Australian Crosswords

We all know there are fundamental rules that govern what goes on in cryptic crosswords and they are necessary in order for a setter to create a solvable and enjoyable challenge. However, wearing a “style” cloak, a setter can choose to include, exclude and tinker with any number of devices, effectively creating their own rules. I don’t see this as necessarily a bad thing as long as what’s used is accessible to the solver, is in the spirit of cryptic crosswords, and is consistent in its use.
Let’s look at an example. A common technique for pinching a letter or letters from a word is to indicate that the centre of it is needed. Indicators that do this are centre, middle, heart etc. This technique is widely accepted, but not everyone uses it the same way. It seems straightforward, so how and why can it vary from crosssword to crossword and even clue to clue? Firstly, there’s natural variation depending on whether the target word used is odd or even in length: the size of its centre will change. Next, some setters extend the indicator’s scope to potentially include an enlarged centre, in fact, it may be any length inside the two ends of the word. The why is simple: the flakier an indicator becomes, the easier it is to use in clues and the easier a setter’s job becomes. So, is this a problem for the solver? Probably not, but as with other similiar letter pinching techniques that may be used without precision, a solver should be able to rely on an indicator to produce a consistent result. I don’t think a setter can justify changing the value of “centre” from crossword to crossword or clue to clue, however, it’s fine for them to establish their own interpretation as long as they stick to it. A solver can then know exactly what’s meant when it’s used.

I consider it part of my job as a professional crossword setter to be across all aspects of crosswords in all English-speaking countries. There are crossword forums, blogs and websites galore, but still regular peeks are necessary to keep up with what’s going on in the crossword world. I even search online newspapers for mentions of crosswords to see what readers are saying.
Recently I read some posts where a solver tended to rate the crosswords they solved based on the number of anagrams they contained. Lots of anagrams instantly met with a “boring” tag and accusations of lazy clueing. Presumably the overabundance of anagrams tempered the challenge and reduced solving satisfaction. There’s nothing wrong with anagrams, even lots of them in a crossword as long as the setter follows the fundamental concept of writing clues that seamlessly link definition and wordplay with good surface reading. That is, a crossword shouldn’t be full of obvious anagrams, but well-disguised anagrams should always be welcome. Sometimes a setter will include obvious anagrams intentionally to help solvers get a kickstart or to make a clue with an obscure answer easier to solve. This is fine too. All balanced cryptic crosswords will contain a significant number of anagrams, whole or partial: it’s the setter’s job to make sure they work within the whole crossword.
The Times in the UK has a formula that its crossword setters must abide by: a total of five “points” are allowed where a whole anagram is one point and a partial anagram is half a point. So you could have five whole anagrams or ten partial anagrams and anything in-between. On average I tend to be just over this amount which I feel is OK as I don’t rely on synonym substitution which reduces the number of clueing options I have.
It happens that this crossword has a very low anagram count, just 1.5 on the Times scale – how hard did you find it?