Australian Crosswords

I think most know that I’m not a big fan of “cryptic definitions”, not because they aren’t (in most cases) clever once solved, but because I find it hard to slot them into a standard cryptic template. I’m not a big fan as a solver and therefore I don’t write many, but I do put them into my crosswords as I know some solvers love them and live for that last-gasp “aha” moment. (As an aside, I don’t find them hard to write – I use quite a few in the SMH’s Omega crossword on a Monday where I believe they belong. All clues are single-definition, except for the cryptic ones that are marked with a leading “?” All cryptic definitions end with a “?”, leaving the solver with no doubt about what they are dealing with). I like to SOLVE clues as they are written, not rely on cross-letters and not discover the answer almost by default. US-style cryptics traditionally don’t include cryptic definitions (but you will find them in single-definition crosswords). Read what Braze said on The National Cryptic Crossword Forum:
“…British-style free association clues leave you grappling if you don’t see the clue phrase the same way the constructor does. I find I have to rely more on intersecting letters, and often I need to see nearly all of them before the answer pops into my mind’s eye…”
He couldn’t put it better, IMO. Others will disagree as, for them, the discovery moment eclipses any solving downside. However Braze went on to add:
“If you don’t have accessible answers crossing the clever ones, whole sections remain unsolved, and that’s where I think a lot of potential solvers give up on cryptics.”
I think it’s a big call to blame a type of clue or the way a puzzle is constructed for the lack of cryptic take-up in the States. I know this would be a problem for new solvers, as are a number of other cryptic quirks, but really if they are solving or attempting to solve the rest of the clues then they are over the biggest hurdle already. I don’t think they are reaching that first hurdle. I would assert the true problem is that potential solvers worldwide aren’t prepared to put the effort and time into learning what is effectively a new language. Some complain that US cryptics are too easy which surely can only be a good thing for those wanting to learn. I don’t believe for a minute that people learn how to solve easy US cryptics and then simply give up because they can’t find a bigger challenge. Historically when the Brits went cryptic, the US went theme and time has embedded those styles into the respective cultures. I’m not sure that any amount of education or promotion would see a shift in the status quo, but I do think the modern era will largely leave cryptics behind across the world.
There was a reply to Braze’s comments by Henri Picciotto, a US cryptic crossword setter. I plan to talk about that next week.

Solvers may be totally capable of solving a crossword but not necessarily be able to explain their results. I believe it’s the haphazard way that most people learn about solving cryptic crosswords that creates an imperfect methodology, one that only gets found out when put to the test by someone new to the cryptic world. It’s imperfect because its been built up over time with inconsistent input from others and loads of assumptions that seem to stand repeated testing. As the average solver tends to cut their teeth on the same crossword every day or week, their view of the cryptic world is shaped to such an extent that moving beyond their first regular crossword may not be possible. It so much depends on the quality of the starting crossword – if it’s well-written then solving harder, well-written cryptics won’t be a giant leap as the fundamentals learnt at the early stage still apply – if it’s poorly-written such that not much has to be understood to find answers, then it’s unlikely the solver will be able to progress without significant help.
I was reminded last week that some things we take for granted, like how a sounds-like clue works, are in fact not as well understood as they should be. This probably comes about simply because a proper explanation was never given, just a couple of examples, leading to an incomplete picture of what’s really happening. In most cases sounds-like clues end up with two terms that sound alike, but how the indicator is applied is in most cases irrelevant as the length of the answer and the intersecting letters dictate what’s entered. In this Stickler Weekly’s 26-down, “TWO” and “TOO” had to be assessed and only one is right according to the structure of the clue. As “outspoken” can only act on “overly”, this must be the wordplay, and the rest (“Pair”) must be the definition leading to “TWO” as the only viable answer.