Australian Crosswords

I don’t think I’ve ever heard the words “scandal” and “crosswords” used in the same sentence before. A few days ago, an article rocked the US crossword community, claiming plagiarism of massive proportions. Before I comment on the story, I need to explain some things about US non-cryptic crosswords. First, they are a special breed with a set formula of sorts. They have very few black squares compared to the average cryptic grid and every square is cross-checked, meaning that if you solve all the across clues OR all the down clues then you’ve solved the crossword. But for this story to have any traction, this last factor – the inclusion of a theme – is paramount. For most US big-paper crosswords, a theme is a central feature – at least the longest answers MUST be devoted to the theme. It’s largely the themes that enabled the plagiarism to be exposed. In a nutshell it’s alleged that the themes were copied in their entirety, and sometimes the clues to the theme words as well. In other cases the bulk of a crossword was copied and whole crosswords were republished under different names. The person at the centre of the controversy is Timothy Parker who edits syndicated Universal Uclick crosswords. He also has dealings with USA Today. The article details the apparent reuse of themes largely from the New York Times and crosswords edited by Timothy Parker. The reuse discovery was made via a database of 1000s of puzzles going back over more than 10 years. Simply, it was possible to compare puzzles with a few database queries. So far Timothy Parker has suggested that the reuse is just coincidence and it will be hard to argue against it due to the way crosswords are built and the computerised fill that happens around theme words. It’s harder to explain identical themes AND clues, but almost impossible to prove there was any willful intent to deceive solvers. One thing’s for sure, Timothy Parker’s job just got a whole lot harder as everything published by him from now on will be heavily scrutinised.
So, what about a similar thing happening here in Oz or the UK? Non-cryptic, quick crosswords are largely rehashed words and clues just in different combinations. It would be easy to recycle these as they have nothing distinctive about them – no theme, and usually very little content that dates them. This is intentional, BTW, as many of these types of crosswords are designed to be syndicated which means they have to be as generic as possible. Cryptics are different, of course, due to the lengthy nature of clues written by a particular setter. It would be hard to claim coincidence if a clue was reused by another setter verbatim, although it wouldn’t be an impossibility. Style plays a role, making identical construction unlikely, but some answers just lend themselves to a set construction. It is common, however, to see the same (clever) idea repeated by another setter in their own words. Sometimes this is accidental, other times not.
The Australian Crossword Club (ACC) once repeated a crossword in their magazine by mistake only a couple of months apart. Very few members realised the error, most just re-solved it and submitted their entry. It goes to show that even if there was reuse, it wouldn’t stand out to the majority of solvers who probably solve many crosswords a week and don’t remember specifics about any one crossword. The late Shirl O’Brien, who set for the ACC, The Courier Mail and The Guardian, when asked about reusing a clue once told me that if she had to, she’d make sure it was an ordinary clue.

Two clues caught my eye in the last few weeks as I frequented my favourite internet haunts. The first comes from a posting on Crossword Uncluded, an oft-mentioned website here. A recent post titled “Clue Challenge: Annotate These Answers XI” has a number of clues that the poster found difficult to unravel despite having the answers. The challenge to resolve these clues will appeal greatly to some, and have no appeal to others. It’s like solving clues but not really as the answers are given. I’m still stumped on half of them – far too obscure for me. How much value does the wordplay have if given all the variables a clue still can’t be unravelled? The original solvers couldn’t even use the wordplay as a double-check in most cases. There are a number of different styles of clues on the list but basically two types: ones that have difficult but discernable wordplay and others where the wordplay offers no help (that is, there is no way the wordplay CAN help a solver to solve). Noel Jessop used to call these “reflexive” – clues where wordplay cannot be understood without having first obtained the answer. The one I want to focus on is:
Pay attention — this statement is out by a factor of five (6)
which is from Times 26159 in the UK. The answer is LISTEN. A reflexive type clue. Can you work out the wordplay?* There are a few comments about the clue in the blog entry for the crossword that this clue appears in, and in almost all cases the solvers mentioned that they couldn’t work out the parsing. As a setter I know the value of the wordplay I’m writing. I know if a wordplay may be difficult, I know if an anagram indicator may not be fully accepted by all, I know that a synonym is going to stump some. The writer of the above clue knows that the wordplay is of no help and so supplies a giveaway definition, but here’s the problem: doesn’t that effectively make this clue a single definition type clue as the answer can only be obtained from the definition? The wordplay is redundant except that it serves as a pointer (for those who work it out) back to the setter. It’s a self-serving clue, not one that helps the solver but shines a light on the setter. Some may argue that this kind of find-the-answer-then-work-out-the-wordplay type clue is popular with many people, so this kind of clue is fine, and that may be so except this clue has most people stumped even with all the info. So is it a good clue?
The second clue is taken from Alan Connor’s Guardian crossword blog and is right up my alley:
Controversial candidate wanting power … and nearly becoming president? (6)  (TRUMP minus P) + (AN)D = TRUMAN.
This clue has it all for me: topical, witty, beautifully constructed and misleading but not too difficult and all with solvable wordplay. This clue I could happily explain to a solver at any level and I’d receive a smiling nod. That’s the way it should be.

*LISTEN breaks down to L is TEN, but in Roman numerals L is FIFTY, so the “statement” is “out by a factor of five”

The internet provides a number of forums for those who’d like to write their own cryptic crosswords. Of course, you could always have a go and publish on your own website, but if you feel confident enough and are prepared to open up your work to the solving public at large, then certain sites will give you a publishing opportunity. Try these:
Alberich Crosswords, where you can submit a crossword but there doesn’t seem to be a public feedback mechanism; and Big Dave’s Rookie Corner, where you can get published and receive some great feedback.
Some crossword sites post the odd guest puzzle, not as a matter of routine, but usually to drum up support for a budding setter. A recent posting on David Astle’s blog is one such example.
I honed my skill by joining the Australian Crossword Club, who rely on members to submit puzzles for publication. Members give direct feedback through the monthly magazine, CrOZworld, which gives new setters a chance to learn from a very experienced solving group. Of course, there’s no point using a forum such as this and ignoring comments, especially ones that keep coming up about the same thing, as these solvers are the people a setter is writing for, and the ones that will determine how successful they are. A setter may think they have written a great clue/crossword, but if the solvers don’t agree, then they haven’t, it’s as simple as that.
It’s always important as a newbie setter to establish that you understand the fundamentals of setting before you explore the cryptic boundaries. It’s a respect thing. You’d like to think that those setters who “bend the rules” as a matter of style are also capable of writing a perfectly acceptable bog standard cryptic that could be published anywhere in the world. Some crosswords are so off the mark that you wonder what kind of crosswords the setter is solving/learning from. If a newbie employs non-standard devious devices but can’t get a basic anagram clue right, then is their work worth following?
There’s so much cryptic crossword history if you count time, countries and the number of publications involved, that there is no excuse for a new setter not to have considered the recurring issues that come up in crossword setting. Despite this, comments like this one make me wonder, as the new setter clearly hasn’t formed thier own opinion on a popular device used in their crossword. It’s not a clear-cut issue for a solver (as different setters have different interpretations), but it’s clear as day for a setter. A solver should be able to rely on a particular setter to be consistent when an indicator such as “centre” is used – it should mean the same thing each time it is used, not vary from crossword to crossword or even within the same crossword. Even a term such as “essentially” should be scrutinised so that the setter is 100% happy with using it – use by other setters in published works is not enough to give it a thumbs up – not all setters would use it. My general rule is that what I use should be explainable to a new solver, someone who isn’t tainted by crosswordese and doesn’t just except devices based on past use.