Australian Crosswords

I often get asked “Do you have a book?” or “Have you thought about writing a book?” It seems to be a natural progression for someone in a profession, especially one like crossword writing, where there are aren’t many people doing it. In 2005 I was approached by News Ltd regarding doing a book of my crosswords. At the time Fairfax were regularly publishing books of past puzzles and, not to be outdone, News Ltd wanted to put out one of their own. At the time, News didn’t publish such works themselves, they did deals with publishers willing to get involved, minimising their risk.
I met with News Ltd and Wilkinson Publishing and we discussed what a book would look like. The big question was how to make the book stand out, as there were dozens and dozens of other established crossword books already available based on local and overseas publications. I (foolishly/naively) suggested that the book could contain all NEW crosswords, making it different as all other publications were collections of already-published crosswords. This seemed acceptable, however, the publishers were only willing to go ahead if I agreed to a profit-sharing deal with no upfront payment. News Ltd came to the party with the offer of advertising space and other plugs in The Daily Telegraph, and this convinced me the book should have at least moderate success. The book, New Crosswords by David Stickley (you can see it here, but not to buy it as it’s no longer available) was full of crosswords similar to those that appeared on The Daily Telegraph puzzle page at the time, including 13 previously-unpublished Sticklers and various normal crosswords. There was also an alphabetical jigsaw, an introduction to cryptics and a couple of unusual puzzles. I estimated the value of the NEW puzzles used in the book to be thousands of dollars, so the book had to be reasonably successful for me, in theory, to make any money. Not everything went according to plan (in fact, nothing went according to plan). The book was released just too late to take advantage of the Christmas season and getting bookshops to stock it was a challenge. Bookshops have limited space, and must decide among millions of books which to keep on display. Despite my book being current and advertised in  The Daily Telegraph, none of the major bookstores carried it and only a few newsagencies found the space for it. I received a number of emails from prospective buyers of the book disappointed that they couldn’t get it from their local bookshop. They could order it, but most declined not liking the inconvenience. It wasn’t long before my book ended up in discount stores and on eBay at a reduced price, meaning that my profit on each one was minimal. The whole thing was disappointing, costly (in terms of money “lost”) but I did learn a few lessons. Next week I’ll tell you about some contributions to other people’s books, generally a much better way to use time and effort.

Clue-writing competitions are common on the internet. There are a number of different types like the public ones run through the Google group, rec.puzzles.crosswords, or club ones like the Times or in the ACC’s magazine, CroZworld. Sometimes they are impromptu, like in DA’s blog, or are an established part of a blog like Alan Connor’s Guardian crossword blog. Generally they all work the same way: a word or phrase is supplied and entrants simply have to write a clue that matches. Adjudication can vary, sometimes it’s just one person picking their favourite and sometimes (on an open forum) a vote is taken with points awarded for the top clues.
English was my worst subject at school, but I always did well in exams. My teacher couldn’t understand why I couldn’t reproduce my exam “form” in set essays and other classwork. For me it was simple: my best under pressure was better than most – given time and no pressure others could catch up and overtake me. I was the exception: more time didn’t seem to make much difference. It’s not exactly the same for me when writing clues, but I think for most, more time definitely means a “better” clue. More time to research, consider different approaches, and tweak. Clue-writing competitions give the amateur a chance to explore multiple scenarios, and when you multiply this with lots of people all working on the same word, you are bound to get some special submissions. But just how “good” are the clues that win clue-writing competitions? I some ways, entrants are working in an artificial environment with only one word to consider, unlike a normal setter who must consider every word and answer as part of a crossword. One thing’s for sure, with so many “good” clues around, a clue without good surface won’t get a look-in. An adjudicator has a difficult job as their environment is also artificial as they have the answer so the solving part isn’t there: they must judge solely on the best fit without going through the experience of delving and revelation.
The ACC has a monthly clue-writing competition adjudicated by Michael Kennedy, a well-credentialled solver and ACC setter who has done well in the Times clue-writing competition. The recent issue of CrOzworld required clues for TROUBLESHOOT and the winning clue was: Fix broken tooth – there’s money in it! (12), but what caught my eye, and the reason I’m writing about this today, was another clue: Fix broken tooth with injection of Russian money (12). The construction is identical, but clearly the winning clue reads better. But there’s something the second one has that the first doesn’t: a wordplay construction that could lead the solver to the answer. The first asks a lot of “money”, a word that has 100s of possible results (singular and plural), and would most likely reveal the right choice only in hindsight. To some extent the adjudicator (as with all clue-writing adjudicators) doesn’t really get to solve the clue, that is they aren’t acting like a solver, they are just matching clue and answer: Does it work technically? Is there equality between clue component and answer component? How well does it read? Also difficulty might be hard to assess as having the answer in front of you clouds the evaluation process. The second clue has a realistic chance of providing the answer, and many people prefer to solve clues this way. In this respect the second clue is better – it’s definitely easier – but a winning clue must have all the boxes ticked especially the surface reading, which lets down this clue slightly. The first clue is the right choice from a clue-writing competition point-of-view, but may not be a setter’s choice in a crossword – it would depend on a number of factors like the overall difficulty desired by the setter, which letters are crossed, and the audience.

Do you think a crossword full of winning entries would make a great puzzle?

Crossword blogs are a great source of information regarding particular crosswords, but more, they provide insight into the psyche of crossword solvers. I have taken many comments from crossword blogs and used them as a basis for cryptic comment of my own for this column. The way people solve, the things they struggle with and questions they ask all cause me to think through various cryptic topics. But as with all blogs, or public discussions, there are elements at play that aren’t directly associated with the topic at hand involving the personalities of the participants. A local blog, DA Trippers, has seen a marked change in key personnel over the last few months, largely due to the way contributors contribute. For a long time the blog has featured a systematic breakdown of a weekly crossword, with people posting their thoughts and queries, and others perhaps providing hints to answers. It was generally matter-of-fact, with very little personal input and a fairly equal distribution of comments from posters. Now there are just a few main contributors who tend to dominate the discussion, and some past stalwarts have ceased to post. The posts are now more conversational which appears to put people off. It’s like two or three people in a circle of people carrying on a conversation between themselves. The blog is set up in such a way that prohibits specific replies to another’s post, which means everybody is subjected to what could be almost a private conversation. I’ve always found the dynamics of blogs interesting and it’s been fascinating to watch the shift in this one.