Australian Crosswords

On the odd occasion a solver may say that an answer is obscure. I realise that this is an opinion, unless it’s backed up specifically by a dictionary entry, however, I’d like to tell you little about what I think is obscure. First, it’s nothing to do with the words that I know or have heard of – I have a limited vocabulary and would very quickly start repeating myself if I had to rely on it for grid filling. Second, I have to rely on references to guide me – there’s no other way.

For me an obscure answer is one that is:

• Listed in just one reference or can only be found by searching Google
• Listed as an alternative (secondary) spelling in two or less references
• Listed as archaic, obscure, obsolete or poetic
• Specific to a particular region of the world

Note that definitions (and wordplays) in clues can be qualified in order to use some of these obscures words. For example, “before in poetry” would be “ere”.
There’s an imperfect way to judge the suitability of a word that I might be undecided about using, especially when multiple spellings are in play: do a simple Google search. The number of hits of the different spellings will soon tell you what’s most popular although there’s a US bias on the web that must be considered.
I tend to stick to concise dictionaries when writing daily cryptics but will expand to full dictionaries when writing weekly cryptics. I generally know when a word or term isn’t widely used in everyday conversation, so, if I use that as answer, I’ll endeavour to write a straightfoward clue.
Same rules apply when using uncommon meanings of words in clues. Meanings must be backed up by more than one reference and regional differences come into play here.
In this crossword LAMELLIBRANCH caused some discussion: it appears in all my major references as well as all my concise dictionaries, so I felt OK about using it, especially as key letters in the answer were obtainable for crossing answers. It’s not an exact science but including words that not everyone knows is inevitable and necessary to create a balanced crossword with variety that presents a challenge for all.

Those who enjoy watching Inspector Morse on TV may not realise that the character’s creator, Colin Dexter, was a huge cryptic crossword fan and gifted setter. His passing a few weeks ago sparked a number of tributes and stories, a summary of which can be found on Alan Connor’s Guardian crossword blog. Last Christmas my son bought me some Endeavour DVDs, an odd choice I thought until I actually sat down to watch. Endeavour is early Inspector Morse, and the series establishes the character’s nature as well as revealing the creator’s nature. The first episode I saw was a mystery based around cryptic crosswords – my son knew what he was doing.
Over the years I’ve been involved in a number of projects where cryptic clues have been used in unusual situations. One was in a high-profile movie where the hero was supposed to receive information through a newspaper’s cryptic crossword. The footage ended up on the cutting-room floor, but I enjoyed being involved. Another was writing some clues for an amateur play that never made it to production. I’ve often wondered if there is a (cryptic) crossword project out there where real reward is possible, as I’ve spent most of my crossword career earning less than an average income.
15 years ago I had a dream where I believed I’d found a cryptic crossword holy grail, the only trouble is I couldn’t remember the details – I could only remember that I’d discovered something amazing. What a useless experience.

Back in 2001 I was asked to adjudicate a competition where multiple people or groups supplied clues for a set grid, the resultant combined effort destined to be published in The Daily Telegraph. I received the go ahead from the powers that be in News Ltd and agreed to be involved and get the collaborative cryptic crossword, once adjudicated and polished, submitted in The Daily Telegraph. It took a while from inception to finishing, and during that time things changed. The prize was the actual publishing of the crossword and some kind of acknowledgement, but the people in charge of the paper decided it could only be published as a Stickler, and no space for a blurb was available either. This didn’t work for anyone, and the finished crossword never saw the light of day and I had to break my promise and disappoint a lot of people.
As adjudicator, I was asked to lay down some basic “rules” to guide those who wanted to participate. Among the suggestions of what should be included was whether the use of noun anagram indicators was acceptable. Obviously using nouns as anagram indicators (eg XXXX arrangement or YYYYYY organisation) is seen as a preference of the setter, and not one that everyone subscribes to. I think it was one of the first times I had to ponder this issue as up to then I hadn’t really thought about it and just mimicked what I’d seen used in other crosswords. At the time I saw no problem with it, and that view hasn’t changed much accept I only use it when I feel I have to, and there aren’t any other options. So, a “flower arrangement” can be seen as the same as an “arrangement of flower” and a “huge organisation” can be seen as an “organisation of huge”. Note, however, the position of the nounal anagram indicator must work: a “organisation huge” simply doesn’t work for me and not all nouns that have anagram word-form cousins will work either.

I’m happy to hear what you think…