Australian Crosswords

The Daily Telegraph once did an article about me and cryptics at my home at the time in Thornleigh, and asked if there was someone around who could pose as they took a photo of me explaining how cryptics worked. I grabbed my young neighbour and he played his part. From that time, 15 years ago, my student and I never spoke of cryptics and my family moved away a relatively short time after and we didn’t keep up the relationship. Things changed a few months back. I received an email from the former neighbour, now in his late 20s, asking about writing cryptics. (When I knew this neighbour, he was probably about 14 years old.) It was difficult at first thinking of him as fully grown-up, as that wasn’t my memory of him, but there was no doubt from his emails that he had a pretty good grasp of cryptic setting and the fact that he approached me for help demonstrated a certain level of maturity. It turns out our brief time in the spotlight did nothing to spark an interest in cryptics, as he didn’t take up solving until a few years ago and very quickly migrated to having a go at writing clues and now crosswords.
He has asked me to look over his work and provide feedback. I sent him a cryptic crossword book (Teach Yourself Crosswords by Alec Robins – out of print, but secondhand copies are available) that I consider to be essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the basics of cryptics (setting and solving),  as most people start out with the limited knowledge they have gleaned by solving particular crosswords. The result is usually a clone of the crossword they solve, complete with any bad habits setters might have, and no true understanding of how cryptics work. Now I’m answering questions on ticklish subjects like “is black head = B ok”, order of operation in clues and definitions that imply rather than implicitly state. I like talking about such things and no doubt some of the results of this correspondence will end up on this blog.
I’m always happy to answer questions about setting and solving either through the blog or by email, and I’ll solve your crosswords too as long as you remember that I’m not called The Stickler for nothing.

The Stickler Weekly 156 contained the following clue:
3-down Prepared offering party served up? (6,4) [Anagram of OFFERING + DO reversed]
Did you realise it was an &lit? There’s an odd expectation that develops when you know (or think) you’ve written a really good clue. This one I believe is one of the best I’ve ever written, yet not one person commented on it. Wasn’t it as good as I thought, or do I write so many that it’s almost expected and not a surprise? Or (hopefully) maybe the clue suffered from a problem that I read about ages ago where solvers simply miss the fact that a clue is an &lit. How can this happen? Well, as you know an &lit is a clue where the definition is the whole clue and the wordplay is also the whole clue, and, as such, it’s different from a “standard” cryptic clue. Likewise, a cryptic definition, where there is no wordplay, is also different from a “standard” cryptic clue. Solvers are generally expecting a two-part clue, and if the wordplay/definition breakdown doesn’t come to mind early, they will generally move on and solve other clues, and come back to the clue later. It’s highly unlikely that a solver will treat a clue as if it’s an &lit, but much more likely for them to consider it a cryptic definition, which of course (on one level) it is! The theory is that some &lits slip by unnoticed, considered to be (generally poor) cryptic definitions. To counter this, and to alert solvers to something different going on, some setters put a “!” at the end of &lit clues. In the US it’s always done, but in the UK and Oz it’s up to the setter to decide. Obviously, by including the “!”, the game is given away, but at least solvers can admire the setter’s handiwork.