The Stickler Weekly 25 Solution

It’s normal for new setters to mimic elements of the crosswords they solve the most, especially those crosswords appearing in major newspapers. They assume this is an acceptable approach as major publications would have style guides, editors, checkers etc to ensure a high standard of work. It’s a fair place to start, but over time setters must come to their own conclusions about what should and should not be used, and not necessarily accept that “because it’s published it must be Ok”. It’s really easy to accept crosswordese (regularly-used crossword elements that outsiders would find hard to understand) as without it setters have less to work with, however, I think it’s important to think through everything you sign your name to as a setter.
Early on I was happy to use anagram indicators like “perhaps” and “possibly” without thinking: I’d seen them used 100s of times and come to accept their roles in clues. However, during cryptic crossword solving classes at my local community college, I was asked how “perhaps” could be seen as an anagram indicator. I had no answer except to say that a lot is implied and solvers knew what it meant when they saw it. Such things frighten new/learning solvers (“what other secret codes do I have to learn?”) as they can’t necessarily rely on a description of an anagram that says “any word or phrase that suggests a rearrangement (of letters)”. The upshot? While I have used them in extreme circumstances, I no longer have them on my anagram list. “out” is out for another reason: you can find a dictionary definition that could make it an anagram indicator, but the average person has trouble thinking of it that way.
Should I reinforce the exclusive nature of cryptic solving by using such devices, potentially locking out new blood? I say no.