Australian Crosswords

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.

When I’m looking for something to say about cryptic crosswords, it’s easy to end up in the area of the technicalities that sometimes arise in cryptic blogs like use of capitalisation, nounal anagram indicators or what a “?” means. Recently, while doing my weekly scavenge for my next topic, I wondered just how many people cared about these things. For some time now a blogger on the Australian Crossword Club site has been critical of certain crosswords. Generally his/her focus is on the number of anagrams used and clue surface readings. There’s rarely any response, and if there is it’s usually offering lukewarm support or resigned apathy. Why is that? If the blogger is making valid points, why aren’t all cryptic solvers backing him/her up? My theory is that only a small number of cryptic solvers actually care about such things – the majority are happy with what’s offered or are unconcerned with the aspects that the blogger talks about. As long as the crosswords satisfy their needs, they are happy. Only a small percentage of solvers are interested in the technicalities and, as setters are accountable to all solvers for what they write, they should be too. This leaves the vast majority just solving the clues in front of them and hopefully enjoying what they do. So, forgive me if my writings here don’t grab your attention – it’s only taken 20 years for me to work out why.