Australian Crosswords

I imagine the small number of regular crossword blogs around the world rely on each other to pick up enough stories that we can all have something to write about. This week’s piece was inspired by a clue highlighted in Alan Connor’s Guardian blog, which tends to cover a number of items each week. (Don’t go there until you’ve read what I have to say). A clue by Morph in The Independent was simply 0.9 (3). My first impression was to treat it as a gimmick, but there’s much more to this on different levels. Alan asked if it was the shortest cryptic clue ever, and, of course, I thought that would depend on whether it stands up as a cryptic clue in the first place. My mind went to E? (13), [SENSELESSNESS – SENSE minus NESS] which some no doubt would happily say is a valid cryptic clue. There are lots like this: H? (6,2,7) [MIDDLE OF NOWHERE] V? (6, 2, 7) [CENTRE OF GRAVITY] that most solvers groan about but seem to reluctantly accept.
However, this clue is different. It has both definition and wordplay, but it does take some liberties, or so it seems. I’m not a fan of butting parts of clues together and having to separate and process them, especially when the definition is involved, so when I first saw it I wasn’t impressed. Go back and have another look at the clue, this time say what’s written out loud. ZERO/NOUGHT POINT NINE is the only way to say it, and when it’s expressed this way, the clue works! That is, if I was reading out the clue to someone, they may well solve it from what they hear, but would have a lesser of an idea if they actually saw the clue, even though they would see it and the echo in their head would be the same.
Whether the setter actually went through this mental analysis of how the clue might work, I guess I’ll never know, but you have to say it’s quite unique – a perfectly sound two-part cryptic clue verbally, and maybe something different visually.

It’s much easier for me to predict that a clue is going to prove difficult for solver than it is to say that it’s going to be easy to solve. I know as I write a clue whether an element of it could prove tricky, usually because I hesitate, considering if I’m happy to proceed with my clueing choice. Tricky elements include uncommon words, or uncommon meanings of words in both/either definition or wordplay; using a different word form in the clue than is needed in the answer (for example, looks like an adjective in the clue, but a noun is needed in the answer etc); tricky device, or one I don’t use very often, and complicated wordplay. If any of these are present, I know some solvers are going to need extra time to work the clue out, or maybe a number of revisits. It’s this type of clue that I will definitely have clue help for on my blog. However, as the nature of all well-written cryptic clues is disguise, no matter what device is at play, I believe EVERY clue has the potential to be difficult for someone.
Not everyone has the same solving ability and most people have their own way of solving. Everything from the order of solving clues, to how you feel, can effect how well you solve, which is why I’m reluctant these days to pronounce any clue as easy. A long time ago I had a crossword in the ACC‘s magazine, CrOzworld. One of the clues was: Observe him on it, or in it? (7). The answer’s position in the grid left ?O?I?O? from all crossing words, and I thought the answer was as easy as could be: Observe hiM ON IT OR in it? MONITOR, and said as much at an ACC do after I’d adjudicated this puzzle and had a number of submissions with HORIZON as the answer. (Note the missing initial and only three crossing letters causing problems). One person who got it wrong piped up at the time, reminding me that things are never as they seem in cryptics. I don’t tend to include clue help for those clues I consider easy enough, but plenty of people still ask for help for those clues, again reminding me that, as the setter, I don’t view clues through the same eyes as solvers.
When Arthur Maynard pronounced recently on the blog that for the first time he’d gone through The Stickler Weekly and finished it in one sitting, in some ways I wasn’t surprised. When putting the crossword together, there were a number of clues where I consciously took the easy path.

Male shifting about is faced with a sickness (7)
Final point MIT raised in mutual arrangement (9)
Compete, not taking preferred approach (4)

In each case I’ve chosen to go with elements “in the clear”, that is, I haven’t disguised the elements by selecting synonyms. MALE, MIT and COMPETE all could have been clued differently and validly, but doing so would have made each clue that much harder. Some setters would never use elements in the clear, but for me it comes down to overall difficulty in the crossword and whether the clues involved have a surface reading that can absorb such a construction and still present some kind of challenge.

Some cryptic crossword blogs ask readers to come up a clues for a given word. This is a good thing, giving readers to opportunity to channel their inner setter. Most crossword blogs are attached to a particular crossword or group of crosswords, so those brave enough to try their hand know that any submitted clues should have a similar feel. It also helps readers appreciate (I hope) how difficult it is to write a professional-style clue. On blogs like fifteensquared and Times for the Times, occasionally people will offer tweaks to published clues that they believe improve them. It’s common that people post their dislike for certain clues (as is their right), but rarely are alternatives offered. There are other blogs that list clues that the blogger doesn’t think are great and invites readers to submit replacements. I have mixed feelings about this style of clue analysis and emulation as the resultant clue offerings are sort of out of context. The clue submitters don’t have to conform to the standards of the original newspaper, they just write in their own style. You can’t compare the original and the submitted as they aren’t operating under the same rules. Most of the replacement clues simply wouldn’t be accepted by the original paper. Submitted clues aren’t assessed, even though the aim is to improve on the originals. Here’s an example from one such blog:

Original clue – Two men in kingly legend = ARTHURIAN [from Times 10679]
I understand the complaint here, two unqualified names butted together, one of them the name that spawned the adjective. The other problem, of course, is that the answer is an adjective and the clue asks for a noun.
Submitter’s clue: Are you Ben Fleming? The legend? Same construction (Arthur + Ian) essentially, but with added superfluous words, and one of the names is disguised by using a first name to indicate a last name. To cap it off, the same mistake regarding adjective/noun mismatch is also present.

I know that this is an amateur’s attempt at re-constructing a clue, but surely the same mistakes shouldn’t be made, especially as the original clues have been held up to ridicule to some extent? The owner of the blog too, I believe, should help budding setters by pointing out where clues fall down (this may be done offline, I don’t know). Some of the suggested clues might conform to the standards of the blog, but they certainly are nowhere near being better or even comparable to the original flawed clues that feature in the blog post.