Australian Crosswords

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.

Last week I mentioned that the medically-themed weekly cryptic I did for a medical publication was the hardest regular cryptic I’ve had to write due to the specific nature of medical words. The hardest non-cryptic I’ve written on a regular basis was for a Macquarie Dictionary website that offered various resources to school children. The brief was to cater for 11-15 year-olds, which sounds easy, but I can assure you this was no easy task. The difference in vocabulary on average in this age group is enormous, and if you allow for late developers and advanced students, you end up with a massive spectrum that’s hard to please across the board. There is, though, an approach that mostly works especially in an online environment that the crossword was running. I used nouns. As language develops, our knowledge of things increases gradually, but our ability to describe them increases at an alarming rate. That is, we know about a house from an early age, but the way we describe its shape, size, setting, colour, value etc comes over time as we learn more descriptive words. Therefore, an 11-year-old and 15-year-old will know HOUSE, but the 11-year-old is unlikely to know what a SEMI-DETACHED HOUSE is, where a 15-year-old might. To cover this gap in language, the key is to stick with more factual clues – objects, places, people, etc – things hopefully all the crossword’s audience know, and if they don’t know, the clue should supply enough information for them to find out. The crossword becomes essentially a specific general knowledge one. In an online environment, and using the software that I do, Crossword Compiler, that allows for online publication, it’s possible to link a clue directly to somewhere on the Net that gives the solver the answer.
I no longer write this puzzle (it went when its instigator left the company) but it was as difficult to put together as any Stickler, believe it or not.