Australian Crosswords

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.

I’ve written a number of things in this spot about anagrams. First, I like them. Possibly seen as a setter’s lazy option, I’m convinced that a well-disguised anagram is one of the best forms of cryptic clue. It’s easy to understand for all, newbies and experienced solvers, and its nature offers a huge amount of variety, as it can be used standalone or in combination with other devices. There are more anagram indicators than for any other device, allowing a setter great scope. Second, not all anagrams are equal. Some anagrams are so obvious that in certain publications no anagram indicator is used; some anagrams use such obscure or tangential indicators that it’s almost in hindsight that the solver realises an anagram is in play; others are created with care and use contextual indicators in well-crafted wordplay and so they don’t fall into the bleeding obvious category. In the Stickler Weekly I try not to use more than two full anagrams (anagrams that result in the entire answer), but have no concerns about using partial anagrams if they suit the clues. I’m always aware of the total number of anagrams but consider a clue that uses multiple devices including an anagram to be far more difficult than one that’s a full anagram. As someone who tries to subscribe to the no etymology crossover rule, I have less to work with in wordplays and rely on the use of anagrams in its many forms to add variety to wordplays.

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.