Australian Crosswords

I was recently interviewed by an excellent cryptic crossword blog called Crossword Unclued. You can find the interview here. We covered a whole range of topics, but the focus was on life as a professional full-time setter and how I’d changed in clueing style from the early days. I mentioned more than once a shift away from setting for myself and focussing on setting for the solvers. What did I mean by that? I’ll explain with an example. A recent clue from the UK, “A number of ducks crossing the sea (4,2,2)”, had me pondering for quite some time and was only solved once all the crossing letters were obtained. The answer is LOVE ME DO, a Beatles song released over 50 years ago. The definition is “A NUMBER” and “OF” is a linking word. The wordplay requires “DUCKS” to equal LOVEO and “THE SEA” to equal MED, with CROSSING being the containment indicator. For me, this clue asks too much of the solver. First they have to realise “A NUMBER” is a song and then find one from the millions that have ever been released – the definition may be clever in the context of the clue, but it’s far from giving the solver a good pointer to the answer. Next “DUCKS” must be seen as just two (separate) “DUCKS”, and one of them equated to “LOVE”. While DUCK and LOVE are zero score (0) in cricket and tennis respectively, they are not interchangeable and surely not synonymous without making a giant leap. For a solver to come up with “DUCKS” = LOVEO without first finding the answer would be almost impossible.
So, this is a setter’s clue: one that has great surface and construction but has been written with little regard to how a solver will actually solve it. One may say that it works technically, but is that enough?

The humble double-definition clue in some ways defines what cryptic crosswords are all about (two distinct paths to the answer), but in other ways is nothing like a typical cryptic clue. Let me explain. It’s very tempting to cite double definitions to new solvers as they are simple to explain, however, there’s very little in a standard double-definition clue that provides insight into the world of cryptic solving. Despite their simplicity in construction, solving them can be extremely difficult, as there are no pointers or indicators to help arrive at an answer. Worse still, there’s no easy way to determine whether a clue is a double definition: while most of them are short, they don’t have to be. There are two types of double-definition clue: true ones and pseudo ones. A true double-definition clue gives two meanings for two different words, that is, the two words are spelt the same but have different origins and are listed separately in a dictionary. “Heavy metal guitarist (4)” = LEAD is an example. A pseudo one gives two meanings for the same word, that is, the two meanings are related but their relationship is disguised in the clue. This is often done using a different part of speech. “Suspect brains (5)” = SENSE is an example. Here a verb and noun of the same word have been used. I’m not a big fan of pseudo double definitions and actively avoid them, however, they are popular in Australian, NZ and UK cryptics.
Setters can play a role in determining how hard a double-definition is by their choice of crossing letters. If the initial is missing and cross letters are common (E, I, A etc), then solving is going to be difficult, and there is always the possibility an alternative answer is available especially if it’s a psuedo double-definition clue.

Last December I had the privilege of showing a prominent UK setter, Don Manley, around Sydney. Don and his wife, Sue, were special guests at the Australian Crossword Club‘s annual get-together at the Harold Park Hotel. Don has written crosswords for all the major UK papers and also does crossword editing for a number of publications including The Church Times. Don encouraged me to submit some puzzles (which include church terms), which I did (my first one is here). However, this was a different experience for me, as my Australian cryptics have never been subjected to scrutiny by a crossword editor, such is the nature of cryptic crosswords in Australia.
Not having a crossword editor definitely makes my job easier. I set the standard, I set the rules, and set the tone. Basically, my clues just have to pass a spellchecker and my work will be published. I could even include something risque in the clues or answers, and no-one would pick it up before publication. I can rely on solvers to keep me honest and I’ve always paid attention to constructive feedback, which tends to keep me in check. There are some negatives in not having a crossword editor, such as basic clueing mistakes that sneak through and puzzle difficulty is hard to judge by yourself.
Having a crossword editor like Don Manley isn’t all roses either. Editors generally don’t negotiate with setters: they change clues rather than ask for rewrites, so the finished work isn’t totally your own. However, a crossword editor provides a safety net that not only protects a setter (to some degree) from any solver backlash but also gives a setter an opportunity to learn and improve and be consistent.