The Stickler Weekly 106 Solution

Do you ever come across something in cryptics that seems wrong or not quite right, but, as it is published in a newspaper and doesn’t get criticised, you assume it’s not an error, instead that you are missing something? For me, if an experienced solver can’t see what’s happening, even after getting the answer, then the explanation better be rock solid and elicit an ah-ha moment, or the device has no right being used. Here’s an example: I could never understand why the use of ” ‘s ” was acceptable in circumstances where it appeared it was being used in a possessive sense. It had no role, it appeared, except to improve or enable suitable surface reading of a clue. I just accepted it as lazy cluing and began to ignore it after a while. That was until someone explained that the ” ‘s ” wasn’t possessive, it equated to “is” or “has”, which was a valid reading of the device and that it therefore had a role in the clue. Now I know, I accept it and use it with the full knowledge of how it works so that I don’t misuse it and can explain it if necessary. Blindly using cryptic devices without full understanding of how they are used will lead to faulty clues. Recently another cryptic chestnut came up in a UK blog that I’d never really understood: the ellipsis, not the “…” kind, but grammar kind. I’ll talk about it next week.