Australian Crosswords

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.

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.