Crosswords occupy a special piece of real estate within the pages of newspapers and magazines. They stand apart from editorial content, their black-and-white grids offering millions of solvers a momentary escape from the day’s headlines.
But, the politics of the newsroom can still seep in.
At least, that’s what veteran crossword creator Natan Last argues in his new book, Across the Universe: The Past, Present, and Future of the Crossword Puzzle.
Last, who has constructed hundreds of crosswords for major outlets, pulled back the curtain on the busy bureaucracy at work behind puzzle-making in an interview with The Independent. He explained that before publication, editors carefully review every clue and answer, considering how readers will interpret them. They often trim, cut or replace entries — sometimes transforming their original meaning.
“There’s this funny feedback that editors give about which entries are going to rock the boat or not,” Last said.
This hands-on oversight process has become “much more common in recent years,” he said as crosswords have emerged as a major source of revenue for a media industry facing upheaval.
“There’s a joke internal to the [The New York Times] that we’re basically a games company that also happens to publish news,” Last said.
Politics behind crosswords
Last — who is also a researcher and policy advisor — became the youngest-ever person to publish a crossword in The New York Times Sunday magazine in 2008. Since then he has regularly contributed puzzles to both the Times and The New Yorker.
He said that, at these outlets and others, there are a few guiding principles that have led crosswords to become politicized. The first, he said, is “a demand to avoid negative aspects of prior puzzles,” including clues that are racist, sexist or potentially offensive.
“The Times once included the word ‘ILLEGAL’ as ‘one caught by Border Patrol,’” he said. “A few years later they used the answer ‘BEANER,’ a slur against Mexican people… as like a baseball pitch.”
The case for banning these words is fairly straightforward, he said. But, other words and phrases have been flagged on shakier grounds.
He recalled an editor mentioning that they would reject the basketball-related answer “SHOOTING GUARD” because it could evoke thoughts of gun violence. In the book, Last said he wrestles with whether “that kind of thinking is a little bit too presumptuous about how the solver is going to handle this.”
On other occasions, clues or answers on hot-button topics have been tweaked in an attempt to avoid showing bias — sometimes triggering fierce backlash.
While making a crossword for the Times in 2022, longtime crossword constructor Lynn Lempel paired the clue “dubious source of green energy” with the answer “CLEAN COAL.” But, before publication, it was cut down to just three words: “greener energy source.”
This was greeted by a “mini-scandal,” according to Vice News, with social media users berating the paper for implying coal is a viable clean energy source. Eventually, the Times issued a rare crossword correction.
“There’s been more politics in puzzles lately about what people should include in puzzles and what people shouldn’t include and the way clues should be directed,” Lempel said at the time, according to Politico. “I don’t disagree with a lot of that. But it’s a puzzle, you know.”
The second key guideline, Last said, is “a demand to include a more wide-ranging slice of culture and politics” in crosswords. As examples, he cited slang, pop culture and more non-white and non-male celebrities.
He noted that, in the past, the answer “ONT” had long been clued as “a Canadian province” (Ontario). But, recently, a constructor clued it as “taking testosterone.”
“These are things that people say,” Last said. “And so that’s been a big push to just have the puzzle reflect how we talk.”
‘Junkyard for Nazi subs’
Crosswords — which date back to 1913 — have always been political, and it’s impossible for them to exist in a vacuum, Last said. He remarked that, during World War II, the clue “junkyard for Nazi subs” was paired with the answer “ATLANTIC.”
But, the process of constructing and publishing crosswords has become far more political in recent years — for a few reasons, Last said.
For one, he said, “the Times‘ missteps really did provoke a large, organized response from puzzle solvers and makers, which resulted in real personnel and procedural changes,” which ushered in “younger, more politically-minded editors.”
Second, the word puzzles have garnered more attention as they’ve evolved into thriving commercial ventures.
“For a long time, Will Shortz was kind of the end all be all of The New York Times crossword, and it was like a small analog operation,” Last said. “He worked from his home in Pleasantville, New York.”
But, over the past decade, the business has transformed. In 2023, for example, the Times’ crossword, and other associated games, were played over eight billion times, helping buoy the paper’s financial standing, according to Axios.
“Now it’s almost, you know, a hundred people, like dozens of software engineers, business analysts, and there’s an editorial director,” he said. “When they’re in an editing session, they say things like, ‘yeah, I just, I don’t think we need this word here. Let’s try and get rid of it.’”
A Times’ spokesperson pushed back against the idea that the crossword creation process is at all political.
“We’re grateful to Mr. Last for his many contributions to The New York Times Crossword over the years,” the spokesperson told The Independent. “Each crossword puzzle follows a standard review process that includes rigorous testing and fact-checking. Our goal, as always, is to craft the very best puzzle that challenges and delights solvers. Politics do not influence our puzzles.”
Despite years of crafting crosswords, Last said he continues to grapple with how the popular puzzles — played on quiet afternoons at home, on the commute to work or even by journalists in the White House press room — should be perceived.
“Some days I do think it’s a mere game,” he said. “And some days, I’m really taken with the people who see it as a like force of cultural arbitration.”
When asked what reaction he expects from his book, and whether it will garner outrage from conservatives or liberals, he said, “I’m sure all sides will be tickled and annoyed.”
