Australian Crosswords

I’ve been talking recently about the different sorts of crosswords I’ve written over the years, both cryptic and non-cryptic. There’s one category that takes a large amount of experience and expertise to be able to construct, the personalised (or bespoke) crossword. These are done for such events as a significant birthday , an anniversary, or possibly a wedding (I wrote a wedding crossword for my daughter that guests filled in during the reception and the MCs referred to in order to tie the whole thing in). There’s a fundamental problem with personalised crosswords: the time and effort needed to construct one (no matter what types of clues are required) is far greater than any regular cryptic yet no-one wants to pay for that time and effort. Try and think of any personlised present, that is, one made especially for you to your specifications with your input, a one-off that no-one else will ever be able to reproduce. How much money would you expect to pay?
Let me talk you through the process of building a bespoke puzzle:
*Some of the variables are: size, shape, cryptic or non-cryptic, pictures included
1. To make a personalised crossword you need words that relate to the subject(s). The more words, the better the crossword. You need a huge list of words to fill an entire crossword, so I supply a questionnaire to the puzzle requester covering every area of people’s lives I can think of. Everything from names of relatives, their nicknames, pets names, places they have lived, work/profession-related information, family holidays, stories, favourite things – anything that I can write a clue for. This info has to be sourced secretly to keep the crossword a surprise.
2. Once I get the questionnaire back I need to make a list of words and keep track of how they relate to the subject so I can write clues later. I also extrapolate, trying to expand the number of words I can use in the crossword.
3. To maximise the number of pertinent words in the crossword, I build a freeform crossword of the requested size (sometimes it’s for a greeting card, other times A4 to be framed etc), and get the software to use my list to fill it with as many words as possible. Although to result isn’t symmetrical, I try my best to obey the crossing-letters rule so that solving isn’t difficult. The software always returns a puzzle that requires tailoring to fill holes and to balance out the content, so much tinkering goes on. Also, I identify some keywords in my list that must be included, so I keep playing with the software until I get the content I need.
4. If pictures can be used, I use them to fill the holes in the puzzle, and usually it’s possible to place them somewhere near related clues.
5. Once I’m happy with the content I’ll write the clues in the requested style being mindful of the limited space available.
6. The draft crossword is then sent to the requester for proofing.
7. Once changes are completed and approval is given, a final copy is produced in the format asked for by the requester.

The most I’ve received for this kind of work is $100. Is it worth the time and effort?

Last week I saw a clue that used an anagram of STUTTERING WOE to make TONGUE-TWISTER. In cryptic terms, this is called an old chestnut, that is a clue, or an essential combination in a clue, that has been seen/used many times before by other setters. Solvers will never know if such a construction has been copied (and modified) or whether the setter has come to the same clue breakdown as previous setters completely independently. It’s not inconceivable, especially with anagrams, as some words have obvious breakdowns. In my anagram function (which is part of Crossword Compiler), the STUTTERING WOE combination comes third at the top of the list for the letters of TONGUE-TWISTER, making it an easy get as long as you are happy that WOE can serve a purpose in the clue (personally, it’s not good enough). So, in these circumstances, is there an obligation on the setter to see if the essence of a clue is unique? That is, should they check if it’s been done before? I would say yes and no. Yes, when it’s likely that it has been done before and it might even feel familiar, and no otherwise. The lines of setting etiquette can become blurred in situations like this. Is it OK for a setter to use a resource like anagrammy.com as the basis for their clues? STUTTERING WOE = TONGUE-TWISTER is documented on this website as first appearing in 1989. A quick internet search shows this anagram has appeared in at least two major UK newspapers (by different setters) in the last couple of years. Is it OK to take this known combination and add one’s own twist? Another anagram spotted recently in the same paper was BAD TIME FOR SINNER = FIRE AND BRIMSTONE, this too appeared as an award-winning anagram on anagrammy.com in March 2001. It isn’t hard to turn someone else’s creative work into what looks like a great anagram clue. Some may see such resources as fair game but it’s not for me. It might make you look good, but the essence of the result is not your own work. Of course a setter doesn’t have to supply references and there’s always a chance an anagram is re-discovered by a setter during the normal course of probing during their setting, making it totally original in their own mind. In that case I guess there’s no obligation on a setter to check for originality.

23-across in last week’s crossword is a little “out of character” for a Stickler puzzle. I put it in there on purpose to give me something to write about this week (sort of). The clue, A clock, one with a particular role? (7), needs the solver to treat clock as c + lock, and then find a synonym for lock . It’s a tall order, and falls into the libertarian category, that is, it disobeys standard language rules, forcing the solver to basically process the “word” (and processing it the right way to make the clue work) before actually using it in a clue. However, if I do this sort of thing (and I don’t very often), it will always be accompanied by a “?” (my “language abuse” warning) as I believe it’s my duty to warn solvers when all it not as it seems (or can’t be validly taken). For me, anything less is not being fair to the solver, as such shenanigans without warning could lead to anarchy. Take a look at this clue, 14-across: Deposit stated in legal document may be held up (7) If every word could be broken down before use, then the clue could look like this: Depo + sit/Depos + it, st + ate + d/stat + ed, i+n, l + eg + a + l/ le + gal etc etc. Imagine having to look at every word in every clue this way, which is at the extreme end of libertarian clueing, but of course, without indication, every clue has to be looked at this way. That’s why I need to indicate a variation to the norm by adding a “?” (and, BTW, not including and “?” where it doesn’t apply) – after all we are playing a word game here and liberties can only go so far. Is it right for every clue to be libertarian? That’s for solvers to judge, but a crossword written that way would be a hard slog to solve and the majority of clues would only unravel after the answer has been found, defeating the whole purpose of cryptics IMO.
It should be noted that libertarian setting is much easier than traditional Ximenean clueing as each word potentially has more options for the setter. Often such setting is seen as more creative, yet the setter has more tools to play with and is making it easier for themselves by using this style.
I’m happy to hear your feedback on this type of thing. As I said, it’s not a common thing in Stickler crosswords and it is indicated, so hopefully it isn’t too left-field for most solvers.