Australian Crosswords

A solver contacted me and asked about the use of SHED in 11-down, which is the last part of the clue and not disguised at all. I’m happy to include clue elements “in the clear” as long as they don’t bear an obvious relationship to the answer. Small words are often used this way: IN, TO, SO etc. So why didn’t I disguise it? It would have been easy enough (although the context would have led to a standard OUTHOUSE-, HUT-style synonym). Every clue should be assessed in its own right and as part of the whole crossword, and with 11-across, I considered the clue was hard enough without introducing further complexity. A setter has the power to control clue and puzzle difficulty, and should have the goal of presenting a balanced effort.

There are many, many decisions a setter has to make as they develop their own style. I think most start out being a combination of their favourite setters’ styles, and gradually change as nuances are introduced and their knowledge of setting grows. I’ve cut out a number of elements from my setting over the years, and changed the way I employ certain devices. One of those is the common hidden clue, where the answer is embedded in the wordplay. I couldn’t understand why it’s acceptable for this type of clue to be different from other types, in that it doesn’t always have two separate parts that can independently lead the solver to the answer. Consequently, my hidden clues are written a particular way which is generally different from most setters. 19-across in this crossword is a classic example of my hidden style.

A solver emailed me saying they really liked 24-across in this puzzle. If you’ve solved many Sticklers, you’ll be aware that I love anagrams involving subtraction. Wordplay for such clues always require appropriate anagram and subtraction indicators, offering a setter multiple ways to come up with good surface readings. They can cause division though – should the letters to be removed be contiguous in the anagram fodder? Some say yes, but I view anagrams as letter mixtures, and can’t see logically why letters need to be removed as a unit. After all, composite anagrams, where abbreviations of a word or words must be combined with other anagram fodder to work, treat the process as letter-based, so I can’t see a lot of difference. I also would like to claim that the increase in subtractive anagrams in cryptics worldwide is largely down to me, as one of the best crossword programs out there, Crossword Compiler, contains an anagram function that makes spotting and creating them fairly easy, and I suggested its inclusion.