Nonverbal "well done" / THU 1-8-26 / Heineken subsidiary whose name means "small bodies of water" / One of the two Boolean values, in programming / Like the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey / Benefactor with a limited number of grants? / Gimlet base / Snatching sound, in the comics / Mexican street food typically served with cheese, chili and lime / So-called "father of the American cartoon" / Hit TV series set at the fictional William McKinley High School / Tea traders?

Constructor: Mallory Montgomery and Zhou Zhang

Relative difficulty: far too easy

THEME: GRADE INFLATION (39A: College concern seen in 16-, 25-, 49- and 63-Across) — letters of evaluation on a report card ("grades") are raised ("inflated") by one letter in the alphabet, turning the expected answers into different, unclued answers: 

Theme answers:

• HIGH DIVE ("raised" from "HIGH FIVE") (16A: Nonverbal "well done")
• CROP TOPS ("raised" from "DROP TOPS") (25A: Cars with retractable roofs) 
• OVERBOOK ("raised" from "OVERCOOK") (49A: Accidentally burn, perhaps)
• A-LISTERS ("raised" from "BLISTERS") (63A: Results of wearing some uncomfortable shoes)

Word of the Day: 50 CENT (36D: "In da Club" rapper) —

Curtis James Jackson III (born July 6, 1975), known professionally as 50 Cent, is an American rapper, actor, and television producer. Born in Queens, a borough of New York City, Jackson began pursuing a musical career in 1996. In 1999–2000, he recorded his debut album, Power of the Dollar, for Columbia Records. During a shooting in May 2000, he was struck by nine bullets, causing its release to be canceled and Jackson to be dropped from the label. His 2002 mixtape Guess Who's Back? was discovered by Detroit rapper Eminem, who signed Jackson to his label Shady Records (an imprint of Interscope Records) that year. // Jackson has sold over 30 million albums worldwide and earned several accolades, including a Grammy Award, a Primetime Emmy Award, 13 Billboard Music Awards, six World Music Awards, three American Music Awards, and four BET Awards. He starred in the semi-autobiographical film Get Rich or Die Tryin' (2005), which was critically panned. He also appeared in the war film Home of the Brave (2006) and the crime thriller Righteous Kill (2008). Billboard ranked Jackson 17th on its "50 Greatest Rappers" list in 2023, and named him the sixth top artist of the 2000s decade. Rolling Stone ranked Get Rich or Die Tryin' and "In da Club" in its lists of the "100 Best Albums of the 2000s" and "100 Best Songs of the 2000s" at numbers 37 and 13, respectively. (wikipedia)

• • •

***ATTENTION: READERS AND FELLOW SOLVERS*** : It's early January, which means it's time once again for my annual week-long pitch for financial contributions to the blog. Every year I ask readers to consider what the blog is worth to them on an annual basis and give accordingly. 2026 is a big year for me, as Rex Parker Solves the NYT Crossword will celebrate its 20th birthday in September. Two decades. The big 2-0. A score of years. One score and no years ago, I brought forth on this Internet a new blog, conceived in ... I think I'll stop there, but you get the idea. I've been at this a long time, and while it has been my privilege and joy, it has also been (and continues to be) a lot of work. Very early mornings, no days off—well, no days off for the blog. I do have two very able regular subs (Mali and Clare) who write for me once a month, as well as a handful of other folks who stand in for me when I go on vacation. But otherwise, it's just me, every dang day, up by 4am, solving and writing. I've never been this disciplined about anything in my life. Ask anyone. "Is he disciplined about anything else?" "No, he is not. Just this one thing. It's weird." And it's because I have a responsibility to an audience (that's you). Even after nearly 20 years, I'm still genuinely stunned and exceedingly grateful that so many of you have made the blog a part of your daily routine. Ideally, it adds a little value to the solving experience. Teaches you something you didn't know, or helps you look at crosswords in a new way, or makes you laugh (my highest goal, frankly). Or maybe the blog simply offers a feeling of commiseration—a familiar voice confirming that yes, that clue was terrible, or yes, that themer set should have been tighter, or wow, yes, that answer was indeed beautiful. Whether you find it informative or comforting or entertaining or infuriating—or all of the above—if you're reading me on a fairly regular basis, there's something valuable you're getting out of the blog. And I couldn't be happier about that.

["That's upside-down, sweetheart"]

Hopefully by now you can tell that for better or worse, what you get from me is my honest, unvarnished feelings about a puzzle. There's an explanatory element too, sure, but this blog is basically one person's solving diary. Idiosyncratic. Personal. Human. I'm not interested in trying to guess consensus opinion. I'll leave that to A.I. All I can do, all I want to do, is tell you exactly what it was like for me to solve the puzzle—what I thought, what I felt. Because while solving may seem like mere box-filling to outsiders, crossword enthusiasts know that the puzzle actually makes us feel things—joy, anguish, confusion (confusion's a feeling, right?). Our feelings might not always be rational, but dammit, they're ours, and they're worth having. And sharing. I love that crosswords engage the messy, human side of you, as well as the objective, solution-oriented side. If I just wanted to fill in boxes, without any of the messy human stuff, I'd solve sudoku (no shade, sudoku fans, they're just not for me!).

[conferring w/ my editor]

Over the years, I have received all kinds of advice about "monetizing" the blog, invitations to turn it into a subscription-type deal à la Substack or Patreon. And maybe I'd make more money that way, I don't know, but that sort of thing has never felt right for me. And honestly, does anyone really need yet another subscription to manage? As I've said in years past, I like being out here on this super old-school blogging platform, just giving it away for free and relying on conscientious addicts like yourselves to pay me what you think the blog's worth. It's just nicer that way. How much should you give? Whatever you think the blog is worth to you on a yearly basis. Whatever that amount is is fantastic. Some people refuse to pay for what they can get for free. Others just don't have money to spare. All are welcome to read the blog—the site will always be open and free. But if you are able to express your appreciation monetarily, here are three options. First, a Paypal button (which you can also find in the blog sidebar on the homepage, as well as at the bottom of every write-up):

Second, a mailing address (checks can be made out to "Michael Sharp" or "Rex Parker") (be sure to date them with the new year, 2026!):

Rex Parker c/o Michael Sharp
54 Matthews St
Binghamton, NY 13905

The third, increasingly popular option is Venmo; if that's your preferred way of moving money around, my handle is @MichaelDavidSharp (the last four digits of my phone are 4878, in case Venmo asks you, which I guess it does sometimes, when it's not trying to push crypto on you, what the hell?!)

All Paypal contributions will be gratefully acknowledged by email. All Venmo contributions will get a little heart emoji, at a minimum :) All snail mail contributions will be gratefully acknowledged with hand-written postcards. I know snail mail is a hassle for most people, but I love it. I love seeing your (mostly) gorgeous handwriting and then sending you my (completely) awful handwriting. The human touch—it's nice. In recent years, my daughter has designed my annual postcards, but this year, grad school and NYC theater work are keeping her otherwise occupied, so I had to seek design help elsewhere. Enter Katie Kosma, who is not only a professional illustrator/designer, but (crucially!) a crossword enthusiast. She listened patiently to my long and disorganized list of ideas and in very short order was able to arrive at this year's design, inspired by film noir title cards. 

I'm very happy with how it turned out. The teeny boxes inside the letters, the copyright credit ("Natick Pictures, Inc."), and especially that pencil lamppost—mwah! I know most people solve online now, and many paper solvers prefer pen, but the pencil just feels iconic, and appropriate for the card's throwback vibe. That lamppost was entirely Katie's creation. She was a dream to work with. Can't say enough good things about her.

Please note: I don't keep a "mailing list" and don't share my contributor info with anyone. And if you give by snail mail and (for some reason) don't want a thank-you card, just indicate "NO CARD." 

Again, as ever, I'm so grateful for your readership. Please know that your support means a lot to me and my family. Now on to today's puzzle... 

• • •

[THIRDS]

First of all: too easy. Too easy. Today, not only too easy, but undersized, so it hardly felt like solving a crossword at all, let alone a Thursday crossword (it is Thursday, right? my regular job doesn't start again for another week and a half, so I'm still drifting through time with no clear sense of what day it is—[checks calendar] yes, Thursday, cool). The puzzle was too easy, the theme was too simple, and the fill was too often short and uninspired. It all just felt somewhat undercooked. I had another one of those "uh oh" moments when starting the puzzle, because the fill ... was not promising. BEL AMA BAHT EMIR is about as crosswordy a way as you can open your puzzle. That is an answer string that bodes ill. And the way the grid is shaped, there's no room for truly interesting fill to thrive, so what we get is corner after corner, nook after cranny, of dull 3-4-5 stuff. The one wonderful exception is the NE corner, which manages to have a ton of zest for a corner where no answer is longer than five letters. The "Z" "K" and "Y" are well integrated (as opposed to uncomfortably wedged) into the corner, and "BINGO!" "AY PAPI!" and "YOINK!" give the whole area an invigorating exclamatory energy. Plus you get a gimlet, which is nice. Classy. Real service. The rest of the nooks and crannies aren't nearly as much fun.

[Pig furriers? Well now I've seen everything]

So, with the fill so constricted that it can't really shine, it's up to the theme to provide most of the interest today, and ... I don't know. I think I would've been more warmly disposed to this theme if it had appeared on a Wednesday. The concept just seems too simple for a Thursday. As soon as you get GRADE INFLATION (not hard), it's immediately clear what the gimmick is going to be—it's going to involve raising letter grades, maybe creating wackiness, or maybe (as today) changing the apparent answer into a completely different answer. Now, the fact that today's clues got answers that they did not "earn" gives the theme a nice resonance with actual grade inflation. That's kinda cool. But the problem for me was that there's absolutely no humor in the execution. There's nothing particularly entertaining or playful going on. Just a bunch of (apparently) wrong or inapt answers. HIGH DIVE isn't entertaining, it's just ... wrong for the clue. So a promising concept fizzles out in the execution. GRADE INFLATION seems like such an obvious theme concept that I thought "I'm surprised this hasn't been done before ... has it been done before?" So I checked and ... yes—and on a Wednesday! (ha, I knew this was a Wednesday theme). Anna Shechtman did a GRADE INFLATION theme back in 2010, but hers involved only Bs becoming As (by far the most common kind of GRADE INFLATION), and hers involved the one thing this grid is missing: wackiness. That is, her answers were not other, actual answers, but absurd answers, like HONEY COMA ([Result of a sweetener overload?]). I didn't think that puzzle was perfect, but leaning into the wackiness helped it be more enjoyable, more memorable. Gave it more personality, at any rate. Today's theme execution is fine—admirable, even, in that getting the "inflated" phrases to be real phrases seems like a real challenge. But from a solving standpoint, the puzzle just didn't pop.

Also, I kind of want to quibble with the last themer. There's something about changing BLISTERS to A-LISTERS that's disappointing, in that "A" actually has evaluative meaning. That is, it's functioning exactly the way a grade functions. If you're doing a grade-based puzzle, then the "grade" element should be masked. There's nothing "grade"-y about any of the other themers (either the base phrases or the "inflated" phrases). Somehow having a grade-based answer as an answer feels like a cheat. Plus, there are other letter-LISTERS. There are, in fact, B-LISTERS, so the "change" in that case just isn't as, I don't know, "change"-y as it should be. 

As for difficulty, there was none. I'm not kidding. There was the kind of "difficulty" I typically experience on a Tuesday or Wednesday, where, OK, I don't know something at first glance, but then I get some crosses and I do. Basic stuff. Nothing to make you sweat. I did make one huge and (to me) funny mistake, right up front. With LAGU- in place, I looked at 3D: Heineken subsidiary whose name means "small bodies of water" and wrote in ... [drum roll] ... LAGUVULIN! Why Heineken would own a famous brand of Scotch, I don't know, but ... seemed plausible. But first of all, it turns out it's spelled LAGAVULIN (close!), and second of all, it's just wrong. I don't drink beer anymore, but I've had a few LAGUNITAS in my day. So I was able to see my mistake with no real trouble. Yes, makes much more sense that a Heineken subsidiary would be a beer, not a Scotch. Beer-to-beer parallel makes sense. But I was briefly thrilled to see LAGAVULIN, which has never appeared in the NYTXW. Amazing that I had LAGU- in place, was familiar with the beer brand LAGUNITAS, and still managed to botch the answer. Such is the power of whisky. 🥃 

Bullets:

• 19A: One of the two Boolean values, in programming (TRUE) — outside my field of knowledge. Never learned Boolean algebra and know little about "programming." In fact the only time I see "Boolean" is in crossword clues, which led me to believe it involved conjunctions like OR and NOR, am I making this up? Nope, I am not "Boolean algebra uses logical operators such as conjunction (and) denoted as ∧, disjunction (or) denoted as ∨, and negation (not) denoted as ¬. Elementary algebra, on the other hand, uses arithmetic operators such as addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division." (wikipedia).
• 20A: Disney princess whose name is one letter off from a common princess accessory (TIANA) — got this easily, from "Disney princess" alone, but was kind of startled when I eventually read the entire clue for the first time. This is because I didn't read the entire clue. I somehow missed the last word. So I thought it said [Disney princess whose name is one letter off from a common princess], which made me think "well that's a rude way to talk about DIANA."
• 32A: Benefactor with a limited number of grants? (GENIE) — this clue got a legit chuckle out of me. Nice one. Also good: 47A: Tea traders? (YENTAS). "Tea" = gossip.
• 65A: Mexican street food typically served with cheese, chili and lime (ELOTE) — a follow-up to yesterday's foodfest, and a nice complement to yesterday's AREPA—both ELOTE and AREPA are destined for crossword immortality. Neo-crosswordese ... but not as bad as most crosswordese because delicious. Deliciousness goes a long way.
• 36D: "In da Club" rapper (FIFTY CENT) — there's a long tradition of writing numbers out like this (i.e. representing US 1 as USONE), but in the case of 50 Cent it feels very off. It's always "50" as far as I can tell. Feels almost like the puzzle is misnaming him here. Also, I'm suddenly fascinated by conventions of capitalization as they relate to the article "da." Like, yes, it's the equivalent of "the," which you don't capitalize in titles, so the lowercase "da" makes sense here. And yet it looks insane to my eye. That little "da" really wants punching up. It wants to be a big "Da." And in some spellings of "In Da Club," it is big. But not in others. Wikipedia can't make up its mind. It's got lowercase in the title of the "In da Club" page, but it uses "In Da Club" throughout. 50 Cent has been on my mind far more than usual of late because of this bit from comedian Josh Johnson, all about how 50 was one of the producers of the recent (damning) documentary about Diddy (i.e. Sean Combs):

• 49D: Like the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey (OAKEN) — I was like "... HIGH?" Which would've made it a high chair, which, admittedly, would be a weird thing to get coronated in (unless you're a baby). Seriously, though, what's the difference between OAKEN and just ... OAK? Like, you never hear about wooden things being BIRCHEN, or MAPLEN, or YEWEN, but we have this adjective OAKEN. Why? All the other woods double as adjectives, but somehow OAK got a fancy little ending? I feel like poetry is to blame, somehow. I can't prove this, but ... it's gotta be poetry. Some poet was like "hmm, I wanna use 'oak,' but this line doesn't scan ... I need two syllables ... I've got it!"

That's all for today. See you next time.

Signed, Rex Parker, King of CrossWorld

[Follow Rex Parker on BlueSky and Facebook and Letterboxd]
=============================
❤️ Support this blog ❤️: 

• Venmo (@MichaelDavidSharp)]

=============================
✏️ Upcoming Crossword Tournaments ✏️

• American Crossword Puzzle Tournament (Stamford, CT, Apr. 10-12, 2026) (registration opens January 8!)

=============================
📘 My other blog 📘:

• Pop Sensation (vintage paperbacks)

Read more...

Purple boba choice / WED 1-7-26 / Savory rice porridge / Grilled cornmeal cake / With all judges present / Mathematician Terence / Potatoes, in Indian cooking / "That's crazy!," on the internet / "Oh no!," in comics / Cynophilist / Musical genre that's the subject of the 2007 book "Everybody Hurts" / Circadian dysrhythmia, less fancily

Constructor: Adrianne Baik

Relative difficulty: Easy

THEME: fictional female follies — familiar phrases are used as wacky clues for famous female fictional characters:

Theme answers:

• TINKERBELL [from Peter Pan] (17A: Wing woman?)
• NANCY DREW [from the series of mystery novels] (25A: Cover girl?)
• DOROTHY GALE [from The Wizard of Oz] (35A: Homecoming queen?)
• ELLE WOODS [from Legally Blonde] (48A: Sister-in-law?)
• HELLO KITTY [iconic cartoon cat of the Japanese brand] (57A: Cat lady?)

Word of the Day: Terence TAO (40A: Mathematician Terence) —

Terence Chi-Shen Tao FAA FRS (Chinese: 陶哲軒, born 17 July 1975) is an Australian and American mathematician. He is a Fields medalist and a professor of mathematics at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), where he holds the James and Carol Collins Chair in the College of Letters and Sciences. His research includes topics in harmonic analysis, partial differential equations, algebraic combinatorics, arithmetic combinatorics, geometric combinatorics, probability theory, compressed sensing, analytic number theory and the applications of artificial intelligence in mathematics.

Tao was born to Chinese immigrant parents and raised in Adelaide, South Australia. Tao won the Fields Medal in 2006 and won the Royal Medal and Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics in 2014, and is a 2006 MacArthur Fellow. Tao has been the author or co-author of over three hundred research papers, and is widely regarded as one of the greatest living mathematicians. [...] 

In 1996, he joined the faculty of the University of California, Los Angeles. In 1999, when he was 24, he was promoted to full professor at UCLA and remains the youngest person ever appointed to that rank by the institution. (wikipedia)

• • •

***ATTENTION: READERS AND FELLOW SOLVERS*** : It's early January, which means it's time once again for my annual week-long pitch for financial contributions to the blog. Every year I ask readers to consider what the blog is worth to them on an annual basis and give accordingly. 2026 is a big year for me, as Rex Parker Solves the NYT Crossword will celebrate its 20th birthday in September. Two decades. The big 2-0. A score of years. One score and no years ago, I brought forth on this Internet a new blog, conceived in ... I think I'll stop there, but you get the idea. I've been at this a long time, and while it has been my privilege and joy, it has also been (and continues to be) a lot of work. Very early mornings, no days off—well, no days off for the blog. I do have two very able regular subs (Mali and Clare) who write for me once a month, as well as a handful of other folks who stand in for me when I go on vacation. But otherwise, it's just me, every dang day, up by 4am, solving and writing. I've never been this disciplined about anything in my life. Ask anyone. "Is he disciplined about anything else?" "No, he is not. Just this one thing. It's weird." And it's because I have a responsibility to an audience (that's you). Even after nearly 20 years, I'm still genuinely stunned and exceedingly grateful that so many of you have made the blog a part of your daily routine. Ideally, it adds a little value to the solving experience. Teaches you something you didn't know, or helps you look at crosswords in a new way, or makes you laugh (my highest goal, frankly). Or maybe the blog simply offers a feeling of commiseration—a familiar voice confirming that yes, that clue was terrible, or yes, that themer set should have been tighter, or wow, yes, that answer was indeed beautiful. Whether you find it informative or comforting or entertaining or infuriating—or all of the above—if you're reading me on a fairly regular basis, there's something valuable you're getting out of the blog. And I couldn't be happier about that.

["That's upside-down, sweetheart"]

Hopefully by now you can tell that for better or worse, what you get from me is my honest, unvarnished feelings about a puzzle. There's an explanatory element too, sure, but this blog is basically one person's solving diary. Idiosyncratic. Personal. Human. I'm not interested in trying to guess consensus opinion. I'll leave that to A.I. All I can do, all I want to do, is tell you exactly what it was like for me to solve the puzzle—what I thought, what I felt. Because while solving may seem like mere box-filling to outsiders, crossword enthusiasts know that the puzzle actually makes us feel things—joy, anguish, confusion (confusion's a feeling, right?). Our feelings might not always be rational, but dammit, they're ours, and they're worth having. And sharing. I love that crosswords engage the messy, human side of you, as well as the objective, solution-oriented side. If I just wanted to fill in boxes, without any of the messy human stuff, I'd solve sudoku (no shade, sudoku fans, they're just not for me!).

[conferring w/ my editor]

Over the years, I have received all kinds of advice about "monetizing" the blog, invitations to turn it into a subscription-type deal à la Substack or Patreon. And maybe I'd make more money that way, I don't know, but that sort of thing has never felt right for me. And honestly, does anyone really need yet another subscription to manage? As I've said in years past, I like being out here on this super old-school blogging platform, just giving it away for free and relying on conscientious addicts like yourselves to pay me what you think the blog's worth. It's just nicer that way. How much should you give? Whatever you think the blog is worth to you on a yearly basis. Whatever that amount is is fantastic. Some people refuse to pay for what they can get for free. Others just don't have money to spare. All are welcome to read the blog—the site will always be open and free. But if you are able to express your appreciation monetarily, here are three options. First, a Paypal button (which you can also find in the blog sidebar on the homepage, as well as at the bottom of every write-up):

Second, a mailing address (checks can be made out to "Michael Sharp" or "Rex Parker") (be sure to date them with the new year, 2026!):

Rex Parker c/o Michael Sharp
54 Matthews St
Binghamton, NY 13905

The third, increasingly popular option is Venmo; if that's your preferred way of moving money around, my handle is @MichaelDavidSharp (the last four digits of my phone are 4878, in case Venmo asks you, which I guess it does sometimes, when it's not trying to push crypto on you, what the hell?!)

All Paypal contributions will be gratefully acknowledged by email. All Venmo contributions will get a little heart emoji, at a minimum :) All snail mail contributions will be gratefully acknowledged with hand-written postcards. I know snail mail is a hassle for most people, but I love it. I love seeing your (mostly) gorgeous handwriting and then sending you my (completely) awful handwriting. The human touch—it's nice. In recent years, my daughter has designed my annual postcards, but this year, grad school and NYC theater work are keeping her otherwise occupied, so I had to seek design help elsewhere. Enter Katie Kosma, who is not only a professional illustrator/designer, but (crucially!) a crossword enthusiast. She listened patiently to my long and disorganized list of ideas and in very short order was able to arrive at this year's design, inspired by film noir title cards. 

I'm very happy with how it turned out. The teeny boxes inside the letters, the copyright credit ("Natick Pictures, Inc."), and especially that pencil lamppost—mwah! I know most people solve online now, and many paper solvers prefer pen, but the pencil just feels iconic, and appropriate for the card's throwback vibe. That lamppost was entirely Katie's creation. She was a dream to work with. Can't say enough good things about her.

Please note: I don't keep a "mailing list" and don't share my contributor info with anyone. And if you give by snail mail and (for some reason) don't want a thank-you card, just indicate "NO CARD." 

Again, as ever, I'm so grateful for your readership. Please know that your support means a lot to me and my family. Now on to today's puzzle... 

• • •

Interesting repurposing of familiar phrases. Making all the answers fictional characters gives the theme a nice coherence. The clues touch all the major words for "female person" ("woman" "girl" "lady") as well as a couple familiar slang terms ("sister" "queen"). "Queen" is a real outlier here, in that it's not a general term. In certain playful, slangy contexts, you might (of course) refer to a woman as a "queen," but it's highly contextual ... and not entirely female, frankly. I associate it with drag culture, at least in part. And yet [Homecoming queen?] is probably the best (in terms of aptest / funniest) clue of the lot, so its outlierness isn't bothering me too much. I'm more annoyed / confused by the NANCY DREW clue (25A: Cover girl?). Is the idea just that she is simply ... found ... on book covers? Or is it that she goes ... undercover ... to solve cases? Both? Neither? Unclear. I've heard the expression "wing man" a lot more than I've heard "wing woman," probably because hunting for hook-ups at bars is pretty conventionally male behavior. The "wing man" is the guy who supports a friend in his attempts to seduce women—maybe by accompanying him to the target's table to make him seem less predatory, or by occupying the target's friends in conversation so that his friend can get more one-on-one time with the target. I can't stop saying "target," sorry. It's hard not to use the language of predation. Anyway, if guys can hunt in packs, then ladies can too, so ... "wing woman."  It's impressive that the constructor could find five iconic female characters (i.e. ones that nearly everyone will know) that both fit symmetrically and were cluable in this specifically wacky way. The NANCY DREW clue is a little weak, but the others are on point. [Sister-in-law?] is a particularly clever way to come at ELLE WOODS (whose name I know well, but whose movie title I totally forgot just now: "Legal ... law something ... LEGAL EAGLES? ... no, that's Debra Winger ..."—in the end, I actually had to look it up: embarrassing)

The fill in this one is so-so, though the only jarring bit was when the puzzle hit me with the EN BANC (6D: With all judges present). We managed to kill EN BANC for a full nineteen (19) years (from 1997 to 2016) but since its resurrection in 2016, it's been proliferating at an alarming rate. 2016, 2023, 2025, 2026. I'm not Terence TAO, but if these trends continue ... 

What's weirdest about EN BANC is that it is thriving under Shortz far more than it ever did with his predecessors. BANC has appeared in puzzles forever, but EN BANC only made it into the puzzle twice in the entire pre-Shortz era. But so far, there have been five appearances under Shortz, including two now in the space of just two weeks (last appearance, 12/23/25). Did not enjoy EN BANC crossing ENRON (ugh, you suck, you were guilty of historic accounting fraud, you're bankrupt, why won't you just die? ... stupid useful letter combination ...). ASAP LOL SNL all appear in the same area, and OOO and SSN and SHO aren't far away, so that northern area felt pretty unpleasantly gunky. But as I say, for the most part the fill holds up.

Disappointingly, there was absolutely no difficulty today, outside of the themers (which, for me, largely filled themselves in from crosses—I never even saw the clues for DOROTHY GALE or HELLO KITTY). The one thing that might have slowed some solvers was the preponderance of food terms, and foreign food at that. These were all foods that are widespread in the U.S., but still, I can imagine there are people who haven't heard of CONGEE (27D: Savory rice porridge) or AREPAs (even though the latter has become something of a crossword staple) (7D: Grilled cornmeal cake). Or who don't know what ALOO means (even though we just had this term as well as this exact clue last month) (62A: Potatoes, in Indian cooking). Throw in the HAM on the Hawaiian pizza (57D: Hawaiian pizza topping) and a TARO boba tea (36D: Purple boba choice) and you've got yourself a hell of a MENU, covering many corners of the globe. A real DINE-IN puzzle. The puzzle FED you, is what I'm saying. If you like food, this is good news. If you like only American food (whatever that is), then it's possible this food caused you some solving indigestion. Me, I wolfed it all down. Good stuff.

Bullets:

• 16A: "That's crazy!," on the internet ("WOAH!") — I have to say how much I appreciate this clue. "WOAH" makes my skin crawl, in general, but at least the clue here recognizes that the spelling is decidedly an internet phenomenon. In my day [clears throat, removes corn cob pipe from mouth and gestures aggressively with it], there weren't no internet and we all said "WHOA" because the automobile weren't invented yet so we all rode horses and you had to get 'em to stop somehow. Seriously, though, the term is "WHOA." Whether you're stopping horses or expressing amazement. It's a variation on "WOW." A lower-key "WOW." "WOAH" always looks to me like it should be pronounced with two syllables (WOE + AH). It also looks like a chemical formula. Just me? Whatever. I blame sodium hydroxide (NaOH).
• 4D: "Oh no!," in comics ("ACK!") — I was going to say, "only in Cathy!" but then I remembered the most important comic strip of my adolescence, and so I take it back. Not only in Cathy.

[Cathy]

[Bill the Cat, from Bloom County]

• 18D: Day for hunting (EASTER) — hunting for EASTER eggs. At least I hope that's what the clue meant!
• 35D: Cynophilist (DOG LOVER) — wait, why isn't it "cynophile"? It's bibliophile, not bibliophilist. Cinephile, not cinephilist. Ailurophile, not "ailurophilist." Maybe the idea was that "'cynophile" sounds too much like "cinephile," but ... but ... dogs preceded cinema (right?), so I still don't get it. 

Speaking of ailurophiles, which I was, I somehow let one of the 🌲🐈Holiday Pet Pics🐕🌲 fall through the cracks, so here's a special addendum: it's Orbie, seen here "warming" himself in front of the "fire." Below him, according to the human who lives with him, are the "cherished photos of the pussy cats who have graced my life - Tri-X, Jill & Leo, Flix, Simon & Louie." 

[Thanks, Ann!]

That's all. See you next time.

Signed, Rex Parker, King of CrossWorld

[Follow Rex Parker on BlueSky and Facebook and Letterboxd]
=============================
❤️ Support this blog ❤️: 

• Venmo (@MichaelDavidSharp)]

=============================
✏️ Upcoming Crossword Tournaments ✏️

• American Crossword Puzzle Tournament (Stamford, CT, Apr. 10-12, 2026) (registration opens January 8!)

=============================
📘 My other blog 📘:

• Pop Sensation (vintage paperbacks)

Read more...

"For real!," in modern slang / TUE 1-6-26 / Penalty box, in hockey lingo / In short supply, as energy / The only person to have the opinion / One-named Cuban-born designer who fashioned Nancy Reagan's red outfits / Amniocentesis targets / Spicy Sweet Chili chip / Country in which men traditionally wear robes called dishdashas

Constructor: Paul Coulter

Relative difficulty: Medium-Challenging (**for a Tuesday**)

THEME: "THERE'S NO TWO / WAYS ABOUT IT" (17A: With 59-Across, "This is beyond a doubt" ... or a punny hint to 24-, 38- and 49-Across) — in each theme answer, inside three pairs of circled squares, you can find "NO" situated both forward and backward ("TWO WAYS") on either side of ("ABOUT") "IT":

Theme answers:

• A MINORITY OF ONE (24A: The only person to have the opinion)
• SET IN OPPOSITION (38A: Contrast)
• NO-WIN SITUATION (49A: Thing bound to end in failure)

Word of the Day: ADOLFO (10D: One-named Cuban-born designer who fashioned Nancy Reagan's red outfits) —

Adolfo Faustino Sardiña (February 15, 1923 – November 27, 2021), professionally known as Adolfo, was a Cuban-born American fashion designer who started out as a milliner in the 1950s. While chief designer for the wholesale milliners Emme, he won the Coty Award and the Neiman Marcus Fashion Award. In 1963 he set up his own salon in New York, firstly as a milliner, and then focusing on clothing. He retired from fashion design in 1993. [...] With financial help from Bill Blass, Adolfo opened his first salon in New York in 1963, where he met many of the customers who would become his patrons when he gave up millinery to focus on clothing. He had met the Duchess of Windsor by 1965, through whom he met regular customers Betsy Bloomingdale, Babe Paley and Nancy Reagan. Adolfo would go on to become good friends with Reagan, and not only designed her dresses for both of her husband's inaugurations, but many dresses she wore during her time as the First Lady. After Mainbocher retired, one of his highest-profile clients, C. Z. Guest, came to Adolfo to make her clothes instead. Adolfo's clothes were designed to complement his hats, which the designer saw as an optional accessory rather than a wardrobe essential. [...] In 1993, at the age of 70, Adolfo decided to retire from fashion design and rely on the income from his licensing agreements with various manufacturers. Licensed Adolfo merchandise, including menswear, hats and accessories, luggage, sportswear, furs and perfume, was retailed widely at all consumer levels from Bloomingdale's through to J. C. Penney and the television shopping network QVC. In 1993, Adolfo's licensing agreements for perfume sales alone had a wholesale return of over 5 million dollars. By 2014, Adolfo was once again designing for his ready-to-wear clothing lines. (wikipedia)

• • •

***ATTENTION: READERS AND FELLOW SOLVERS*** : It's early January, which means it's time once again for my annual week-long pitch for financial contributions to the blog. Every year I ask readers to consider what the blog is worth to them on an annual basis and give accordingly. 2026 is a big year for me, as Rex Parker Solves the NYT Crossword will celebrate its 20th birthday in September. Two decades. The big 2-0. A score of years. One score and no years ago, I brought forth on this Internet a new blog, conceived in ... I think I'll stop there, but you get the idea. I've been at this a long time, and while it has been my privilege and joy, it has also been (and continues to be) a lot of work. Very early mornings, no days off—well, no days off for the blog. I do have two very able regular subs (Mali and Clare) who write for me once a month, as well as a handful of other folks who stand in for me when I go on vacation. But otherwise, it's just me, every dang day, up by 4am, solving and writing. I've never been this disciplined about anything in my life. Ask anyone. "Is he disciplined about anything else?" "No, he is not. Just this one thing. It's weird." And it's because I have a responsibility to an audience (that's you). Even after nearly 20 years, I'm still genuinely stunned and exceedingly grateful that so many of you have made the blog a part of your daily routine. Ideally, it adds a little value to the solving experience. Teaches you something you didn't know, or helps you look at crosswords in a new way, or makes you laugh (my highest goal, frankly). Or maybe the blog simply offers a feeling of commiseration—a familiar voice confirming that yes, that clue was terrible, or yes, that themer set should have been tighter, or wow, yes, that answer was indeed beautiful. Whether you find it informative or comforting or entertaining or infuriating—or all of the above—if you're reading me on a fairly regular basis, there's something valuable you're getting out of the blog. And I couldn't be happier about that.

["That's upside-down, sweetheart"]

Hopefully by now you can tell that for better or worse, what you get from me is my honest, unvarnished feelings about a puzzle. There's an explanatory element too, sure, but this blog is basically one person's solving diary. Idiosyncratic. Personal. Human. I'm not interested in trying to guess consensus opinion. I'll leave that to A.I. All I can do, all I want to do, is tell you exactly what it was like for me to solve the puzzle—what I thought, what I felt. Because while solving may seem like mere box-filling to outsiders, crossword enthusiasts know that the puzzle actually makes us feel things—joy, anguish, confusion (confusion's a feeling, right?). Our feelings might not always be rational, but dammit, they're ours, and they're worth having. And sharing. I love that crosswords engage the messy, human side of you, as well as the objective, solution-oriented side. If I just wanted to fill in boxes, without any of the messy human stuff, I'd solve sudoku (no shade, sudoku fans, they're just not for me!).

[conferring w/ my editor]

Over the years, I have received all kinds of advice about "monetizing" the blog, invitations to turn it into a subscription-type deal à la Substack or Patreon. And maybe I'd make more money that way, I don't know, but that sort of thing has never felt right for me. And honestly, does anyone really need yet another subscription to manage? As I've said in years past, I like being out here on this super old-school blogging platform, just giving it away for free and relying on conscientious addicts like yourselves to pay me what you think the blog's worth. It's just nicer that way. How much should you give? Whatever you think the blog is worth to you on a yearly basis. Whatever that amount is is fantastic. Some people refuse to pay for what they can get for free. Others just don't have money to spare. All are welcome to read the blog—the site will always be open and free. But if you are able to express your appreciation monetarily, here are three options. First, a Paypal button (which you can also find in the blog sidebar on the homepage, as well as at the bottom of every write-up):

Second, a mailing address (checks can be made out to "Michael Sharp" or "Rex Parker") (be sure to date them with the new year, 2026!):

Rex Parker c/o Michael Sharp
54 Matthews St
Binghamton, NY 13905

The third, increasingly popular option is Venmo; if that's your preferred way of moving money around, my handle is @MichaelDavidSharp (the last four digits of my phone are 4878, in case Venmo asks you, which I guess it does sometimes, when it's not trying to push crypto on you, what the hell?!)

All Paypal contributions will be gratefully acknowledged by email. All Venmo contributions will get a little heart emoji, at a minimum :) All snail mail contributions will be gratefully acknowledged with hand-written postcards. I know snail mail is a hassle for most people, but I love it. I love seeing your (mostly) gorgeous handwriting and then sending you my (completely) awful handwriting. The human touch—it's nice. In recent years, my daughter has designed my annual postcards, but this year, grad school and NYC theater work are keeping her otherwise occupied, so I had to seek design help elsewhere. Enter Katie Kosma, who is not only a professional illustrator/designer, but (crucially!) a crossword enthusiast. She listened patiently to my long and disorganized list of ideas and in very short order was able to arrive at this year's design, inspired by film noir title cards. 

I'm very happy with how it turned out. The teeny boxes inside the letters, the copyright credit ("Natick Pictures, Inc."), and especially that pencil lamppost—mwah! I know most people solve online now, and many paper solvers prefer pen, but the pencil just feels iconic, and appropriate for the card's throwback vibe. That lamppost was entirely Katie's creation. She was a dream to work with. Can't say enough good things about her.

Please note: I don't keep a "mailing list" and don't share my contributor info with anyone. And if you give by snail mail and (for some reason) don't want a thank-you card, just indicate "NO CARD." 

Again, as ever, I'm so grateful for your readership. Please know that your support means a lot to me and my family. Now on to today's puzzle... 

• • •

This puzzle started bad and stayed bad—creatively bad, but still ... not good. Let's start with the NW corner, where before I really got started I already felt like giving up. Throwing in the towel. Packing it in. I had to stop after UHURA RARIN' UTERI and take a deep, "come-on-buddy-you-can-do-it" breath. 

That is some high-density junk. No professional should be throwing that much cruddy crosswordese at you, in such quantities, so early. Things did not get much better in adjacent sections, with the preposterous "I LOST" and then SIN BIN, a term I've only ever seen in crosswords (is it old-fashioned? I'm not a hockey fan but I have watched my share over the years and don't think I've heard it). GIT behind me, SIN BIN! There's a repulsive OTS NEWO IMS LDOPA stack in the NE ... the whole puzzle is just thick with crud. So even if the theme had been amazing, the overall experience was never gonna get above so-so because all this tired, unpolished fill was weighing it down. 

Sadly, I can't say the theme was amazing. Ambitious, yes. Conceptually clever ... in its way, for sure. But there are several wobbly aspects. First, having the revealer first makes things slightly awkward and anticlimactic. I had a lot of trouble parsing THERE'S NO TWO, but once that "W" from MAW dropped in, the whole answer became obvious, and I ended up getting all these free letters on the other side of the grid:

All that remained was to figure out what the hell the revealer meant, which was not obvious to me at first, perhaps because A MINORITY OF ONE was perhaps the hardest-to-parse Tuesday answer I've ever seen. It's chiefly the "A," I think. Articles aren't usually parts of answers. Then there's the relative uncommonness of the phrase, which maybe I've heard before? Not sure. To go from dreck fill to this weird long answer with mysteriously circled squares in it ... it was just not a game I was happy to be playing. Once I finally got that answer, I could see the NO and IT and ON, but the "TWO WAYS" in the revealer at first had me thinking that something would have to be read backwards—which is true, but I went ahead and read all the circled squares backward and got "NOTION." Which left me with 10 or seconds of "well ... I guess a 'NOTION' is an opinion, in a way, and so if one opinion (A MINORITY OF ONE) goes one way, and then another opinion (NOTION) goes the other way, then ... there *are* two ways about it? ... uh ... hmm ..." Eventually I let the "punny" quality of the revealer sink in, decided to take it *very* literally, and once I saw that NO IT ON were going to be visitors in the second themer as well, I finally saw what was going on. "NO" is facing two different ways, and both of those "NO"s are on either side of "IT." A visual pun. Great.

The second themer ended up being not much easier to parse than the first, largely because of the extremely terse and vague clue: 38A: Contrast. I came at it from the back end, and even having POSITION in place didn't help. So I've got a grid with relatively easy but extraordinarily ugly fill in it, and then I've got themer after torturous themer trying desperately to express the "punny" theme. The one themer that seemed to do so most naturally and fluidly was NO-WIN SITUATION. Unfortunately, that is the one themer that is disqualified because it contains "NO" as the word "NO" (whereas all the other "NO"s are hidden in their words). Worse, that "NO" actually crosses another "NO" (in NO CAP). If your theme is about hidden "NO"s, you have to do two things. One, actually *hide* all the damn "NO"s, and two, don't let any stray "NO"s appear in your grid. Because now you've got "NO" two ways about "IT" ... and also this other NO, don't pay attention to him, he doesn't count, not sure who invited him. I can see how this concept might've seemed like an interesting premise for a theme, but the execution of the theme made it all seem ... not worth it. I don't know if I'd be more kindly disposed to the theme if the fill hadn't been so terrible. It's possible. A clean grid goes a long way to helping me *appreciate* what you're doing with the theme. But even with a gleaming grid, I think the theme execution would've seemed ... ungainly. 

Almost all of the difficulty today lay in the themers. Even with the "help" from the revealer, those first two themers were a giant yikes. Otherwise, this was Tuesday-easy. But I'm not used to much of any resistance on a Tuesday, hence the "Medium-Challenging" rating (it was a little north of normal, difficulty-wise, for me). I assume NO CAP is no longer a mystery to any of you (49D: "For real!," in modern slang). Even if it's slang you somehow haven't heard from your kids or grandkids, you've definitely seen it in crossword grids now. Just two days ago, in fact. That means that NO CAP has appeared almost as many times this week (2) as it did all last year (3). Before that, it had appeared just once. I'm guessing NO CAP goes through the roof this year, as the newish five-letter phrase finally enters the wordlists of the constructing population and becomes more familiar to the solving population generally. Which means we'll be seeing NO CAP well after the phrase itself has stopped being used. See, for instance, PHAT, which has been chugging along steadily since 1998. As prevalent in recent years as it was then. Old slang never dies, it just haunts crosswords for eternity. It's rad!

Bullets:

• 1A: Lt. ___, communications officer on the original "Star Trek" (UHURA) — no Star Wars clues today (that's two whole days now!), but we do, sadly, get two Star *Treks*, which should count as one Star Wars (45A: Burton of "Star Trek: T.N.G." = LEVAR). Judges?  ... Sorry, judges say no violation, only a stern warning. Star Trek clues, like Star Wars clues, can also be tiresome and annoying and unimaginative, esp. if they come in bunches. LEVAR Burton has done other things! Vary your cluing! Get more creative with it! Anyway: Days Without a Star Wars or Star Trek Reference: 0.

• 3D: Amniocentesis targets (UTERI) — something about "targets" feels off to me. Like, I'm imagining a video game where our hero, Amniocentesis, has to shoot down giant flying UTERI. UTERI Flying Overhead! (UFO).  UTERI is already a silly plural to begin with, no need to call attention to it with weird clue phrasing.
• 32D: In short supply, as energy (AT A LOW EBB) — the puzzle's second four-word answer (after the six-word revealer). This one wasn't quite as hard to parse as the others.
• 23D: Spicy Sweet Chili chip (DORITO) — One is the loneliest DORITO that you'll ever do. Two can be as bad as one—they're the loneliest DORITOs since DORITO one. (a single DORITO always seems so sad) (not as said as VIEWAS, which really was not built to stand alone ... but pretty sad)

That's all for today. See you next time.

Signed, Rex Parker, King of CrossWorld

[Follow Rex Parker on BlueSky and Facebook and Letterboxd]
=============================
❤️ Support this blog ❤️: 

• Venmo (@MichaelDavidSharp)]

=============================
✏️ Upcoming Crossword Tournaments ✏️

• American Crossword Puzzle Tournament (Stamford, CT, Apr. 10-12, 2026) (registration opens January 8!)

=============================
📘 My other blog 📘:

• Pop Sensation (vintage paperbacks)

Read more...