Summer is always a fun time for crossword fans who enjoy a good tournament.
Westwords wrapped up a few weeks ago, as did the first World Cryptic Crossword Championship in London. Boswords is less than a week away, Lollapuzzoola is coming up in August, and the 7th Bryant Park Crossword Tournament not long after in September!
And while discussing the Scripps National Spelling Bee with a friend recently, they asked me, as a puzzle guy, if I thought that crosswords could ever become a spectator sport like that.
While crossword tournaments aren’t currently televised, I happily informed him that crosswords are pretty much already a spectator sport.
Every year, people at the ACPT not only enjoy watching the live-solved final puzzle, but they get commentary from Greg Pliska and Ophira Eisenberg!
Tournament finals are often live-solved in front of their fellow competitors, adding some drama and showmanship to these wonderful puzzly events.
We’re even getting behind-the-scenes videos on the tournaments now, like this one for Westwords:
But in terms of crosswords as a spectator sport, the World Cryptic Crossword Championship took things a step further.
The final round of the tournament wasn’t a live-solved puzzle, it was a single cryptic-style clue. No crossing letters or grid for context. Just the clue, and the competitor only had ten seconds to solve it before the next competitor took their shot.
I’ve never had to solve a puzzle in front of an audience like all the tournament finalists, but I can imagine it’s nerve-wracking. But giving someone a cryptic-style clue with NO context letters and ten seconds to solve it in front of an audience?
Good lord, thank you for the new anxiety nightmare fuel, WCCC.
That being said, it was an entertaining watch, and another step forward for crosswords as a spectator sport:
What do you think, fellow puzzler? Will we be seeing the ACPT or another puzzle tournament on an ESPN sister channel soon? Or perhaps as an Olympic event?
Let us know in the comments section below! We’d love to hear from you.
Other times, a major portion of an episode revolves around them. We’ve seen this countless times from shows as diverse as The Simpsons and NCIS: New Orleans.
But I didn’t realize an entire plot for world domination once hinged on a puzzle.
Pinky and the Brain was a spinoff of a recurring series of animated shorts from the show Animaniacs, and the concept was simple.
Two mice plotted to take over the world from their lab cage, and their plans were invariably foiled by either Pinky’s idiocy or Brain’s almost magical ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The schemes ranged from time travel and mind control to hypnotic songs and (my personal favorite) a papier mache duplicate of Earth.
But on February 21st, 1998, the show aired its 53rd episode, The Family That Poits Together, Narfs Together.
The Brain’s latest plan for global domination targeted the intellectual elite by sabotaging the daily crossword in every newspaper in the world.
Here, I’ll let The Brain explain his diabolical endeavor:
This is the Sunday crossword puzzle. The most educated people all around the world spend hours each weekend deciphering its complex web of interlocking verbiage. But change just one clue, and the whole puzzle becomes impossible to solve…
I will change one clue in the crossword puzzle in every newspaper around the globe, throwing the intelligentsia into a hopeless dither. While they frantically ripple through their dictionaries and thesauri, I will step into the breach, and take over the world!
Unfortunately, he needs $25,000 to fund this operation (including the cost of bagels with cream cheese), so he plans to reunite Pinky’s family and put them on a talk show to win the prize for the world’s most perfect family.
Naturally, shenanigans ensue — and Eric Idle plays both Pinky’s mom AND dad, which is very entertaining — but the family actually wins the prize!
A trip around the world valued at $25,000.
The Brain’s dastardly plans have been scuttled once more.
But that does raise the question…
Would it have worked?
(Let’s ignore for the moment the fact that the intelligentsia for the most part aren’t currently in positions of power, especially in the United States.)
In a world before resources like Xwordinfo and online forums where solvers can share their grievances, it could have given the puzzle solvers of the world pause.
Especially on a Sunday, where you’d think at least some of them would be at home and not at their various important duties.
So there could have been a window.
But was The Brain equipped to seize that opportunity? Did he have the manpower to be in all those places? To snatch up those resources and reins of power for himself?
I don’t think so. Not on a budget of $25,000 (which again, covered the crossword modification and snacks, NOT the ensuing power grab). That’s barely gonna cover a few henchmen, even at 1998 prices.
So, sadly, I think the plan would have failed.
BUT!
He would have had the personal victory of denying that moment of solving satisfaction to puzzlers around the world.
Which is arguably even more villainous.
What do you think, fellow solver? Would it have worked? You can watch the episode for free here on Dailymotion.
And to close out today’s post, let’s enjoy an earworm together and listen to that marvelous theme song:
Truth is often stranger than fiction, as they say, and as someone who regularly creates quizzes, games, and puzzles for friends to unravel, that’s a core tenet of one of my favorite game styles: Real or Fake Games.
Real or Fake Games are quite simple. I present the player(s) with something — a headline, an animal, a fortune cookie fortune, the plot synopsis of an episode of The Simpsons — and they have to tell me if it’s real or fake.
So today, I’ve crafted a Real or Fake Game for you, fellow puzzler. Below are titles of TV shows, accompanied by a brief description. Can you sort the genuine article from the ones I made up?
Let’s find out!
1: Something Rotten in Denny’s
In this short-lived translation of Hamlet into an American restaurant, Ham tries to endure the mistreatment of management and find happiness while serving big ol’ stacks of pancakes.
2: Small & Frye
Nick Small and Chip Frye are a private-eye team with a twist. Frye has the ability to shrink to six inches in height, which gives him a slight advantage in investigating cases.
3: The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer
A black English nobleman is chased out of England due to gambling debts and becomes President Abraham Lincoln’s valet during the civil war. Oh, and it’s a comedy. About slavery.
4: Byrds of Pray
A comedy about all the shenanigans involved in running a small-town church that’s ALL about the fundraisers, this stars George Gaynes as Reverend Nehemiah Byrd, a bumbling priest who means to do good… but does it badly.
5: Occasional Wife
When his boss won’t promote unmarried men, Peter strikes a deal with a pretty young woman named Greta Patterson. If Greta pretends to be Peter’s wife, in return Peter will pay for her art lessons and set her up in an apartment two floors above his. (All their scampering up and down the fire escape gave the unnamed man who lived in the apartment between them — credited as Man-in-Middle — quite a bit to watch!)
6: Dial S for Santa
Yeah, this one has Santa Claus helping his detective daughter solve crimes in his off-time during the year. By checking the naughty list, sneaking into houses through the chimney, and occasionally throwing coal to distract bad guys, Santa (played by Ed Asner) and a young Teri Polo give this one socks.
7: The Second Hundred Years
A 33-year-old prospector in 1900 is buried in a freak Alaskan avalanche. 67 years later another avalanche thawed him out and he was returned alive to his astonished 67-year-old son and 33-year-old grandson. Although chronologically Luke was 101 years old, physically he was still 33 years old, just like his grandson. The two looked nearly identical but acted nothing alike.
8: The Vidocq Society
Appearing on TV two decades before true crime conquered the world, this short-run pseudo-documentary follows volunteer detectives and off-duty law enforcement solving cold cases. Too gritty for the time, people would be ALL over this one nowadays.
9: The Same Deep Waters as You
In the heyday of the soap opera boom, a harbor town is a haven for smuggling, betrayal, and sexy PG trysts. Featuring a little-seen cameo from young Tom Hanks, as well as soap opera powerhouses Eric Braeden and Deidre Hall, this late ’70s offering only lasted two seasons.
10: Mr. Smith
A top secret formula bestows upon an orangutan the power of speech and an IQ of 256. Now smarter than most humans, the orangutan formerly known as Cha Cha was given the name Mr. Smith and a job with the United States government as a consultant, advising top-level politicians on the most classified of subjects. He dressed in suits and wore glasses.
11: Woops!
An ensemble comedy about the six least likely survivors of a nuclear accident. The series was set in the aftermath of accidental global nuclear war, started when two boys playing with a toy at a parade accidentally set off a nuclear missile, which soon led to a nuclear apocalypse.
12: The Carolina
A sinister drama about a hotel frequented by celebrities (based on the Dakota), The Carolina jammed drug abuse, murder, and satanic rituals into only eight episodes, ending on a completely bonkers note when a secret spiral staircase in the basement leads directly to Hell!
13: West Virginia, MD
Three years before Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman and The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., we got a funny frontier doctor with a cowboy twist in West Virginia, MD. This gun-toting doctor was screwed out of his reputation and ventured west to help out during the gold rush. Kind to Indians and women (SHOCKER), this show only lasted one season.
14: Flockstars
A group of eight celebrities engage in sheepherding. The stars, which included actresses, a rapper, and a Paralympic athlete, were mentored by sheepherding experts. Its one saving grace was how attractive the shepherds who mentored the celebrities were.
15: Poochinski
The touching story of a police officer whose soul is absorbed into a flatulent bulldog’s body after he is killed in the line of duty. Voiced by Peter Boyle, Stanley Poochinski is easily the weirdest crime show character in history.
16: Dead at 29
One of the first edgy cable dramas, this one-season wonder features a young woman on the run from the government after escaping a lab after being experimented on. When a plague causes half the population to die the day before their 30th birthday, Callie Sparrow discovers that she and other subjects were helping the government CREATE the plague, not cure it.
17: Pour One Out
A middle-aged bartender (played by James Cromwell) has a knack for getting people to admit their secrets, and he teams up with (you guessed it!) a police detective to solve mysteries in a gritty Gotham-esque New York City neighborhood. But when they discover a mob boss is immune to his powers, they must go on the run to protect themselves and take Big Vinnie down.
18: Manimal
This single-season NBC sci-fi show followed Dr. Jonathan Chase, who inexplicably had the power to turn into any animal at will, and used his power to solve crime.
19: The Cuddlebugs!
What if bed bugs, but cute? This failed kids show featured the weird world between your mattress and the boxspring, and for some reason was populated with brightly colored bugs. For totally understandable reasons, this one only lasted 30 episodes.
20: Oh Sit!
The original title of this series was Extreme Musical Chairs. Basically, contestants compete in ridiculous obstacle courses while a live band plays in the background, and their performance determines how much money they win.
Were you able to tell the real TV shows from the figments of my imagination? Did you remember some of these short-lived television disasters? Let me know in the comments section below, I’d love to hear from you!
Years ago I wrote a blog post discussing how crosswords have to walk a tightrope, balancing topicality and freshness vs. familiarity and family-friendly content.
I mentioned that older solvers may decry newer names, slang, terminology, or pop culture references, while younger solvers will bemoan not just older references they consider passe, but long-established crossword-friendly words they quickly tire of seeing.
And it’s frustrating to still encounter an elitist mentality when it comes to certain crossword solvers.
Now, you’re obviously allowed to have preferences when it comes to grid fill and cluing. But there’s a line, and these elitists stomp across it, barking all the way.
I’ve had commenters rant about the “ignorant ghetto language” in the LA Times crossword, citing “sup,” “did,” and “street cred.” And recently, a commenter shared their annoyance at pop culture references in crosswords, claiming that “doing a puzzle is a test of one’s general knowledge of history, science, and the arts.”
And I’m sorry, but that’s simply untrue. Doing a puzzle — specifically a crossword — is a test of one’s ability to answer clues, deduce words from letter placement, and test one’s vocabulary and knowledge of MANY facets of culture, pop or otherwise.
Different venues will provide different solving experiences, and you’re welcome to cherry-pick your crossword outlets that fit your preferences, but you don’t get to wholesale dismiss other puzzles, grid fill, clues, and content simply because you consider it beneath you.
If we construct a puzzle for the average solver, are we really constructing a puzzle for anyone at all? Or has all the life been sucked out of the puzzle, all the potential for anyone to connect with its quirks?
I love seeing a constructor’s preferences, humor, and interests reflect in a puzzle’s grid fill and cluing. There’s such personality to it!
And it’s a very slippery slope to want puzzles limited to what YOU consider relatable.
Years ago, I was amazed when anyone outside the tri-state area had heard of Action Park, but now, thanks to a documentary about that now-infamous entertainment venue, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear it referenced by someone from either coast of the US or beyond!
Mystery Science Theater 3000, the beloved comedy show where a presenter and their robot chums throw zingers at z-grade movies, used to be famed for its Wisconsin- and Minnesota-specific references and humor. As a teenager from Connecticut, I didn’t get all of them (thankfully, a friend from Wisconsin was able to fill those knowledge gaps for me), but I still very much enjoyed the show.
Later, when it was brought back through Kickstarter campaigns and a Netflix revival, writers from outside the Wisconsin/Minnesota area got to add their experiences and references to the show. Some fans complained that it was no longer their niche little treat, but I for one loved hearing references from my pop cultural childhood that never would’ve graced an MST3K episode from years past.
It’s fine not to know something. It’s not a flaw.
I certainly have my weaknesses when it comes to certain topics and fields of interest. Anyone matched up against me in Learned League should be rooting for questions about flowers, artists, and the names of athletes. I haven’t put in the time to educate myself on those topics, so I can’t be mad when I don’t get some of those trivia questions.
But when it comes to crosswords, I don’t get angry when I don’t know an entry or a reference. I look it up and learn and move on. Hardly a week goes by without learning a new word or phrase from Puzzmo crosswords and cluing. Heck, I’ve lost count of the cultural references and names I’ve learned from collections like A Trans Person Made Your Puzzle and Juliana Pache’s Black Crosswords!
There’s no shame in not knowing something.
There SHOULD, however, be shame in refusing to learn. There SHOULD be shame in excluding things that don’t fit YOUR definition of “culture.” To dismiss pop culture, to dismiss the unfamiliar, is to limit yourself and diminish the art of crosswords.
To argue, as that commenter did, that “sports, transient celebrities, and TV shows” aren’t part of general knowledge or are somehow inferior to their definition of “culture” is unfortunately fighting the tide of how culture works.
Puzzles are constantly evolving as we evolve, and whether you call it culture or pop culture, it all belongs in a crossword grid. We should be making puzzles MORE inclusive, not less.
In closing, I am inspired one last time by our commenter, who said that “a quote from Virginia Wolfe is more resonant than the title of a children’s book written by a former model or ice skater.”
So let’s wrap up this post with a quote from both Virginia Woolf and a quote from a children’s book with quite the resonant title, shall we?
“Lock up your libraries if you like; but there is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon the freedom of my mind.” — Virginia Woolf, A Room of One’s Own
“I’ll solve a puzzle, read a book, and learn a fun new fact!” — Jessica Hische, Tomorrow I’ll Be Brave
One of the first women I mentioned was Richard Simon’s aunt. According to the lore of Simon & Schuster, she was the one who inspired Simon to publish a limited release book — the first crossword puzzle book — that launched their publishing empire.
While I was writing that post, I spent a little time researching, and I never came across her actual name. Everywhere I looked, it was simply Richard Simon’s aunt.
And that question festered in my brain for a while.
So, one day, I reached out to Simon & Schuster directly, asking for more information on Simon’s influential aunt. I heard back from Hannah Brattesani, their backlist manager, who not only volunteered to comb through the various company histories, but also suggested a book for my research (Turning the Pages by Peter Schwed).
While Hannah investigated from the S&S side of things, I decided to pursue what was publicly available about the Simon family tree. Perhaps I could look up his aunt directly and find a name that way.
I found that Richard L. Simon was the son of Leo Leopold Simon and Anna Simon (nee Mayer). Leo apparently only had brothers, while Anna’s only sister, Julia, died young.
Okay, that was a dead-end. Ah! But what about women who married into the family?
Anna’s brother Max Reinhard Meyer married a woman named Harriet and Leo’s brother Alfred Leopold Simon married a woman named Hedwig.
So we have two possibilities, but nothing concrete tying either of them to crosswords or S&S’s early days.
I heard back from Hannah, who unfortunately came up empty while searching the S&S archives. The closest we got was a reference from a book celebrating S&S’s 75th anniversary, mentioning “Mr. Simon’s strong-willed aunt.”
Sadly, not an actual picture of Richard Simon’s aunt…
Before I continue, I want to take a moment to ponder all the different permutations of the Richard Simon’s aunt story. For a casual anecdote that adds charm to a business’s first success story, there are a surprising number of variations.
In Turning the Pages and The Centenary of the Crossword, the story goes that Dick Simon had been asked by his aunt for a little help with a crossword puzzle to which she had become addicted. She considered there should be a book of these published.
In an article in Pressreader, she asked him where she could buy a book of crosswords like the ones in her favorite newspaper.
In What’s Gnu?: A History of the Crossword Puzzle by Michelle Arnot, she wants a collection of crossword puzzles for her daughter, an avid fan of the weekly puzzle in The World. In The Crossword Century and Thinking Inside the Box, Simon goes to dinner with his aunt, whose niece was addicted to crosswords.
So the only common threads are Simon, his aunt, and crosswords. Sometimes it’s for her (described as “puzzle mad” or, as we’ve already seen, “strong-willed”), or her daughter, or her niece, or a friend. Sometimes he notices her solving crosswords, sometimes she tells him. Sometimes it’s at her house, or over tea, or at dinner.
Sure, lots of anecdotes evolve over the decades. Any story from your family probably has a number of variations, depending on who tells the tale.
But it’s fascinating that such a fundamental moment in S&S’s history doesn’t really have an official version as part of the narrative.
So, we have Richard Simon, his aunt, and crosswords. Those were the common threads.
And it was the third one in that list that finally led me to her name. Not crosswords per se, but crossword history.
There are several marvelous books about the history of crosswords — I’ll post a list of my sources at the bottom of today’s post — and wouldn’t you know it, several of them include a name for Simon’s aunt!
Well, not a name. A nickname.
Wixie.
Yes, it’s somehow so brilliantly fitting that the woman who launched crossword publishing (for herself, a daughter, a niece, whomever) would have a whimsical nickname like that.
Aunt Wixie.
As it turns out, this nickname was sort of an open secret in the annals of crossword history and I’d managed to miss it in my previous searches across the internet. My grand mystery would have been solved much faster if I’d simply asked some of my fellow puzzlers and puzzle historians.
But I wasn’t disappointed to learn that I was late to the table. On the contrary, I was excited to add “Wixie” to the search parameters and see what I came up with.
A few more online sources were revealed, but sadly, not much else about Aunt Wixie herself.
Now, sharp-eyed readers, you’ve probably come to the same conclusion I did at this point.
Thinking back to what I’d learned about the Simon family tree, I had two possible aunts who had married into the family who could be our crossword-loving inspiration.
One was Harriet and one was Hedwig.
It seems like a natural conclusion that Aunt Wixie and Aunt Hedwig would be one and the same. But none of the sources, paper or digital, ever mentioned her real name.
I could’ve called it here, and written my blog post, and gone on my merry way.
But I wanted that last piece of puzzle that I could definitively point to and say, this, this is her.
In all those Google Books links and online articles, there was one source I couldn’t view publicly, because it was behind a paywall. Naturally, it was also the oldest source I could find online that came up using “Wixie” as a keyword: an issue of Publisher’s Weekly from 1954.
And I could read it… for a fee.
You may find it funny that I balked at spending twenty bucks for access to an article. But I did. I mean, none of the other sources told me more than her nickname and some variation on the crossword book creation myth. Would this one be any different?
As it turns out, yes, yes it would.
From the writeup in Publisher’s Weekly:
Among the devotees of the World’s crosswords was a New York Lady, Mrs. Alfred L. Simon. She had a nephew named Richard L. Simon to whom she was known as Aunt Wixie.
It is so perfectly typical that the smoking gun in my search for Richard Simon’s aunt’s name STILL doesn’t directly mention her by name, using her husband’s name instead. What an insanely fitting denouement.
Nonetheless, I finally had the connective tissue to tie the whole story together. From my deep dive into the Simon family tree, I knew that Mrs. Alfred L. Simon was none other than Hedwig Simon (nee Meier), our elusive Aunt Wixie.
So what do we know about Hedwig?
Sadly, very little. She was born in Frankfurt Am Main, Regierungsbezirk Darmstadt, HE, Germany on February 27, 1868. She had two children, Robert and Helen (hopefully a puzzle lover like her mother, depending on the story), and she died in May 26, 1932 in Manhattan.
That’s it. Several Hedwig Simons come up when you search the name, but unfortunately, I wasn’t able to find anything else I could verify was truly about Aunt Wixie.
Date of birth. Names of her children. Date of death. That’s all we know.
Oh, we actually do know one other thing.
We know that she, in some way, influenced the creation of the very first crossword puzzle book, helping to launch a literary dynasty that lasts to this very day.
But did she though?
It turns out… there’s an asterisk on the historical record that’s worth mentioning.
There is a chance that this entire story is apocryphal, and the influential hand of Aunt Wixie in Simon & Schuster’s earliest days was not as influential as the story makes it seem.
Michelle Arnot reported in her book that Margaret Farrar, first crossword puzzle editor for The New York Times, had her doubts about Aunt Wixie’s role in the creation of S&S’s first crossword book.
In the foreword to Eugene T. Maleska’s 1984 book Across and Down: The Crossword Puzzle World, Farrar herself wrote:
There had never been a book of crosswords and Dick Simon’s aunt had suggested one. (Dick later admitted to me that this was all a joke, even unto the framed memo up on the office wall noting this earth-shaking idea.)
Could Aunt Wixie’s role in the history of crosswords simply be Richard Simon’s invention to help sell crossword books and add some whimsy and down-home family charm to Simon & Schuster’s first of many success story?
Margaret Farrar seemed to think so, and she was one of the most respected names in puzzles.
If this IS the case, Simon seemed to go out of his way to sell the story. He had a framed memo on his wall, as Farrar mentioned. He had a presentation copy of the first crossword puzzle book inscribed by both himself and Max Schuster to Aunt Wixie (the note pictured above), which was returned to Richard Simon upon her death, and which now resides in Will Shortz’s private collection.
Will’s collection also includes a copy of 1925’s Celebrities’ Cross Word Puzzle Book, a collection by S&S featuring puzzles created by (you guessed it) celebrities. It’s a leatherbound presentation copy specially printed for “Aunt Wixie.”
By the end of 1924, S&S already had four bestselling crossword compilations on the shelves. By the time The Celebrities’ Cross Word Puzzle Book was published in 1925, would Simon still have bothered with perpetuating the Aunt Wixie story, given the runaway success of S&S’s crossword puzzle books?
It seems a tad unnecessary.
The many variations on how Aunt Wixie, Simon, and crosswords influenced that first puzzle book could mean the story was made up, taking on a life of its own as it was shared anecdotally. Or it could mean that it’s true, as many stories from a hundred years ago have variations from being shared over and over again, retold many times. It’s hard to say either way.
That first book sparked a long, successful series…
I choose to believe that Hedwig Simon was in fact the impetus behind that first book. Maybe it’s naive to want her to be a true crossword enthusiast (or the mother of one, or the aunt of one), and not simply one more corporate invention to sell something to someone.
But I’m okay with that.
I’m happy to have spent this time and energy trying to unearth her name and learn a bit more about her, and I’m hoping that I might have the opportunity in the future to continue learning about her.
And I’m happy that this post, in some small way, might bend search algorithms and lead more people to associate the name Hedwig Simon with Simon & Schuster’s successes.
Narratively, I probably shot myself in the foot a little by putting her name in the title of the blog post. But this entire endeavor has been about learning more about her, learning her name, and it would be the height of selfishness to bury it in hundreds of words of text just for a ta-da moment.
So, in closing, let me just say, thanks Aunt Wixie, and it was nice to meet you, albeit very briefly, Hedwig.
My sincere thanks to Hannah Brattesani of Simon & Schuster, Rebecca Rego Barry of finebooksmagazine.com, and especially Ben Zimmer, who provided several key sources and links (and confirmed that the Publisher’s Weekly was the earliest source on the subject).
Sources:
-Turning the Pages: An Insider’s Story of Simon & Schuster 1924-1984 by Peter Schwed -What’s Gnu?: A History of the Crossword Puzzle by Michelle Arnot -The Centenary of the Crossword by John Halpern -The Crossword Century by Alan Connor -Thinking Inside the Box: Adventures with Crosswords and the Puzzling People Who Can’t Live Without Them by Adrienne Raphel -Publishers Weekly (April 17, 1954, Volume 165, Issue 16)
Hey there, fellow puzzler. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before:
Ah yes, the riddle of the two guards. Also known as the two doors puzzle, the two guards/two doors puzzle, and, my personal favorite, that awful crap riddle.
It’s easily the most famous example of a Knights and Knaves logic puzzle, which all work off the idea of individuals who always lie or always tell the truth, and a solver who needs to deduce how to proceed.
I think the best and most colorful presentation of the riddle was in the film Labyrinth, thanks to Jennifer Connolly and some very lovely puppetry:
I’ve always wondered about this riddle. Is there a sign posted that explains the rules? Because otherwise, you’d assume the guard who tells the truth would have to explain the rules…
Unless the one who lies tells you the rules, which are a lie, and it’s a trap and you’re totally screwed!
Geez, this is getting complicated already.
Oh good, I’m not the only one who agonizes over this sort of thing. Image courtesy of Crabgrass Comic.
Let’s assume the rules are fair. There’s a guard who always lies and a guard who always tells the truth, and you need a single question to root out which door is the safe one to enter.
The traditional answer is to ask one guard which door the OTHER guard would say leads out.
But what if one of the guards is INVISIBLE?!
If the guard you asked is the one who lies, then he will lead you astray by telling you (falsely) that the other guard—the truthful guard—will point you towards door B. This makes door A the safe bet.
If the guard you ask is the one who tells the truth, he will tell you (honestly) that the other guard—the lying guard—will point you towards door B. This makes door A the safe bet.
In both cases, the outcome is the same: walk through the opposite door.
Naturally, people have tried to find ways around this.
Some suggest that you ask the guards to walk through their respective doors and report back what they see. I don’t know that this would work, because it’s not clear if the guards would have to follow your orders. Also, we don’t know if certain doom for US would be certain doom for the guards. If they both walk out totally fine, it probably won’t work.
For another option, you can act in typical Dungeons and Dragons-fueled fashion and use what I call the direct approach:
But unfortunately, it misses the meat of the riddle. It’s not just knowing which guard lies and which guard tells the truth, it’s about knowing which door to take as well.
Of course, if you believe the folks at XKCD, there are consequences for cleverness as well:
Although it is a riddle easily given to weasel words and pedantry, it has led to some wonderful comedy.
This joke, for instance, gives us some much-needed backstory to the guards and their current circumstances:
In a similar vein, this one lets us see one guard’s life after clocking out for the day:
I also enjoy this one, which ponders what sort of person would employ a riddle like this as a security measure in the first place:
So I put it to you, fellow puzzler: how would you tackle the riddle of the two guards? Labyrinth style? Barbarian style? Or have you conjured up a different question to ask the guards?
Let us know in the comment section below. We’d love to hear from you!