Australian Crosswords

Two clues caught my eye in the last few weeks as I frequented my favourite internet haunts. The first comes from a posting on Crossword Uncluded, an oft-mentioned website here. A recent post titled “Clue Challenge: Annotate These Answers XI” has a number of clues that the poster found difficult to unravel despite having the answers. The challenge to resolve these clues will appeal greatly to some, and have no appeal to others. It’s like solving clues but not really as the answers are given. I’m still stumped on half of them – far too obscure for me. How much value does the wordplay have if given all the variables a clue still can’t be unravelled? The original solvers couldn’t even use the wordplay as a double-check in most cases. There are a number of different styles of clues on the list but basically two types: ones that have difficult but discernable wordplay and others where the wordplay offers no help (that is, there is no way the wordplay CAN help a solver to solve). Noel Jessop used to call these “reflexive” – clues where wordplay cannot be understood without having first obtained the answer. The one I want to focus on is:
Pay attention — this statement is out by a factor of five (6)
which is from Times 26159 in the UK. The answer is LISTEN. A reflexive type clue. Can you work out the wordplay?* There are a few comments about the clue in the blog entry for the crossword that this clue appears in, and in almost all cases the solvers mentioned that they couldn’t work out the parsing. As a setter I know the value of the wordplay I’m writing. I know if a wordplay may be difficult, I know if an anagram indicator may not be fully accepted by all, I know that a synonym is going to stump some. The writer of the above clue knows that the wordplay is of no help and so supplies a giveaway definition, but here’s the problem: doesn’t that effectively make this clue a single definition type clue as the answer can only be obtained from the definition? The wordplay is redundant except that it serves as a pointer (for those who work it out) back to the setter. It’s a self-serving clue, not one that helps the solver but shines a light on the setter. Some may argue that this kind of find-the-answer-then-work-out-the-wordplay type clue is popular with many people, so this kind of clue is fine, and that may be so except this clue has most people stumped even with all the info. So is it a good clue?
The second clue is taken from Alan Connor’s Guardian crossword blog and is right up my alley:
Controversial candidate wanting power … and nearly becoming president? (6)  (TRUMP minus P) + (AN)D = TRUMAN.
This clue has it all for me: topical, witty, beautifully constructed and misleading but not too difficult and all with solvable wordplay. This clue I could happily explain to a solver at any level and I’d receive a smiling nod. That’s the way it should be.

*LISTEN breaks down to L is TEN, but in Roman numerals L is FIFTY, so the “statement” is “out by a factor of five”

The internet provides a number of forums for those who’d like to write their own cryptic crosswords. Of course, you could always have a go and publish on your own website, but if you feel confident enough and are prepared to open up your work to the solving public at large, then certain sites will give you a publishing opportunity. Try these:
Alberich Crosswords, where you can submit a crossword but there doesn’t seem to be a public feedback mechanism; and Big Dave’s Rookie Corner, where you can get published and receive some great feedback.
Some crossword sites post the odd guest puzzle, not as a matter of routine, but usually to drum up support for a budding setter. A recent posting on David Astle’s blog is one such example.
I honed my skill by joining the Australian Crossword Club, who rely on members to submit puzzles for publication. Members give direct feedback through the monthly magazine, CrOZworld, which gives new setters a chance to learn from a very experienced solving group. Of course, there’s no point using a forum such as this and ignoring comments, especially ones that keep coming up about the same thing, as these solvers are the people a setter is writing for, and the ones that will determine how successful they are. A setter may think they have written a great clue/crossword, but if the solvers don’t agree, then they haven’t, it’s as simple as that.
It’s always important as a newbie setter to establish that you understand the fundamentals of setting before you explore the cryptic boundaries. It’s a respect thing. You’d like to think that those setters who “bend the rules” as a matter of style are also capable of writing a perfectly acceptable bog standard cryptic that could be published anywhere in the world. Some crosswords are so off the mark that you wonder what kind of crosswords the setter is solving/learning from. If a newbie employs non-standard devious devices but can’t get a basic anagram clue right, then is their work worth following?
There’s so much cryptic crossword history if you count time, countries and the number of publications involved, that there is no excuse for a new setter not to have considered the recurring issues that come up in crossword setting. Despite this, comments like this one make me wonder, as the new setter clearly hasn’t formed thier own opinion on a popular device used in their crossword. It’s not a clear-cut issue for a solver (as different setters have different interpretations), but it’s clear as day for a setter. A solver should be able to rely on a particular setter to be consistent when an indicator such as “centre” is used – it should mean the same thing each time it is used, not vary from crossword to crossword or even within the same crossword. Even a term such as “essentially” should be scrutinised so that the setter is 100% happy with using it – use by other setters in published works is not enough to give it a thumbs up – not all setters would use it. My general rule is that what I use should be explainable to a new solver, someone who isn’t tainted by crosswordese and doesn’t just except devices based on past use.

I’m usually scratching around looking for something to talk about each week, but this week’s cryptic comment is a no-brainer. Last week the owners of The Independent newspaper in the UK announced the demise of their printed version at the end of March, putting all their eggs into the digital basket. As soon as this happened, solvers of The Independent’s daily cryptic and their weekly Inquisitor crossword, started speculating as to the future of these crosswords, as the official announcement by the owners made no mention of what will be included in the digital publication. An interesting discussion developed, covering a number of angles including the role the Indy had fostering new setting talent as well as information about the Indy’s past dealings with setters. One thing was clear though, solvers believed the cryptic crosswords should be continued in the new digital format, and as a result a petition was set up on change.org. I’ve signed this petition and urge you to do the same as it’s really important outlets for cryptic crosswords aren’t taken away, especially ones that encourage new setters and employ a staggering 30 setters (according to the best for puzzles website).
I find the whole thing really interesting as this is in some ways what happened to The Stickler, but, in this case, the whole paper is affected at once. The Stickler was cut (and a host of other changes were made that shared more content across metro papers) to reduce costs and I was told at the time it came down the survival of the papers which were suffering from reduced advertising revenue. Here the Indy cryptic may well survive, but don’t count on it, as it will all be about cost. While setters are paid very poorly, syndicated crosswords are much much cheaper, and despite the numerous claims that some people only buy the paper for the crossword, it may not be perceived as enough to make up the revenue difference.
While the arguments for keeping the cryptic are passionate, there are a couple of factors that should be kept in mind. The number of people solving cryptics has been declining for a long time – younger generations are just not getting involved and replacing those leaving us from the older generations. The world has changed, and the solving pastime is not being passed on. Younger people do not read newspapers in any form, and word games tend to be shared among friends and played on the go. The notion that cryptic crosswords translate easily into the digital age is only partially true – there’s strong evidence from my experience that the physical newspaper, bought or delivered daily, is a huge factor in the doing and enjoyment of cryptic crosswords. An online app may well represent exactly the same thing, but there’s no “romance”. Whether it’s an app or a downloadable PDF, it doesn’t matter, it’s not the same thing. Sitting in front of a computer solving an online crossword is the last thing I want to do. Instead of picking up the delivered paper from the front lawn or from a local newsagency, a solver must actively seek out the crossword. Solving online isn’t an option for me as I like to solve at my own pace and usually at my leisure, which means I have to download and print it, and it becomes a loose piece of paper. I go and get it, rather than it coming to me. Older generations aren’t universally tech-savvy, and can be put off by minor things. I constantly have complaints from people not able to find things on my website, which, I believe, is simply constructed in a blog format. Of the many people who solved my crossword in the paper, now only 150 do it each week, and only about half are from The Stickler state, NSW. Cryptics generally require time and a scratchpad of sorts, pen and paper – the online app isn’t the same. A number of people said they had abandoned The Stickler Weekly because they didn’t have access to a printer or didn’t know how to print. Many people in retirement villages simply don’t have access to luxuries like printers.
There’s one big downside to the online world – nothing is missed, everything is logged. Currently the change.org petition has 400 supporters – there’s a real danger that the petition may show there’s not that much support compared to the daily Indy newspaper sales. Also, online editions will definitively show how popular or otherwise the crosswords are, either through the number of subscriptions or website statistics. 13 years ago I helped set up and contributed to Fairfax premium crossword service, which ran for about three years. The numbers just didn’t add up, and it was abandoned. Likewise the SMH/AGE crosswords were available free on the web for a number years but were canned, not to boost the premium service or be replaced by a subscription model, but purely because the cost of providing the service wasn’t matched by the number of people using it.
I really hope the Indy powers-that-be keep the crosswords and include them in the online version of whatever they publish, but I fear if cryptics weren’t already feeling the pinch then the gradual decline of newspapers in print will definitely put a spotlight on the value of cryptics to newspapers.