Submitting elsewhere after NYT rejection

[maia.mcc]

Well, I've achieved that constructor rite of passage: I got my first NYT rejection! And it was pretty positive, for a rejection: they said the puzzle made them smile and the fill was very clean, just that the theme entries didn't hang together quiet enough. As far as I can tell (and I think my mentor agrees), it's a not-perfect but pretty solid puzzle, though not up to the Times' standards (understandably!).

What are people's thoughts on submitting this puzzle to other publications without edits? Or is that a tacky move? (I assume one doesn't preamble "lol this got rejected by the Times so I thought I'd try you", but like, is the fact that I submitted to the Times something to mention, or not bring up?)

[mmcbs]

Of course you should try others, and no need to mention previous rejection. Make sure to tweak the puzzle to conform to the editor's specs, for example LA Times uses 2 underscores for FITB.

[Wheels12]

You should definitely submit elsewhere, but usually if one paper doesn't like the theme enough, it's likely that other publications will feel the same way. Is there any chance you can rework the puzzle to get the themers to hang together a bit better? That would be my recommendation. Of course, easier said than done. If you can't find a way to rework it, then certainly submit it to other publications.

[axlrosen]

Yes, it's perfectly normal to make your way through the various publications.

And I think you should send it as a theme query to the other papers, not a full puzzle, since everyone except NYT and LAT accept them. That lets them suggest tweaks more easily.

[Judythelibrarian]

I am also a new constructor.  I have 8 rejections in total now, from three different newspapers.  What do you mean by sending a theme query?  How much do you include?
   Thanks, Judy

[axlrosen]

Basically, you include whatever they need in order to evaluate your theme. Most commonly that will be the theme entries, including the revealer if there is one, and their clues. And possibly the puzzle's title, if it's important to the theme (or if you just like it and think it might help). You don't send a grid (unless it's a non-standard style of theme that needs to be seen to be understood).

Then the editor will tell you if they like it as-is, or it's not for them, or it has potential with some revision. After you settle on the theme, they will typically ask you to create a grid and/or fill that they approve, and then finally provide all the clues.

You can look at the various publishers specs, and see which ones accept theme queries. (And be aware that WSJ accepts theme queries for all puzzles, even though their spec may not have been updated.)

Make sense?

[andrewmc]

Well, I've achieved that constructor rite of passage: I got my first NYT Crossword rejection! And it was pretty positive, for a rejection: they said the puzzle made them smile and the fill was very clean, just that the theme entries didn't hang together quiet enough. As far as I can tell (and I think my mentor agrees), it's a not-perfect but pretty solid puzzle, though not up to the Times' standards (understandably!).

What are people's thoughts on submitting this puzzle to other publications without edits? Or is that a tacky move? (I assume one doesn't preamble "lol this got rejected by the Times so I thought I'd try you", but like, is the fact that I submitted to the Times something to mention, or not bring up?)

Hi Maia,

Please don't let one refusal affect your mood or overall crossword experience. I can name probably over 5 world-class cruciverbalists that have had a lot of refusals from major publishers during all these years so my advise is to never give up and try another place. There is nothing wrong with mentioning that you were refused by NYT.

[Kem Balani]

July 08, 2021
To Mala and Other Commentators on This Topic:
Rejections are common from the NYT. Judy received 8 of them. Take a guess how many I got BEFORE my first crossword was accepted?.

26 (TWENTY SIX) REJECTIONS! Persistence pays. That includes 2 editors - Eugene T. Maleska and Will Shortz. But Will did reply when I requested a detailed questions. That was very pleasing to me. I don't think he'll do that now, even with 4 people assisting him now.

Sometimes it can take 26 years to get something you desire, accomplished. Obviously, you would not want to spend SO MUCH TIME. Or it can take 26 months. That is still too long. Maybe 26 weeks? So how much time SHOULD it take? That is the WRONG question to ask.

The correct question is: how much study and FOCUS is needed? That depends on doing the RIGHT things, and in the RIGHT way. Your success is also dependent on the level of STRENGTH of your desire. So with that type of focus, you may get lucky with an acceptance in just 13 weeks (average running time now between submission and reply). 

At that time there were practically no other major puzzle buyers. The fact that the NYT pays $500 for a daily, $1500 for a Sunday (plus a 50% bonus after your third one) answers the question as why it is NOT easy getting getting one accepted. Buy yourself some collections of
published NYT crosswords. Study them closely and do them.

And ask published constructors what types of puzzles Will likes. Every editor has likes and preferences on topics, as well as new words that have not appeared in puzzles elsewhere. Then, construct accordingly. Begin with making the lot-less-time-consuming daily 15x ones.

I hit a 'world record' when I became the FIRST Asian Indian to have had a crossword published in the Sunday NYT Magazine on Nov. 21, 2004 - Thanksgiving weekend - with "National Holiday". See it here in the Puzzle database under Balani. 

Good luck Mala, and others. Any questions on my limited crossword experience and insight, ask me here. I learn from more published (and possibly full-time) constructors.

Kumar (Kem) Balani