The Stickler Weekly 97 Solution

I’ve come across a number of blogs recently with postings equating easy cryptics with the number of anagrams they contain. It’s certainly true that the (full) anagram is probably the easiest and quickest type of clue to write, but there are so many factors that govern difficulty within a cryptic crossword that blaming the anagram count is simply not looking at the big picture. I can design the grid with all first letters available, use uncommon crossing letters, with at least half of every word obtainable from other answers and then pick everyday words as answers. All these elements will make the crossword easier to solve regardless of the difficulty of the clues. It’s much more likely a crossword is consistently easy to solve because the clues are poorly written. In my experience, even if a cryptic clue has easy construction and the answer is an easy word, if it is well written, it will still present some level of challenge to the average solver. This is because a well-written clue blends definition and wordplay seamlessly, and will require cryptic nous to unravel. A poorly-written cryptic clue doesn’t do this well, often making the definition stand out. Such a clue could almost be described as a straight clue with extra bits, that just about anyone could solve, even those without much cryptic knowledge. Back to anagrams. An anagram used in a clue written well is just as potent as any other cryptic device, and that’s the secret: you can use anagrams as long as there’s deception there. My cluing philosophy precludes me from using anything in the wordplay with an etymological relationship to the answer, which limits my cluing options. Examine my crosswords closely and you’ll see I rely fairly heavily on the anagram device, not always in full mode, but nevertheless more than in your average UK cryptic. I also use a limited set of anagram indicators, yet at no time in my cryptic career have I been accused of writing easy crosswords. It’s all in the clue-writing, not the devices used.