Australian Crosswords

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.

I was doing my regular scan of the Net looking for interesting cryptic things when I came across an article about an English setter, Philistine, who had been talking cryptics on a radio program. He had put together a puzzle for all to follow and included some clues from other distinguished setters. One of these clues caught my eye: Primarily, inflammation in mother’s breasts (8). [MASTITIS: (I)nflammation inside MA’S TITS, an ] It’s a brilliant clue that caused me to laugh out loud. What’s really interesting though, is the context: it was written for the audience of a BBC4 radio program. I’m not entirely sure, but I doubt this clue would be allowed in all UK publications. What makes it acceptable, perhaps, is that it was written by a woman, Sarah Hayes (Arachne in the Guardian), removing the sexist tag it would no doubt receive if a man wrote it. Such liberties of language are generally allowed in cryptics as much is covert and the product of the setter’s/solver’s workings rather than something in your face. There’s no way BREASTS = TITS would be allowed in any other types of crossword, yet here I think it would be generally admired. I would be happy to include it in my old Stickler in the DT, but probably not include it in my AFR crossword. The SMH/Age has a rule about including diseases and the like, so it might not get through no matter how good the wordplay.
I like the freedom that cryptics offer in this area but it’s unwise not to give considerable thought to what is included in clues as we tend to live in a world that is easily offended.