Australian Crosswords

Most people are aware that I’m not fond of single-definition clues in a cryptic crossword and I’ve given my reasons for this in past posts. One of the main reasons is the lack of indication telling the solver that this clue should be read differently to just about all other types. Some may say that’s part of the battle, but I say the solver has basically lost the battle before they even tackle the clue. IMO, this “there should be indication” concept extends beyond the cryptic definition realm and applies to any clue that doesn’t fit the usual two-part cryptic clue pattern as it’s not right for a solver to have to consider every possible clue variation for every clue. The average solver has trouble enough decoding cryptic clues without the odd curve ball being thrown in unannounced.
Consider this clue: Wine can destroy 50s dress (4)
There are four separate “definitions” all meaning “SACK” but, for me, it’s not a clue that a solver is going to work out without getting at least one contributing letter because the idea of the clue’s makeup will only come after the answer has been found – it’s unlikely the clue as a whole will lead to the answer. This is just like the cryptic definition clue – unconventional in its structure and therefore not solvable through conventional means. In this case Chambers considers possibly three of the four of the definitions stem from the same origin, with only one (SACK the wine) being a true alternative definition.
Here’s another: Nick Cage can stir porridge inside big house in the States (6)
All parts except “inside” are synonyms of prison. I’m not really sure of the point of this clue. Most double and multiple definitions come from the same origin making them for me not even really cryptic. So you can add multiple-definition clues to my list no-nos.

Some time ago Anax (Dean Mayer, a UK setter) asked a question on his blog about setter rustiness, that is the effect of having a break from setting (due to a holiday, for example) and then trying to get back into it. I replied, reflecting on how things used to be for me in such circumstances, but recently I’ve come to realise just how important having a fit brain is to not only the art of setting but to the art of good setting. The brain needs exercise like muscles do to stay in shape. When my business was at its peak I was writing about 1000 word puzzles a year, about 400 of them cryptic. It was mentally draining but manageable and over time I discovered little tricks to keep the brain from overloading. For instance, as I’ve mentioned before, I put a lot of energy into the grid filling part of compiling, making the clue construction easier; I intentionally stayed away from difficult words to clue; I didn’t do (many) themes (as someone famously said, “they don’t pay any more for theme crosswords”); I treated setting as a job and worked set hours, giving my brain a rest from words; and I left words I was having trouble with and finished what I could, getting the bulk of the crossword done (therefore relieving pressure).
My son works for a local web development company, Black Nova – he somehow manages to hop out of bed and get to work in about 20 minutes – I couldn’t do that and arrive in the right frame of mind for work. For most of my professional setting days the first thing I did was go for an hour’s walk – I’m convinced this time before work loosened the brain up and put me in the right headspace – the times I just got up and started work were a hard slog.
Leap forward to now and my brain is in a completely different gear. The demands of multiple weekly deadlines have gone and my brain has correspondingly slowed. For some reason much less work takes a disproportionate amount of time and I struggle where I never used to. My brain fitness has deteriorated – no doubt about it. I could put it down to “burn-out”, but mostly it’s the lack of daily stimulation that The Stickler and other puzzles provided me.