The Stickler Weekly 49 Solution

I read with interest posts by solvers who proclaim clues as creative but slightly of the mark. To me, these two terms can’t co-exist in a cryptic clue sense. It’s no good if an architect’s elaborate design can’t be built: the architect’s design is in fact worthless no matter how good it looks. Likewise, a cryptic clue with an elaborate device that fails to deliver is simply a faulty clue. During the writing of almost 150,000 clues, I’ve lost count of the times a clue was “almost brilliant”. The simple fact is that if you obey common cryptic clueing guidelines some ideas just can’t be realised as they don’t work in a clue. One example may be a glorious anagram that just needs the right indicator to create a perfect surface reading. If there isn’t an appropriate indicator then a new approach is needed. Of course it’s possible to use an indicator that fits the clue but doesn’t quite do its job, or to use one that works but creates a nonsense clue. I’d consider these both bad clueing practices. Another example may be the use of an oblique synonym that creates a good surface but leaves very little chance of a clue being solved via the wordplay. The best setters are those who can be creative despite clueing restrictions AND still produce true sound cryptic clues.