The next two Wednesdays will see a couple of original Sticklers appearing instead of The Stickler Weeklys. This will give me a short break to get a couple of important things done.
It was with some trepidation that I opened the crossword files in the Daily Telegraph (DT) folder labelled ds3023 and ds3024. The last time these crosswords were accessed is listed in my DT book as 19/11/2007. Back then I sent a week’s worth of Sticklers the Monday before the week they were published, and these two crosswords were published on the 30/11/2007 and 1/12/2007 respectively. The process involved checking over the next week’s crosswords before the final publishing files were created and sent to the paper. They had been written and initially checked 6 weeks before, so the break before the final sending was enough time for me to “forget” what I’d done and allow for an independent re-checking of sorts. After all, I had written almost 1000 clues in-between. They say you should never check your own work, but I think it’s OK if you can’t remember what you’ve done.
These two (and thousands like them) have sat dormant on successive computers, having done their job at the time. They were never syndicated or put together in crossword collections – just used that once. So when I decided to revisit a couple to cover The Stickler Weekly‘s absence for a short time, I was a little nervous about what I would find. I had been through this before when I put the Stickler Boxed Set together, which gathered crosswords from 2004, but somehow this felt different. How much difference had three years made? How similiar are ds3023 and ds3024 to the crosswords I set today? We are talking about a different type of crossword, as those written today are international and weekly, but fundamentally they should be the same, shouldn’t they?
I’m pleased to say that I have been rather buoyed by revisiting these crosswords – they were done at lightning speed and as part of a huge body of work that continually drained the creative juices, yet I think they still stand up.
I’m sure you’ll tell me if they don’t.
Look out for them in coming weeks.
The Stickler
Looking forward to these very much David.
Sounds as though they could pre-date my connection to you via “The Boxer”
after you replaced “Southern Cross” at Courier Mail.
My love of cryptics stems from round that time
after being introduced to them by a friend.
For me, this one certainly stands up; lots of enjoyable clues that would be no less impressive in a weekly Stickler online.
There appears to be an ‘irregularity’ in 3-dn that I imagine you considered was covered by the “?”. I don’t know if you would do the same now; I don’t recall seeing it, at least.
But that’s the only questioning comment I can make about a thoroughly enjoyable puzzle.
Thanks,
Steve = : ^ )
Oh dear, I seem to have confused people. This is a regular Stickler Weekly: the next two Wednesdays will have revisited Sticklers and will be labelled as such.
Best
David
PS Yes, in 3-down the “?” indicates word abuse, as “reserved” must be read as “re-served”.
Don’t worry, I’m easily confused. 😉 I should have realised you’d use the original numbers.
I have a few Sticklers from the daily era which I picked up in NSW. Also some Boxers.
With my experienced solver’s group I am working on puzzles 18 months old, and I am finding them easier than t he current ones I am introducing boxer and old Sticklers to the novice group with the suggestion that the rules and construction are the same. They are somewhat tentative in meeting these new experiences.
Based on my developing knowledge of Cryptics, I find the construction of Stickler clues to be dependable. I sense development in your choice of indicators which dictates a need to think more deeply, and outside my first reaction. I also feel there are more new words (to me) than there were in earlier sticklers. That thought seems to be echoed by other current solvers.
I believe that if you do not go forward you will go back, so I welcome the gradual extension of my experience