Australian Crosswords

We talked recently about indirect references and the need for them to be obvious to allow solvers a reasonable chance of working out the association BEFORE finding the solution. I mentioned a couple of different types of indirect references, but I left one out as I believe it simply shouldn’t be used even though it turns up in published crosswords every now and then. This one I call “guilt by association”, where a word is expanded, or a synonym is used, to define a word that is used in a completely different way to the original word. Here is an example: “Go first” = LEAD = PB (chemical symbol for lead). Here is another: (a little less removed this time, but the same concept) “Cop” = COPPER = CU (chemical symbol of copper). “Cop” could just as easily be “policeman”, but either way I’m not a fan – just too much to do for the solver. Imagine the overhead of having to translate and map out potentially every word of a clue in this way? These kinds of devices are simply setters showing off, giving the average solver little chance of using wordplay to reach the answer.

Theme crosswords or crosswords with gimmicks are not easy to put together. The main issue is that incorporating themes words or words/clues that carry the gimmick often causes the inclusion of obscure words, words that a setter might not normally choose to clue, and there’s also a good chance a less solver-friendly grid will be in play too. It’s a trade-off, more theme/gimmick words for the prospect of having to deal with words bound to cause clueing problems. With various types of gimmicks, like in a recent published local crossword where each clue’s definition carried an extra letter, surface readings of clues can be compromised due to the limiting nature of the gimmick involved. It seems that for these types of crosswords a little extra latitude is allowed with such things, a kind of recognition that a setter has to be really good to get both aspects (good sound well-made clues and the inclusion of a gimmick) right at the same time.
I once wrote a crossword for the Australian Financial Review that included a large number of different types of financial accounts, in a Listener-style (barred) grid structure. A problem was caused by one answer word (that wasn’t connected to the theme) that was really obscure, and try as I might, I couldn’t get rid of it without losing some of my key words. The obscure word was so out of character with the rest of the crossword that I eventually abandoned the whole thing and wrote it off to a learning experience – I wasn’t prepared to compromise or run the risk of alienating my AFR solvers who have come to rely on consistency in my work.

A couple of weeks ago I talked about the unusual clue 0.9 (3) and how it worked. I also mentioned that it took some liberties but ultimately provided enough info for the solver as long as the clue was read out. For success, the “.” must be read as “point”, and in the context of the clue that was the only possibility, however, “.” in other contexts (such as a period at the end of a sentence) wouldn’t work in the same way. So, here we have “.” = “point” = compass direction = “N” (the abbreviation for “north”). In crossword terms, this is an indirect reference, one that can be resolved if a number of right steps are taken, but where there’s no direct relationship between the element in the wordplay and the desired element in the solution. That is, nowhere will you find “.” = N, unlike in a direct reference where a synonym is needed or an abbreviation is used. Indirect references, however, are used all the time in cryptics: Business = company = CO; Way = street = ST; Good man = saint = ST; student = learner = L. Setters need to make up their own minds on whether to use such references, but as they have become crosswordese and therefore recognisable and accepted by solvers generally, they are used all the time.
There’s another type of indirect reference that pops up every now and then involving instructional synonyms. That is, a word or words must be translated into a term, and then that term becomes part of the wordplay. Here’s an example: Bored with the writer following a smear? (6) [down clue] Here, “Bored” must be translated to “fed up”, and the result can then be DEF. [DEF + (ME after A) = DEFAME] It’s super tricky and can only be employed when the synonyms involved leave little doubt as to what’s needed. That is, if “fed up” isn’t in the first couple of synonyms thought of when the solver contemplates “bored”, then it’s no good. This type of technique always leads to at least a two-word synonym (needed to be instructional) which adds complexity to the solving process – even more reason to ensure a question mark is used to indicate to solvers that “language abuse” is in play. Here’s a published example that makes the solver’s job hard IMO:
Limited volume as a precaution to vend car? (7) Here, “as a precaution” must be translated to “in case” before the wordplay is actioned, making this a container and contents clue. [(BOO)K inside CASE = CABOOSE] (Remember, in both examples, there’s no indication that anything more than a synonym is required, so even if the solver works out the synonym, there’s no guarantee they’ll take the extra leap. Nine times out of ten, the trickiness will reveal itself in hindsight.) To me, “as a precaution” doesn’t scream “in case”, which it needs to in order to accomplish its goal. Add to that the need to shorten a synonym before use, and we have a really difficult clue. At least the question mark is present, which can be is effective as long as the setter is consistent with its use.
To summarise, any indirect references in clues need to be, to quote Basil Fawlty, “bleedin’ obvious” to be acceptable.