Australian Crosswords

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.

Cryptic crosswords are all about definitions. You can’t have equation between clue and answer without some kind of definition IMO. Back in my cryptic learning days at school in the 1970s we used to solve The Guardian cryptic every week in class. Occasionally they’d be a clue like this: NATO enterprise (anag.) (14). Another was a quote from literature with a missing word used as an answer. Even back then, as a novice, I didn’t see the point of such clues. It was simply a mental unscrambling exercise that yielded no personal reward at all. Thankfully these types of clues are no longer used, recognising that solvers need a definition and a mental workout to generally be satisfied. The first cryptic clues were punny definitions, now called cryptic definitions. As time went on different devices were added, but mostly in addition to the definition, after all that is what crosswords are all about and the one thing a solver should be able to rely on.
Recently I saw a blog post encouraging the (physical) blending of wordplay and definition, with the intention of disguising the definition. There was no indication in the clues offered that warned the solver about the language abuse, so solvers were expected to consider every word at the beginning and end of each clue as not words at all, but possible parts of wordplay and definition. With proper indication, there’s plenty of freedom available to mess with wordplay, but the definition MUST stand alone. No blending, no connection via a hyphen, no multiword terms that have one foot in each camp. These types of clues might look good from the setter’s side, but they simply ask too much of solvers. In most cases how such clues work won’t be realised until after an answer is found through the cross-letters, which is bad enough when a difficult wordplay is involved but diabolical when the definition part of the clue is hidden from the solver.