seed entry was based on the tone of the clue.
Themeless #145
Here’s a little nostalgia for you — one of those moments when you realize “THAT was 20 years ago?!”
Themeless #144
Those of you who recall where I was about six weeks ago may have an easier time with the seed entry.
Themeless #143
I must have had ballet on the brain even more than usual this spring, because when I went to check my slush pile of completed puzzles, I had another one with a dance seed entry in there. No, that’s not what I’m posting today, but don’t be surprised if more TERPSICHOREan content shows up next time or in a month. (And if you can’t get enough ballet, check out how you get married if you are arguably America’s most famous active ballerina and you’re marrying another ballet dancer. My niece pointed out “she’s even got her toes pointed in the makeup chair!” and I pointed out that they’re literally doing the last scene from Dirty Dancing at their reception. Swoon!)
Bonus puzzle: “Middle Child”
Hi friends! It’s my birthday, but you get a present of an extra puzzle.
I made this grid in 2022 (and it reflects my gridmaking skills at the time; please excuse the large number of 3-letter entries) but never did anything with it. The theme is, shall we say, not the most impressive achievement of its kind, so I mostly left this puzzle behind to focus on other things.
But, yesterday’s Wall Street Journal puzzle was offensive to a number of people. I get it; see Jim Peredo’s review at Fiend. I really hate the idea of making a puzzle that turns out to be someone’s emotional pothole. Most people do crosswords as a way to have fun, right? Even we speed solvers, although I would not call the way I solve “fun” (it’s more of a compulsion at this point), absolutely do not expect the part of our day we spend solving to involve an emotionally painful memory. And although folks may differ on what would or would not be offensive or hurtful to a reasonable solver (or to a subset of reasonable solvers), I come down on Jim’s side here that a theme centered around a revealer of MISSING CHILDREN is likely enough to be that emotional pothole that I wouldn’t have made the puzzle.
Anyway: I did make this puzzle, which in some ways is the opposite of that WSJ puzzle, and I think you’ll see why I finally decided to clue it and offer it up. I hope it’s emotionally breezy, although I suppose I didn’t clue it super easy.
