Australian Crosswords

A few weeks ago George queried my use of BUSINESS = COMPANY = co, stating that it was an indirect reference. It’s true, this sort of thing is very common in all cryptic puzzles, so is it a valid device for a setter to use? Over many years I’ve slowly weaned myself off many of these sorts of things (I no longer use apprentice/student = L (learner) or metal etc = a metal symbol from the periodic table, for example), but some remain. I’ve recognised that to be true, the word or words that are represented by an abbreviation should actually be used in the clue. There’s a problem here though. Solvers want to be challenged, and with a limited number of abbreviations available, using the direct reference can be a giveaway. Is it better to resort to obscure abbreviations (P = parity or S = succeeded, for example) or to refer to the very common St(reet) as a way? A dilemma and not necessarily so straightforward. There’s another thing: Is it OK to clue SA as state? Surely this is an indirect reference too: STATE = SOUTH AUSTRALIA = SA or conservationists = National Trust = NT or religious books = Old Testament = OT etc? Clearly solvers wouldn’t be happy with direct references in these cases (too obvious), but are they really any different to the original query by George? As with all things cryptic, I think it comes down to judgement by the setter, and I’m happy for a setter to equate anything with anything as long as they have thought it through and considered it from the solvers’ perspective. If it works, it’s fine, if the solvers generally don’t like it, then it should be discarded.

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned theme crosswords that were about to appear in the Australian Financial Review. The first one included an Australian “Christmas carol”, How to Make Gravy by Paul Kelly, and included the artist, song and ingredients of a basic gravy mentioned in the song. Related clues were openly linked, and so no special instructions were necessary. The gimmick for the second one, a New Year special, came about by chance. I was doing general searches for things related to 2016, and the International Year of Pulses popped up. Initially I planned to include the entire term, and types of pulses, but I hit two snags: the term is bigger than the crossword, and I didn’t want to split it across multiple answers, and secondly, while there are lots of pulses, many of them end in pea and bean, meaning a large amount of repetition would be required. I hit on the idea of running a related phrase around the outside, and worked on making a suitable length (must be even to match a symmetrical grid). I ended up with THIS IS THE INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF PULSES, which I was initially happy with, but the “THIS” bothered me, as I hadn’t said what THIS was and solvers would first see the puzzle on December 29. As I struggled with THIS, I tried to work out what I was really trying to say. THIS then became 2016, and the idea of using words turned into numbers to make the phrase work was born. Finding words to put into the grid wasn’t too hard, and I built and completed the crossword over a number of days.
Then came the part that caused trouble: what word format (the number designator in brackets at the end of each clue) should I use that gives the solver the best/most information? Two choices: let the word format reflect the reality even if it was contrary to the definition and wordplay (that is, TWO/2-MAN TENT would become 1-3,4) ; or let the word format reflect the definition and wordplay, even if the grid seems to contradict the length specified. Either way requires some kind of explanation, but the latter is what most solvers are used to, and only after solving would there appear to be a problem with the grid which the instructions would take care of. I also added a special entry to the Clue Hints section of my website that specifically stated what needed to happen when these clues were entered into the grid. A great plan, and I believe the right choice, but it all came to nothing as the instructions weren’t included with the crossword. It happened that the group I was holidaying with when the New Year puzzle was published still like reading printed newspapers, so the AFR turned up on the lounge room table. I quickly realised I was in trouble when I saw that the instructions were missing, and sure enough, emails and blog posts started rolling in and didn’t stop for days, as the AFR bumper editions over Christmas stay available longer than usual. Unfortunately the phrase I’d threaded around the perimeter of the puzzle went largely unnoticed as the instructions also highlighted this aspect of the crossword.
Crosswords with instructions always have the potential to go wrong. Missing instructions, misunderstood instructions, ambiguous instructions, instructions that some people can’t work out, and even unseen instructions can mean extra effort from the setter may be completely wasted. Back in The Stickler days, I used to add messages (NINAs) on special occasions in the hope someone would spot them and get an extra buzz out of the crossword. A rigid production process and lack of space meant it wasn’t possible to add instructions so solvers had to work it out for themselves with not even a hint that something was going on. I suspect, again, that my efforts were largely wasted which is why I ceased with the messages after a few years of receiving no feedback.

The concept of “double duty” is an easy one to understand: part or parts of a cryptic clue have more than one role, that is, to be truely technically correct the double duty element(s) would have to be repeated for the clue to be sound. Obviously, that’s not possible in most cases as the clue wouldn’t make any sense, so double duty is employed. The solver must consider one part of the clue as overlapping with another part. For instance,
Strikingly unconventional at four (3-3)
must be read as [Strikingly {unconventional] at four}, so the overlapping {unconventional] performs double duty, one as a (necessary) part of the definition and the other as an anagram indicator (anagram of AT FOUR = FAR-OUT).
It wouldn’t surprise you to find out that I don’t like this. The reason is simple: a clue that employs double duty is incomplete despite the necessary components being available if the clue is read/considered in a special way. Add some kind of indicator to instruct the solver, and I’d be happy. In my mind the use of double duty is lazy setting.
Here’s another one:
Roll at base of picnic basket (5)
Here the setter uses “(at) base of” to position and to extract a letter. It’s also an across clue which adds more confusion as “base” can be “bottom” but not “end”. It doesn’t strictly conform to the overlapping style of “normal” double duty clues, and in fact it doesn’t seem right no matter how you think of it yet the answer, “C + REEL”, is clearly the right one.
Some would argue that double duty is alright if used in an easy clue. Remembering that double duty means there is missing information, would it follow that an anagram clue without an appropriate anagram indicator is acceptable as long as it’s obviously an anagram? Not on my watch!
Double duty may also be employed in a semi-&lit clue where the wordplay stands alone but requires something extra in order to convey a proper definition. For example: Brit vicar’s clues excited them? (15).
In this case the entire wordplay may be considered as doing double duty but doesn’t quite provide a definition so “them” must be added. In some cases, the separate definition part may be seen as enough and the wordplay as just adding some clarification.