Australian Crosswords

I sometimes get asked about how I come up with clues like 15-across: Central feature of ice age? (8), a clue-type called an &lit (and literally). It must be remembered that a good setter will always approach the writing of any clue with the intention of creating a (seamless) link between the definition and wordplay. That is, once the definition has been explored, the job of the setter is to hunt out wordplays that can be tied in with an appropriate definition. For example, in 9-across, Surgical procedure dealt with twitch connected to the eye (5), a plausible story is told with the wordplay which is then connected to the definition. Since this mindset is in play in every clue, it’s not unusual for potential &lits to surface, but it is relatively rare for a true &lit to be the end result – it’s much more likely that the &lit potential turns into a standard two-part clue with good surface reading. As the whole clue must double as both definition and wordplay, it takes only a small misfitting to knock the &lit on the head. I’ve lost count of the times I thought I had a chance of constructing &lits, and wasted a lot of time pursuing them, but most times they end up just missing. A good setter will resist the temptation to use an inappropriate or non-anagram anagram indicator or the like just to make a clue work. A near &lit is just another poor clue.
In the case of 15-across, it started in the normal way with the identification of possible definitions (you must have something to work towards) and exploration of what could be used in the wordplay. “oldness” stood out as a potential wordplay piece, and “age” surfaced as a suitable synonym. Without any idea of &lit potential, I searched for words containing “c” that naturally precede “age”, and came up with a list including “ice”, “school” and “space”. It was at this point that I realised “ice age” ties in nicely with “coldness” and the &lit clue was born. Note that if I couldn’t find a way to indicate the “c” in “ice” appropriately the clue simply wouldn’t work. A number of things need to happen and I must say I love it when they do.

I imagine most people at one stage have said “I wish I had a dollar for every time…”. There’s no doubt that I would be a rich man if the sentence ended with “…someone expressed the desire to learn how to solve cryptic crosswords”. It’s rare that someone shows no interest at all in what I used to do for a living. Some say they want to learn, while others confess that they simply don’t understand how cryptics work. With so much supposed interest, how is it that desire doesn’t get turned into action? I think in some ways cryptics suffer from having a relatively simple cousin, the “straight” crossword, that is designed for everyone to solve with minimal instruction. There’s no extended learning period or mental adjustment needed, just a fundamental knowledge of the English language, which is developed enough by the end of high school. Give a straight crossword to almost anyone and they would know what to do even if they can’t or don’t want to solve it. It’s not the same with cryptics, although, on the surface, it may appear to be the same. It’s reasonable to look at the clues of a crossword and expect to be able to find the answers, since that’s how straight crosswords work, but we know, without instruction and guidance, it’s almost impossible for an uninitiated solver to solve good cryptic clues. How frustrating it must be for regular (good) straight solvers to be thwarted by an unknown code, and more so when they find out it’s not just a rule, instructional, or “how to” thing – it’s a completely different world with a long road ahead.
I can’t think of any game, interest or pastime that has branches so different but based on one fundamental concept. Can you?

Last week I talked a little about cryptic definitions and comments made by Braze on his blog. Basically, like the rest of the world, North America struggles to really embrace cryptics but this isn’t a current phenomenon, it’s always been that way. Braze’s comments generated a response from Henri Picciotto, a long-time US cryptic setter. Here it is:
“I believe the evidence does not support this. In Britain, where there is a wide spectrum of styles among constructors, from totally freewheeling to strictly Ximenean, there are vastly more solvers than in the US, with several newspapers offering cryptics every single day. In the US, where Ximenean conventions rule, we have very few solvers, and little interest in non-variety cryptics among experienced solvers.”
Personally I don’t think Henri has it right either. The variety and number of cryptics in the UK isn’t evidence that everything in cryptics is liked, quite the opposite – you need variety to make sure all cryptic solvers get at least one puzzle that they enjoy solving. Cryptics are established but by no means invincible as younger generations turn to other pursuits for entertainment. Just as one-definition, theme crosswords dominate in North America (and are not found much in other countries), cryptics have a big presence in the UK (but not anywhere else to the same extent). It’s a matter of history and not much else. I don’t think any change to US cryptics currently would impact their popularity.
Henri has been pushing for change for a long time. Read an excerpt of his manifesto written back in 1992.  I think all solvers outside the States should read this, not because I advocate what he is saying, but because it explains a lot about how US cryptics work – the Brits tend to ridicule US cryptics, claiming that they are too easy. If they knew more about the constraints that setters work under they might form a different view. It’s not the skills of the setters, or their approach, that’s deficient, it’s the “system” as such. Note that some of these constraints I’ve imposed on myself, believing that they lead to better-written cryptics.