[zem]

yep, the thematic entries are nothing like cryptics; the only similarity is that they both involve wordplay. the wordplay here is closer to jokes like "what fruit wanted to conquer the world?" "alexander the grape!" - that is, while the answer will not be a real word or phrase as would be required in a cryptic, it will be logically derivable from the theme and the clue.

one interesting thing about the non-thematic entries in an american crossword is that the only form of wordplay they allow is what in cryptic parlance would be called a "cryptic definition", that is, a clue which is a straight definition in which the words need to be read laterally. the nyt cryptic definitions are as good as any i've seen in the guardian, particularly my all-time favourite,

John, to Ringo (3)

for LOO

[whoisburbansky]

I don't actually get how "John, to Ringo" translates to LOO, would you mind explaining?

[Edit]: Ah, totally missed the toilet connotation, thanks folks!

[SlickNik]

I suspect - John is slang for the toilet, and Ringo here would be an Englishman - so what would an Englishman call a toilet? A loo. groan

[simondw]

"John" is another word for bathroom. So is "loo", at least in the variety of English that Ringo speaks.

[zem]

specifically, 'john' is american slang for a toilet; the corresponding british slang is 'loo'. 'ringo' is an example of a very well known englishman, so 'to ringo' is an acceptable indicator to clue 'to an englishman'.