The cryptic part of the clue can’t just be a jumble of words: it has to explain to the solver exactly what is going on.
xx
We begin with a basic premise:
| The cryptic part of all clues must be either: (a) an instruction on what must be done to derive the answer (“do this”), or (b) a description of the condition the rest of the clue must be put into in order to derive the answer (“this is what has already happened”) |
This holds true no matter what type of cryptic clue you’re creating:
ANAGRAM:
- Instruction: Prepare tuna for mom’s sister (4) — You must “prepare” (anagram) the word “tuna” = AUNT*
- Condition: Tuna salad for mom’s sister (4) — The word “tuna,” when all mixed together like a salad = AUNT*
CHARADE:
- Instruction: Bring prisoner before stalwart policeman (9) — You need to put a word meaning “prisoner” ahead of a word meaning “stalwart” = CON + STABLE
- Condition: Prisoner with stalwart policeman (9) — You have been presented with a word meaning “prisoner” along with a word meaning “stalwart” = CON + STABLE
INSERTION:
- Instruction: Favor: getting everyone a child’s toy (7) — You need to put a word meaning “everyone” inside a word meaning “favor” = B(ALL)OON
- Condition: Favor involved every child’s toy (7) — A word meaning “favor,” when it has a word meaning “every” inside of it = B(ALL)OON
This “basic premise” is actually more controversial than it seems.
For example, many cryptic crossword constructors use the phrase “the French” to clue the letter combination LE. But you would never use the phrase “the French” to define the word “le,” any more than you would use the phrase “dog Spanish” to define the word “perro.” “Spanish dog” would be more appropriate, and so would “French the” – or, even better: “In France, the…”
Similarly, “July 4th” doesn’t clue the letter “Y,” but “the Fourth of July” does.
In other words, just sticking two words together doesn’t make them work together. The grammar has to suggest the connection between the two…
…while, at the same time, also giving the clue a good surface sense:
WRONG: “The French mimic an acrobat” (The phrase “The French” does not clue “LE”)
WRONG: “In France, the mimic an acrobat” (Now the clue works, but not the surface sense.)
RIGHT: “An acrobat in France: The Copycat” [1]
There are professional cryptic crossword constructors who would have been fine with the first version of the clue. For my part, I find clues like that inelegant. Although this is all technically a mechanics issue, most constructors treat it as an aesthetics issue.
And I pay a price for adhering to this commitment. Many, many times in my puzzle-design career I have had to reject a clue that I absolutely loved because I couldn’t get the grammar to work right. Consider this one:
In the future, swim or row, Tom (8) = TOMORROW *
In this clue, “swim” is supposed to be our anagram indicator. But “swim or row, Tom” doesn’t work as a cryptic clue, because it is neither an instruction nor a condition. For those we would need:
INSTRUCTION: In the future, make “or row, Tom” swim (8)
CONDITION: In the future, swimming or row, Tom (8)
… or, even worse:
CONDITION: In the future, row, or Tom swam (8)
Some tinkering and trial and error can leave us with:
In the future, make Tom row or swim (8)
Even though it’s a little unconventional to have your indicator — “make (fodder) swim” — bracket the fodder, it still fits the rules: “make Tom row or swim” is a clear instruction and the surface sense of the full clue is clean.
| BONUS TIP: The steps that I outlined with this last clue are exactly the process I go through with every clue I construct. Even after you’ve put together a clue that works, you should always be looking for ways to make it work better: more exact, more clever, or more tricky. |
xx
[1] LE + APER
xx
x
© Copyright 2022 by Alex Kolker. Copying and distribution for personal use is permitted. All other rights reserved. Not for publication or resale.