Australian Crosswords

The internet is a fascinating place. It allows all people with a connection the ability to get involved, either as an originator or a contributor, or both. It shouldn’t surprise us that there are thousands of niches out there just waiting for interested people to find them. Recently a couple of overseas crossword friends pointed me to the Kickstarter website where projects of all shapes and sizes are birthed. I was surprised to find a number of crossword projects (almost all American), that sometimes involved a theme, or a collaborative effort, or a set of crosswords by just one person. The premise is simple: raise funds for a defined project over a relatively short period and reward contributors differently depending on their pledge. What really struck me was the response to a US cryptic crossword Kickstarter project last year which raised almost double the minimum requirement in just 30 days. A total of 240 people pledged a combined US$7,397 for a set of 12 cryptic puzzles. The US doesn’t have any home-grown daily cryptics and just one home-grown weekly cryptic, so this response suggests they may be a demand beyond what is currently available.

Would you support a Stickler Kickstarter project?

What do you see when you look at the word INSPECTOR (15-down)? If I asked you for clueing ideas, what would you come up with? IN + SPECTOR (Beatles record producer),  or maybe anagrams like PC IN STORE or PR SECTION? The truth is, with a word like this, there will be dozens of potential wordplays, so how do you pick one? The starting point is rarely the wordplay (although word selection may be based on wordplay availability), it’s the definition. As a cryptic clue is the (hopefully seamless) combination of definition and wordplay, attention must be given to finding as many options as possible in order to end up with the best clue. So, the first task is looking up every reference and reading INSPECTOR entries, arming yourself with as much fodder as possible: the more you have the easier it will be to join with one of the many wordplays available. INSPECTOR has its limitations – it can only be a noun, for example – but nonetheless there are over 20 thesaurus entries, general inspectors (whose who inspect in any way), appointed inspectors (those who inspect as a job), and ranked inspectors (in the police force etc), so a lot to work with. Next, it’s time to explore the wordplays to see if any of them have a natural relationship with a possible definition. For example, an anagram of PC IN STORE would tie in nicely with ‘(police) officer’ thus: “PC in store updated senior officer (9)”. The aim here is to give the solver a complete picture so that breaking down the clue into wordplay and definition isn’t that obvious. Sometimes their isn’t a seamless marriage between definition and wordplay, which means tinkering with the definition, finding new wordplays or (last resort) settling on a clue that you know is deficient. It all takes time but is well worth the effort.

As a setter, I make it my business to keep track of what’s happening in the world of crosswords. This means visiting other setters’ websites, solving various crosswords and reading crossword blogs. We don’t host many of these in Australia, but occasionally something turns up that catches my attention. This week a short discussion erupted on the DATrippers website about a clue, from the Sun-Herald (11/5/2014), reportedly written by Russel Jessop, son of the great Noel Jessop. It caught my eye as it relates directly to a recent request from a solver to explain further the “no definition/wordplay etymology crossover” rule mentioned in my Crossword Unclued interview. The clue mentioned on DATrippers was: Perform and measure performance (5) Answer: EN+ACT. One DATrippers poster pointed out the lack of disguise in the clue and noted the obvious relationship between “perform” and “performance”, a construction that must have been intentional on the part of the setter. This clue would obviously contravene the etymology rule, as the “act” in both sides of the clue stems from the same etymological source. Note that it’s using “act” on both sides of the equation that causes the problem, not necessarily how “act” is defined or clued. That is, Perform and measure turn (5) would still be unacceptable, however, I would see this as a vastly superior clue to the abovementioned one as some disguise is present.
The “no definition/wordplay etymology crossover” rule effectively means that no part of the answer can have an etymological relationship with the wordplay. It’s tough and restricts the setter both in choice of answers and clueing options, which is why, perhaps, setters in the UK and Oz don’t abide by it. Generally, disguise is all that matters, so as long as the related parts appear different, that’s enough. Personally I like the challenge and try to write my clues with the rule in mind.