Australian Crosswords

How often have you tried a crossword by a setter you’ve never solved before? If you solve the UK dailies regularly, then new setters pop up occasionally and they, in most cases, will conform to house rules, making their crossword feel largely like the rest. If a newspaper switches setters/puzzles for a weekly puzzle, then there will be a period of adjustment, but generally, barring a very poor replacement, most solvers will get used to the new setter/puzzle and continue on. I think a large number of solvers only solve one crossword a day and always from the same paper. In fact, it may be that solvers never venture beyond this regularity except when forced into it on holiday, for example, or when access isn’t available. Imagine being given a crossword by a “new” setter, that is, one you haven’t solved before. What things would you look at to assess whether it’s worth doing, or worth finishing? I don’t read much but I can always tell by the end of the first chapter of a book whether I’ll keep going: it’s usually not the storyline, but more how the book is written, how it flows and its pace. First impressions are important for a lot of people. In a world with so many options, it’s easy to find a reason to accept or reject to reduce the options. When a new cryptic is presented to me, I may not start the clues if I don’t like the grid. Why? I think you can tell a lot about a setter: their work ethic, attention to detail, knowledge of cryptics/crosswords in general and their view of the solvers, all from the grid. I would define a poor grid as one with a significant number of initials missing and/or, having some answers with less than half of its letters checked and/or having answers with more than two consecutive squares checked and/or having a grid design that doesn’t maximise the space available resulting in a reduction in the number of answers. If any of these pointers are in play in a crossword that doesn’t need such a structure for solving purposes (eg alphabetical jigsaw), then either the setter is being careless, or doesn’t fully understand the setting art or has scant regard for their solvers. The use of EVERY component of a cryptic crossword should be weighed up by a setter. When I see a crossword with just 28 answers and no long ones in a 15×15, I have to wonder if the setter is just making it easy for themselves (a standard grid with no long answers would normally have 32 clues). Such a grid will normally have many initials missing, making it harder, and in some ways offsetting the deficiency of having less clues. I’m not sure I want to solve a setter which such an attitude.
If I can overcome my grid issues, then just a few clues will tell me all I need to know. Clue-writing is such that I can assess where someone is on the setting journey and if they are a mixture of other setters or someone with their own style.

I was clearing up my study recently and came across some original AFR cryptics that I kept as mementos back in 1995, over 20 years ago. Looking through the clues was a strange experience as not many would make the 2015 cut even though at the time I considered myself a pretty good setter as I’d been mentored by Noel Jessop, had numerous puzzles published in CroZworld, and taken note of feedback and made many adjustments. No matter my experience to that point, I was very much a product of the crosswords I solved and, as I had a day job, I was still a hobbyist. This changed drastically when I started the Stickler 6 days a week, effectively becoming a professional. Cryptics became integral to my being, and like with any other full-time job, I had a goal of growing and improving. As a young setter I also had the advantage of being tech-savvy, and was able to take advantage of everything the Internet had to offer. I read crossword books, studied overseas setters’ work, and most importantly took note of all posts by solvers about things they liked and didn’t like in the cryptic realm.
In my 15 years in IT I reckon I learnt something new every day. It’s not quite the same with cryptics but there’s a definite need to keep up with what solvers are saying, and maybe making changes as a result. Setters should grow, or they may never get past the hobbyist phase.

What exactly is a setter’s responsibility when it comes to what definitions, words, terms and meanings they use in cryptic clues? Should a setter pay any attention to how difficult a clue and ultimately a crossword is made by using Google-only, regional, overseas, obscure and archaic words? The answer, of course, is “yes”, because a setter should be aware of the impact of everything they use in a crossword from the grid right through to the abbreviations used in wordplays. You could argue, I suppose, that a setter has the right to do whatever they want and the solvers ultimately will judge. Kinda true for weekly crosswords, or specially-labelled extra crosswords, but daily setters must fit with the pattern of other setters so that there’s at least consistency for the solving public. A crossword editor is vital to control the difficulty of the puzzles in a daily publication, making sure there’s not a huge difference between the easiest and hardest ones through the week, after all, solvers are entitled to be able to solve all puzzles in their newspaper of choice.