Australian Crosswords

A regular contributor to this blog asked me about 2-down, Dysfunctional topic men dislike ultimately? (9), a type of clue known in the trade as an &lit. This translates to “and literally”, and refers to the duplicity of the clue which represents the definition and wordplay at the same time. &lit clues are strange animals as they fit the standard “two ways to the answer” cryptic clue profile, but don’t actually include anything that tells the solver what’s going on. In American cryptic crosswords, an “!” must be inserted at the end to indicate an &lit clue, but some see this as giving the game away, so it hasn’t been universally adopted. A question mark at least is required IMO to indicate that something different is going on. A poster in a crossword newsgroup once suggested that an &lit could easily go unnoticed as it may appear to be just a so-so cryptic definition. I think this is probably true as cryptic definitions are common in the modern cryptic crossword and a solver may not think to look beyond the definition aspect of a clue. Good, true &lits are relatively rare. They come about usually through the normal process of trying to tie in the definition with the wordplay, which should be a setter’s goal for every clue. It’s common to find something in the wordplay that links with the definition, but much less common to find that the wordplay can be manipulated to form a viable definition that stands up in its own right. A much more likely scenario is the creation of a semi-&lit clue, where the wordplay is added to in order to make a viable definition.

So how did I create 2-down? The same way I create most clues:

1.   Look up every definition I can find for the answer word to arm myself with as much clueing ammo as possible.
2.   Look for “simple” cryptic structures like hiddens, charades and container and its contents.
3.   Use an anagram function to “see” what possibilities are available for full anagrams, partial anagrams, anagram combinations with other devices, and subtractive anagrams.
4.  See if anything pops outs from the steps above, in particular looking for a possible relationship between the definitions found in 1. and words that have materialised through 2-3.
5.   Decide on a definition and device and put them together.

In this case I had chosen (anagram of MEN and TOPIC) + E, and that would work well with just about any definition available, so my next task was to pick an anagram indicator. It was during this process that I realised the potential of the clue and actively set about looking for a suitable indicator and fitting “E” in some way to the end. Note that this type of thing (identifying the possibility of an &lit) happens relatively regularly but making it work isn’t easy and can take a lot of unrewarded time, so rather than ending up with something dodgy, a standard cryptic clue would be the usual result.

At one stage in my setting career I believed it wasn’t possible to intentionally set out to create an &lit and to some extent I think this is still true, however, as you can see from above, opportunities do arise, and perhaps with a great deal of persistence, something resembling an &lit could be created.

I read with interest posts by solvers who proclaim clues as creative but slightly of the mark. To me, these two terms can’t co-exist in a cryptic clue sense. It’s no good if an architect’s elaborate design can’t be built: the architect’s design is in fact worthless no matter how good it looks. Likewise, a cryptic clue with an elaborate device that fails to deliver is simply a faulty clue. During the writing of almost 150,000 clues, I’ve lost count of the times a clue was “almost brilliant”. The simple fact is that if you obey common cryptic clueing guidelines some ideas just can’t be realised as they don’t work in a clue. One example may be a glorious anagram that just needs the right indicator to create a perfect surface reading. If there isn’t an appropriate indicator then a new approach is needed. Of course it’s possible to use an indicator that fits the clue but doesn’t quite do its job, or to use one that works but creates a nonsense clue. I’d consider these both bad clueing practices. Another example may be the use of an oblique synonym that creates a good surface but leaves very little chance of a clue being solved via the wordplay. The best setters are those who can be creative despite clueing restrictions AND still produce true sound cryptic clues.