WSJ Saturday is a cryptic

[Meg]

It’s a good one. Having fun!

[spotter]

I'm always disappointed when Saturdays are cryptic (or acrostic for that matter). I keep trying them and keep not getting any better. I wish all you other muggles luck with this one!

[Meg]

I'm always disappointed when Saturdays are cryptic (or acrostic for that matter). I keep trying them and keep not getting any better. I wish all you other muggles luck with this one!

Cryptics are an acquired taste. It takes a bit to become familiar with the types of clues. I have to say that the brain stretching involved comes in handy with metas. How can I look at this another day? Of course, to each his / her / their own.

[Richard B.]

For me, solving a good cryptic clue is almost as satisfying as solving a good meta.
The directions in this one from Cox and Rathvon are as about as straightforward as we’ve seen of theirs in the WSJ.

[Joe Ross]

It will take a few minutes to modify an Excel form for this puzzle. Look for a link to it, here, in the morning, please.

[Joe Ross]

It will take a few minutes to modify an Excel form for this puzzle. Look for a link to it, here, in the morning, please.

WSJ Digital Conversion Cryptic 20200613 Excel form link

[ChrisKochmanski]

Enjoyed!

I've been doing cryptics since the mid-'80s -- starting with Roy Blount, Jr.'s cryptic in Spy magazine. (Anyone remember that? His explanations of the previous month's answers were hilarious!)

Over the years, I've become good enough at cryptics that they now generally need to have a variety element to be challenging. There are only so many styles of cryptic clues, and when you get to know them all well, a common cryptic crossword can become more or less like a puzzling warm-up. No big strain. (Exception: Someone pointed me to the stumper cryptics in The London Times, and I soon gave up on them. Way too hard for me. Many clues are truly CRYPTIC; they don't necessarily abide by the cryptic rules I'm accustomed to.)

Point being: If you're tempted by cryptics, but getting frustrated by them, you may want to stick out a few, really work through them, because you could get over the hump, like I did, several decades ago, and you'll then look forward to a good variety cryptic like in today's WSJ.

Another possible exception: these variety cryptics from Kevin Wald (http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~wald/misccryptics.html); they're only recommended for the deeply skilled. Some are fairly easy, but many are co complicated -- they have so much variety -- that you may need to devote a whole weekend or more to getting through one. Earlier this week, I picked one, downloaded it, started it -- then gave up about 10 minutes later!

[SewYoung]

Finally finished this one. Kept coming back to it and adding on or two every time. Still not quite getting all the word play on "Normal Clue O", but confident I got the right answer.

[BethA]

Cryptic novice here. I enjoyed and solved several starting late last year, then got rather discouraged on the last couple. But accidentally being deprived of cable and internet since yesterday afternoon, gave me the opportunity to attack this one! Solved and enjoyed it! Good to get back on the horse!