Australian Crosswords

During my time as a professional crossword setter I’ve been interviewed by newspapers and radio hosts many times. Sometimes it’s as a result of a crossword making the news in some way, but mostly it’s a media person who thinks it would be a good idea to find out more about this “mysterious” pastime. Interviews tend to be cyclic, that is, the same sort of interview by the same newspaper/radio station happens every couple of years. Newspapers are the easiest – just a chat on the phone or a visit by a reporter at home. They always look for an angle: “Who’s the best?”, “Are Australian crosswords as good as the ones in the UK? If not, why not?”. You never really know what’s going to be printed until it comes out. Talking on the radio by phone I like the least – I much prefer a studio interview so I can see and interact with the host.

Preparation for any crossword interview on radio is essential: be armed with key details, have some stats and milestones available, and make sure the day’s major crosswords have been solved and understood as the host and/or listeners may ask for clues to be explained. All interviews tend to have common elements and I can be sure certain questions will be asked. What do you think these question are? First: “How did you get started?”. I like this one because there’s quite a story and if I’m not careful the answer would use up most of the interview time. Second: “What comes first, the words or the grid?”. Easy to answer. Third: “How long does it take to write a cryptic crossword?”. I can waffle on about this for a while. Fourth: “What are some of your favourite clues?”. A tough one. There are lots of other common questions that could be asked but time is always a limiting factor. One thing is for sure, lots of people will mention they heard me. I had no idea how popular listening to the radio still is.

What do you think solvers complain about the most when it comes to cryptic crosswords? Obscure words? They are up there. Imprecise definitions? No-one is happy with these. Extraneous words? Less and less so. What about poor grid design? Almost never (but it should be scrutinised more). No, it’s none of these. In my experience at the top of the list is poor anagram indicators, probably because anagrams are frequently used and setters are looking for something different so as not to be obvious. Usually a setter will use more anagram indicators (in a full or partial mode) than the rest put together, so solvers shouldn’t be surprised when they explore the edges of what’s considered acceptable. However, the same rule applies no matter what anagram indicator is used: it must directly or indirectly point to a mixing up or rearrangement of letters. Some form of contact isn’t good enough, there must be change involved.
If an anagram indicator can only be deduced after the answer has been found and the rest of the wordplay resolved, then it is faulty; if a solver works out that part of the wordplay must be an anagram indicator based on its context and not on its implicit instruction, then it is also faulty.
All Stickler fans will know how much I like to use the anagram device either for the whole answer or, more commonly, as part of the answer. In over 100,000 Stickler clues I used a relatively small list of anagram indicators without ever being accused of repetition or producing puzzles that were too easy due to the number of anagrams I used. It’s also rare for anyone to question my anagram indicators. I put this down to context. Stick an anagram indicator in a clue where it seems to belong and the most common indicator may be glossed over – it’s human nature. So, if there is a secret, it’s this: don’t try and be tricky with an obscure anagram indicator, just use one that’s natural in the surface reading to get solvers believing it has a rightful, and not artificial, place in the clue.